Int. J. Agile Systems and Management, Vol. 9, No.

2, 2016 89

Using GreenSCOR to measure performance of the

supply chain of furniture industry

Aries Susanty* and

Sri Radina Putri Nur Hidayatika
Department of Industrial Engineering,
Diponegoro University,
Prof. H. Soedarto S.H Road,
Tembalang District, Semarang, Indonesia
Email: ariessusanty@gmail.com
Email: sradinaputri@gmail.com
*Corresponding author

Ferry Jie
School of Business IT and Logistics,
College of Business,
RMIT University,
Melbourne VIC 3001, Australia
Fax: 61-3-99255850
Email: ferry.jie@rmit.edu.au

Abstract: The purpose of this study is to measure and evaluate the

performance of green supply chain management (later it is abbreviated as
GSCM) practice which have been done by some enterprises in the furniture
industry in Jepara, Central Java with GreenSCOR approach and propose some
feedback to this industry. Data used in this study collected through in personal
interview and closed questionnaires. A sample of this study was 20 furniture
enterprises, consisted of four large scale enterprises on in-house manufacturing
indoor, three large scale enterprises on in-house manufacturing outdoor, seven
medium scale enterprises on in-house manufacturing indoor, and six medium
scale enterprises on in-house manufacturing outdoor. The result of
measurement indicated that the enterprises in the category large scale and
in-house manufacturing outdoor have a better aggregate value of the sum total
of performance index of each indicator for the implementation of GSCM
practices compared with medium scale and in-house manufacturing indoor.

Keywords: GreenSCOR; Jepara; furniture industry; large scale of enterprises;

medium scale of enterprises; in-house manufacturing indoor; in-house
manufacturing outdoor.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Susanty, A.,

Hidayatika, S.R.P.N. and Jie, F. (2016) ‘Using GreenSCOR to measure
performance of the supply chain of furniture industry’, Int. J. Agile Systems and
Management, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.89–113.

Copyright © 2016 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

90 A. Susanty et al.

Biographical notes: Aries Susanty is a Lecturer in the Department of

Industrial Engineering, Diponegoro University. She obtained her Doctoral in
Industrial Engineering from the Bandung Institute of Technology. Her research
interests include supply chain modelling, supply chain governance, supply
chain policy, procurement, and logistics strategy. She has also interests in the
field of management and organisation.

Sri Radina Putri Nur Hidayatika is a graduate from the Department of Industrial
Engineering, Diponegoro University. During the college, she joined the
Laboratory of Optimisation and Industrial System Planning and became one of
assistant in that laboratory. Her research interests include supply chain
modelling and green supply chain practice. Currently, she works in a private
company in Jakarta.

Ferry Jie is a full time Academic Staff at School of Business IT and Logistics,
RMIT University. He is currently a Deputy Programme Director, Master of
Supply Chain and Logistics Management. He has been in academic career for
more than eight years. He has a great value in teaching, research, leadership
and community engagement. He has a strong commitment to improving the
quality of working life at RMIT in particularly College of Business. In addition,
he can make a full commitment to consult with academic staff within college
and to represent their interests once the issues are addressed.

1 Introduction

The Indonesia’s wood-based industry has significant contribution to the national income
earning through value added products such as furniture. In 2012, the value of furniture
export is US$ 1.79 billion. Furniture is a big business involving a large number of
workers. Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) have such an important role in the
furniture sector that the health of the industry is important for efforts to alleviate poverty
and reduce unemployment. In Indonesia, the furniture industry is concentrated in Jepara,
Central Java. About 10% of the furniture made in Indonesia comes from Jepara, which
has about 12,000 furniture business units and processes an estimated 0.9 million cubic
metres of wood each year (Purnomo et al., 2011; Purnomo, 2006).
The significant contribution of the furniture industry to the national income is
contrary with problems faced by this industry. In the downstream side, the Jepara
furniture industry faces problems of forestry practice problem (e.g., illegal logging).
Illegal logging which occurred in forest state owned companies in Java (PERHUTANI)
caused timber scarcity, particularly teak and mahogany. PERHUTANI only supply
31.20% out the timber needed by this industry. The rest of the timber needed by this
industry (68.8%) is supplied from outside Java and community forests across Java.
Excluding timber sourced from PERHUTANI, this means that two thirds of the timber
supply comes from outside Jepara. Given this heavy dependence on outside regions, it is
important to build relationships with tree farmers in Maluku and Southeast Sulawesi.
Timber from within Jepara district accounts for only 0.46% of the total demand, because
 Using GreenSCOR to measure performance of the supply chain 91

the district offers little good-quality wood (Melati et al., 2013). In this case, the
enterprises in the furniture industry can eliminate the practice of illegal logging by
increasing their use of certified timber from suppliers. However, most enterprises in
Jepara have very limited knowledge of such certification and their relevance to the
sustainability of their business (Yovi et al. 2009). In the midstream sides, the furniture
industry faced with solid waste generation problem. Furniture industry throws away an
amount of wooden residue from the manufacturing process. The types of residues vary
according to types of manufacturing process such as residues from sawmills, residues
from plywood mills, and residues from wooden furniture manufacturing (Barua et al.,
2014). These untreated residues can cause many damages both economic and
environmental. So, treating this residue is important for the furniture industry to
overcome the problem related to solid waste generation. In this case, the furniture
industry can reuse and recycle the wood waste or use the wood waste as an energy or heat
source. The recycling of wood waste into usable products has been studied for many
years (Clausen, 2000; Khedari et al., 2004). Then, in the upstream sides, the furniture
industry faced fierce competition with China and Vietnam in both the domestic and
international markets and the distribution problem. The enterprise and the customer rarely
have the same location. The size of finished product and the difficulty in handling make
the furniture product have high transport cost. Besides that, there is another issue when
the enterprise distributes the final product to their consumers, i.e. the choice of mode of
transportation and route of distribution. The choice of mode of transportation and route of
distribution not only related to the profit gained by the enterprise, but also the best choice
of mode and route distribution will have an impact on the environment since it will be
reducing the amount of carbon dioxide emissions discharged into the environment. This
condition is also relevant for the process of delivery of raw material (wood) from the
suppliers to the enterprise.
Based on the explanation of several problems faced by the furniture industry, it seems
that the supply chain of furniture industry is vulnerable to environmental exploitations.
So, it has become imperative to integrate the green or sustainable management practices
into their supply chain in order to reduce its impact to environmental and maintain
competitive advantage. According to Nikbakhsh (2009) incorporating environmental
sustainability practices in the supply chain are often referred as green supply chain
management (GSCM). GSCM is an approach to improve performance of the process and
products according to the requirements of the environmental regulations (Hsu and Hu,
2008). GSCM includes supply chain activities ranging from green purchasing to the
integration of life cycle management, all the way through the supplier, manufacturer and
customer, to closing the supply chain loop with reverse logistics (Rao and Holt, 2005).
Thus, the implementation of GSCM practices needs to be measured. There were various
performance metrics have been developed to measure the operation of the entire supply
chain. The appropriate performance metrics can be used to measure and evaluate the
probability of success in achieving the target, to provide advice or corrective suggestions
to the organisation, to provide a feedback system to the manager and to evaluate the
internal input and output (Tesoro and Tootson 2000). Specifically, this study will use
92 A. Susanty et al.

green supply chain operations reference model (GreenSCOR) as a performance metrics

to measure and evaluate GSCM practice of the furniture industry in Jepara, Central Java.
GreenSCOR is a modification of the original SCOR model. GreenSCOR modifies the
existing SCOR structure to include environmental processes, metrics, and best practices.
By integrating environmental and supply chain management, GreenSCOR provides a
foundation for improving operational activities while reducing environmental impacts
(SCC, 2010). Hence, the purpose of this study is to measure and evaluate the
performance of GSCM practice which have been done by some enterprises in the
furniture industry in Jepara, Central Java with greenSCOR approach and propose some
feedback to this industry.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. The next section describes the
literature review and is followed by the discussion of the research methodology. The
results are discussed subsequently. Finally, the theoretical and managerial implications
and the limitation of the study are presented in the conclusion, along with the future
research directions.

2 Literature review

2.1 Green supply chain management

There were several definitions of green supply chain management (GSCM). The idea of
GSCM is to eliminate or minimise waste (energy, emissions, chemical/ hazardous, solid
wastes) along the supply chain (Hervani et al., 2005). According to Zhu and Sarkis
(2004), define of GSCM have ranged from green purchasing to integrated of supply
chains starting from supplier, to manufacturer, to customer and reverse logistics, which is
‘closing the loop’. According to Srivastava (2007), GSCM can be defined as integrating
environmental thinking into supply chain management, including product design,
material sourcing and selection, manufacturing process, delivery of the final product to
the consumers as well as end-of-life management of the product after its useful life.
GSCM has emerged in the last few years and covers all phases of a product’s life
cycle from design, production and distribution phases to the use of products by the end
users and its disposal at the end of a product’s life cycle. Based on this condition, there
were a number of approaches for implementing GSCM practice have been proposed in
previous literature (Hsu and Hu, 2008). Bowen et al. (2001) identified three types of
implementation of GSCM practices, i.e. greening the supply process, product-based green
supply, and advanced green supply. The first type of GSCM practices is adaptations
made to the company’s supplier management activities in order to incorporate
environmental considerations which include collecting environmental information on
suppliers, assessing, ranking, and choosing according to supplier’s environmental
performance. The second type of GSCM practices is based on the changes in the product
supplied which is managing supply inputs such as packaging and recycling which needs
cooperation with suppliers. The third type of GSCM practices includes more proactive
measures such as introducing environmental criteria into buyers’ performance or entering
into joint clean technology programs with suppliers. Not very different with Bowen et al.
(2001), according to Hervani et al. (2005), there were four types of implementation of
GSCM practices GSCM, i.e. green procurement, green manufacturing/material
 Using GreenSCOR to measure performance of the supply chain 93

management, green distribution/marketing, and reverse logistics. Green procurement is

defined as an environmental purchasing consisting of involvement in activities that
include the reduction, reuse and recycling of materials in the process of purchasing
(Salam, 2008). Green manufacturing is defined as production processes which use inputs
with relatively low environmental impacts, which are highly efficient, and which
generate little or no waste or pollution (Atlas and Florida, 1998). Green distribution
consists of green packaging and green logistics. Packaging characteristics such as size,
shape, and materials have an impact on distribution because of their effect on the
transport characteristics of the product. Better packaging, along with rearranged loading
patterns, can reduce materials usage, increase space utilisation in the warehouse and in
the trailer, and reduce the amount of handling required (Ho et al., 2009). Then, according
to Rogers and Tibben-Lembke (1999), reverse logistics is the process of planning,
implementing, and controlling the efficient, cost-effective flow of raw materials, in-
process inventory, finished goods and related information from the point of consumption
to the point of origin for the purpose of recapturing value or proper disposal.
Recent studies of GSCM can be separated into two ways: framework for GSCM, and
performance measurement. Some frameworks propose how to improve the collaborative
relationships between manufacturers and suppliers, to explore the gaps between the
framework and the present state, to aid managerial decision making, or to develop a
general procedure towards achieving and maintaining the green supply chain (Beamon,
1999; Sarkis, 2003). A set of performance measures is used to determine the efficiency
and/or effectiveness of an existing system, to compare competing alternative systems, or
to design proposed systems by determining the values of the decision variables that yield
the most desirable levels of performance (Beamon, 1999; Hervani et al., 2005). Rather
than propose a framework, this study more focus on a set performance measurement for
implementation of GSCM by the enterprises in the furniture industry, Jepara, Central
Java.

2.2 GreenSCOR

SCOR is organised around five management process (plan, source, make, deliver, and
return) that are further subdivided into process categories, elements, tasks and activities
(Huang et al., 2005; Hwang et al., 2008; Kasi, 2005; SCC, 2010). According to Li et al.
(2011), SCOR enables companies to examine the configuration of their supply chain. It
also identifies and eliminates redundant and wasteful practices along supply chains. As a
business process architecture, it defines the way these processes interact, how they
perform and how they are configured from the supplier’s supplier to the customer’s
customer (Min and Zhou, 2002; Huang et al., 2005; SCC, 2010). The GreenSCOR
extension of the model was first introduced in its fifth version. Cheng et al. (2010) and
Schoeman and Sanchez (2009) note that, GreenSCOR is a modification that integrates
environmental considerations through the process, metrics and best practices in SCM
processes, while taking into account the impacts of operations at each stage of the
product life cycle. Then, based on best practices of GreenSCOR (SCC, 2010), the
indicators used in this study for measuring the implementation of GSCM practice by the
enterprises in the furniture industry, Jepara, Central Java can be seen in Table 1.
94 A. Susanty et al.

Table 1 Indicators used in this study for measuring the implementation of GSCM which
adopted from GreenSCOR

Process category Best practices Description*

Plan Establish environmental The enterprises have established the supplier
requirements environmental requirements such as using the
certified timber (P1)
Consider environmental The enterprises have considered the
production constraints environmental constraints as part of production
capacity, such as planned to use timber
substitutes in the process of making the
furniture (P2)
Consider environmental The enterprises have considered environmental
impacts impacts when planning the need requirements
and production process (P3)
Minimise energy use Plans are created by enterprises to minimise
energy use, such as use the waste from timber
as fuel for the oven (P4)
Maximise loads, minimise The enterprises have planned to maximise load
runs size and minimise transportation runs when
received or delivered the product (P5)
Source Select suppliers with The enterprises have selected the suppliers with
environmental management active EMS systems (S1)
system (EMS)
Purchase recycled product The enterprises have purchased products from
recyclers or remanufactures, such as purchased
timber needed from recycles or remanufactures
(S2)
Make Implement an environmental The enterprises have implemented an
management system (EMS) environmental management system (M1)
Schedule production activity The enterprises have implemented schedule
production activity to minimise the energy
consumed (M2)
Calculate waste produced as The enterprises have calculated the waste
% of product produced produced by the product produced (M3)
Recyclable waste/scrap The enterprises have implemented recycling
waste/scrap produced from the production
process (M4)
Use recyclable packaging The enterprises have used recycled packaging
(M5)
Provide environmental The enterprises have provided the
training environmental training to all employees (M6)
Deliver Route to minimise fuel The enterprises have chosen the best route to
consumption minimise the fuel consumption (D1)
Schedule to maximise The enterprise has made a schedule for
transportation capacity delivering the product which can maximise
transportation capacity (D2)
Enable customer direct Enable direct shipments between customers to
shipments reduce overall transportation and handling (D3)
Note: *Some of the description has been adjusted by the authors based on the field
condition.
 Using GreenSCOR to measure performance of the supply chain 95

Table 1 Indicators used in this study for measuring the implementation of GSCM which
adopted from GreenSCOR (continued)

Process category Best practices Description*

Return Replacement of defective The enterprises have made communicating with
product the customer before the return to establish what
types of returns are acceptable (R1)
Avoid returns beyond The enterprises have estimated the damage to
economic repair the product and did not physically return
product that was beyond economical repair or
offers no diagnostic value (R2)
Enable Develop environmental The enterprises have developed the
performance standards. environmental performance standards (E1)
Integrate environmental The enterprises have made integrated
considerations into business environmental considerations into the business
rules rules (E2)
Note: *Some of the description has been adjusted by the authors based on the field
condition.
According to Cash and Wilkerson (2003), the adoption of GreenSCOR gives rise to three
primary benefits.

1 Improved green management.

The goal of green SCM is to analyse a supply chain to identify opportunities to

mitigate waste. GreenSCOR makes it possible to identify the best practices to do so.
GreenSCOR requires the use of a clear set of metrics, which improves environmental
management. Furthermore, environmental management benefits because it is
possible to track intended environmental impacts in the supply chain.

2 Improved SCM performance.

Identifying environmental impacts directly translate into improved SCM.

GreenSCOR initiates best practices and metrics, which simplifies the task of
improving efficiency throughout the supply chain of a product.

3 Improved green SCM.

By making an allowance for environmental best practices in the supply chain

metrics, the impact of the environmental factors is more visible. With improved
environmental SCM come improved performance, greater operations efficiency and
enhanced customer satisfaction. Improved green supply chain management improves
agility, increases adaptability and promotes alignment of business processes.
96 A. Susanty et al.

3 Method of research

3.1 Instruments and measures

The 20 key performance indicators (KPI) were selected to measure and evaluate the
performance of GSCM practice which have been done by some enterprises in the
furniture industry in Jepara, Central Java. Out of these 20 indicators, five indicators were
used to measure GSCM practices in the planning process, two indicators were used to
measure GSCM practice in the sourcing process, six indicators were used to measure
GSCM practices in making process, three indicators were used to measure GSCM
practices in delivering process, two indicators were used to measure GSCM practices in
returning process, and two indicators were used to measure GSCM practice in enabling
process of material flow. All of those items were adapted from GreenSCOR v 10 (SCC,
2010). Each kind of KPI must be passed through the validation process from the
company so that each KPI is fit with the furniture enterprises condition and the most
important is that the KPI’s are measurable at the enterprises. Then each kind of KPI’s that
valid is weighted with the concept of analytical hierarchy process (AHP) (Saaty, 1995).
After all of that process, we can develop a system measurement for GSCM practices
based on GreenSCOR model.

3.2 Questionnaire development

There were two types of questionnaire used in this research. The first type of
questionnaire is AHP questionnaire. Here a questionnaire was prepared to compare the
level of importance of each process category (plan, source, make, deliver, return, and
enable) and the level of importance of each indicator which is belonging to each of
process categories. More specifically, the AHP questionnaire was used in order to
measure the relative weight of each process category and the relative weight of each
indicator that contribute to the quality of implementation of GSCM in the furniture
industry as it is perceived by an expert. Figure 1 presents these six process categories and
each indicator that was used in the questionnaire. The tree-map constitutes a particularly
efficient way to visualise the hierarchy of our problem as a diagram. At the top, the goal
is placed, the process category as criteria are placed in the middle and the indicators as
sub criteria at the bottom, in smaller rectangular boxes. In detail, each indicator which
belongs to each process categories can be seen in Table 1. Then, for ease in answering the
questionnaire, Saaty’s nine-point scale is used in AHP questionnaire, ranging from 1
(=equal importance between element I and j) to 9 (=absolute dominance of me over j),
and reciprocal values, respectively. All values within the range of 1 to 9 and 1/9 to 1 are
possible; the respondents were not restricted to the integer data points 1, 2 etc. and their
reciprocals (Saaty, 1995). For example, if an expert replies that plan is absolute important
than source, the plan is said to have a relative weight of nine times that of the source.
By structure, AHP questionnaire comprised of two sections. The first part included
the demographic and operational characteristics designed to determine the fundamental
issues, including the demographic characteristics of the respondent. The second part was
devoted to pairwise comparison between the process categories (plan, source, make,
deliver, return, and enable) and between the indicators. In this case, each process and
indicators are paired and decision makers are called to note their preference between the
 Using GreenSCOR to measure performance of the supply chain 97

two processes and indicators. An example of the second part of AHP questionnaire can
be seen in Table 2.

Figure 1 AHP hierarchical tree for assessing the priority weight of process category and
indicators of implementation GSCM in the furniture industry

Assessment the priority weight of process category and indicators of implementation GSCM in
furniture industry

Plan Source Make Deliver Return Enable

Establish Select suppliers Implement an Route to Replacement of Develop

environmental with Environmental minimize fuel defective environmental
requirements Environmental Management consumption product performance
Management System (EMS) standards
Consider System (EMS) Schedule to Avoid returns
environmental Schedule maximize beyond
production production transportation economic Integrate
constraints Purchase activity capacity repair environmental
recycled considerations
product into business
Consider Enable rules
Recyclable
environmental customer direct
waste/scrap
impacts shipments

Minimize Use recyclable

energy use packaging

Maximize Provide
loads, minimize environmental
runs training

Table 2 An example of the second part of AHP questionnaire: the pairwise comparison
between the process categories

1 3 5 7 9 9 7 5 3 1
Plan Source
Plan Make
Plan Deliver
……. …..
Return Enable
Notes: 1 (= equal importance between element I and j) to 9 (= absolute dominance of me
over j).
The second of the questionnaire is GSCM questionnaire. Although this questionnaire uses
the same indicators as the AHP questionnaire, specifically, this questionnaire is used to
measure the degree of implementation of GSCM practice by each SMEs in furniture
industry which is represented by the score value of each indicator. For assessing the score
value of each indicator, a five-point scale is used, ranging from 1 (= not considering it) to
5 (= implementing successfully). For example, if the enterprises have fully established
the environmental requirements for their suppliers such as using the certified timber,
then, the SMEs will get score five for this indicator. By structure, GSCM questionnaire
98 A. Susanty et al.

comprised of two sections. The first part of GSCM questionnaire consists of the
demographic and operational characteristics which is designed to determine the
fundamental issues, including the demographic characteristics of the respondent. The
second part of GSCM questionnaire was devoted to the identification of the degree of the
current practice of GSCM by the SMEs in the furniture industry. An example of the
second part of GSCM questionnaire can be seen in Table 3.
Table 3 An example of the second part of the GSCM questionnaire for assessing the degree of
implementation of indicators in plan category

1 2 3 4 5
1 The enterprises have established the supplier environmental
requirements such as using the certified timber
2 The enterprises have considered the environmental
constraints as part of production capacity, such as planned to
use timber substitutes in the process of making the furniture
3 The enterprises have considered environmental impacts
when planning the need requirements and production process
4 Plans are created by enterprises to minimise energy use, such
as use the waste from timber as fuel for the oven
5 The enterprises have planned to maximise load size and
minimise transportation runs when received or delivered the
product
Notes: (1= not considering it) to 5 (=implementing successfully).

3.3 Sample of the research

According to type of questionnaire used in this research, the sample of this research can
be divided into two categories. The first category is an individual sample for AHP
questionnaire and the second category is an SME sample for assessing the
implementation of GSCM practice in the furniture industry.

3.3.1 Individual sample of AHP questionnaire

One of the major advantages of the AHP is that the analysis does not always require
statistically significant sample size (Baby, 2013), so we do not require a large sample
number to fill out the AHP questionnaire. Although the number of respondents who filled
out a questionnaire is not important, but the quality of the respondents who filled out
questionnaires need to be considered because the data set obtained from the survey of
AHP questionnaire may reflects each respondent’s subjective judgment. Based on this
condition, this study uses a non-probability, a purposive sampling technique for choosing
the respondent to fill out the AHP questionnaire. Non-probability sampling is a sampling
method where the samples are grouped in a process that does not give all the individuals
in the population an equal chance of being selected (Ligthelm et al., 2005). Subjects in a
non-probability sample are usually selected on the basis of their accessibility or by the
purposive personal judgment of the researcher. In purposive sampling, the researcher will
choose the samples with a purpose in mind (Zikmund and Babin, 2010). In the other
words, in the purposive sampling, the respondents were selected in the sample is based
upon some appropriate characteristic of the sample members. In this case, the inclusions
 Using GreenSCOR to measure performance of the supply chain 99

characteristic of the sample members for filling out the AHP questionnaire were as
follows:
• people who have knowledge about the process production in the furniture industry
• people who have knowledge about the implementation of GSCM practice in the
furniture industry
• people that are willing and that have the time to participate in the study.
Based on that characteristic, chairman of Indonesian Furniture and Handicraft
Association (ASMINDO) Central Java, representatives of the Indonesian Environmental
Forum (WALHI), and the owners of a furniture enterprise was chosen as the respondent
to fill out the AHP questionnaire.

3.3.2 SMEs sample of GSCM questionnaire

A non-probability, a purposive sampling technique also used for choosing several SMEs
as a respondent to fill out the GSCM questionnaire. In this case, the SMEs who became a
respondent were selected based on the following criteria:
• The first criterion was to choose the enterprises who are connected with the main
component of this research, i.e. GSCM and furniture industry.
• The second criterion was to choose the enterprises from various levels of the
furniture industry in order to ensure that the role of GSCM practice of the process of
making furniture performance can be identified comprehensively. For this reason,
the enterprise will be chosen from large scale and also from medium scale.
• The third criterion employed was to choose only those enterprises which were
associated with the process of making furniture from the sawmill process until the
process of making a product and then delivering the product to the final customer. As
the focus of the research is towards GSCM practices so it was important to choose
the enterprise associated with the furniture manufacture in order to ensure
compliance with the research theme.
Based on those three criteria, 20 enterprises that belong to large or medium scale, in-
house manufacturing indoor and outdoor furniture were chosen as the respondent to fill
out the GSCM questionnaire. These enterprises were consisted of four large scale of
enterprises in-house manufacturing indoor, three large scale of enterprises in-house
manufacturing outdoor, seven medium scale of enterprises in-house manufacturing
indoor, and six medium scale of enterprises in-house manufacturing outdoor (see
Table 4).
Table 4 Sample of SMEs as respondent to fill out the GSCM questionnaire

In-house manicuring outdoor In-house manufacturing indoor

Large scale Four enterprises Three enterprises
Medium scale Seven enterprises Six enterprises

In detail, according to three criteria, the background of those sample selection to become
a respondent to fill out the GSCM questionnaire can be described as follows. Based on
100 A. Susanty et al.

Prestvik’s (2009) study of the Jepara furniture industry, there were seven categories of
business units: workshops, log parks, sawmills, showrooms, warehouses, dry kilns and
ironmongeries. Furniture workshops are then further categorised according to their types
of production process: those that produce unfinished items from unprocessed round
wood; those that purchase components, pieces and sets and then assemble them into a
finished product; those that combine both these stages of furniture making; and those that
produce only parts of furniture (Prestvik, 2009). Then, based on those that combine all
the stages of furniture making and those that produce only parts of furniture, in brief, the
furniture workshops in Jepara can be divided into in-house manufacturing and
subcontracting manufacturing. In house manufacturing done all the stage of production
process of making furniture, from receipt an order until delivering the final product. At
in-house manufacturing, the supply process starts at the arrival of an order from a
customer. The order is processed and entered into the enterprise’s production system. In
processing the order, stages of work to be conducted for each position of the order are
specified. If a new product is concerned, the offer calculation department will calculate
prices for the products. This is the procedure with regards to part of customer’s orders, if
prices for the orders have not been previously calculated. Different with in-house
manufacturing, in the subcontracting manufacturing, enterprises just involve in the
finishing of the final product, while the production process itself has been done by the
others craftsmen based on the orders from the enterprises. These craftsmen usually have
their specialty products to make, such as table, chair, cupboards, and so forth. The
relationship between the enterprises and the craftsmen are only for short-term
relationships, limited to the purchase of semi-finished product. Therefore, the enterprises
didn’t have knowledge and also didn’t care about GSCM practices by the craftsmen,
including the source of timber used by the craftsmen. Then related with type of product
resulted, most furniture workshops in Jepara (in house manufacturing and subcontracting
manufacturing) produce indoor furniture (89.5%), 7.8% produce outdoor furniture, and
the remaining produce carvings, handicraft and calligraphy (Melati et al., 2013). Indoor
furniture made of various furniture and equipment used to fulfil the function of a room in
the house, such as for a terrace, living room, family room, dining room, study room,
bedroom, kitchen, library, and others. Outdoor furniture (or garden furniture)
manufactures furniture for outdoor use; but, recently, the outdoor furniture is also
producing furniture that will be used in the indoor as on the terrace, living room, dining
room, and others. Although the type of furniture produced is similar, the motif and
finishing process of outdoor and indoor furniture is definitely different and it will be
affect the waste of timber resulted.

3.4 Data collection procedure

This study utilised both primary and secondary sources of data. The primary sources of
data consisting of questionnaires and personal interviews. The 20 copies of
questionnaires and personal interviews were administered to the chairman of ASMINDO
Central Java, representatives from the WALAHI, and the owners of a furniture enterprise
belongs to large or medium scale, in-house manufacturing indoor and outdoor furniture.
The secondary sources of data consisting of enterprise document as a complementary of
the result of questionnaire and personal interviews.
 Using GreenSCOR to measure performance of the supply chain 101

4 Result of research

4.1 Priority weight

After obtaining the individual pairwise judgments of each respondent (there were three
respondents chosen to fill out the AHP questionnaire), the next step is the computation of
a vector of priorities or weighting of element (process category and indicators of each
process category) in the matrix. In terms of matrix algebra, this consists of calculating the
‘principal vector’ of the matrix by adding the members of each column to find the total.
In the next step, in order to normalise each column to sum to 1.0 or 100%, divide the
elements of that column by the total of the column and sum them up. Finally, add the
elements in each resulting row and divide this sum by the number of elements in the row
to get the average. The results (principal vectors) show us the approximate priority
weight of each element in process category and the approximate priority weight of each
indicator by the individual members of the group of respondent. Then, the final priorities
weight of each element in process category and the final priorities weight of each
indicator given by the individual members is aggregated by arithmetic mean method to
arrive at the group consensus. This study use arithmetic mean as a method to get the
group consensus of priority weight because, according to results of research conducted by
Yedla and Shrestha (2007), the arithmetic mean is the most appropriate and efficient
method to be applied in AHP for group aggregation. The result of the calculation with
arithmetic mean shows us that the elements in process category have the following
approximate priority weights: plan (0.380), make (0.299), source (0.151), deliver (0.071),
enable (0.055), and return (0.045). In detail, the results of group aggregation of priority
weights for each process category (plan, make, source, deliver, enable, and return) and
for each indicator are shown in column 4 in Table 5.
Table 5 Composite priority weight for each process category and indicators

Process Local Global

Local
category weight Indicators (3) weight
weight (4)
(1) (2) (5)
Plan 0.380 Establish environmental requirements (P1) 0.312 0.118
Consider environmental production constraints (P2) 0.101 0.038
Consider environmental impacts (P3) 0.374 0.142
Minimise energy use (P4) 0.134 0.051
Maximise loads, minimise runs (P5) 0.079 0.030
Source 0.151 Select suppliers with environmental management 0.667 0.101
Purchase recycled product (S2) 0.333 0.050
Make 0.299 Implement an environmental management system 0.350 0.105
Schedule production activity (M2) 0.056 0.017
Waste produced as % of the product produced (M3) 0.099 0.029
Recyclable waste/scrap (M4) 0.291 0.087
Use recyclable packaging (M5) 0.132 0.040
Provide environmental training (M6) 0.072 0.021
Deliver 0.071 Route to minimise fuel consumption (D1) 0.333 0.024
Schedule to maximise transportation capacity (D2) 0.333 0.024
Enable customer direct shipments (D3) 0.333 0.024
102 A. Susanty et al.

Table 5 Composite priority weight for each process category and indicators (continued)

Process Local Global

Local
category weight Indicators (3) weight
weight (4)
(1) (2) (5)
Return 0.045 Replacement of defective product (R1) 0.250 0.011
Avoid returns beyond economic repair (R2) 0.750 0.033
Enable 0.055 Develop environmental performance standards (E1) 0.667 0.037
Integrate environmental considerations (E2) 0.333 0.018

The result of group aggregation of priority weights for each indicator in column 4 Table 5
represents a local weight of each indicator. The global weight of each indicator depends
on the weight of its corresponding process category, so the global weight of each
indicator is calculated by multiplying the local weight with weight of corresponding
process category. The global weight of each indicator can be seen in column 5 in Table 5.
Thus, based on rearranged in descending order of priority, the first rank of indicator is
occupied by considering environmental impacts (0.142). Establish environmental
requirement (0.118) is in the top five ranking include implementing an environmental
management system (0.105), select suppliers with environmental management system
(0.101), recyclable waste/scrap (0.087), and minimise energy use (0.051).

4.2 Result of measurement of GSCM practice with GreenSCOR

The aggregate value of GSCM practice of each enterprise is the sum of the performance
index of each indicator, which representing multiplication between the score value of
indicators with the weight of the indicator. As the scoring system, the score of each
indicator needs to be equalised using normalisation process (Snorm) of DeBoer
(Trienekens and Hvolby, 2000), so the measurement scale from 0 – 100 for each indicator
could be obtained. This normalisation process is aimed at obtaining the comparable
scales of the indicator values because the GreenSCOR use multi-indicators with Likert
Scale for evaluation the implementation of the practice of GSCM in the furniture
industry. In this case, Likert scaling used for qualitative indicators and this qualitative
indicator value which is obtained from survey data must be normalised to a scale that is
common for all indicators. This is accomplished by constructing a normalising function
for each indicator. Normalisation aims at obtaining comparable scales that allow inter
indicator comparison (Watts, 1997). So, Snorm normalisation is needed in order to create
a standard scale of the indicators that call now being used. This is the Snorm equation of
DeBoer:
Larger is better : Snorm = ( ( Si – Smin ) ( Smax – Smin ) ) × 100
Lower is better : Snorm = ( ( Smax x – S) ( Smax – Smin ) ) × 100

where
Si the actual score of each indicator
Smin minimum scale
Smax maximum scale.
 Using GreenSCOR to measure performance of the supply chain 103

Larger is better is used when the higher observed value represents better performance, as
in case of indicator P1 (enterprises have established the supplier environmental
requirements such as using the certified timber). This is an example of the calculation to
get the standard scale of indicators P1 for CV. Majawana with larger is better equation.
Larger is better : Snorm = ( Si – Smin ) ( Smax – Smin ) × 100 = ( (4 – 1) (5 – 1) ) × 100 = 75

Lower is better used when the lower value represents better performance. In this study,
lower is better is not used to create a standard scale of indicators since the best condition
of each indicator achieved when the indicator can get the highest value.
The Tables 6, 7, 8, and 9 is a list of scores (after normalisation process) and
performance index of each indicator for each surveyed enterprise which is consist of six
large scale of enterprise in-house manufacturing indoor, seven large scale of enterprise
in-house manufacturing outdoor, four medium scale of enterprise in-house manufacturing
indoor, three medium scale of enterprise in-house manufacturing indoor outdoor. Thus,
Table 10 shows us the average of score and performance index of each indicator from all
surveyed enterprises in the each category (large-medium, indoor-outdoor). This study
uses the interval value from Trienekens and Hvolby (2000) for grouping the aggregate
value of GSCM practice from all the surveyed enterprises (see the value in the bottom
row in Table 6 to Table 9) in order to differentiate those enterprises between poor,
marginal, average or excellent. This interval value is used because Trienekens and
Hvolby (2000) also used this interval value for measuring the performance in supply
chain although they didn’t use GreenSCOR as a framework.
The major findings are discussed as follows. The aggregate value of GSCM practice
from each surveyed enterprises shows us that PT. Kota Jati has the highest aggregate
value; The major findings are discussed as follows. The aggregate value of GSCM
practice from each surveyed enterprises shows us that PT. Kota Jati has the highest
aggregate value; whereas PT. Jepara Original has the lowest aggregate value. PT Jati
belongs to large-scale enterprises in-house manufacturing outdoor, whereas PT. Jepara
Orginal belongs to medium-scale enterprises in-house manufacturing indoor. Compared
with medium scale, the enterprises in the category large scale have better aggregate
value. Most of enterprise in this category has more concern with doing GSCM practice
than medium scale enterprises, such as the origin of the timber used in the production
process. Most of them also encouraging the reduction of a waste from sawmilling and
furniture production process by introducing more efficient wood processing and
manufacturing methods, decreasing wood drying degrade, utilizing small dimension
timbers and wood off-cuts for various wood components, and introducing new
technologies such as wood bending and laminating. Then, compared with in-house
manufacturing indoor, in-house manufacturing outdoor have better aggregate value. All
the large-scale enterprises in-house manufacturing outdoor included in a good category
with an aggregate value ranging from 79 – 85. Most of in-house manufacturing outdoor
produce furniture with simple design. This design makes less waste wood resulted and
more product can be made for each piece of wood. Besides that, the dimension and shape
of waste wood generated from production processes are suitable for producing a waste
product that is based on the furniture which utilize the waste. In this case, the waste
product would utilize lower quality and smaller dimension timbers. Now, this product is
exported to other countries, such as Italy, Singapore, Malaysia, and China.
 Score Performance index
104

Indicators CV. PT. Kent PT. Maxim PT. Talenta Weight CV. PT. Kent PT. Maxim PT. Talenta Table 6
Majawana Devon Indoowod java design Majawana Devon Indoowod java design
Establish env requirements (P1) 75 75 100 100 0.118 8.850 8.850 11.800 11.800
Consider env production 75 100 100 100 0.038 2.850 3.800 3.800 3.800
constraints (P2)
Consider env impacts (P3) 100 100 100 100 0.142 14.200 14.200 14.200 14.200
Minimise energy use (P4) 100 100 100 100 0.051 5.100 5.100 5.100 5.100
Max loads, min runs (P5) 100 100 100 100 0.030 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000
A. Susanty et al.

Select suppliers with EMS (S1) 75 75 100 100 0.101 7.575 7.575 10.100 10.100
Purchase recycled product (S2) 0 0 0 0 0.050 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
manufacturing indoor

Implement an EMS (M1) 75 75 100 100 0.105 7.875 7.875 10.500 10.500
Schedule prod activity (M2) 75 50 75 75 0.017 1.275 0.850 1.275 1.275
Waste produced as % of the 100 100 100 100 0.029 2.900 2.900 2.900 2.900
product produced (M3)
Recyclable waste/scrap (M4) 0 0 0 0 0.087 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Use recyclable packaging (M5) 100 100 100 100 0.040 4.000 4.000 4.000 4.000
Provide env training (M6) 75 25 100 75 0.021 1.575 0.525 2.100 1.575
Route to min fuel consumption 100 100 100 100 0.024 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400
(D1)
Schedule to max transportation 100 100 100 100 0.024 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400
capacity (D2)
Enable customer direct 100 0 100 100 0.024 2.400 0.000 2.400 2.400
shipments (D3)
Replacement of defective 75 0 0 75 0.011 0.825 0.000 0.000 0.825
product (R1)
Avoid returns beyond economic 0 0 0 0 0.033 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
repair (R2)
Develop env performance 75 50 100 100 0.037 2.775 1.850 3.700 3.700
standards (E1)
Integrate env considerations 75 75 100 100 0.018 1.350 1.350 1.800 1.800
(E2)
Result of measurement of GSCM practice of large-scale enterprises in-house

Aggregate value of GSCM practice of each enterprise 71 67 81 82

Category*) Average Marginal Good Good
Notes: *) according to Trienekens and Hvolby (2000): ≤ 40: poor; 41-60: marginal; 51–70: average; 71–90: good; >90: excellent.
 Table 7
Score Performance index
Indicators CV. Mandiri Weight CV. Mandiri
CV. Duta Jepara PT. Kota Jati CV. Duta Jepara PT. Kota Jati
Abadi Abadi
Establish env requirements (P1) 100 100 100 0.118 14.200 14.200 14.200
Consider env production constraints (P2) 100 100 100 0.038 5.100 5.100 5.100
Consider env impacts (P3) 100 100 75 0.142 3.000 3.000 2.250
Minimise energy use (P4) 100 100 100 0.051 10.100 10.100 10.100
Max loads, min runs (P5) 0 0 0 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.000
Select suppliers with EMS (S1) 100 100 100 0.101 10.500 10.500 10.500
manufacturing outdoor

Purchase recycled product (S2) 75 75 75 0.050 1.275 1.275 1.275

Implement an EMS (M1) 100 100 100 0.105 2.900 2.900 2.900
Schedule prod activity (M2) 0 75 75 0.017 0.000 6.525 6.525
Waste produced as % of the product produced (M3) 100 100 100 0.029 4.000 4.000 4.000
Recyclable waste/scrap (M4) 100 25 100 0.087 2.100 0.525 2.100
Use recyclable packaging (M5) 100 100 100 0.040 2.400 2.400 2.400
Provide env training (M6) 100 100 75 0.021 2.400 2.400 1.800
Route to min fuel consumption (D1) 100 100 100 0.024 2.400 2.400 2.400
Schedule to max transportation capacity (D2) 75 75 75 0.024 0.825 0.825 0.825
Enable customer direct shipments (D3) 0 0 0 0.024 0.000 0.000 0.000
Replacement of defective product (R1) 100 100 100 0.011 3.700 3.700 3.700
Avoid returns beyond economic repair (R2) 100 100 100 0.033 1.800 1.800 1.800
Develop env performance standards (E1) 100 100 100 0.037 14.200 14.200 14.200
Using GreenSCOR to measure performance of the supply chain

Integrate env considerations (E2) 100 100 100 0.018 5.100 5.100 5.100
Aggregate value of GSCM practice of each enterprise 79 84 85
Category*) Good Good Good
Result of measurement of GSCM practice of large-scale enterprises in-house

Notes: *) according to Trienekens and Hvolby (2000): ≤ 40: poor; 41–60: marginal; 51–70: average; 71–90: good; >90.
105
 Score Performance index
106

UD.
Indicators CV. PT. CV. UD. Prima Weight CV. PT. CV.
PT. PT. Densmart PT. PT. Densmart Prima
Table 8
Jepara Montaigne Aldona Ridha Jepara Montaigne Aldona
EMI HEI furniture EMI HEI furniture Ridha
original furniture furniture Citra original furniture furniture
Citra
Establish env requirements
75 75 75 75 75 75 75 0.118 8.850 8.850 8.850 8.850 8.850 8.850 8.850
(P1)
Consider env production
75 100 100 50 100 50 75 0.038 2.850 3.800 3.800 1.900 3.800 1.900 2.850
constraints (P2)
Consider env impacts (P3) 14.20
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0.142 14.200 14.200 14.200 14.200 14.200 14.200
0
Minimise energy use (P4) 0 0 100 100 100 100 0 0.051 0.000 0.000 5.100 5.100 5.100 5.100 0.000
A. Susanty et al.

Max loads, min runs (P5) 75 0 100 100 100 100 75 0.030 2.250 0.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 2.250
Select suppliers with EMS
75 75 75 75 75 75 75 0.101 7.575 7.575 7.575 7.575 7.575 7.575 7.575
(S1)
manufacturing indoor

Purchase recycled product

100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.050 5.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
(S2)
Implement an EMS (M1) 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 0.105 7.875 7.875 7.875 7.875 7.875 7.875 7.875
Schedule prod activity (M2) 75 50 50 75 50 50 0 0.017 1.275 0.850 0.850 1.275 0.850 0.850 0.000
Waste produced as % of the
100 75 100 75 75 75 75 0.029 2.900 2.175 2.900 2.175 2.175 2.175 2.175
product produced (M3)
Recyclable waste/scrap (M4) 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 0.087 0.000 6.525 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Use recyclable packaging
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0.040 4.000 4.000 4.000 4.000 4.000 4.000 4.000
(M5)
Provide env training (M6) 50 25 25 25 25 25 25 0.021 1.050 0.525 0.525 0.525 0.525 0.525 0.525
Route to min fuel
100 0 100 100 100 100 50 0.024 2.400 0.000 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 1.200
consumption (D1)
Schedule to max
75 0 100 100 100 100 75 0.024 1.800 0.000 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 1.800
transportation capacity (D2)
Enable customer direct
100 0 100 0 100 0 75 0.024 2.400 0.000 2.400 0.000 2.400 0.000 1.800
shipments (D3)
Replacement of defective
75 75 75 0 0 75 75 0.011 0.825 0.825 0.825 0.000 0.000 0.825 0.825
product (R1)
Avoid returns beyond
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.033 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
economic repair (R2)
Develop env performance
25 25 75 85 50 50 50 0.037 0.925 0.925 2.775 3.145 1.850 1.850 1.850
standards (E1)
Integrate env considerations
50 50 75 50 50 50 50 0.018 0.900 0.900 1.350 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900
(E2)
Result of measurement of GSCM practice of medium-scale enterprises in-house

Aggregate value of GSCM practice of each enterprise 67 59 71 65 68 64 59

Category*) Average Average Good Average Average Average Average
Notes: *) according to Trienekens and Hvolby (2000): ≤ 40: poor; 41–60: marginal; 51–70: average; 71–90: good; >90: excellent.
 Table 9
Score Performance index
Indicators PT. Buana CV. CV. Weight PT. Buana CV. CV.
PT. CV. Nature PT. CV. Nature
Multi Kalingga Istana Multi Kalingga Istana
Zakra Queen habitat Zakra Queen habitat
Pratama Jati Perabot Pratama Jati Perabot
Establish env requirements (P1) 100 75 75 75 100 75 0.118 11.800 8.850 8.850 8.850 11.800 8.850
Establish env requirements (P1) 0 0 75 75 50 0 0.038 0.000 0.000 2.850 2.850 1.900 0.000
Consider env production constraints (P2) 100 100 100 100 100 100 0.142 14.200 14.200 14.200 14.200 14.200 14.200
Consider env impacts (P3) 100 100 0 100 100 100 0.051 5.100 5.100 0.000 5.100 5.100 5.100
Minimise energy use (P4) 100 100 100 0 0 100 0.030 3.000 3.000 3.000 0.000 0.000 3.000
manufacturing outdoor

Max loads, min runs (P5) 100 75 75 75 100 75 0.101 10.100 7.575 7.575 7.575 10.100 7.575
Select suppliers with EMS (S1) 0 0 75 75 0 100 0.050 0.000 0.000 3.750 3.750 0.000 5.000
Purchase recycled product (S2) 100 75 100 75 75 75 0.105 10.500 7.875 10.500 7.875 7.875 7.875
Implement an EMS (M1) 75 75 75 75 75 75 0.017 1.275 1.275 1.275 1.275 1.275 1.275
Schedule prod activity (M2) 100 100 100 75 100 100 0.029 2.900 2.900 2.900 2.175 2.900 2.900
Waste produced as % of the product 0 75 75 75 75 75 0.087 0.000 6.525 6.525 6.525 6.525 6.525
produced (M3)
Recyclable waste/scrap (M4) 100 100 100 100 100 100 0.040 4.000 4.000 4.000 4.000 4.000 4.000
Use recyclable packaging (M5) 75 100 75 75 75 50 0.021 1.575 2.100 1.575 1.575 1.575 1.050
Provide env training (M6) 100 100 100 100 0 100 0.024 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 0.000 2.400
Route to min fuel consumption (D1) 100 100 100 0 0 100 0.024 2.400 2.400 2.400 0.000 0.000 2.400
Schedule to max transportation capacity 100 100 100 100 100 100 0.024 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400
(D2)
Enable customer direct shipments (D3) 75 100 75 75 75 75 0.011 0.825 1.100 0.825 0.825 0.825 0.825
Replacement of defective product (R1) 0 100 0 0 0 0 0.033 0.000 3.300 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Avoid returns beyond economic repair (R2) 75 100 100 75 75 50 0.037 2.775 3.700 3.700 2.775 2.775 1.850
Using GreenSCOR to measure performance of the supply chain

Develop env performance standards (E1) 100 75 100 75 75 50 0.018 1.800 1.350 1.800 1.350 1.350 0.900
Aggregate value of GSCM practice of each enterprise 77 80 81 76 75 78
Category*) Good Good Good Good Good Good
Notes: *) according to Trienekens and Hvolby (2000): ≤ 40: poor; 41–60: marginal; 51–70: average; 71–90: good; >90: excellent.
Result of measurement of GSCM practice of medium-scale enterprises in-house
107
 Large scale of enterprise in- Large scale of enterprise in- Medium scale of enterprise in- Medium scale of enterprise in-
108
house manufacturing indoor house manufacturing outdoor house manufacturing indoor house manufacturing outdoor
Indicators Weight Average Average Average Average
Table 10
Average score performance Average score performance Average score performance Average score performance
index index index index
Establish env requirements 0.118 87.500 10.325 100.000 11.800 75.000 8.850 83.333 9.833
(P1)
Consider env production 0.038 93.750 3.563 25.000 0.950 78.571 2.986 33.333 1.267
constraints (P2)
enterprises

Consider env impacts (P3) 0.142 100.000 14.200 100.000 14.200 100.000 14.200 100.000 14.200
A. Susanty et al.

Minimise energy use (P4) 0.051 100.000 5.100 100.000 5.100 57.143 2.914 83.333 4.250
Max loads, min runs (P5) 0.030 100.000 3.000 91.667 2.750 78.571 2.357 66.667 2.000
Select suppliers with EMS 0.101 87.500 8.838 100.000 10.100 75.000 7.575 83.333 8.417
(S1)
Purchase recycled product 0.050 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 14.286 0.714 41.667 2.083
(S2)
Implement an EMS (M1) 0.105 87.500 9.188 100.000 10.500 75.000 7.875 83.333 8.750
Schedule prod activity (M2) 0.017 68.750 1.169 75.000 1.275 50.000 0.850 75.000 1.275
Waste produced as % of the 0.029 100.000 2.900 100.000 2.900 82.143 2.382 95.833 2.779
product produced (M3)
Recyclable waste/scrap (M4) 0.087 0.000 0.000 50.000 4.350 10.714 0.932 62.500 5.438
Use recyclable packaging 0.040 100.000 4.000 100.000 4.000 100.000 4.000 100.000 4.000
(M5)
Provide env training (M6) 0.021 68.750 1.444 75.000 1.575 28.571 0.600 75.000 1.575
Route to min fuel 0.024 100.000 2.400 100.000 2.400 78.571 1.886 83.333 2.000
consumption (D1)
Schedule to max 0.024 100.000 2.400 91.667 2.200 78.571 1.886 66.667 1.600
transportation capacity (D2)
Enable customer direct 0.024 75.000 1.800 100.000 2.400 53.571 1.286 100.000 2.400
shipments (D3)
Replacement of defective 0.011 37.500 0.413 75.000 0.825 53.571 0.589 79.167 0.871
product (R1)
Avoid returns beyond 0.033 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 16.667 0.550
Average score and performance index of GSCM practice from all surveyed

economic repair (R2)

Develop env performance 0.037 81.250 3.006 100.000 3.700 51.429 1.903 79.167 2.929
standards (E1)
Integrate env considerations 0.018 87.500 1.575 100.000 1.800 53.571 0.964 79.167 1.425
(E2)
 Using GreenSCOR to measure performance of the supply chain 109

Then, the modified importance-performance analysis (IPA) is used as a technique for

identifying those indicators that are most in need of improvement. The application of the
IPA is introduced by Martilla and James (1977). The IPA consists of a pair of coordinate
axis where the ‘importance’ (y-axis) and the ‘performance’ (x-axis) of the different
indicators involved are compared. In this research, the importance of indicators is
expressed by the weight of each indicator and the performance of indicators is expressed
by the score of each indicator. Thus, the mean of weight and the mean of average
performance index and are used as coordinates for plotting individual indicators on a
two-dimensional matrix which has four quadrants as shown in Figure 2 until Figure 5.
This matrix will be used to prescribe prioritisation of indicators for improvement and can
provide guidance for strategy formulation. Specifically, the four quadrants in an IPA are
characterised as follows: concentrate here, keep up with the good work, low priority, and
possible overkill (Martilla and James, 1977). Concentrate here is a quadrant which has
high importance, but low performance; the indicators belong to this quadrant requires
immediate attention for improvement and are major weaknesses. Keep up the good work
is a quadrant which has high importance and high performance; the indicators belong to
this quadrant have opportunities for achieving or maintaining competitive advantage and
are major strengths. Low priority is a quadrant which has low importance and low
performance; the indicators belong to this quadrant are minor weaknesses and do not
require additional effort. Possible overkill is a quadrant which has low importance, but
high performance; this quadrant indicates that business resources committed to these
indicators would be overkill and should be deployed elsewhere.

Figure 2 Result of plotting individual indicators for large scale of enterprise in-house
manufacturing indoor (see online version for colours)

Figure 3 Result of plotting individual indicators for large scale of enterprise in-house
manufacturing outdoor (see online version for colours)
110 A. Susanty et al.

Figure 4 Result of plotting individual indicators for medium scale of enterprise in-house
manufacturing indoor (see online version for colours)

Figure 5 Result of plotting individual indicators for medium scale of enterprise in-house
manufacturing outdoor (see online version for colours)

In all categories of enterprises (large and medium scale –indoor and outdoor), indicator
recyclable waste/scrap (M4) was included in quadrant 1. It means this indicator had high
importance for GSCM practice, but the performance of this indicator still low. Although
both were in quadrant 1, score for recycling waste/scrap for in-house manufacturing
outdoor was higher than in-house manufacturing indoor. As stated before, most of in-
house manufacturing outdoor had implemented recycling waste/scrap. This condition was
related to the type of the product resulted. Most of the product produced by in-house
manufacturing outdoor has a simple design, so this product would have less waste wood.
The waste wood would also have size and dimension which were easier to use in making
the other product. Besides indicator recyclable waste/scrap, indicator purchase recycled
product (S2) was also included in quadrant 1 for medium scale of enterprise in-house
manufacturing indoor and outdoor; whereas indicator minimise energy use (P4) was
included in quadrant 1 only for medium scale of enterprise in-house manufacturing
indoor.

5 Conclusions

It seems that the supply chain of furniture industry is vulnerable to environmental

exploitations. So, it has become imperative to integrate the green or sustainable
management practices into their supply chain in order to reduce its impact to
environmental and maintain competitive advantage. Incorporating environmental
sustainability practices in the supply chain are often referred as green supply chain
management (GSCM) and the implementation of GSCM practices of furniture industry
 Using GreenSCOR to measure performance of the supply chain 111

need to be measured. So, based on this condition, the purpose of this study is to measure
and evaluate the performance of GSCM practice which have been done by some
enterprises in the furniture industry in Jepara, Central Java with greenSCOR approach
and propose some feedback system to this industry.
The result of measurement of the implementation of GSCM practices with
greenSCOR approach indicates that the enterprises in the category large scale have better
aggregate value compared with medium scale. The result of measurement also indicates
that in-house manufacturing outdoor has better aggregate value compared with in-house
manufacturing indoor. Then, indicator recyclable waste/scrap was included in quadrant 1
in all categories of enterprises (large and medium scale –indoor and outdoor). It means
this indicator had high importance for GSCM practice, but the performance of this
indicator still low. Although both were in quadrant 1, score for recycling waste/scrap for
in-house manufacturing outdoor was higher than in-house manufacturing indoor. As
stated before, most of in-house manufacturing outdoor had implemented recycling
waste/scrap. This condition was related to the type of the product resulted.
Although the research conducted in this paper is based on data collected by researcher
from the different category of furniture enterprises (in-house manufacturing large and
medium, indoor and outdoor), the methodology would advise a much larger geographical
applicability on assessing the implementation of GSCM practices with GreenSCOR
approach. In this study, sample of furniture enterprises only taken from one region. In
connection to this limitation, it is possible to carry out further research to see how the
issues look like in the other region by taking the furniture enterprises outside Jepara as a
sample of research. This study also has limitations due to the fact that this study does not
capture the differences between the GSCM practices in the furniture industry with their
economic or social performance. The next step for upcoming research is trying to
examine the relationship between the variations of GSCM practices with the economic
and social performance and conduct the statistical hypothesis testing about the
significance of those relationships.

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by the Directorate .of Higher Education, Ministry of Research and
Higher Education (Hibah Strategis Nasional No. 148-05/UN7.5.1/PG/2015).

References
Atlas, M. and Florida, R. (1998) ‘Green manufacturing’, Handbook of Technology Management,
[online] http://creativeclass.com/rfcgdb/articles/13%20Green%20Manufacturing.pdf
(accessed 15 August 2015).
Baby, S. (2013) ‘AHP modelling for multicriteria decision-making and to optimise strategies for
protecting coastal landscape resources’, International Journal of Innovation, Management and
Technology, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.218–227.
Barua, A., Chowdhury, Md.A.T.A., Mehidi, S.H. and Muhiuddin, H.M. (2014) ‘Residue reduction
and reuse in wooden furniture manufacturing industry’, International Journal of Scientific &
Engineering Research, Vol. 5, No. 10, pp.291–301.
Beamon, B.M. (1999) ‘Designing the green supply chain’, Logistics Information Management,
Vol. 14, No. 4, pp.332–342.
112 A. Susanty et al.

Bowen, F.E., Cousins, F.E., Lamming, R.C. and Faruk, A.C. (2001) ‘Horse for courses: explaining
the gap between the theory and practice of green supply’, Greener Management International,
Autumn, Vol. 35, pp.41–60.
Cash, R. and Wilkerson, T. (2003) GreenSCOR: Developing a Green Supply Chain Analytical Tool
(No. LMI-LG101T4), Logistics Management Inst., Mclean, VA.
Cheng, J.C.P., Law, K.H., Bjornsson, H., Jones, A. and Sriram, D. (2010) ‘Modelling and
monitoring of configuration of supply chains’, Advance Engineering Information, Vol. 24,
No. 4, pp.435–455.
Clausen, C.A. (2000) ‘CCA removal from treated wood using a dual remediation process’, Waste
Management & Research, Vol. 18, No 5, pp.485–488.
Hervani, A.A., Helms, M.M. and Sarkis, J. (2005) ‘Performance measurement for green supply
chain management’, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp.330–353.
Ho, J.C., Shalishali, M.K., Tseng, T. and Ang, D.S. (2009) ‘Opportunities in green supply chain
management’, The Coastal Business Journal, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp.18–31.
Hsu, C.W. and Hu, A.H. (2008) ‘Green supply chain management in the electronic industry’,
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp.205–216.
Huang, H.S., Sheoran, K.S. and Kestar, H. (2005) ‘Computer-assisted supply chain configuration
based on supply chain operation reference (SCOR) model’, Computer and Industrial
Engineering, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp.377–394.
Hwang, Y.D., Lin, Y. and Lyu, J. (2008) ‘The performance evaluation of SCOR sourcing process:
the case study of Taiwan’s TFT-LCD industry’, Industrial Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 115, No. 2, pp.411–423.
Kasi, V. (2005) ‘Systemic assessment of SCOR for modelling supply chains’, in System Sciences,
2005.HICSS’05. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on, IEEE,
January, pp.87b–87b.
Khedari, J., Nankongnab, N., Hirunlabh, J. and Teekasap, S. (2004) ‘New low-cost insulation
particleboards from mixture of durian peel and coconut coir’, Building and Environment, Vol.
39, No. 1, pp.59–65.
Li, L., Su, Q. and Chen, X. (2011) ‘Ensuring supply chain quality performance through applying
the SCOR model’, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp.33–57.
Ligthelm, A.A., Martins, J.H. and Van Wyk, H.D.J. (2005) Marketing Research in Practice,
Unisa Press, Pretoria.
Martilla, J.A. and James, J.C. (1977) ‘Importance-performance analysis’, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 41, No. 1, pp 77–79.
Melati, Purnomo, H. and Shantiko, B. (2013) Making Research Work for Small-Scale Furniture
Makers: Action Research in the Jepara Furniture Industry, Indonesia.CIFOR, Bogor,
Indonesia.
Min, H. and Zhou, G. (2002) ‘Supply chain modelling: past, present, future’, Computers &
Industrial Engineering, Vol. 43, Nos. 1–2, pp.231–249.
Nikbakhsh, E. (2009) Green Supply Chain Management, in Farahani, R.Z., Davarzani, H. and
Asgari, N. (Eds.): Supply Chain and Logistics in National, International and Governmental
Environment, pp.195–220, Physica-Verlag HD, Heidelberg.
Prestvik, A.S. (2009) Small-Scale Furniture Producers in Jepara.Survey Report, Annex 7, FVC
Annual Report 2010, CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
Purnomo, H. (2006) ‘Teak furniture and business responsibility: a global value chain dynamics
approach’, Economics and Finance in Indonesia, Vol. 54, No. 3pp.411–443.
Purnomo, H., Irawati, R.H., Fauzan, A.U. and Melati, M. (2011) ‘Scenario-based actions to
upgrade small-scale furniture producers and their impacts on women in Central Java,
Indonesia’, International Forestry Review, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp.152–162.
 Using GreenSCOR to measure performance of the supply chain 113

Rao, P. and Holt, D. (2005) ‘Do green supply chains lead to competitiveness and economic
performance?’, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 25,
No. 9, pp.898–916.
Rogers, D.S. and Tibben-Lembke, R.S. (1999).Going Backwards: reverse logistics trends and
practice, Reverse Logistics Executive Council, Pittsburgh, PA.
Saaty, T.L. (1995).’Decision making for leaders’, The Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decisions in
a Complex World, 1995/1996 ed., completely revised, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PA.
Salam, M.A. (2008).’Green procurement adoption in manufacturing supply chain’, Proceedings of
the 9th Asia Pasific Industrial Engineering & Management Systems Conference
(APIEMS2008), Indonesia, 3–5 December, Indonesia, pp.1253–1260.
Sarkis, J. (2003) ‘A strategic decision framework for green supply chain management’, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp.397–409.
SCC (2010) ‘Supply-chain operations reference-model’, SCOR Overview, Supply Chain Council,
USA.
Schoeman, C. and Sanchez, V.R. (2009) ‘Green supply chain overview and as South African case
study’, Proceeding of the 28th Southern African Transport Conference (SATC), Pretoria,
Africa, 6–9 July, pp.569–579.
Srivastava, S. (2007) ‘Green supply-chain management: a state-of-the-art literature review’,
International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.53–80.
Tesoro, F. and Tootson, J. (2000) Implementing Global Performance Measurement Systems – A
Cookbook Approach, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Trienekens, J.H. and Hvolby, H.H. (2000) ‘Performance measurement and improvement in supply
chain’, Proceedings of the third CINET Conference, Aalborg, 18–19 September, pp.399–409.
Watts, J.M. (1997) ‘Fire risk assessment using multi attribute evaluation’, Proceedings of the
5th International Symposium, Melbourne, Australia, 3–7 March, pp.679–690.
Yedla, S. and Shrestha, R.M. (2007) Application of Analytic Hierarchy Process to Prioritize Urban
Transport Options: Comparative Analysis of Group Aggregation Methods, WP-2007-011,
pp.1–23, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research.
Yovi, E.Y., Bahruni and Nurrochmat, D.R. (2009). `Sources of timber and constraints to the timber
acquisition of Japura’s small-scale furniture industries’, Journal of Tropical Forest
Management, Vol. XV, No. 1, pp.32–40.
Zhu, Q. and Sarkis, J. (2004) ‘Relationships between operational practices and performance among
early adopters of green supply chain management practices in Chinese manufacturing
enterprises’, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp.265–289.
Zikmund, G. and Babin, B.J. (2010) Exploring Marketing Research, 10th ed., South Western,
China.