International Journal of Mechanical and Production

Engineering Research and Development (IJMPERD)

ISSN(P): 2249-6890; ISSN(E): 2249-8001
Vol. 9, Issue 3, Jun 2019, 903-922
© TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.

DEVELOPING THE PLASTIC GREEN SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT

FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY TO

DELIVER THE SUSTAINABILITY NEEDS OF

PLASTIC PROCESSING INDUSTRIES

YOGESH P. DESHMUKH1 & Dr. ATUL B. BORADE2

1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, G H Raisoni College of Engineering & Management, Amravati, India
2
Principal, Government Polytechnic Institute, Vikramgad, District, Palghar, Maharashtra, India
ABSTRACT

By developing a competitive advantage, environmentally and socially friendly supply chain practices enable
businesses to achieve economic sustainability. Although issues related to extended producer responsibility (EPR) also
put additional pressure on businesses to develop green policies, plastic recycling is a legal requirement and can bring
benefits to the environment, social, health and safety. In order to promote a better understanding of the importance of

Original Article
supply chain management performance categories and metrics across its supply chain, we developed a methodological
framework for small and micro scale plastic processors. Performance metrics play an important role in setting plastic
green supply chain management framework, evaluating performance, and identifying future course of action.
The proposed framework for the plastic green supply chain (PGSCMF) outlines the taxonomy and implementation of
green supply chain practices in real business case studies. The framework will act as a flexible reference tool for
managers in the plastics companies of small and micro scale to bring greater continuity to undertake the necessary
improvements at a very local and specific level.

KEYWORDS: SCM, GSCM, PGSCM, PGSCMF, Performance Metrics & Performance Categories

Received: Mar 29, 2019; Accepted: Apr 19, 2019; Published: May 18, 2019; Paper Id.: IJMPERDJUN201999

INTRODUCTION

Plastics are clearly an important component of the range of materials that are used in modern society.
In India, the packaging sector reported 43% of resin consumption in 2017-18 [FICCI 2017]. In the developing
world, the use of plastics is increasing as the lower unit cost and performance specification improvements are
continuously promoting their substitution for materials such as paper, metals, wood and glass. While, nearly all
aspects of everyday life involve plastics in some form or the other, there are real and perceived issues related to
plastic processing industries sustainable credentials [FICCI 2017, Brockhaus et al., 2016 and Schulzeet al., 2017].
Plastic is invariably branded as a polluting material. Plastics, being a crude - derived polymer, consist of long carbon chains.
It takes them years to completely decompose. Improper disposal of plastics eventually leads to pollution of groundwater,
disturbance of soil microbial activity and release of carcinogenic chemicals in the atmosphere leading to problems of health
among humans. Because of this value chain imbalance, the other life forms are also affected by stray cattle feeding on
thrown-away plastics. These adverse effects alarm society and industry to ensure that plastics are properly disposed of.
In addition, the Indian plastics processing industry is highly fragmented, with most units being small and micro players.

www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal [email protected]

904 Yogesh P. Deshmukh & Dr. Atul B. Borade

The plastics market in India is dependent on labor - intensive equipment that has adversely affected productivity. In India, unreliable
power and high energy costs are also constraints that hamper capacity utilization compared to other countries[FICCI 2017].
Over 15,000 tons of plastic waste is produced in India every day. Eventually, a growing proportion of this plastic waste is found in
rural areas as the reach of retail dealers increases also with an increasing number of small and micro scale plastic processing
industries. [Swachh Bharat Mission, Plastic Waste Management, Draft Implementation Framework, Managing Plastics Waste in
Rural India]. Plastic is a sustainable choice only when properly recycled and disposed off to enable processors to compete
globally. This can be actually achieved primarily by segregating waste at source and promoting infrastructure for waste
management. If plastics can be collected and disposed of or recycled in accordance with the guidelines / rules then the
plastic waste issue can be addressed appropriately. There is wide ranging scope for industries that are based on plastic
waste recycling. This will not only deal with the issue of degradation of the environment, but will also create capital.
It will be a good idea to link plastic waste management with recycling industry prospects. Strategic shift of Indian plastic
processing industry from low - output / low - tech machines to high - output, high - tech machines which are energy
efficient is a necessity. [FICCI 2017, Bing X. et al., 2015 and Accorsi R. et al., 2014]

Supply Chain Management (SCM) has been identified as one of the key success areas for improving the
effectiveness of plastic processing industries. Collaboration between different firms seems to be an essential approach to
economic sustainability in order to mitigate the difficulty of acquiring their own competencies. Also, the issue of
environmental costs arises with the rapid changes that exist throughout the world. Developing a plastic supply chain to
control pollutant releases and enhance end-of-use waste recycling and further reprocessing can be a case of a green supply
chain management approach to address these environmental concerns. Pollution control regulations by the government can
also increase pressure on plastic processors. In addition, the environmental and social aspects are linked to the
responsibility of the plastic processor. It has been driven by government in the past as indicated by social practices, but
now firms need to take an initiative to lead the change [Kang S. H. et al., 2012]. Plastic waste should be actually treated as
a resource and perhaps formal recycling industries developed to recycle plastic component from the waste, thus creating
employment for rag pickers and absorbing them in the mainstream. In addition, promoting and maintaining health and
safety measures across the plastic supply chain has the greatest impact on stakeholders ' physical, mental and social
well-being and ensures that they are not harmed at any stage in the supply chain [Xu Jiuping et al., 2016].
Plastic processing companies and others in their supply chain can address these concerns successfully and build for future
growth through collaborative action.

This call for action led to the development of the Plastic Green Supply Chain Management Framework
(PGSCMF) in cooperation with a number of plastic processing companies. The implementation guide in this paper was
developed to support the implementation of the plastic green supply chain management framework (PGSCMF) regardless
of company’s size or position in the plastic supply chain. This paper is intended as a useful guidance tool for fulfilling
membership commitments made by members of the plastic supply chain; however it is not a membership requirement.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Literature review focuses mainly on previous studies that address sustainable issues related to business activities
in the forward and reverse supply chains.

Impact Factor (JCC): 7.6197 SCOPUS Indexed Journal NAAS Rating: 3.11
Developing the Plastic Green Supply Chain Management Framework 905
and Implementation Strategy to Deliver the Sustainability
Needs of Plastic Processing Industries
Exploring the Scope of Green Supply Chain Management

To achieve a greener supply chain and maintain competitive advantage, it is important to integrate environmental
management practices into the entire supply chain management[Abu Seman 2012]. The literature contains various
definitions of green supply chain management (GSCM). Accordingly, GSCM is defined by [Hervani A. A. & Sarkis J.
2005] as ranging from green purchases to integrated supply chains starting with suppliers, manufacturers, customers and
reverse logistics, which is "closing the loop." According to [Srivastava S. K. 2007], GSCM can be defined as, integrating
environmental thinking into supply chain management, including product design, supply and selection of materials,
manufacturing process, final product delivery to consumers and end-of-life management of the product after its useful
life[Kang S. H. et al. 2012]. Kang S. H. et al., established a framework for the development of a sustainable supply chain
based on managerial and research implications. [Chardine Baumann E. & Botta Genoulaz V. 2014]proposed a sustainable
performance framework characterizing a company's economic, environmental, social, health and safety sustainable
performance. [Sundarakani B. et al., 2010] examined the carbon footprint across supply chains and showed that carbon
emissions can pose a significant threat across stages in the supply chain that warrants careful attention during the design
phase of supply chains. [Eirini A. et al., 2013]proposed a methodological framework for carbon footprint management
throughout the supply chain and throughout the life cycle of the product. [Johanna A. B. & Jacobus D. 2011] checked
whether the conceptual framework is a workable tool for firms to analyze their supply chain designs. [Bing X. & Vander
Vorst J. 2015] gave an insight into emissions trading schemes (ETS) as a policy tool for emissions control that introduces
trade - offs between economic efficiency and environmental impacts in re-processing to facilitate the reverse supply chain
and prevent the spread of pollutants. It has become clear that best practices require environmental management to be
integrated with ongoing operations[Abu Seman 2012].

Green supply-chain management (GSCM) is gaining increasing interest among plastic processors all over the
world to tackle the probable risks in perspective of green supply chain. The past literature also shows that most researchers
in developed countries have been studying the adoption and implementation of GSCM in plastic processing industries. Still
limited studies have examined the GSCM practices across plastic processors in India.

Green Supply Chain Management in India

Green supply chain practice commonly is believed to represent the environmentally-friendly image of products,
process, systems and technologies, and how the business is conducted [Abu Seman 2012]. Concern about the
environmental issue has also rise the interest of researchers to investigate the adoption and implementation of green supply
chain management practices in India. The study conducted by [Diabat A. & Govindan K. 2011]identified the drivers
influencing the implementation of green supply chain management using an Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM)
methodology and extracted 11 drivers from past literature: certification of the environmental management system of
suppliers; environmental collaboration with suppliers; collaboration between product designers and suppliers to reduce the
number of drivers collected through past literature; [Mangla et al. 2015], from the point of view of Indian plastic industries,
analyzed the risks involved in implementing the green initiatives. For several years, Asia has been the world's largest
consumer of plastics, accounting for nearly 30% of global consumption. Following China, India is the second largest
growing consumer and offers enormous business opportunities by incorporating environmental consideration with
recycling and reuse operations. All India Plastics Manufacturers Association (AIPMA) report estimates that plastics is one
of India's major contributors to GDP, and plastic consumption will increase from the existing 8 million tons per year in

www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal [email protected]

906 Yogesh P. Deshmukh & Dr. Atul B. Borade

India to nearly 2-3 times per year in 2020 [Plastic News, 2013].

Scope for Biodegradable Plastic

A lot of literature has been written about biodegradable plastics. This is a good catchword, but if one looks a little
deeper, it can be seen that the promises made have major drawbacks. Biodegradable, single - use plastics can be composted
only in an industrial environment and will not be degraded in landfill sites. Many plastics labeled biodegradable, such as
shopping bags and thin gauge thermoformed food packaging, will only break down at temperatures above 50oC with UV
light compostable industrial environments. There are none of these conditions in the oceans or landfill or in the corner of
the street. Investing in industrial processes to compost biodegradable plastics does not make any sense when investing in
recycling conventional plastics for reuse is more resource efficient. Christine Schulze, et.al, also studied the quantitative
energy - related evaluation of manufacturing bioplastics compared to conventional plastics, resulting in similar specific
energy consumption (SEC) in the processing of bioplastics and petrochemical materials[Schulze C. & Thiede S. 2017].

“The main solution to plastic menace in the landfill and ocean is improved waste collection and recycling,
especially in the developing world" [UN Statement 2016].

Plastic Green Supply Chain Management (PGSCM) in India

In India, plastic consumption, including recycling, will amount to 26,600 tons by 2030 [Mutha et al. 2005&India
Ltd. Credit Rating and Information Services (CRISIL) 2007]. Because of its sustainability over other materials, plastics
consumption for packaging in India is about 42% [Golghate C. D. & Pawar M. S. 2012]. This indicates that the
environmental burden is increasing due to plastic packagings. In the case of plastic packagings due to non- degradability,
the non - conventional type of environmental burden is prominent. Furthermore, conventional environmental burdens are
all along the supply chain partners due to old technology, management style and practices [Chaouki Ghenai 2012].
More than 15,000 tons of plastic wastes are produced every day throughout India. An increasing proportion of this plastic
waste is eventually found in rural areas as the reach of retail corporations increases with an increasing numbers of small
and micro scale plastic processing industries [Swachh Bharat Mission, Plastic Waste Management, Draft Implementation
Framework, Managing Plastics Waste in Rural India, 2016]. In the opinion of [Golghate et al. 2015], the ‘design for
manufacturing’, ‘design for environment’, ‘design for energy’, ‘design for recyclability’ tools are the best alternatives for
reducing the environmental burdens of a plastic supply chain. The timely and economically viable implementation of the
PGSCM practices requires the selection of the right tools to form the framework. Choosing tools to reduce the
environmental burden depends on the intensity and net effect of the inventory release. Green supply chain literature
solutions and frameworks are too widespread, specifically as described by [Hervani A. A. & Sarkis J. 2005] ; due to non-
biodegradability and difficult to measure, the type of environmental burden imposed by plastic packaging, especially at the
end-of-life stage, is of very different nature.

Furthermore, as a small-scale industry, the plastic industry cannot provide resource support to evolve from time to
time with the customization of the framework and necessary upgrades. Therefore, implementation frameworks are always
required to be simplified, time-tested and cost-effective. The framework approach should address the economic,
environmental, social, health and safety concerns that are poorly measured and provide timely solutions for adoption.
It is clear from the literature that although the green supply chain is a better approach, it is lagging in use as the necessary
framework has yet to be developed. The next section describes the description of the framework.

Impact Factor (JCC): 7.6197 SCOPUS Indexed Journal NAAS Rating: 3.11
Developing the Plastic Green Supply Chain Management Framework 907
and Implementation Strategy to Deliver the Sustainability
Needs of Plastic Processing Industries
PGSCM Framework Description
How the Plastic Green Supply Chain Management Framework Works

The PGSCMF makes available an ‘umbrella’ mechanism for plastic processing industries to map and put together
existing green supply chain management activities along with other similar companies in a logical way.

It helps to identify opportunities for activity development and prioritization to enhance performance and clarify options for
making a more sustainable plastic processing industry. The objective is to act as the industry's flexible reference tool,
bringing greater continuity and providing guidance on individual and collaborative actions while continuing innovation in
approaches to address green supply chain management at a very specific and local level. The PGSCMF focuses on nineteen
key performance metrics grouped among four performance categories, identified as relevant to the Indian plastic
processing sector. The scope of the PGSCMF is the cradle to cradle plastic value supply chain. These nineteen
performance metrics were selected on the basis of an independent and in-depth analysis of over a hundred local plastic and
non - plastic stakeholder’s interviews. In addition to these metrics, more specific metrics may exist in a local context.

[*FP – Food Packaging, **NFP – Non-Food Packaging]

Figure 1: Plastic Green Supply Chain Management Framework (PGSCMF)

www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal [email protected]

908 Yogesh P. Deshmukh & Dr. Atul B. Borade

Figure 2: Performance Metrics

Strategic Goals of the PGSCMF

Each of the nineteen key metrics has a strategic goal. Strategic plastic green supply chain management framework
is what the case company has agreed to pursue in undertaking activities within each of the 19 metrics. In the PGSCMF
these are defined as:

Table 1: Strategic Goals of the PGSCMF

Performance Performance
Strategic Goal
Category Metric
Specific Energy Developing energy management team to conduct energy audit and
Consumption (SEC) arrest energy losses.
Achieving more output of product per unit of input of raw
Process waste
materials.
Unavoidable plastic process waste and end-of-use waste is recycled
Waste recycling
to the maximum extent.
Recyclate in RM mix Increase in reprocessing of recycled material.
Overall Equipment
Increase in manufacturing time that is truly productive.
Effectiveness (OEE)
Economic
Inbound and outbound Transportation management to reduce freight expenses and increase
Logistic overall supply chain efficiency.
Increasing the degree of automation and adopting lean tools and
Processing technology techniques to reduce production cost, increasing efficiency with
improved quality and reliability.
User phase of the Enabling users to effectively and efficiently achieve their end
product objective with a product.
Buyer- Suppliers
Maintaining good relationship with suppliers.
relationship level
Water availability, as well as water quality, is managed responsibly
Water consumption
throughout the plastic supply chain.
During plastic processing and logistics across the supply chain,
Green Warming
emissions that trap heat; CO2, CH4, and other GHG emissions are
Potential (GWP)
reduced through all economically viable mechanisms.
Environment To prevent damage to plants, animals and structures, the potential
Acidification Potential
for acidifying pollutants (SO2, NOx, HCl, NH3, HF) to form H+
(AP)
ions is controlled.
Photochemical
Provide adequate ventilation to ensure a healthy working
Oxidation Potential
environment, optimum plastic product quality and safety.
(POP)

Impact Factor (JCC): 7.6197 SCOPUS Indexed Journal NAAS Rating: 3.11
Developing the Plastic Green Supply Chain Management Framework 909
and Implementation Strategy to Deliver the Sustainability
Needs of Plastic Processing Industries
Environmental Efforts to improve environmental performance by reducing
management system polluting environmental releases.
Investment in renewable energy sources to reduce our dependence
Renewable energy
on fossil fuels and oil reserves.
Executing philanthropic activities like installing plastic waste
Living environment
collectors at public places.
Social Focus on end-of-use treatment of plastic products to increase
Extended producer
product recovery and minimize the impact of waste materials on the
responsibility (EPR)
environment.
Reduced lost-time injuries. Workers operate in a safe environment
lost-time injuries throughout the plastic supply chain and their rights (based on
Health and declarations accepted internationally) are respected and promoted.
Safety
Human toxicity Deterrence to toxic chemicals that can cause cancer or other
potential negative effects on humans.

Membership Commitments

The membership reporting commitments to the PGSCMF are shown below for a period of four years,

Table 2: Yearly Membership Reporting Commitments

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Review existing schemes
Implement new programs
Endorse the performance and modify them according
with indicators of Evaluate existing
categories, metrics and to PGSCMF metrics and
performance and schemes
strategic goals strategic goals as priorities
appropriate targets.
for the local region
Establish adequate control Relevant progress
Review or develop new Reporting to
mechanism within the firm reporting to the PGSCMF
indicators of performance PGSCMF of
to 'implement the controlling authority to
for existing schemes changes/progress
PGSCMF update existing schemes
Report to the PGSCMF Provide required reporting
Prioritize the nineteen
controlling authority all for aggregation and
metrics and strategic goals
new activity and profiling to PGSCMF
for the local region
performance targets controlling authority
Provide basic business and
existing scheme Provide progress reports to
information, including the PGSCMF Controlling
existing sustainability authority on existing
efforts, to the PGSCMF schemes
controlling authority.

Implementation Guide

Plastic processing systems vary widely throughout the world, with particularly noticeable variation between
developed and developing countries. There are differences in the local environment, regulations and interest of
stakeholders. It makes more sense to seek national / local implementation rather than striving to meet a global benchmark,
given that regions share similar challenges and opportunities for green supply chain management. The purpose of this
paper is to assist in facilitating the national / local implementation of the PGSCMF. This includes understanding the
obligation of members of the PGSCMF to effectively implement the PGSCMF. The PGSCMF takes a different approach to
other product sustainability programs and as such we have to make sure there is an adequate level of robustness in its
delivery process to comfort those interested in the plastic supply chain's sustainability performance. In order to quantify the

www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal [email protected]

910 Yogesh P. Deshmukh & Dr. Atul B. Borade

green supply chain performance of the plastic sector as a whole, a supply chain performance evaluation and measurement
method is developed to collect information on the implementation and subsequent performance of individual initiatives.
The spectrum of continuous improvements is a key part of the PGSCMF and is based on the approach of the international
PDCA, or Plan - Do - Check - Adjust. In the national / local implementation guide steps, the stages of the spectrum of
continuous improvements ('Plan’, 'Do’, ‘Check’, ‘Adjust') are actually worked through sequentially.

Activation Steps

The following eight steps are suggested to be followed while implementing the PGSCMF. These steps follow the
cycle of "Plan," "Do," "Check," "Adjust".

• Orientation on plastic green supply chain management

• Plastic green supply chain management commitment

• Prioritization of Material Issues

• Improvement planning

• Implementing the action plan

• Performance measurement

• Reporting and communication

• Continuous performance improvement

Facilitators support the steps and are critical to the PGSCMF implementation. The two facilitators identified by
PGSCMF are: 1.Firmscontrollingauthority2.Stakeholder engagement

Figure 3: PGSCMF Implementation Guide

Impact Factor (JCC): 7.6197 SCOPUS Indexed Journal NAAS Rating: 3.11
Developing the Plastic Green Supply Chain Management Framework 911
and Implementation Strategy to Deliver the Sustainability
Needs of Plastic Processing Industries
Link to ISO14000

The steps in this framework are derived from the internationally recognized ISO 14000 standard of best practices.
To understand the steps in more detail, it is recommended that members of the PGSCMF take time to consider the
implementation of ISO 14000 and publicly available guidelines. ISO 14000 provides guidance on how firms can operate in
a socially responsible manner, which means acting in an ethical and transparent manner that adds value to the
environmental and societal health and welfare. ISO 14000 helps clarify what social responsibility is and help firms to
translate principles into effective actions and provides good practice examples. It is intended for all types of firms
irrespective of their activity, size or location.

Facilitators
Controlling Authority of the Firm

In order to integrate green supply chain management successfully within the firm, it is essential to design and
operate decision - making systems to incorporate green supply chain management - based principles. Firms controlling
authority structure is an ongoing process, similar to stakeholder engagement. This process is essential as it will support
efforts to ensure successful implementation of supply chain activities and planning. It is essential to have a good authority
structure from the outset to implement a plastic green supply chain approach. Depending on the firm’s organizational
structure, the authoritative control required will differ, but it is generally important to have commitment from the
management and suppliers. It is also advisable, when working together in a regional approach, to set up a steering group,
including high - level representatives from plastic producers and their processors, to support the entire process and provide
steering opportunities.

Stakeholders Engagement

Stakeholders are individuals or groups interested in any firm’s decision or activity. The firm should understand its
relationship between the stakeholders and society (recognizing that stakeholders belong to society and have specific
interests). This means taking into consideration the decisions and activities that have an overall impact on society, animals
and the environment as well as the identified specific stake holders. In general, how many stakeholders should be involved
is difficult to describe. The first step is to prepare stakeholders overview based on local and national knowledge.
Prioritization can be carried out on the basis of criteria such as influence and impact on the enterprises. The involvement of
stakeholders involves two-way discussions on the best way to work together. It is an integral and continuing part of the
process of activation and is not a one - time exercise. It is recommended to engage with stakeholders at each step and
genuinely seek input from them.

While stakeholder engagement can be new and challenging for the business but it can be very rewarding.
This is actually where the PGSCMF's power is expressed. It doesn't rely on a group sitting in an office where the
authorities decide what is important for an enterprise in greening its supply chain. It is the plastic processing company and
the local stakeholders who work together and agree on issues, mitigation programs, success measures, evaluating and
reporting the progress together.

To benefit fully from this process, one must first ensure that management is aware of the ongoing nature of
involvement of stakeholders and is comfortable with it. Do not try to involve all stakeholders on all issues initially. Instead:

www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal [email protected]

912 Yogesh P. Deshmukh & Dr. Atul B. Borade

• Consolidate stakeholders systematically and plan engagement.

• Focus on areas where the plastic processor and its stakeholders can most realistically move forward together
within the limits of the firm and their resources in the field of green supply chain management.

Plastic processor is at risks and misses opportunities if it does not engage the external stakeholders.
If the company communicates the plans, there are risks of external stakeholders not agreeing to the identified green supply
chain management challenges and will attempt to undermine the green supply chain management activities. They can
support the plans if the plastic processor engages with the stakeholders and build support within their own communities.

Actual Example to Support Imple mentation

In this research, a case study of a small-scale thermoformed plastic packaging manufacturing company located in
the western region of India was identified taking into account the business opportunities in this sector. It manufactures thin
-gauge, single-use food packaging such as cups, plates and containers. According to [Throne J. L., 2003], as with all
processes, thermoforming generates a certain amount of process waste and larger amount of end-of-use waste. However,
100 percent of this waste can be granulated and reversed for reprocessing in the supply chain, allowing the plastic
processors to reuse this material over and over again. Although in food packaging, because of the constraint of meeting
food grade standards of cleanliness and hygiene, there is no use of 100% recycled materials. However, re-processors are
actually using 100% recycled raw material for a large number of non-food products. The use of energy is monitored
closely, not only for environmental reasons, but also for evident commercial reasons. If more is the wastage of energy, the
higher the operating costs, the less competitive will become a supply chain. The case company has invested in the latest
machinery with the latest efficiencies to keep the prices as low as possible in order to remain competitive. Therefore, it is
clear that the market will dictate that energy efficient plastic processing units will survive in the long term [Nandy B. et al.,
2015].

Figure 4: Sustainability Needs of Plastic Processing Industries

Impact Factor (JCC): 7.6197 SCOPUS Indexed Journal NAAS Rating: 3.11
Developing the Plastic Green Supply Chain Management Framework 913
and Implementation Strategy to Deliver the Sustainability
Needs of Plastic Processing Industries

Figure 5: Case Study Example- Plastic Thermoforming Green Supply Chain Management

Management Process
Orientation on Plastic Green Supply Chain Management

Green supply chain management covers a wide area. For companies with no experience in this field, an
orientation phase can be very useful. The content of the green supply chain management field can be investigated in this
orientation phase, stakeholders expectations can be explored and competitive steps can be developed in the market.

Plastic Green Supply Chain Management Commitment

To successfully implement the PGSCMF, Management in the company is crucial that agrees and commits to
sustainability. Management plays an important role in decision-making on strategic direction, planning, policy and
standards, availability of resources, change in culture and budget. All of these are important components of embedding
green supply chain management practices within a plastic processing company, so it is critical that management is
supportive and knows what is needed to implement the PGSCMF. Sustainability commitments can already be stated in
existing policies, public commitment, documents or past strategies. If that's the case, then check for alignment with the
vision and nineteen metrics of the PGSCMF. Firms are recommended to use the vision of the PGSCMF in the early
development phase; this provides a suitable and aligned starting point.

Vision statement: A vibrant plastics industry committed to continuously enhancing its capacity to deliver
sustainability in economic, environmental, social and health & safety.

Prioritization of Material Issues

This step is to evaluate each of the nineteen PGSCMF metrics. Materiality analysis comprises identifying what is
important for the plastic processing company and its stakeholders. Discovering what is ‘material’ in the action planning
step will help the company focus on what it needs to do. A plastic processing company cannot do it all at once, after all.
Some metrics are more relevant than others and it is necessary to determine these. The steps below are an example of how
to analyze 'material' issues.

www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal [email protected]

914 Yogesh P. Deshmukh & Dr. Atul B. Borade

Step1: Identification

The first step is to identify the green supply chain management issues that are most relevant to the particular
situation using the nineteen key metrics as a starting point with the firm’s organizational structure including stakeholders.
These are comprehensive and they provide necessary structure for investigating which issues are most relevant to local or
national circumstances.

Step2: Prioritization

The next step is to prioritize these issues upon identifying the list of relevant material issues.
A ranking methodology must be designed to prioritize. There are different ways to rank, but in this collaborative process,
whatever method is chosen, the perspectives of stakeholders need to be considered.

Step3: Review

After the list has been reduced to priority issues, Management should verify and confirm that these are relevant
issues the company should focus on improvements and efforts in action planning. As noted above, the PGSCMF is not
about simultaneously delivering activity on all 19 metrics. It is about identifying which are the most important with the
stakeholders, through a process of prioritization, and then collaboratively determining what to do to address these
identified and prioritized metrics.

Improvement Planning

The next step to activate the PGSCMF is developing action plans on the basis of priorities. Dealing should begin
by conducting a current evaluation of the prioritized metrics, followed by analyzing the gap closure. Once gaps are
identified, it is important to identify and focus in order to address the challenging criteria before writing an implementation
plan. It is best practice to work with the stakeholders in this process to choose which gap activities to implement.
There are also many options for selecting activities. Below is an example involving three steps:

• Impact – What are the needs and potential benefits, risks and opportunities of stakeholders?

• Capability – What are these activities going to cost?

• Visibility – are these activities going to create momentum for greater change?

The next step is to draft the action plan after selecting which activities to pursue. Suggestions for consideration
when drawing up the plan are given below:

• Identify material issues and relevant PGSCMF metrics.

• Explain the desired goals to be achieved by the firm.

• Provide processing descriptions - which allow supply chain members to use creativity and exercise moral
responsibility. For instance, if the plastic green supply chain management framework cannot be achieved by any
supply chain member, a list can be drawn up together with possible applications.

• Maintain the plan realistic.

Impact Factor (JCC): 7.6197 SCOPUS Indexed Journal NAAS Rating: 3.11
Developing the Plastic Green Supply Chain Management Framework 915
and Implementation Strategy to Deliver the Sustainability
Needs of Plastic Processing Industries
• Allocate sufficient resources within the company organization (money, people with authority, time) to make it
work and support its supply chain members with workshops, organizing processes, etc.

• Set deadlines and key milestones for the completion and assessment of the plan, including reporting to
stakeholders.

This plan will form part of future reports and involvement of stakeholders. This can be used by the plastic
processor, stakeholders and auditors to assess the commitment to ongoing progress in implementing the PGSCMF.

Operational Process
Implementing the Action Plan

The most important step in the process is the implementation of the green supply chain management plan.
After all, without proper implementation the whole process means generating a lot of paper. Implementing activities to
close the gaps involves all supply chain partners. This includes plastic processors, suppliers, distributors, dealers and
plastic recyclers from third parties. Making the plan 'real' necessitates community and stakeholder support. People need to
be educated to understand the importance of source segregation at the point of generation as biodegradable and plastic for
proper waste management. It is usually best practice to start raising awareness of the plan or activities among supply chain
members and stakeholders, and then follow up by constantly showing progress and 'easy wins’, like cost savings (e.g. gains
in energy efficiency) and controlling environmental pollutant releases. Effectively implemented, these will build buy-in
over time for the plan and momentum for other green supply chain management initiatives to be adopted. One can
communicate the progress and success among the stakeholders (through the Self - imposed process of evaluation).

Control Processes
Performance Measurement

Performance measurement and recording indicators are an essential part of the green supply chain management
embedding process. It is necessary to establish a valid performance measurement system to provide objective proof that the
activities undertaken meet the comprehensive metrics of the PGSCMF's strategic goal statement.

The following table provides an example of a performance indicator per metric used in the measuring process.

Table 3: Performance Indicators

Relevant
Category Metric Performance Indicator Objectives
Area
Specific Energy ℎ Energy efficient plastic
Processing
Consumption (SEC) . processing
% of total plastic
Process waste Efforts to reduce waste Processing
processed
Reduce landfill by
Waste recycling % of waste recycles Processing
recycling
Economic Processing,
Recyclate in RM
% of virgin plastic resin Reprocessing Third party
mix
recyclers
Overall Equipment Availability x
Improved productivity Processing
Effectiveness (OEE) Performance x Quality
To reduce freight expenses Suppliers,
Inbound and Saving in diesel
and increase overall Processing,
outbound Logistic consumption
supply chain efficiency. Marketing

www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal [email protected]

916 Yogesh P. Deshmukh & Dr. Atul B. Borade

Processing Maximum throughput and

Increased efficiency Processing
technology energy efficient processing
User phase of the
Customer satisfaction Market
product
Buyer- Suppliers
Retention ratio Healthy relationship Market
relationship level
Water consumption Units (1 unit= 1000 ltrs.) Processing
Green Warming Reduction in emissions Processing,
CO2 equivalents
Potential (GWP) that trap heat Logistics
Acidification Reduce Your Carbon Processing,
SO2 equivalents
Potential (AP) Footprint. Logistics
Photochemical Avoid chemicals and
Environment Processing,
Oxidation Potential C2H4 equivalents vehicles that release high
Logistics
(POP) levels of VOCs
Environmental Accreditation
Standardization of system Processing
management system ISO 14000
Reduce our dependence on
Renewable energy Return on Investment Processing
fossil fuels
Preferred location by
Living environment Clean public places Public places
society
Social Price of the product Reduction in
Extended producer
includes the cost of its safe environmental impact of Public places
responsibility (EPR)
disposal the waste
Lost-time injuries Fatality or injury Good working conditions Processing
Practices of burning
plastic trash should be
Health & eliminated, not only Processing,
Human toxicity 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-
Safety because of dioxins, but logistics,
potential p-dioxin
also to curb carcinogenic Public places
polyaromatic
hydrocarbons.

Reporting and Communication

The report can be used to engage the stakeholders, customers, shareholders and investors. The report documents
the PGSCMF commitments and action plan over time to address the identified material issues and improvements. The
report creation provides an opportunity to the companies who adopted PGSCMF to reflect, evaluate and assess their
efforts. At the same time, for the years to come, one can make suggestions and changes to the plans. Not only does the
report help others to understand the business, it also helps to connect current efforts with the future. Reporting is an
important step in improving continuously.

Continuous Performance Improvement

The process of measuring, analyzing and reporting leads to information on the next challenges in the
implementation of the PGSCMF. Improvement may involve small steps or major steps - the main objective is to improve.
Green supply chain management work is an ongoing process that can be followed only by continuous improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Governing a green supply chain for plastics is an endless process. Meanwhile, as society and the environment
change, the material issues will change, so it is important that the steps outlined in this paper should be re-evaluated every
year. Firstly a gap analysis was undertaken to identify any gaps in the coverage to support the plastic processor in working

Impact Factor (JCC): 7.6197 SCOPUS Indexed Journal NAAS Rating: 3.11
Developing the Plastic Green Supply Chain Management Framework 917
and Implementation Strategy to Deliver the Sustainability
Needs of Plastic Processing Industries
towards the metrics and strategic goals of the PGSCMF. It is important to note that good management of any plastic supply
chain is the basis of economic, environmental, social and health & safety sustainability of the system. It therefore pays first
attention to effective planning and management of the supply chain as a whole.

Not only are these records important for supply chain agreements or legal responsibilities as evidence, they are
also an invaluable resource for quantifying the continuous green supply chain performance and improving the plastic
processing unit. Records can be used for year-to-year performance as a benchmark / comparator based on varying levels of
input / practices even at their most basic level. Without these, changes in output performance are extremely difficult to
appreciate.

Economic Sustainability

• Plastic business viability – Considering the potential for increased productivity, mix of supply chain businesses,
product quality, stakeholder health and safety, market opportunities and access.

Social Sustainability

• Social and Human capital – Ensure that all those responsible for the plastic supply chain are provided with the
appropriate skills and knowledge to fulfill their responsibilities and have an appropriate and legal working
environment.

• Local community /economy - The plastics business must look for ways to contribute to the resilience and vitality
of the local community

Environmental Sustainability

• Water –Water is managed proactively and strategically in a sustainable manner.

• Energy – Continuously strive to optimize energy consumption by prioritizing renewable energy inputs into the
plastic processing system

• Waste – It is the responsibility of the plastic processing company to reduce, reuse and, if necessary, recycle or
disposal of waste in a safe manner that does not cause pollution.

Health and Safety Sustainability

• Protecting workers safety in plastics processing companies is an important part of managing health and safety.

• Standardizing the working systems with warning signs, labels and instruction.

• Plastic processing companies need to prevent their employees being injured as a result of manual handling
activities by introducing automation in material handling

www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal [email protected]

918 Yogesh P. Deshmukh & Dr. Atul B. Borade

REFERENCES

1. Abu Seman, N. A. (2012). Green Supply Chain Management: A Review and Research Direction. International Journal of
Managing Value and Supply Chains, 3(1), 1–18.

2. Accorsi, R., Cascini, A., Cholette, S., Manzini, R., & Mora, C. (2014). Economic and environmental assessment of reusable
plastic containers: A food catering supply chain case study. International Journal of Production Economics, 152, 88–101.

3. Alzaman, C. (2014). Green supply chain modelling: literature review. International Journal of Business Performance and
Supply Chain Modelling, 6(1), 16.

4. Beamon, B. M. (1999). Measuring supply chain performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
19(3), 275–292.

5. Bing, X., Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J., Chaabane, A., & van der Vorst, J. (2015). Global reverse supply chain redesign for
household plastic waste under the emission trading scheme. Journal of Cleaner Production, 103, 28–39.

6. Brockhaus, S., Petersen, M., & Kersten, W. (2016). A crossroads for bioplastics: exploring product developers’ challenges to
move beyond petroleum-based plastics. Journal of Cleaner Production, 127, 84–95.

7. Carter, C. R., & Rogers, D. S. (2008). A framework of sustainable supply chain management: moving toward new theory.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 38(5), 360–387.

8. Chandra, C., & Kumar, S. (2001). Enterprise architectural framework for supply‐chain integration. Industrial Management &
Data Systems, 101(6), 290–304.

9. Chaouki Ghenai, (2012). Life Cycle Assessment of Packaging Materials for Milk and Dairy Products. Int. J. of Thermal &
Environmental Engineering Volume 4, No. 2, 117-128.

10. Chardine-Baumann, E., & Botta-Genoulaz, V. (2014). A Framework for Sustainable Performance Assessment of Supply Chain
Management Practices. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 76, 138–147.

11. Chen, I. J., & Paulraj, A. (2004). Understanding supply chain management: critical research and a theoretical framework.
International Journal of Production Research, 42(1), 131–163.

12. Chiou, T.-Y., Chan, H. K., Lettice, F., & Chung, S. H. (2011). The influence of greening the suppliers and green innovation on
environmental performance and competitive advantage in Taiwan. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and
Transportation Review, 47(6), 822–836.

13. Cigolini, R., Cozzi, M., & Perona, M. (2004). A new framework for supply chain management. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, 24(1), 7–41.

14. Closs, D. J., & Mollenkopf, D. A. (2004). A global supply chain framework. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(1), 37–44.

15. Deshpande, A. R. (2012). Supply Chain Management Dimensions, Supply Chain Performance and Organizational
Performance: An Integrated Framework. International Journal of Business and Management, 7(8).

16. Diabat, A., & Govindan, K. (2011). An analysis of the drivers affecting the implementation of green supply chain management.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55(6), 659–667.

17. Dillon, P. S. Recycling infrastructure for engineering thermoplastics: a supply chain analysis. Proceedings of the 1999 IEEE
International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment (Cat. No.99CH36357).

18. Eirini A., Eleftherios I., Dimitrios V. & Christos K. (2013). A Methodological Framework for Supply Chain Carbon Footprint
Management, The Italian Association of Chemical Engineering, Vol. 35.

Impact Factor (JCC): 7.6197 SCOPUS Indexed Journal NAAS Rating: 3.11
Developing the Plastic Green Supply Chain Management Framework 919
and Implementation Strategy to Deliver the Sustainability
Needs of Plastic Processing Industries
19. Estampe, D., Lamouri, S., Paris, J.-L., & Brahim-Djelloul, S. (2013). A framework for analysing supply chain performance
evaluation models. International Journal of Production Economics, 142(2), 247–258.

20. FICCI and TATA Strategic Management Group, “Knowledge Paper on Plastic Industry for Infrastructure”, 3rd National
Conference on Sustainable Infrastructure with Plastics, February 2017.

21. Golghate, C. D., & Pawar, M. S. (2012). Green supply chain for plastic films: A framework for the coexistence of ecosystems
and plastic industry for a better environment. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 5(1), 17–32.

22. Grover, V., & Malhotra, M. K. (2003). Transaction cost framework in operations and supply chain management research:
theory and measurement. Journal of Operations Management, 21(4), 457–473.

23. Kinoti, M. W. (2011). Green marketing intervention strategies and sustainable development: A conceptual paper. International
Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(23).

24. Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C., & McGaughey, R. E. (2004). A framework for supply chain performance measurement.
International Journal of Production Economics, 87(3), 333–347.

25. Hervani, A. A., Helms, M. M., & Sarkis, J. (2005). Performance measurement for green supply chain management.
Benchmarking: An International Journal, 12(4), 330–353.

26. Huysman, S., Debaveye, S., Schaubroeck, T., Meester, S. D., Ardente, F., Mathieux, F., & Dewulf, J. (2015). The recyclability
benefit rate of closed-loop and open-loop systems: A case study on plastic recycling in Flanders. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, 101, 53–60.

27. Johanna A. B. & Jacobus D. N.A (2011). Conceptual Framework to Analyse Supply Chain Designs, Acta Commercii.

28. Kang, S.-H., Kang, B., Shin, K., Kim, D., & Han, J. (2012). A theoretical framework for strategy development to introduce
sustainable supply chain management. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 40, 631–635.

29. King, A. M., Burgess, S. C., Ijomah, W., & McMahon, C. A. (2006). Reducing waste: repair, recondition, remanufacture or
recycle? Sustainable Development, 14(4), 257–267.

30. Lambert, D. M., & Cooper, M. C. (2000). Issues in Supply Chain Management. Industrial Marketing Management, 29(1), 65–
83.

31. Lambert, D. M., García-Dastugue, S. J., & Croxton, K. L. (2005). An Evaluation of Process-oriented Supply Chain
Management Frameworks. Journal of Business Logistics, 26(1), 25–51.

32. Li, S., Ragu-Nathan, B., Ragu-Nathan, T. S., & Subba Rao, S. (2006). The impact of supply chain management practices on
competitive advantage and organizational performance. Omega, 34(2), 107–124.

33. Liu, X., Tanaka, M., & Matsui, Y. (2009). Economic evaluation of optional recycling processes for waste electronic home
appliances. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(1), 53–60.

34. Maloni, M. J., & Brown, M. E. (2006). Corporate Social Responsibility in the Supply Chain: An Application in the Food
Industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 68(1), 35–52.

35. Mangla, S. K., Kumar, P., & Barua, M. K. (2015). Prioritizing the responses to manage risks in green supply chain: An Indian
plastic manufacturer perspective. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 1, 67–86.

36. Matopoulos, A., Vlachopoulou, M., Manthou, V., & Manos, B. (2007). A conceptual framework for supply chain collaboration:
empirical evidence from the agri-food industry. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 12(3), 177–186.

www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal [email protected]

920 Yogesh P. Deshmukh & Dr. Atul B. Borade

37. Nooriafshar, M. (2015, December). Incorporating case studies into the university courses to heighten awareness about
greenhouse gas emissions for a product from seed to supermarket. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Symposium on
Business and Social Sciences (TISSS 2015)(pp. 219-224). TISSS.

38. Mavi, R. K., Goh, M., & Zarbakhshnia, N. (2017). Sustainable third-party reverse logistic provider selection with fuzzy
SWARA and fuzzy MOORA in plastic industry. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 91(5-8),
2401–2418.

39. Min, H., & Kim, I. (2012). Green supply chain research: past, present, and future. Logistics Research, 4(1-2), 39–47.

40. Min, S., & Mentzer, J. T. (2004). Developing and Measuring Supply Chain Management Concepts. Journal of Business
Logistics, 25(1), 63–99.

41. Murphy, C. F., Dillon, P. S., & Pitts, G. E. Economic and logistical modeling for regional processing and recovery of
engineering thermoplastics. Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment.
2001 IEEE ISEE (Cat. No.01CH37190).

42. Nandy, B., Sharma, G., Garg, S., Kumari, S., George, T., Sunanda, Y., & Sinha, B. (2015). Recovery of consumer waste in
India – A mass flow analysis for paper, plastic and glass and the contribution of households and the informal sector.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 101, 167–181.

43. New, S. J. (1996). A framework for analysing supply chain improvement. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 16(4), 19–34.

44. Trivedi, A. (2015). Green Hrm: Traditions and Designed Effortin the Organizations. BEST Int. J. Manag. Inf. Technol.
Eng.(BEST IJMITE), 3(12), 29-36.

45. Peck, H. (2005). Drivers of supply chain vulnerability: an integrated framework. International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, 35(4), 210–232.

46. Pochampally, K. K., Gupta, S. M., & Govindan, K. (2009). Metrics for performance measurement of a reverse/closed-loop
supply chain. International Journal of Business Performance and Supply Chain Modelling, 1(1), 8.

47. Ritchie, B., & Brindley, C. (2007). Supply chain risk management and performance. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 27(3), 303–322.

48. Romano, P., & Vinelli, A. (2001). Quality management in a supply chain perspective. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 21(4), 446–460.

49. Schultmann, F., Zumkeller, M., & Rentz, O. (2006). Modeling reverse logistic tasks within closed-loop supply chains: An
example from the automotive industry. European Journal of Operational Research, 171(3), 1033–1050.

50. Schulze, C., Juraschek, M., Herrmann, C., & Thiede, S. (2017). Energy Analysis of Bioplastics Processing. Procedia CIRP, 61,
600–605.

51. Pant, M., & Virdi, A. S. (2018). Sustainability and Scalability of Green Product Purchase Intention. Available at SSRN
3095480.

52. Seuring, S., & Müller, M. (2008). From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain
management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15), 1699–1710.

53. Simatupang, T. M., & Sridharan, R. (2005). An integrative framework for supply chain collaboration. The International
Journal of Logistics Management, 16(2), 257–274.

Impact Factor (JCC): 7.6197 SCOPUS Indexed Journal NAAS Rating: 3.11
Developing the Plastic Green Supply Chain Management Framework 921
and Implementation Strategy to Deliver the Sustainability
Needs of Plastic Processing Industries
54. Srivastava, S. K. (2007). Green supply-chain management: A state-of-the-art literature review. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 9(1), 53–80.

55. Stank, T. P., Davis, B. R., & Fugate, B. S. (2005). A Strategic Framework for Supply Chain Oriented Logistics. Journal of
Business Logistics, 26(2), 27–46.

56. Stewart, G. (1997). Supply chain operations reference model (SCOR): the first cross-industry framework for integrated
supply-chain management. Logistics Information Management, 10(2), 62–67.

57. Sundarakani, B., de Souza, R., Goh, M., Wagner, S. M., & Manikandan, S. (2010). Modeling carbon footprints across the
supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 128(1), 43–50.

58. Svensson, G. (2007). Aspects of sustainable supply chain management (SSCM): conceptual framework and empirical example.
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 12(4), 262–266.

59. Tan, K. C. (2001). A framework of supply chain management literature. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply
Management, 7(1), 39–48.

60. Throne J. L., 2003, “Thermoforming”, Encyclopedia of Polymer Science and Technology.

61. Tyagi, M., Kumar, P., & Kumar, D. (2015). Analysis of interactions among the drivers of green supply chain management.
International Journal of Business Performance and Supply Chain Modelling, 7(1), 92.

62. Wong, W. P. (2009). Performance evaluation of supply chain in stochastic environment: using a simulation based DEA
framework. International Journal of Business Performance and Supply Chain Modelling, 1(2/3), 203.

63. Xu, J., Jiang, X., & Wu, Z. (2016). A Sustainable Performance Assessment Framework for Plastic Film Supply Chain
Management from a Chinese Perspective. Sustainability, 8(10), 1042.

www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal [email protected]