Accepted Manuscript

Application of DEMATEL approach to identify the influential indicators towards

sustainable supply chain adoption in the auto components manufacturing sector

Yongbo Li, K. Mathiyazhagan

PII: S0959-6526(17)32793-2
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.120
Reference: JCLP 11259

To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 27 September 2017

Revised Date: 13 November 2017
Accepted Date: 16 November 2017

Please cite this article as: Li Y, Mathiyazhagan K, Application of DEMATEL approach to identify the
influential indicators towards sustainable supply chain adoption in the auto components manufacturing
sector, Journal of Cleaner Production (2017), doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.120.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Application of DEMATEL approach to identify the influential indicators towards

sustainable supply chain adoption in the auto components manufacturing sector

1
Yongbo Lia 1
K. Mathiyazhaganb

PT
a：School of Economics and Management, China University of Petroleum（east China）,
Qingdao, 266580, P. R. China
b: Mechanical Engineering, The Northcap University, Gurgaon, India.

RI
Abstract:
The problem of industrial pollution has increased globally at presently. Countries across the globe are

SC
aware of the concept of sustainable implementation in industries from a local to the global level to reduce pollution.
Recent research supported this by focusing on Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) rather than Multinational
Corporations (MNC). Sustainability development is a key to ensure control of the hazards and pollution in

U
traditional activities. In India, many SMEs are involved in manufacturing varied products and services for
customers. The auto component manufacturing sector is playing as an important role in the Indian economy by
AN
creating numerous job opportunities. Based on this, researchers gave special attention to auto components SMEs in
sustainable development (SD) because of pollution which harms the environment. Analysis of SD is an essential
activity for industries to ensure environmental improvement. Analyzing the indicators for SD helps confirm the
M

development of sustainability in industries. However, analyzing the indicators for SD is a challenge for managers
and needs detailed analysis and significant effort. Indicator analysis is a vague concept for managers who lack
D

alternatives to evaluate SD in their industry. The aim of this present paper is to develop a set of measurement
indicators for SD from literature. This paper, with the help of discussions with experts and Decision-making Trial
TE

and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) methodology analyzes sustainable development indicators in the auto
components sectors. Fifteen SD indicators were considered for this study from a relevant literature background.
These SD indicators indicate the industries’ sustainable development. Based on their interest, a questionnaire for
EP

this study was circulated among 35 leading auto components manufacturing SMEs in North India. This study will
identify the influential indicator for SD based on experts' judgments through a pairwise comparison matrix. The
results from the study clearly states that Indian auto component manufacturing industries believe that among the
C

fifteen listed indicators, carbon management indicator helps in measuring sustainable development. Due to this
AC

reason, embedded or embodied carbon (SI2) indicator plays an influential role. Finally, the study concludes with
insights about the future path of sustainability performance in a developing country like India.

Keywords: Sustainable Development; Sustainable indicator; Auto components manufacturing industry; DEMATEL

1
corresponding author ([email protected])

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1. Introduction
The United Nations World Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro (1992)
discussed and informed to the world that the new market is based on sustainable development of industries due to
demand from customers (Wilson et al., 2007). Customers are highly aware and conscious about balanced and
healthy ecological systems (Shaharudin et al., 2017). From this, it is clear that sustainability evaluation is more
important than economic development. Sustainable development (SD) attracts more importance due to the

PT
increasing complexity of global supply chains. The SD will bring the competitive benefits for businesses by
enabling them to develop firm-specific social or environmental capabilities that competitors cannot imitate easily

RI
(Voegtlin and Scherer, 2017). Vachon and Mao (2008) stated that, SD lays emphasis on environmental management
and social practices. Three dimensions of SD are measured and tested for their relation with supply chain strength:
(i) environmental performance, (ii) corporate environmental practices, and (iii) social sustainability. The adoption of

SC
SD needs the co-operation from all the levels of the industry; from multinational corporations (MNCs) to Small and
Medium Enterprises (SMEs). Generally, SMEs are required to ensure sustainable improvement by adopting
sustainable practices that ensure environment-friendly activities. In the Indian context, such practices are a concern

U
as industries in India have not adopted environmental management systems in their activities. On this, basis, it can
AN
be pointed out that (Nguyen et al., 2015; Northey et al., 2013) without reasonable pressure or stress from the
external sources like customers, government regulations, etc., industries are not willing to incorporate sustainable
practices (Muduli et al., 2013; Wang et al. 2016; Luthra et al., 2017; Govindan et al., 2017). Following this, due to
M

an increasing consciousness of environmental issues, customers are demanding environmental products which
ensure a green image (Diabat et al. 2014; Liu et al., 2010; Lorek and Spangenberg, 2014). Especially, India tops the
world in pollution-related deaths, accounting for 2.5 million of the total 9 million deaths attributed to pollution
D

worldwide in 2015, according to a recent report by the Lancet Commission on Pollution and Health (India tops the
TE

world in pollution-related deaths, 2017). Indian industries are under pressure from customers, environmental
regulation and foreign deposit investors due to which they recently started implementing sustainability concepts in
traditional supply chain management (TSCM). From Muduli et al.’s (2013) statement, it is evident that Indian
EP

industries have awareness about sustainable development and are beginning to adopt sustainable development
practices gradually in their current activities.
C

Researchers and practitioners have shown interest in measuring the environmental performance of supply
chains (Jia et al., 2014; Solemani et al., 2017; Govindan et al., 2017; Kannan, 2017). According to the researchers
AC

view, environmental performance is not a standalone concept, but is based on economic, social, and environmental
improvement. Improvements of sustainability are based on measuring performance, and it is a very hard task as
many companies lack the concern to update and maintain sustainability performance in their industry. Hence,
industries need a sustainable performance measurement system to improve and check sustainability levels after
adopting SD practices.
The aim of this paper is to analyze SD through indicators and identify a key sustainability indicator which
shows better development in the Indian auto component sector. Initially, from the literature review identified the
fifteen indicators for the study. Also, these indicators suit Indian SMEs to check SD. Discussions with relevant

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

industry experts like managers and experts in relevant fields was undertaken. The discussions revealed that
industries started bestowing special attention on measuring sustainable performance to ensure improvements in an
environmental context. Then, a new framework to measure indicators’ relationship and sustainable performances
was devised. The questionnaire for this study was circulated among 35 leading auto component manufacturing
SMEs in North India. Influential indicators were analyzed and a key indicator was identified with the aid of expert
opinions and through a pairwise comparison matrix using the DEMATEL.

PT
The DEMATEL methodology is a MCDM approach to analyze variables to identify those variables which
are influential from a recommended list. The DEMATEL method was extensively used for various selection

RI
problems (Altuntas and Dereli, 2015). A flow chart for a DEMATEL approach to identify influential sustainable
development indicator is shown in Figure 2. This approach solves industries’ complex problems. Wu and Lee

SC
(2007) pointed out that DEMATEL is a suitable approach to build and analyze a relationship between the factors in
complex model. DEMATEL was applied to find the solution of complicated and intertwined problems (Hsu et al.,
2013). It is a mathematical concept to get solutions in many academic fields (Lin et al., 2011). The results of this

U
study will stimulate an essential indicator for quick and better SD improvement. This research has provided
researchers, practitioners and managers a path to identify suitability levels through a new framework. Finally, this
AN
study concludes with some insights for a sustainability performance roadmap in a developing country like India.

2. Research background
M

The practice of SD as a flexible process of learning-by-doing may benefit from using sustainability indicators
(Pupphachai & Zuidema, 2017; Agarwal et al., 2016; Tseng et al., 2016 Shankar et al., (2017)). Rossberg et al.
D

(2017) stated that wide-ranging, indicator-based assessments of large, difficult ecosystems were playing as an
important role in directing the environmental policy and management. Information regarding environment
TE

development is the best way to choose a policy for sustainable developments, especially sustainable development
indicators (Hezri and Hasan, 2004; Govindan et al., 2015; Amui et al., 2017; Shankar et al., (2016)). Sustainable
development (SD) has been a global objective for almost three decades: it was first found in the Brundtland Report
EP

(Brundtland Commission, 1987) which is proof that researchers gave special attention to SD analysis, especially,
indicators for SD to confirm sustainability development in their areas. Puig et al. (2014) analyzed and identified the
port based on the Environmental Performance Indicators (EPIs) and Nader et al. (2008) analyzed a methodology to
C

introduce fundamental indicators at a municipal level in Lebanon and developed the appropriate techniques for data
AC

collection in his study. Also, Hezri and Hasan (2004) proposed and analyzed framework for SD indicators with two
views like organizational objectives and disciplinary and multidisciplinary. Mirshojaeian Hosseini and Kaneko
(2011) developed macro sustainability indicators for selected countries to find sustainability dynamically between
2000 and 2007 among 131 countries using three methods including standardization, min–max and cyclical
techniques. Muniers (2011) proposed a methodology to develop a list of indicators for sustainability through a
baseline to explore the state of a city, and after appropriate actions were taken, assess performance. Samuel et al.
(2013) provided insights and analysis of sustainable production indicators in a Malaysian petrochemical industry in
a case study, by measuring the sustainability of industry operations.

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Yuan et al. (2003) explored reports about the adoption of a process involving local resident participation in
SD in China. Alwaer and Clements-Croome (2010) analyzed sustainability issues through three steps like
determining essential themes cognate to tenable intelligent buildings (environmental, social, economic and
technological factors); testing critical stakeholder’s cognizance and valuing selected KPIs intelligent buildings; and
finally creating a new model to measure sustainability for sustainable intelligent buildings with an analytical
hierarchical process (AHP). Hezri and Dovers (2006) pointed out that indicators for sustainability evaluate

PT
sustainability improvements in emerging contexts of governance. They specially focused on strategy affair
surrounding production of sustainability indicators and addressed the answers to two questions like; what is the

RI
probable efficacy of indicators for policy; and in what ways can indicators influence governance? Victor (1991)
summarized that interest in sustainable development prompt and find the suitable indicators that complement or
supplant traditional measures of economic achievements. As per a Pearce and Atkinson (1993) statement, measuring

SC
sustainable development is challenging task. They summarized the framework for identifying weak sustainability
indicators. Puig et al. (2014) identified and selected Environmental Performance Indicators (EPIs) for a port area
selection case. Indicators were shortlisted based on specific criteria. Wilson et al. (2007) introduced the perspective

U
of question by exploring whether global SDI metrics generate a coherent picture to drive us towards sustainable
AN
development. In their research, six sustainable development indicators were compared by a relative ranking in color
coded table format and spatially in a map format.

3. Results of the literature review

M

From the extensive review of background, it was found that selection of appropriate weighting and
D

aggregation methods for a specific sustainability assessment problem is important as well as a challenging task for
industries (Gan et al., 2017). Rivera et al. (2014) states that, evaluating and tracking sustainability indicators is
TE

challenging because studies are often expensive and needs more time to obtain results. Also it is clear that,
researchers are taking sustainability issues seriously to improve the environment by analyzing the indicators. But,
there is limited research in the Indian context to analyze sustainability issues, especially to analyze indicators for
EP

sustainable development. In addition to this, industries struggle to identify influential indicators which ensure
positive impact in sustained improvements. The present research helps analyze and identify influential sustainable
development indicators. Fifteen indicators which ensures a positive impact on environmental improvement are
C

considered from available research and after discussion with industry experts. The research gap and case illustration
are summarized in the following sections.
AC

Integrating environmental with a focus on traditional activities is a growing area among researchers and
practitioners. Specially, Indian researchers have started giving special attention to this scenario. , Kothari (2013)
discussed, at the policy level, the need for necessary changes in the Indian economy, society and polity through
ecological sustainability. Similarly, Nathan and Reddy (2012) analyzed sustainable development indicators (SDI)
for Mumbai to assess resource dynamics in India. Also, they reviewed available SDIs and advantages, limitations of
its adoption, and applications. From above two statements, it is evident that Indian researchers are aware about
sustainable development. In this paper, the case is taken from an Indian auto component industry perspective

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

through the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII is an organization to maintain and develop an environment which
ensures environmental practices in different Indian sectors). Indian industries are reaching world markets and have
achieved a notable position in the world trade organization (WTO) through the supply of components and products
where, auto component manufacturers have a vital role. Hence, studies involving analysis of sustainability indicators
are essential for the Indian auto component industry to improve their image locally nationally and internationally.
The justification for analyzing SDIs in auto component manufacturing industries is summarized below:

PT
• Increasing competition and demand for environment friendly products from customers.
• Availability of reduced resources and increasing strict regulations for control of pollution.

RI
• Increasing pressure from non-governmental organizations (NGO) for green image products and less
demand for current products.
• Availability of many indicators which ensures a positive impact to improve sustainability developments.

SC
Many studies in this context analyzed sustainable development and sustainability issues from both global and
Indian perspectives. Still there is a research gap in analyzing sustainable development in detail through varied

U
directions. This study focuses on the above statement by analyzing and identifying influential indicators which
exert a positive motivation from the recommended list of indicators to develop sustainability in the auto
AN
component manufacturing industry context.
4. Case illustration
Generally, there are two types of Indian manufacturing industries MNCs and SMEs (Small & Medium
M

Enterprises). SMEs are also called Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs). This sector plays a dynamic
role in the Indian economy. It is a highly vibrant sector for the last five decades. It creates more jobs at various
D

levels. In addition to this, the auto component industries require less capital investment than larger industries.
According to the CII report, SMEs contribution towards the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) is 8% creating
TE

100 million employments through 46 million units from rural and urban areas across India. Indian auto component
industries are one of India's growing sectors with notable growth prospects (CII). So far there is no detailed research
to determine influential indicators from an Indian auto components industry perspective. However, studies were
EP

undertaken in Indian auto components industries under different environmental aspects viz barriers for GSCM
adoption (Mathiyazhagan et al., 2013); drivers for GSCM adoption (Diabat and Govindan, 2011); overview of
GSCM (Dheeraj and Vishal, 1992); ranking of essential barriers for GSCM adoption (Govindan et al., 2014;
C

Carvalho et al., 2017) and sustainable supply chain management: review and research opportunities (Gupta and
Palsule-Desai, 2011; Ruiz, 2016). It is confirmed that Indian researchers pay special attention to auto components
AC

and automobile industries regarding environmental concerns. They find it difficult to identify the influential role of
indicators for more improvement in sustainable developments. In this study, 15 indicators are considered from past
literature following discussions with industry experts. The listed 15 indicators for sustainable development are given
in Table 1.

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 1: List of indicators for the sustainable development with resources

Sl.
Indicators Economic Environment Social Definitions References
No

PT
1. Resource consumption rates
Resource consumption rate is an umbrella term for the Winograd (1993) Puig et al. (2014);
(SI1) different ways and rates of how humans consume Kalmykova et al. (2015); Chappells

RI
products of the natural world. and Trentmann (2015); Zhang et al.
(2016)

SC
2. Embedded or embodied
Embodied carbon attempts to measure total carbon for Peters (2010); Song and Lee (2010);
carbon (SI2) an entire product Lifecycle. Gibbs and O’Neill (2015); Yang and

U
Chen (2016)
3. Quality of air, soil and water
Water, Air, and Soil are three natural resources that Herrick (2000); Doran (2002);

AN
(SI3) we cannot live without. Soil provides nutrients, water, Grunewald and Bastian (2015);
oxygen and heat to natural land areas. Govindan et al. (2016b)

M
4. Protection of quality and
Fresh water resources would require protection not Kondratyev et al. (2002)
supply of fresh water just in relation to their quantity but also regarding

D
resources (SI4) their quality and aquatic ecosystems.

TE
5. Promoting sustainable
Promoting sustainable development in agriculture and Rigby et al. (2001); Stevenson and
agriculture and rural development in rural areas. Lee (2001); de Albuquerque (2016)
EP
development (SI5)
6. The rate of complaints and
Rate of complaints against sustainable development Azapagic (2004); Dasgupta and
C

how they were addressed and how authorities initiate action on complaints. Wheeler (1997); Kylili et al. (2016)
(SI6)
AC

7. Record of human rights and
Record of human rights and complaints against child Azapagic (2004); MacNaughton and
child labor complaints (SI7) labor law Frey (2016)
8. Employee turnover rates
An organization's turnover is measured as a Veleva and Ellenbecker, (2001);
and costs (SI8) percentage rate, which is called its turnover rate. Dočekalová and Kocmanová (2016)

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

9. Customer satisfaction
Customer satisfaction is a term used in marketing Innes and Booher (2000)
(through surveys or measures how products and services supplied by a
feedback and complaints) company meet or surpasses customer expectations

PT
(SI9) through market surveys and feedback.
10. Corporate social
Corporate social responsibility is a business approach Buyukozkan and Cifci (2011);

RI
responsibility (SI10) that contributes to SD by delivering economic, social Palmisano et al. (2016); Zailani et al.
and environmental benefits to all stakeholders. (2015); Govindan et al. (2014)

SC
11. Education, public awareness
Quality of education and public awareness about Wright (2002); Hopkins, and
and training (SI11) sustainable development to attain environmental McKeown (2002)
conservation and sustainable society.

U
12. Business efficiency (rate of
Ratio between the adoption of environmental Callens and Tyteca (1999); Dyllick

AN
adoption of environmental management practices run by a business operation and and Hockerts (2002); Govindan et
management practices) the output gained from business after its adoption. al., (2016a)

M
(SI12)
13. Productivity (Gross
Per capita GDP is especially useful comparing one Hanley et al. (1999); Wilson et al.

D
domestic product per capita) country with another, because it shows their relative (2007)

TE
(SI13) performance.
14. Rate of return and payback
Payback period is the length of time required to McDermott et al. (2002); Shaharudin
EP
periods for capital recover capital investments. et al. (2015); Shen et al. (2015)
investments (SI14)
15. International cooperation for
International cooperation for exchanging technologies Turker (2015); Reddy et al. (2016)
C

accelerating sustainable to improve sustainable development

AC

development in countries
and related domestic
policies (SI15)

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

5. Solution Methodology

The methodology for the solution is described in Figure 1. Initially, literature review on sustainable
development in auto components SMEs is summarized in the research background. Based on this, the research gap
and case illustrations are summarized revealing a summarized DEMATEL methodology. A prepared questionnaire
is circulated among relevant experts of the auto components manufacturing industries. The collected data is

PT
analyzed with DEMATEL and the influential role of indicators is identified. Finally, the results of the study are
discussed and the conclusions are summarized in the final step. The sequence of study is summarized in Figure 1.

RI
Literature review on sustainable development in auto components
SMEs

U SC
Research Gap in the study Case description along with collection of indicators from literature
AN
and the outcome of discussion with experts
M
D

Solution methodology - DEMATEL

TE

Questionnaire development Data collection

C EP

Identification of influential sustainable indicators

AC

Results and discussion

Conclusion and managerial implications with limitations

Figure 1 Steps involved in analyzing sustainable indicators by the DEMATEL approach

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

5.1 DEMATEL

Many researchers globally, are interested in applying DEMATEL to get solutions. In comparison to ISM,
the DEMATEL methodology helps to capture the contextual relations between elements in the system and defines
the strength of their interrelationships as well (Gandhi et al., 2015). Also DEMATEL used to find the indirect
relations into a compromised cause and effect model (Lin et al., 2009). It is reveal the relationships between factors

PT
in complex problems; determine direct and indirect dependencies among the unpredictable criteria (Ilieva, 2017)”.
Some DEMATEL researches are summarized below. Lin et al. (2011) used DEMATEL to explore core competences
and the causal effects of booming an Integrated Circuit (IC) design service company. Similarly, Wang et al. (2012)

RI
applied DEMATEL to solve a real-world problem in identifying the improvement in the performance of a matrix
organization form Taiwan. Altuntas and Dereli (2015) proposed DEMATEL to analyze and prioritize a portfolio of

SC
investment projects. Govindan et al. (2014b) used the DEMATEL technique to evaluate drivers for corporate social
responsibility in the mining industry. From the above research summaries on DEMATEL applications, we
understand that DEMATEL is suitable for analyzing and identifying the vital role of factors from a recommended

U
list. Due to these reasons, DEMATEL is considered in this study to identify the influential role of SDIs. The various
steps in the DEMATEL approach is mentioned below:
AN
M

Step 1: Gather expert’s Step 2: Determine Step 3: Derive the Step 4: Determine the
judgment and calculate normalized initial direct total relation matrix T sum of rows and
the average matrix Z –relation matrix D columns of matrix T
D
TE

Step 5: Set Step 6: Build a cause

Yesthreshold Is the cause and effect
Yes The final cause and
EP

and effect relationship

value (a) relationship diagram effect relationship
diagram
acceptable? of SDIs
C

No
AC

Figure 2: A DEMATEL flow chart to identify the influential sustainable development indicators (adopted
from Hidayanto et al., 2015 & Wang et al., 2016)
The steps for DEMATEL method are discussed below (Altuntas and Dereli, 2015):
Step 1: Initial average matrix
In this step, experts were asked to give their opinions based on a linguistic rating (0 - 4) for degree of direct
influence between two indicators through a pairwise comparison. The notation of aij points out the degree to which

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

experts believe indicator i affects indicator j by using integer scores as shown in Table 2.\. The average matrix A is
represented in Eq. (1).

 a11 L a1 j L a1n 
 M M M 

A =  ai1 L aij L ain  (1)

PT
 
 M M M 
 an1 L anj L ann 
 

RI
Table 2 Linguistic rating

U SC
AN
M

X = [ xij ]n×n is obtained by

D

Step 2: Initial influence matrix. In this step, the normalized initial direct-relation matrix

normalizing average matrix A. Each element in matrix A falls between zero and one.
TE

Step 3: Derive a full direct/indirect influence matrix. Full direct/indirect influence matrix is found using Eqs (2) –
(3). This aspect of matrix T shows a contextual relationship between characteristics of the system and can be
EP

transformed into a visible structural modeling impact-digraph-map regarding that relationship. The full
direct/indirect influence matrix T is the infinite series of direct and indirect effects of each aspect and is acquired by
matrix operation of X.
C

X = z× A (2)
AC

 
 1 1 
where z = min  ,  (3)
 max1 ≤ i ≤ n ∑ j =1 aij max1 ≤ i ≤ n ∑ i =1 aij 
n n

and

lim X h = [0]n×n , 0 ≤ xij ≤ 1

h →∞

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Step 4: Attaining total-influence matrix T. Using Eq. (4) total-influence matrix T is accomplished. The total relation
matrix T is defined as T = X(I - X) -1, where I is identity matrix. Define r and s as n x 1 and 1 x n vectors indicating
the sum of rows and sum of columns of T, respectively.

PT
T = X + X 2 + ... + X h = X ( I − X ) −1 , when lim X h = [0]n×n . (4)
h →∞

RI
Explanation:

T = X + X 2 +L + X h

SC
= X ( I + X + X 2 + L + X h−1 ) ( I − X )( I − X )−1

U
= X ( I − X h )( I − X ) −1
AN
then,

T =X ( I − X ) −1 , when h → ∞ .
M
D

From Eqs. (5) – (6), vector r and vector s within total-influence matrix T are derived separately. Then
TE

T = [tij ], i, j = 1, 2,..., n, (5)

'
 n   n 
EP

r = [ ri ]n×1 =  ∑ tij  , s = [ s j ]n×1 =  ∑ tij  (6)

 j =1  n×1  i =1  1×n
C

Where the superscript ' denotes transpose.

AC

When j = i, ri + si show the index of the strength of influences by and on a division. It is a measure of that
division’s importance.

5.2 Preparation of questionnaire and Data collection

A questionnaire was framed and sent to 57 experts (those with more than 10 years’ experience in
environmental activity and environmental related fields) from 35 leading auto components manufacturing SMEs in
North India, based on their interest through Confederation Indian Industries (CII) database. The questionnaire

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

contained the matrix format in a rating of 0-4 scales shown in Table 2. Industries were selected based on initial
discussions with industry managers and representatives through direct visits. The purpose, aim and importance of
the research were discussed and explained for 2 hours to all industry representatives before the data collection. After
discussion, the questionnaire was sent through an email based on convenience. They were allotted time after the
session for data collection in their companies, at specific periods.
5.3 DEMATEL calculation process (Hidayanto et al., 2015)

PT
Step 1: Direct relation matrix T was obtained from experts of auto components manufacturing industries
and illustrated in Table 3. Each expert was given a 17x17 linguistic direct relation matrix to evaluate and analyze the

RI
interrelationship of each indicator in sustainable development.

U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 3 Direct relationship matrix (Average)

Criteria SI1 SI2 SI3 SI4 SI5 SI6 SI7 SI8 SI9 SI10 SI11 SI12 SI13 SI14 SI15
Resource consumption rates (SI1) 0 2.1 1.5 1.8 2.1 1.2 2.7 3 2.1 1.6 2.2 2.3 3.2 1.2 2.4
Embedded or embodied carbon (SI2) 1.1 0 2.3 1.3 2.9 1.3 1.6 2.3 2.8 1.7 2.9 1.6 1.7 3 3.2

PT
Quality of air, soil and water (SI3) 1 1.7 0 0 1 0 0 1.6 2.8 3.1 2 3.1 2.4 2.1 2.7
Protection of the quality and supply of
2 0 1.2 0 3.2 1.8 2.3 2 1.9 2.8 1.9 2.4 1.7 1.6 2.7

RI
freshwater resources (SI4)
Promoting sustainable agriculture and rural
0 0 1 1.3 0 2.7 1.2 2.3 2.1 1.8 1.3 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7
development (SI5)

SC
Rate of complaints and how they have been
1 2.1 2.4 1.8 2.1 0 0 1 0 1.2 0 1.2 3.1 2.3 2.1
addressed (SI6)
Record of human rights and child labor

U
1 2.3 1.7 2 0 1 0 1.2 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 1.9 1.2 1.7
complaints (SI7)

AN
Employee turnover rates and costs (SI8) 2.6 0.7 1.4 2.1 0 0 1 0 1.8 1 2.1 2.8 2.1 1.8 1.7
Customer satisfaction (via surveys or
1.1 0 0 0 1 1.6 0 1.2 0 0 0 1.2 0 3.1 1.5
tracking feedback and complaints) (SI9)

M
Corporate social responsibility (SI10) 0 0 0.6 1.6 2 1.7 0 1.4 0 0 1 0 0 0 1.5
Education, public awareness and training
0 1 0 1.2 0 0 0 0 1.2 2.3 0 1.3 0 0 0

D
(SI11)
Business efficiency (rate of adoption
2.4 0 0 0 0 0 1.2 2.1 1.5 0 0 0 1 0 0

TE
environmental management practices) (SI12)
Productivity (Gross domestic production per
0 0.7 0.5 0.9 0 0 0 1.6 0 0 1.5 0.8 0 0.6 1.3
capita) (SI13)
EP
Rate of return and payback periods for
1.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.8 0 0 3 2.1 0 0.2 0.7 1.3 0 0
capital investments (SI14)
International cooperation to accelerate
C

sustainable development in countries and 0.7 1.3 0.8 2 0 0 0 2.1 0 1.6 2.1 0 2.1 0.8 0
AC

related domestic policies (SI15)

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Step 2: The initial influence matrix was determined, based on the X = [ xij ]n×n formula. This criterion is illustrated in Table 4. The steps of DEMATEL
methodology were solved according to the above mentioned procedure in section 4.1. Similarly, direct-influence matrix is mentioned in Table 5, and total
influence matrix Tc for criteria is tabulated in Table 6. Influence indicator of sustainable development was obtained and shown in Table 7 (Sum of influences

PT
given/received on criteria matrix). Also, prominence vector (ri+si) and relative vector (ri-si) are mentioned in Tables 8 & 9.
Table 4 The normalized direct-influence matrix X for criteria

RI
SI1 SI2 SI3 SI4 SI5 SI6 SI7 SI8 SI9 SI10 SI11 SI12 SI13 SI14 SI15
SI1 0 0.071 0.051 0.061 0.071 0.04 0.091 0.101 0.071 0.054 0.074 0.077 0.108 0.04 0.081
SI2 0.037 0 0.077 0.044 0.098 0.044 0.054 0.077 0.094 0.057 0.098 0.054 0.057 0.101 0.108

SC
SI3 0.034 0.057 0 0 0.034 0 0 0.054 0.094 0.104 0.067 0.104 0.081 0.071 0.091
SI4 0.067 0 0.04 0 0.108 0.061 0.077 0.067 0.064 0.094 0.064 0.081 0.057 0.054 0.091
SI5 0 0 0.034 0.044 0 0.091 0.04 0.077 0.071 0.061 0.044 0.061 0.071 0.081 0.091

U
SI6 0.034 0.071 0.081 0.061 0.071 0 0 0.034 0 0.04 0 0.04 0.104 0.077 0.071
SI7 0.034 0.077 0.057 0.067 0 0.034 0 0.04 0.061 0.071 0.081 0.091 0.064 0.04 0.057

AN
SI8 0.088 0.024 0.047 0.071 0 0 0.034 0 0.061 0.034 0.071 0.094 0.071 0.061 0.057
SI9 0.037 0 0 0 0.034 0.054 0 0.04 0 0 0 0.04 0 0.104 0.051
SI10 0 0 0.02 0.054 0.067 0.057 0 0.047 0 0 0.034 0 0 0 0.051

M
SI11 0 0.034 0 0.04 0 0 0 0 0.04 0.077 0 0.044 0 0 0
SI12 0.081 0 0 0 0 0 0.04 0.071 0.051 0 0 0 0.034 0 0
SI13 0 0.024 0.017 0.03 0 0 0 0.054 0 0 0.051 0.027 0 0.02 0.044

D
SI14 0.061 0.024 0.02 0.02 0.027 0 0 0.101 0.071 0 0.007 0.024 0.044 0 0

TE
SI15 0.024 0.044 0.027 0.067 0 0 0 0.071 0 0.054 0.071 0 0.071 0.027 0

Table 5 The normalized direct – influence matrix X for criteria (Matrix (I-D)-1)
EP
SI1 SI2 SI3 SI4 SI5 SI6 SI7 SI8 SI9 SI10 SI11 SI12 SI13 SI14 SI15
SI1 1.078 0.127 0.114 0.143 0.133 0.092 0.136 0.218 0.165 0.143 0.171 0.181 0.209 0.135 0.188
SI2 0.112 1.058 0.135 0.124 0.157 0.094 0.096 0.196 0.186 0.145 0.186 0.155 0.16 0.192 0.208
C

SI3 0.088 0.092 1.041 0.059 0.079 0.037 0.032 0.143 0.156 0.156 0.13 0.167 0.146 0.132 0.159
AC

SI4 0.134 0.056 0.098 1.08 0.163 0.11 0.118 0.179 0.147 0.173 0.148 0.173 0.156 0.137 0.187
SI5 0.06 0.044 0.08 0.104 1.048 0.122 0.069 0.163 0.132 0.12 0.108 0.131 0.147 0.146 0.163
SI6 0.088 0.11 0.126 0.117 0.121 1.038 0.037 0.129 0.074 0.105 0.075 0.115 0.182 0.145 0.152
SI7 0.094 0.118 0.104 0.126 0.057 0.072 1.038 0.134 0.133 0.138 0.152 0.166 0.14 0.111 0.138
SI8 0.141 0.065 0.087 0.124 0.049 0.035 0.071 1.09 0.128 0.096 0.136 0.165 0.142 0.121 0.129
SI9 0.07 0.024 0.026 0.032 0.057 0.069 0.019 0.091 1.037 0.029 0.032 0.076 0.046 0.137 0.086
SI10 0.028 0.022 0.046 0.086 0.093 0.078 0.019 0.09 0.035 1.039 0.069 0.041 0.045 0.038 0.093

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

SI11 0.019 0.042 0.014 0.057 0.022 0.017 0.013 0.029 0.06 0.095 1.02 0.064 0.02 0.022 0.027
SI12 0.105 0.022 0.022 0.029 0.02 0.017 0.059 0.108 0.081 0.026 0.034 1.039 0.07 0.032 0.037
SI13 0.024 0.038 0.033 0.053 0.017 0.011 0.014 0.084 0.028 0.027 0.077 0.056 1.028 0.043 0.07
SI14 0.097 0.048 0.048 0.056 0.055 0.023 0.026 0.152 0.114 0.036 0.05 0.074 0.091 1.047 0.051

PT
SI15 0.059 0.068 0.057 0.106 0.036 0.024 0.025 0.124 0.046 0.098 0.118 0.051 0.115 0.068 1.053

RI
Table 6 The total influence matrix Tc for criteria

SI1 SI2 SI3 SI4 SI5 SI6 SI7 SI8 SI9 SI10 SI11 SI12 SI13 SI14 SI15

SC
SI1 0.078 0.127 0.114 0.143 0.133 0.092 0.136 0.218 0.165 0.143 0.171 0.181 0.209 0.135 0.188
SI2 0.112 0.058 0.135 0.124 0.157 0.094 0.096 0.196 0.186 0.145 0.186 0.155 0.16 0.192 0.208
SI3 0.088 0.092 0.041 0.059 0.079 0.037 0.032 0.143 0.156 0.156 0.13 0.167 0.146 0.132 0.159

U
SI4 0.134 0.056 0.098 0.08 0.163 0.11 0.118 0.179 0.147 0.173 0.148 0.173 0.156 0.137 0.187
SI5 0.06 0.044 0.08 0.104 0.048 0.122 0.069 0.163 0.132 0.12 0.108 0.131 0.147 0.146 0.163

AN
SI6 0.088 0.11 0.126 0.117 0.121 0.038 0.037 0.129 0.074 0.105 0.075 0.115 0.182 0.145 0.152
SI7 0.094 0.118 0.104 0.126 0.057 0.072 0.038 0.134 0.133 0.138 0.152 0.166 0.14 0.111 0.138
SI8 0.141 0.065 0.087 0.124 0.049 0.035 0.071 0.09 0.128 0.096 0.136 0.165 0.142 0.121 0.129

M
SI9 0.07 0.024 0.026 0.032 0.057 0.069 0.019 0.091 0.037 0.029 0.032 0.076 0.046 0.137 0.086
SI10 0.028 0.022 0.046 0.086 0.093 0.078 0.019 0.09 0.035 0.039 0.069 0.041 0.045 0.038 0.093
SI11 0.019 0.042 0.014 0.057 0.022 0.017 0.013 0.029 0.06 0.095 0.02 0.064 0.02 0.022 0.027

D
SI12 0.105 0.022 0.022 0.029 0.02 0.017 0.059 0.108 0.081 0.026 0.034 0.039 0.07 0.032 0.037
SI13 0.024 0.038 0.033 0.053 0.017 0.011 0.014 0.084 0.028 0.027 0.077 0.056 0.028 0.043 0.07

TE
SI14 0.097 0.048 0.048 0.056 0.055 0.023 0.026 0.152 0.114 0.036 0.05 0.074 0.091 0.047 0.051
SI15 0.059 0.068 0.057 0.106 0.036 0.024 0.025 0.124 0.046 0.098 0.118 0.051 0.115 0.068 0.053
EP
Table 7 The sum of influences given and received on indicator of sustainable development

Indicator ri si ri+si ri-si

C

Resource consumption rates (SI1) 2.233387 1.19684556 3.430233 1.03654188

AC

Embedded or embodied carbon (SI2) 2.202457 0.93469231 3.1371492 1.26776457

Quality of air, soil and water (SI3) 1.617236 1.03125085 2.6484868 0.5859851
Protection of the quality and supply of freshwater resources (SI4) 2.057688 1.29641087 3.3540985 0.76127674
Promoting sustainable agriculture and rural development (SI5) 1.637014 1.10574047 2.7427548 0.53127386
Rate of complaints and how they have been addressed (SI6) 1.612137 0.83842695 2.4505635 0.77370963

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Record of human rights and child labor complaints (SI7) 1.721152 0.77269254 2.4938446 0.9484595
Employee turnover rates and costs (SI8) 1.57959 1.92815259 3.5077422 -0.3485629
Customer satisfaction (via surveys or tracking feedback and complaints) (SI9) 0.830947 1.52233396 2.3532808 -0.6913871

PT
Corporate social responsibility (SI10) 0.820883 1.42500008 2.2458834 -0.6041167
Education, public awareness and training (SI11) 0.520773 1.50609266 2.0268653 -0.9853201

RI
Business efficiency (rate of adoption environmental management practices) (SI12) 0.700074 1.6543264 2.3544002 -0.9542526
Productivity (Gross domestic production per capita) (SI13) 0.603121 1.69683286 2.2999539 -1.0937118

SC
Rate of return and payback periods for capital investments (SI14) 0.967623 1.50464025 2.4722633 -0.5370172
International cooperation to accelerate sustainable development in countries and 1.047157 1.73779959 2.7849564 -0.6906428

U
related domestic policies (SI15)

AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 8 The Prominence vector (ri+si)

Rank Indicators ri+si

1 SI 8 3.50774
2 SI 1 3.43023
3 SI 4 3.3541
4 SI 2 3.13715

PT
5 SI 15 2.78496
6 SI 5 2.74275
7 SI 3 2.64849

RI
8 SI 7 2.49384
9 SI 14 2.47226

SC
10 SI 6 2.45056
11 SI 12 2.3544
12 SI 9 2.35328
13 SI 13 2.29995

U
14 SI 10 2.24588
AN
15 SI 11 2.02687

Table 9 Relative vector ri-si

M

Rank Cause group - Criteria ri-si

1 SI 2 1.26776
D

2 SI 1 1.03654
3 SI 7 0.94846
TE

4 SI 6 0.77371
5 SI 4 0.76128
6 SI 3 0.58599
EP

7 SI 5 0.53127

Rank Effect group - Criteria ri-si

C

1 SI 13 -1.0937
2 SI 11 -0.9853
AC

3 SI 12 -0.9543
4 SI 9 -0.6914
5 SI 15 -0.6906
6 SI 10 -0.6041
7 SI 14 -0.537
8 SI 8 -0.3486

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1.5
SI 2
SI 7 SI 1
1
SI 4
SI 6
0.5 SI 3

PT
SI 5
ri-si

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

RI
SI 8
-0.5 SI 14
SI 10
SI 15

SC
SI 9
-1 SI 12
SI 11
SI 13

U
-1.5
ri+si
AN
Figure 3 The Causal diagram for sustainable development indicators

6. Results and discussion

M

The results obtained from DEMATEL study are summarized in Figure 3. The result findings from the
causal diagram (Figure 1) are described as follows. Generally, relative vectors are categorized in two separate
D

groups, such as cause group and effect group (Fu et al., 2012). Seven indicators obtained in the cause group are
TE

Embedded or embodied carbon (SI2), Resource consumption rates (SI1), Record of human rights and child labor
complaints (SI7), Rate of complaints and how they were addressed (SI6), Quality protection and supply of
freshwater resources (SI4), Quality of air, soil and water (SI3) and Promoting sustainable agriculture and rural
EP

development (SI5). Similarly, eight indicators like Productivity (Gross domestic production per capita) (SI13),
Education, public awareness and training (SI11), Business efficiency (rate of adoption environmental management
practices) (SI12), Customer satisfaction (through surveys or tracking feedback and complaints) (SI9), International
C

cooperation to promote sustainable development and domestic policies in countries in relation to domestic
polices(SI15), Corporate social responsibility (SI10), Rate of return and payback periods for capital investments
AC

(SI14) and Employee turnover rates and costs (SI8) are listed in the effect group.
Compared to the fifteen indicators, Embedded or embodied carbon (SI2) indicator plays a vital role in the
auto component manufacturing industry. It is inferred that auto component industries give special attention to carbon
awareness in order to control pollution. Hence, Embedded or embodied carbon (SI2) indicator plays an influential
role. From the research of Lee (2011), we can clearly state that, understanding and improving carbon footprint in the
context of automotive supply chain management gets special attention among researchers and industry experts. Also
Peters (2010) pointed out that, carbon footprints and embodied carbon have a strong methodological foundation and
provide valuable input into policy formation. Embodied carbon in international trade plays a crucial role in

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

international negotiation on global climate change (Zhang et al., 2017). The ri+si values show the relative
importance of each indicator as in Table 7. Hence, those with higher (ri+si) values are considered. According to
Prominence vector (ri+si) values in Table 7, employee turnover rates and costs (SI8), Resource consumption rates
(SI1) and Quality protection and Supply of freshwater resources (SI4) are in the top three positions among fifteen
indicators. Education, public awareness and training (SI11) indicator gets less priority. It can be noted that the
industries have enough education and training regarding sustainable developments, because of which the education,

PT
public awareness and training (SI11) indicator gets least priority among fifteen indicators.
Cause indicators impact the entire system with performances influencing overall goals. Therefore, it is a

RI
need to provide special attention as (ri-si) values are positive; which means that the degree of influential impact (ri)
is greater than the degree of influenced impact (si). But, under the cause group, Embedded or embodied carbon (SI2)
indicator ranks first based on a high DEMATEL score (1.26776). From the causal diagram (Figure 3), Productivity

SC
(Gross domestic product per capita) (SI13) indicator has the lowest priority with fewer points (-1.0937). It is pointed
out that from the automobile components manufacturing industry's point of view, this indicator is not given much
motivation or acceptance compared to embedded or embodied carbon (SI2) indicator. Education, public awareness

U
and training (SI11) indicator is the next priority.
AN
7. Conclusions and recommendations
Based on increased pollution, all countries are focusing on minimizing the usage of hazardous substances
in their regular practices. They have started to implementing the environmental practices in different sectors. Also,
M

governments enforce stricter environmental rules & regulations. A literature review confirmed the importance of
sustainable development from local to global levels. From the detailed literature, it is evident that researchers have
analyzed sustainable development issues. There is still a reasonable research gap to analyze and identify influential
D

indicators thereby ensuring sustainable development. This study fills the gap of analyzing and identifying influential
TE

indicators in an auto component manufacturing industry context. Generally, analyzing and identifying influential
indicators of sustainable development is challenging and is time consuming while using traditional methods. Due to
increase in market competition, industries are not concerned in contributing sufficient time for analysis. DEMATEL
EP

is a suitable technique for identifying the influential role of indicators. It deals with complicated problems and
locates causal relationships among evaluation criteria, effectively ignoring vague and imprecise judgments. In this
study, DEMATEL identifies the influential role of indicators from a recommended list of fifteen.
C

Clearly, the results from the study states that Indian auto component manufacturing industries believe that
carbon management indicator helps in measuring sustainable development among the fifteen listed indicators. Due
AC

to this reason, embedded or embodied carbon (SI2) indicator plays an influential role. DEMATEL produced good
results in two group methods ie; cause and effect indicators. The results of this research are tabulated in Tables 6 –8.
The Causal diagram is illustrated in Figure 3, projecting the indicators importance visually.
From the diagram it can be concluded that, embedded or embodied carbon (SI2) indicator has more
influence and impact in an Indian auto component manufacturing industry context for sustainable development. The
results of the study stated that carbon management is essential for industries to control pollution and other hazards

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

because, it is globally said that carbon contents from industries are high and need to be controlled effectively using
recent technologies and measurements to protect the environment.
7.1 Managerial implication and limitation
This study also helped managers of the Indian auto components industry to focus on indicators which had
more impact and weight like first priority based on the highest score and focus on maintaining sustainable
developments effectively. This study confirmed that Indian auto components manufacturing industry needs more

PT
sustainable development along with economic improvement. As stated in the beginning of this study, available
literature on sustainable developments to support identifying influential indicators had limited investigation. One of

RI
the research limitations is that evaluation of the ‘importance’ of the indicator is based on inter-relationship between
each indicator, with some not having a strong relationship with others which has not been summarized here.
Applying other MCDM approaches like ANP, AHP, TOPSIS, and PROMETHEE to rank the criteria can overcome

SC
this limitation. The study has found influential indicators through a limited number of experts’ judgments.
Increasing the number of experts for the study can help validate the framework by using statistical approaches like
structural equation modeling (SEM).

U
Acknowledgement:
AN
The work funded by National Social Science Foundation of China. Grant Number: 14 BJL045; The Fundamental
Research Funds for the Central Universities of China. Grant Number: 15CX05006B
M

References
1. Agarwal, V., Govindan, K., Darbari, J. D., & Jha, P. C. (2016). An optimization model for sustainable
solutions towards implementation of reverse logistics under collaborative framework. International Journal of
D

System Assurance Engineering and Management, 7(4), 480-487.

TE

2. Azapagic, A., Millington, A., & Collett, A. (2006). A methodology for integrating sustainability considerations
into process design. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 84(6), 439-452.
3. Alwaer, H., & Clements-Croome, D. J. (2010). Key performance indicators (KPIs) and priority setting in using
EP

the multi-attribute approach for assessing sustainable intelligent buildings. Building and Environment, 45(4),
799-807.
4. Altuntas, S., & Dereli, T. (2015). A novel approach based on DEMATEL method and patent citation analysis
C

for prioritizing a portfolio of investment projects. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(3), 1003-1012.
5. Amui, L. B. L., Jabbour, C. J. C., de aSousa aJabbour, A. B. L., & Kannan, D. (2017). Sustainability as a
AC

dynamic organizational capability: a systematic review and a future agenda toward a sustainable transition.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 308–322.
6. Büyüközkan, G., & Çifçi, G. (2011). A novel fuzzy multi-criteria decision framework for sustainable supplier
selection with incomplete information. Computers in Industry, 62(2), 164-174.
7. Brundtland Commission, 1987. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. United
Nations (accessed November 2016). http://www.undocuments.net/wced-ocf.htm.
8. Callens, I., & Tyteca, D. (1999). Towards indicators of sustainable development for firms: a productive
efficiency perspective. Ecological Economics, 28(1), 41-53.

20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

9. Chappells, H., & Trentmann, F. (2015). 3. Sustainable consumption in history: ideas, resources and practices.
Handbook of Research on Sustainable Consumption, 51.
10. Carvalho, H., Govindan, K., Azevedo, S. G., & Cruz-Machado, V. (2017). Modelling green and lean supply
chains: An eco-efficiency perspective. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 120, 75-87.
11. Dasgupta, S., & Wheeler, D. (1997). Citizen complaints as environmental indicators: evidence from China
(Vol. 1704). World Bank Publications.

PT
12. de Albuquerque, M. F. C. (2016). The Sustainable Use of Biodiversity and Its Implications in Agriculture: The
Agroforestry Case in the Brazilian Legal Framework. In Legal Aspects of Sustainable Development (pp. 585-

RI
606). Springer International Publishing.
13. Devika, K., Jafarian, A., & Nourbakhsh, V. (2014). Designing a sustainable closed-loop supply chain network
based on triple bottom line approach: A comparison of metaheuristics hybridization techniques. European

SC
Journal of Operational Research, 235(3), 594–615.
14. Diabat, A, Kannan, D. and K. Mathiyazhagan (2014) Analysis of Enablers for implementation of sustainable
supply chain management – A textile case, Journal of Cleaner Production, 83, 391 – 403

U
15. Dočekalová, M. P., & Kocmanová, A. (2016). Composite indicator for measuring corporate sustainability.
Ecological Indicators, 61, 612-623.
AN
16. Doran, J. W. (2002). Soil health and global sustainability: translating science into practice. Agriculture,
ecosystems & environment, 88(2), 119-127.
17. Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business strategy
M

and the environment, 11(2), 130-141.

18. Fu, X., Zhu, Q., & Sarkis, J. (2012). Evaluating green supplier development programs at a telecommunications
D

systems provider. International Journal of Production Economics, 140(1), 357-367.

19. Gan, X., Fernandez, I. C., Guo, J., Wilson, M., Zhao, Y., Zhou, B., & Wu, J. (2017). When to use what:
TE

Methods for weighting and aggregating sustainability indicators. Ecological Indicators, 81, 491-502.
20. Gandhi, S., Mangla, S. K., Kumar, P., & Kumar, D. (2015). Evaluating factors in implementation of successful
green supply chain management using DEMATEL: a case study. International Strategic Management Review,
EP

3(1), 96-109.
21. Gold, S., Seuring, S., & Beske, P. (2010). Sustainable supply chain management and inter‐organizational
resources: a literature review. Corporate social responsibility and environmental management, 17(4), 230-245.
C

22. Govindan, K., Kaliyan, M., Kannan, D., & Haq, A. N. (2014a). Barriers analysis for green supply chain
AC

management implementation in Indian industries using analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of
Production Economics, 147, 555-568.
23. Govindan, K., Soleimani, H., & Kannan, D. (2015). Reverse logistics and closed-loop supply chain: A
comprehensive review to explore the future. European Journal of Operational Research, 240(3), 603-626.
24. Govindan, K., Shankar, K. M., & Kannan, D. (2016a). Sustainable material selection for construction
industry–A hybrid multi criteria decision making approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 55,
1274-1288.

21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

25. Govindan, K., Garg, K., Gupta, S., & Jha, P. C. (2016b). Effect of product recovery and sustainability
enhancing indicators on the location selection of manufacturing facility. Ecological Indicators, 67, 517-532.
26. Govindan, K., Kadziński, M., & Sivakumar, R. (2017). Application of a novel PROMETHEE-based method
for construction of a group compromise ranking to prioritization of green suppliers in food supply chain.
Omega, 71, 129-145.
27. Govindan, K., Mangla, S. K., & Luthra, S. (2017). Prioritising indicators in improving supply chain

PT
performance using fuzzy AHP: insights from the case example of four Indian manufacturing companies.
Production Planning & Control, 28(6-8), 552-573.

RI
28. Gupta, S., & Palsule-Desai, O. D. (2011). Sustainable supply chain management: Review and research
opportunities. IIMB Management Review, 23(4), 234-245.
29. Grunewald, K., & Bastian, O. (2015). Ecosystem assessment and management as key tools for sustainable

SC
landscape development: A case study of the Ore Mountains region in Central Europe. Ecological Modelling,
295, 151-162.
30. Gibbs, D., & O’Neill, K. (2015). Building a green economy? Sustainability transitions in the UK building

U
sector. Geoforum, 59, 133-141.
AN
31. Grunewald, K., & Bastian, O. (2015). Ecosystem assessment and management as key tools for sustainable
landscape development: A case study of the Ore Mountains region in Central Europe. Ecological Modelling,
295, 151-162.
M

32. Gupta, S., & Palsule-Desai, O. D. (2011). Sustainable supply chain management: Review and research
opportunities. IIMB Management Review, 23(4), 234-245.
33. Herrick, J. E. (2000). Soil quality: an indicator of sustainable land management?. Applied Soil Ecology, 15(1),
D

75-83.
TE

34. Hezri, A. A., & Hasan, M. N. (2004). Management framework for sustainable development indicators in the
State of Selangor, Malaysia. Ecological indicators, 4(4), 287-304.
35. Hanley, N., Moffatt, I., Faichney, R., & Wilson, M. (1999). Measuring sustainability: a time series of
EP

alternative indicators for Scotland. Ecological economics, 28(1), 55-73.

36. Hidayanto, A. N., Abednego, N., Aminah, S., & Sucahyo, Y. G. (2015). Analysis of cloud adoption
determinants by using BOCR analysis and DEMATEL. International Journal of Business Information Systems,
C

18(2), 221-248.
37. Hsu, C. W., Kuo, T. C., Chen, S. H., & Hu, A. H. (2013). Using DEMATEL to develop a carbon management
AC

model of supplier selection in green supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 56, 164-172.
38. Hosseini, H. M., & Kaneko, S. (2011). Dynamic sustainability assessment of countries at the macro level: A
principal component analysis. Ecological indicators, 11(3), 811-823.
39. Hopkins, C., & McKeown, R. (2002). Education for sustainable development: an international perspective.
Education and sustainable development. Responding to the global challenge. Cambridge: IUCN Commission
on Education and Communication, 13-26.

22
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

40. India tops the world in pollution-related deaths, 2017. The Economic Times
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/61158263.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium
=text&utm_campaign=cppst (accessed 21, October 2017).
41. Innes, E. J., & Booher, D. E. (2000). Indicators for sustainable communities: A strategy building on
complexity theory and distributed intelligence. Planning theory & practice, 1(2), 173-186.
42. Ilieva, G. (2017). Group Decision Analysis with Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Numbers. Cybernetics and Information

PT
Technologies, 17(1), 31-44.
43. Jia, P., Diabat, A., & Mathiyazhagan, K. (2014). Analyzing the SSCM practices in the mining and mineral

RI
industry by ISM approach. Resources Policy, 46 (1), 76-85
44. Kalmykova, Y., Rosado, L., & Patrício, J. (2015). Resource consumption drivers and pathways to reduction:
economy, policy and lifestyle impact on material flows at the national and urban scale. Journal of Cleaner

SC
Production.
45. Kannan, D. (2017). Role of multiple stakeholders and the critical success factor theory for the sustainable
supplier selection process. International Journal of Production Economics (in press)

U
46. Karellas, S., Boukis, I., & Kontopoulos, G. (2010). Development of an investment decision tool for biogas
production from agricultural waste. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(4), 1273-1282.
AN
47. Kondratyev, S., Gronskaya, T., Ignatieva, N., Blinova, I., Telesh, I., & Yefremova, L. (2002). Assessment of
present state of water resources of Lake Ladoga and its drainage basin using sustainable development
indicators. Ecological Indicators, 2(1), 79-92.
M

48. Kothari, A., Camill, P., & Brown, J. (2013). Conservation as if people also mattered: policy and practice of
community-based conservation. Conservation and society, 11(1), 1.
D

49. Kylili, A., Fokaides, P. A., & Jimenez, P. A. L. (2016). Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) approach in
buildings renovation for the sustainability of the built environment: A review. Renewable and Sustainable
TE

Energy Reviews, 56, 906-915.

50. Lee, K. H. (2011). Integrating carbon footprint into supply chain management: the case of Hyundai Motor
Company (HMC) in the automobile industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(11), 1216-1223.
EP

51. Li, C. W., & Tzeng, G. H., (2009), Identification of a threshold value for the DEMATEL method using the
maximum mean de-entropy algorithm to find critical services provided by a semiconductor intellectual
property mall. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(6), 9891-9898.
C

52. Lin, Y. T., Yang, Y. H., Kang, J. S., & Yu, H. C. (2011). Using DEMATEL method to explore the core
AC

competences and causal effect of the IC design service company: An empirical case study. Expert Systems
with Applications, 38(5), 6262-6268.
53. Lin, Z. P., Wang, R., & Tseng, M. L. (2009). Determination of a cause and effect decision making model for
leisure farm’s service quality in Taiwan. Wseas Trans. Business & Econ.
54. Liu, X., Liu, B., Shishime, T., Yu, Q., Bi, J., & Fujitsuka, T. (2010). An empirical study on the driving
mechanism of proactive corporate environmental management in China. Journal of environmental
management, 91(8), 1707-1717.

23
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

55. Lorek, S., & Spangenberg, J. H. (2014). Sustainable consumption within a sustainable economy–beyond green
growth and green economies. Journal of cleaner production, 63, 33-44.
56. Luthra, S., Govindan, K., & Mangla, S. K. (2017). Structural model for sustainable consumption and
production adoption—a grey-DEMATEL based approach. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 125, 198-
207.
57. MacNaughton, G., & Frey, D. F. (2016). Decent work, human rights and the Sustainable Development Goals.

PT
Human Rights and the Sustainable Development Goals (June 3, 2015). Georgetown Journal of International
Law, 47.

RI
58. Mathiyazhagan, K., Govindan, K., NoorulHaq, A., & Geng, Y. (2013). An ISM approach for the barrier
analysis in implementing green supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 47, 283-297.
59. Muduli, K., Govindan, K., Barve, A., & Geng, Y. (2013). Barriers to green supply chain management in Indian

SC
mining industries: a graph theoretic approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 47, 335-344.
60. Munier, N. (2011). Methodology to select a set of urban sustainability indicators to measure the state of the
city, and performance assessment. Ecological Indicators, 11(5), 1020-1026.

U
61. Nader, M. R., Salloum, B. A., & Karam, N. (2008). Environment and sustainable development indicators in
AN
Lebanon: a practical municipal level approach. Ecological indicators, 8(5), 771-777.
62. Nathan, H. S. K., & Reddy, B. S. (2012). A conceptual framework for development of sustainable
development indicators.
M

63. Nguyen, T. T., Verdoodt, A., Van Y, T., Delbecque, N., Tran, T. C., & Van Ranst, E. (2015). Design of a GIS
and multi-criteria based land evaluation procedure for sustainable land-use planning at the regional level.
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 200, 1-11.
D

64. Northey, S., Haque, N., & Mudd, G. (2013). Using sustainability reporting to assess the environmental
TE

footprint of copper mining. Journal of Cleaner Production, 40, 118-128.

65. Pupphachai, U., & Zuidema, C. (2017). Sustainability indicators: A tool to generate learning and adaptation in
sustainable urban development. Ecological Indicators, 72, 784-793.
EP

66. Pagell, M., & Shevchenko, A. (2014). Why research in sustainable supply chain management should have no
future. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 50(1), 44-55.
67. Palmisano, G. O., Govindan, K., Loisi, R. V., Dal Sasso, P., & Roma, R. (2016). Greenways for rural
C

sustainable development: An integration between geographic information systems and group analytic
hierarchy process. Land Use Policy, 50, 429-440.
AC

68. Pearce, D. W., Atkinson, G. D., & Dubourg, W. R. (1994). The economics of sustainable development. Annual
review of energy and the environment, 19(1), 457-474.
69. Peters, G. P. (2010). Carbon footprints and embodied carbon at multiple scales. Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability, 2(4), 245-250.
70. Puig, M., Wooldridge, C., & Darbra, R. M. (2014). Identification and selection of environmental performance
indicators for sustainable port development. Marine pollution bulletin, 81(1), 124-130.

24
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

71. Reddy, A. A., Rani, C. R., Cadman, T., Kumar, S. N., & Reddy, A. N. (2016). Towards sustainable indicators
of food and nutritional outcomes in India. World Journal of Science, Technology and Sustainable
Development, 13(2), 128-142.
72. Rigby, D., & Cáceres, D. (2001). Organic farming and the sustainability of agricultural systems. Agricultural
systems, 68(1), 21-40.
73. Rinne, J., Lyytimäki, J., & Kautto, P. (2013). From sustainability to well-being: Lessons learned from the use

PT
of sustainable development indicators at national and EU level. Ecological Indicators, 35, 35-42.
74. Rivera, S. J., Minsker, B. S., Work, D. B., & Roth, D. (2014). A text mining framework for advancing

RI
sustainability indicators. Environmental modelling & software, 62, 128-138.
75. Ruiz, L. (2016). Incorporation of Environmental and Sustainable Indicators in Universities. Journal of
Environmental Protection, 7(06), 825.

SC
76. Samuel, V. B., Agamuthu, P., & Hashim, M. A. (2013). Indicators for assessment of sustainable production: A
case study of the petrochemical industry in Malaysia. Ecological Indicators, 24, 392-402.
77. Song, J. S., & Lee, K. M. (2010). Development of a low-carbon product design system based on embedded

U
GHG emissions. Resources, conservation and recycling, 54(9), 547-556.
AN
78. Soleimani, H., Govindan, K., Saghafi, H., & Jafari, H. (2017). Fuzzy multi-objective sustainable and green
closed-loop supply chain network design. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 109, 191-203.
79. Shaharudin, M. R., Govindan, K., Zailani, S., Tan, K. C., & Iranmanesh, M. (2017). Product return
M

management: Linking product returns, closed-loop supply chain activities and the effectiveness of the reverse
supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 149, 1144-1156.
80. Shaharudin, M. R., Govindan, K., Zailani, S., & Tan, K. C. (2015). Managing product returns to achieve
D

supply chain sustainability: an exploratory study and research propositions. Journal of Cleaner Production,
TE

101, 1-15.
81. Shankar, K. M., Kannan, D., & Kumar, P. U. (2017). Analyzing sustainable manufacturing practices–A case
study in Indian context. Journal of Cleaner Production (in press)
82. Shankar, K. M., Kumar, P. U., & Kannan, D. (2016). Analyzing the drivers of advanced sustainable
EP

manufacturing system using AHP approach. Sustainability, 8(8), 824.

83. Shen, L., Govindan, K., & Shankar, M. (2015). Evaluation of barriers of corporate social responsibility using
an analytical hierarchy process under a fuzzy environment—A textile case. Sustainability, 7(3), 3493-3514.
C

84. Stevenson, M., & Lee, H. (2001). Indicators of sustainability as a tool in agricultural development: partitioning
scientific and participatory processes. The International Journal of Sustainable Development & World
AC

Ecology, 8(1), 57-65.

85. Tzeng, G. H., Chiang, C. H., & Li, C. W., (2007), Evaluating intertwined effects in e- learning programs: A
novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL. Expert Systems with Applications,
32(4), 1028–1044.
86. Tseng, M. L., Tan, K. H., Geng, Y., & Govindan, K. (2016). Sustainable consumption and production in
emerging markets.

25
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

87. Turker, D. (2015). An Analysis of Corporate Social Responsibility in the Turkish Business Context. In
Corporate Social Responsibility in Europe (pp. 483-499). Springer International Publishing.
88. Veleva, V., & Ellenbecker, M. (2001). Indicators of sustainable production: framework and methodology.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 9(6), 519-549.
89. Vachon, S., & Mao, Z. (2008). Linking supply chain strength to sustainable development: a country-level
analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15), 1552-1560.

PT
90. Voegtlin, C., & Scherer, A. G. (2017). Responsible innovation and the innovation of responsibility: Governing
sustainable development in a globalized world. Journal of Business Ethics, 143(2), 227-243.

RI
91. Victor, P. A. (1991). Indicators of sustainable development: some lessons from capital theory. Ecological
economics, 4(3), 191-213.
92. Wang, W. C., Lin, Y. H., Lin, C. L., Chung, C. H., & Lee, M. T., (2012), DEMATEL-based model to improve

SC
the performance in a matrix organization. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(5), 4978-4986.
93. Wang, Z., Mathiyazhagan, K., Xu, L., & Diabat, A., (2016) A decision making trial and evaluation laboratory
approach to analyze the barriers to Green Supply Chain Management adoption in a food packaging company,

U
Journal of Cleaner Production, 117, 19-28.
AN
94. Wilson, J., Tyedmers, P., & Pelot, R. (2007). Contrasting and comparing sustainable development indicator
metrics. Ecological Indicators, 7(2), 299-314.
95. Wright, T. S. (2002). Definitions and frameworks for environmental sustainability in higher education.
M

International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 3(3), 203-220.

96. Wu, W. W., & Lee, Y. T. (2007). Developing global managers’ competencies using the fuzzy DEMATEL
method. Expert systems with applications, 32(2), 499-507.
D

97. Yang, J., & Chen, B. (2016). Emergy-based sustainability evaluation of wind power generation systems.
TE

Applied Energy, 177, 239-246.

98. Yuan, W., James, P., Hodgson, K., Hutchinson, S. M., & Shi, C. (2003). Development of sustainability
indicators by communities in China: a case study of Chongming County, Shanghai. Journal of Environmental
EP

Management, 68(3), 253-261.

99. Zhang, Z., Xue, B., Pang, J., & Chen, X. (2016). The decoupling of resource consumption and environmental
impact from economic growth in china: Spatial pattern and temporal trend. Sustainability, 8(3), 222.
C

100. Zhang, Z., Zhao, Y., Su, B., Zhang, Y., Wang, S., Liu, Y., & Li, H. (2017). Embodied carbon in China’s
foreign trade: An online SCI-E and SSCI based literature review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
AC

68, 492-510.
101. Zailani, S., Govindan, K., Iranmanesh, M., Shaharudin, M. R., & Chong, Y. S. (2015). Green innovation
adoption in automotive supply chain: the Malaysian case. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 1115-1122.

26