Sei sulla pagina 1di 20

Resources, Conservation & Recycling 150 (2019) 104431

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation & Recycling


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec

Full length article

Management of next-generation energy using a triple bottom line approach T


under a supply chain framework

Waqas Ahmeda, Biswajit Sarkarb,
a
NUST Business School, National University of Sciences & Technology, H-12, Islamabad, 44000, Pakistan
b
Department of Industrial Engineering, Yonsei University, 50 Yonsei-ro, Sinchon-dong, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 03722, South Korea

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Researchers have raised concerns that it is very essential to concentrate on sustainable and renewable energy
Sustainable supply chain management resources to control the elevated level of global warming, which is a result of the enormous usage of fossil fuels.
Second-generation biofuel Biofuel is considered as an alternative solution for non-renewable sources for energy production. The assurance
Triple bottom line of this supply relies on a sustainable and efficient supply chain. For this study, a multi-objective model is pro-
Carbon emissions
posed to structure a sustainable supply chain for second-generation biofuel under a triple bottom line approach.
Social impact
The proposed model captures a trade-off among conflicting objectives. The multiple agricultural regions, mul-
Augmented ε-constraint
tiple biorefineries, transportation, and multiple markets are considered. The yield of residual biomass, the ex-
pense at agricultural regions, and the demand of markets are assumed uncertain and denoted by fuzzy numbers.
The carbon tax and cap are incorporated into the supply chain model. The improved augmented ε-constraint
approach is employed to solve the proposed multi-objective optimization model. The objective of developed
research is to design a sustainable supply chain framework which minimizes the total carbon emissions and total
cost and maximizes the amount of new jobs opportunities in a second-generation biofuel. A numerical experi-
ment is conducted, and the finding shows that the production cost of biofuel in the biorefineries contains a major
proportion of the total cost. The transportation section is the predominant source for carbon emissions and a
maximum number of jobs is accrued in rural areas. In-depth sensitivity analysis of this study is also performed to
examine its actual application.

1. Introduction (Tiwari et al., 2018). The Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS) and the body
of Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) in the year 2007, es-
Concerns about fossil fuel consumption and the environment cou- tablished a yearly biofuel production mark of 36 billion gallons until
pled with increasing energy demand have resulted in collective interest 2022 (EISA, 2007). Most biofuels are made from energy crops that may
in sustainable and renewable energy. Many scientists and researchers have undesirable implication in terms of both production and food
have shown interest in recent years in the expanded level of greenhouse prices. To avoid this negative impact on food supply and price, EISA
gas (GHG) emissions. This increase in GHG emissions poses a serious further states that 16 billion gallons of biofuel production in 2022
threat in the form of climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on should be made from the non-edible feedstock. It is estimated that, due
Climate Change (IPCC) calculates that our Earth’s temperature will rise to policies and acts such as RFS, the percentage of bioenergy in the
1.8–4 °C in the coming century due to an increase of GHGs, such as aggregate of renewable energy will increase in the near future.
carbon dioxide (CO2). To prevent this climate change and global The bioenergy industry will experience rapid growth in the next
warming, CO2 emissions should be minimized to 50% of the 1990 level decade. Biomass resources, such as energy crops, agricultural residues,
by 2050 (Palak et al., 2014). Biomass is a compelling renewable and and forest residues, have huge potential to partially replace fossil fuel
sustainable energy source due to its low harmful environmental effect consumption. The making of first-generation biofuels by energy crops
in terms of CO2 emissions. Consequently, many nations have estab- and eatable biomass such as sugarcane and corn has ended as food in
lished biofuel targets and provide support to grow the bioenergy in- competition with fuel disputes, which is highlighted by many re-
dustry. The sustainable system encompasses balancing comprehensive searchers, along with increases in the food value chain and prices
efforts to fulfill market necessities without disturbing the environment (Escobar et al., 2009). Hence, second-generation biofuel obtained from


Corresponding author.
E-mail address: bsbiswajitsarkar@gmail.com (B. Sarkar).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104431
Received 8 August 2018; Received in revised form 19 July 2019; Accepted 29 July 2019
0921-3449/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
W. Ahmed and B. Sarkar Resources, Conservation & Recycling 150 (2019) 104431

Notation Dm demand for biofuel from market center m (gallons)


dsfr distance among agricultural region f to biorefinery plant r
Indices (km)
dsrm distance among biorefinery plant b to market m (km)
F agricultural region for residual biomass; indexed by f ef emissions for storing and harvesting unit amount biomass
R biorefinery plant for biofuel production; indexed by r in an agricultural region f (g of CO2/ton)
M market center; indexed by m efr emissions for transporting unit of residual biomass per
unit distance (g of CO2/ton.km)
Decision variables er emissions for production unit amount of biofuel in bior-
efinery r (g of CO2/gallons)
Qfr amount of the residual biomass transported from agri- erm emissions for transporting unit of biofuel for unit distance
cultural region f to biorefinery plant r (ton) (g of CO2/ton.km)
Qrm amount of the biofuel transported from biorefinery plant f E fcap fixed carbon cap on emissions for agricultural zone f (tons
to market center m (gallons) of CO2)
Tfr required trips for shipment of residual biomass from E frcap fixed carbon cap on emissions in transport route from
agricultural region f to biorefinery r (number) agricultural regions to biorefineries (tons of CO2)
Trm required trips for shipment of biofuel from biorefinery r to Ercap fixed carbon cap on emissions for biorefinery r (tons of
market center m (number) CO2)
cap
Erm fixed carbon cap on emissions in transport route from
Parameters biorefineries to market centers (tons of CO2)
jf number of jobs due to operational activities of unit
Af area of the given farm site for residual biomass availability amount residual biomass harvested in agricultural zone f
in an agricultural region f (acre) (jobs/year)
C tx carbon tax as per policy scheme ($/ton) jfr number of jobs from transporting unit amount of residual
Cfha harvesting and baling cost for unit of biomass in an agri- biomass for unit distance (jobs/year)
cultural region f ($/ton) jr number of jobs in operational activities of a unit amount
C fco collection cost for unit of biomass in an agricultural region of biofuel production in biorefinery r (jobs/year)
f ($/ton) jrm number of jobs in transporting unit amount of biofuel for
Cfst storage cost for unit of bales at a farm site in an agri- unit distance (jobs/year)
cultural region f ($/ton) γr conversion rate from residual biomass into biofuel at
Cfld loading cost for unit of biomass in an agricultural region f
biorefinery plant r (gallons/ton)
($/ton)
Vfr truck maximum capacity for single shipment of residual
CrP production cost for unit of biofuel production in bior-
biomass from agricultural region f to biorefinery r (ton)
efinery plant r ($/gallon)
Vrm truck maximum capacity for single shipment of biofuel
θfrtr fixed transportation cost for unit of biomass loaded/un-
from biorefinery r to market m (gallons)
loaded in a truck ($/ton)
yf yield of residual biomass (corn residual) in agricultural
Cfrtr variable transportation cost for shipping unit of biomass
per unit distance ($/ton.km) region f (tons)
tr
θrm fixed transportation cost per unit of biofuel loaded/un- αf scaling factor for carbon cost at agricultural region f
loaded in a truck ($/gallon) βr scaling factor for carbon cost at biorefinery plant r
tr
Crm variable transportation cost for shipping unit of biofuel for ψfr scaling factor for carbon cost while transportation of re-
a unit distance ($/gallon.km) sidual biomass
cpr maximum production ability of biorefinery plant r (gal- фrm scaling factor for carbon cost while transportation of bio-
lons/year) fuel

agricultural crop waste and forest residuals is accepted as the prospect such a task involve many decisions that should be optimized. The
of renewable and sustainable energy. The utilization and availability of economic achievement of a biofuel supply chain can be achievable by
locally non-edible feedstock suggest it as the best source for biofuel planned choices relative to supply chain structure, transport modes,
production as well as to reduce GHG emissions. Agricultural crop re- environmental influences, social benefits, and location of nodes. The
siduals in the form of residual biomass are the most substantial raw key aspect of a sustainable biofuel supply chain framework is the trade-
material for biofuel production (Kemausuor et al., 2014). Residual off within these factors to achieve a triple bottom line approach. It is
biomass is abundant in nature with enormous potential to produce re- essential to optimize these dimensions simultaneously to investigate the
newable energy in the shape of biofuel. The biofuel production from impact and inter-relations among the different aspects. The biofuel
agricultural residual also plays a dynamic role in the development and supply chain also has the challenge to deal with the presence of several
progress of rural areas of the country. In Pakistan, about 87% of the uncertainties connected to biomass supply, rural development, en-
entire energy is acquired from fossil fuels. Pakistan is the 8th largest vironmental impact, production technologies, transportation, social
agricultural country and has a vast capacity to produce second-gen- benefit, and prices. The uncertainties in the biofuel SCM are ubiquitous
eration biofuel from agricultural residual. Future energy sources de- and emerging from all activities of the supply chain management.
pending on biofuel have a positive impact on the society, economy, and Misjudging uncertainty and its effect can direct to the decisions that not
environment. to defend a business compared to the given threats and not either take
To use biomass in a proper way at an industrial scale, well-designed benefit of the given space that upper limits of uncertainty can offer. In
and well-managed supply chains (SCs) are key (Ahmed and Sarkar, order to deal with the uncertain environment in the supply chain, an
2018). Therefore, it is required to develop and design a sustainable expert opinion is of utmost importance. These are the situations where
biofuel supply chain that is economical, minimizes environmental the collected data are tainted with epistemic uncertainty (Habib and
threats, and improves social benefits. The management and design of Sarkar, 2017). Thus, there is a necessity to design and develop

2
W. Ahmed and B. Sarkar Resources, Conservation & Recycling 150 (2019) 104431

sustainable models of the supply chain that accomplish the chain of transformation, and greater transparency in relation to both the social
biomass raw material along with the economical production of biofuel and the environmental activities of organizations. Vendors, organiza-
to diminish elements that may take part in creating global warming. tions, and customers are connected by raw material, the final product,
In this research, a multi-objective mathematical model for a sus- information, and capital flow. The flow of these activities incurred an
tainable supply chain of second-generation biofuel supply under a triple environmental and social burden on these organizations. These firms
bottom line approach is formulated. The modeling goal is to design an are directed to consider environmental and social concerns while de-
economic strategy of supplying residual biomass from proposed agri- signing and supplying their product. These triggers have increased in-
cultural farms to biorefineries and finally supply the second-generation terest in sustainable supply chain management. Dyllick and Hockerts
biofuel to market while keeping in view the environmental impact and (2002) stated that sustainable supply chain is the combination of three
social benefits. Fig. 1 shows the flow diagram of a sustainable supply elements of sustainable development, i.e., social, environmental, and
chain for second-generation biofuel. The improved augmented ε-con- economic dimensions, in the supply chain. Seuring and Müller (2008)
straint approach is used to optimize this multi-objective model and described sustainable supply chain management as the chain manage-
create a set of Pareto optimal solutions. The range of ε is obtained by ment of raw material, end-products or services, information, capital,
lexicographic optimization, as it provides a better estimation of Pareto and cooperation from a primary source to an end-user by integrating
frontiers. This paper will contribute to the literature by developing a different scopes of sustainable development, i.e., economic scope, en-
sustainable supply chain for second-generation biofuel by incorporating vironmental scope, and social scope. Carter and Rogers (2008) defined
the carbon cap and tax policy and uncertain parameters in it. It will sustainable supply chain in term of strategic integration to attain the
provide supply chain cost of biofuel, unit carbon emissions as a result of firm's economic, social, and environmental objectives by coordination
supply chain activities, and create opportunities of new jobs in whole of main business practices for continuing performance.
supply chain sector by making a trade-off between conflicting objec-
tives with the improved proposed methodology.
The rest of the paper is ordered as follows. In Section 2, a review of 2.1. Environmental pillar connected with sustainable supply chain
the literature is presented. The problem statement, notation of the
mathematical models, and assumptions of this study are drawn in The objective of a sustainable supply chain framework is to achieve
Section 3. The mathematical model formulation is given in Section 4. a balance between conflicting objectives connected to the supply chain
The solution methodology is presented in Section 5. A numerical ex- (Mohammadi et al., 2014). Traditionally, the foremost objective of
ample with results and in-depth sensitivity analysis on key parameters optimization designs and models used in the strategic network focused
are discussed in Section 6. Discussion following with managerial in- only on the economic dimension of supply chains. However, in current
sights of this study are provided in Section 7. Lastly, the conclusions are years, there has been a practicable awareness about the environmental
listed in Section 8. and social issues of the supply chain. Zhou et al. (2000) proposed a
multi-objective supply chain optimization model considering sustain-
ability. Ilgin and Gupta (2010) outlined the environmental aspects in
2. Literature review designing the product, closed-loop and reverse supply chain manage-
ment, reassembly, and disassembly. You and Wang (2011) presented an
Corporate and academic awareness of sustainable supply chains has optimized design of biomass-related liquid fuel supply chains by con-
grown-up significantly in the previous years. The management of sidering the environmental and economic criteria of sustainability.
supply chains in a sustainable way has come to be a collective concern Chaabane et al. (2012) designed a sustainable supply chain under the
for various organizations across a wide range of industries. The supply environmental dimension of sustainability. Pishvaee and Razmi (2012)
chain leaders have realized the integration of social and environmental designed an environmental supply chain network using a multi-objec-
concerns embedded in standards related to their daily operations. The tive fuzzy optimization approach to evaluate the model. The suggested
number of drivers for this expanding importance of sustainability in- structure minimizes the cost objective as well as multiple environ-
cludes demand and supply characteristics covering energy consump- mental impacts. Validi et al. (2014) analyzed a sustainable supply chain
tion, an understanding of the knowledge relating to climate system for the food industry. Sarkar et al. (2016) investigated the

Fig. 1. Sustainable supply chain flow diagram for second-generation biofuel.

3
W. Ahmed and B. Sarkar Resources, Conservation & Recycling 150 (2019) 104431

effects of variable emission cost and trade-credit-policy in the three- social indicator. The upward concern for sustainable development has
echelon sustainable supply chain. Sarkar et al. (2019) introduced the directed the public and private sectors to incorporate the three pillars of
benefit of the third party in a closed-loop supply chain management. sustainability into their management (Eskandarpour et al., 2015). Mota
The sustainability issue was solved with closed-loop supply chain. But et al. (2015) presented a social advantage indicator for underdeveloped
they still cannot consider the benefit of bioenergy and the biofuel. Thus, areas by solving location-allocation issues in designing a supply chain
the proposed model fulfils this research gap. network. Allaoui et al. (2016) presented a sustainable food supply chain
The sustainable distribution routes minimized the cost and reduced and simultaneously optimized all three scopes of sustainability con-
the carbon emissions. Mohammadi et al. (2014) designed a mathema- taining carbon footprint (environmental), number of employment cre-
tical model for a sustainable location-allocation problem with the in- ated (social), and cost (economical) impact. Ahmadi et al. (2017) as-
tegration of environmental and economic factors, and also new en- sessed the social dimension in sustainable supply chain framework for
vironmental features related to noise and air pollution by automobiles manufacturing companies. Roni et al. (2017) proposed a multi-objec-
were presented. Sarkar et al. (2015) considered an effect of carbon tive optimization model to manage and design biofuel supply chains.
emission during transportation. It reduces the total cost by minimizing He discussed the social pillar of sustainable supply chain management
the carbon emissions in supply chain design. Saffar and Razmi (2015) along with economic and environmental dimensions. But he didn’t
designed a green supply chain network and account the carbon emis- consider uncertain parameters in their model. Also, carbon tax and cap
sions due to the production as well as reassembly practices along with are not taken in this study. Tsao et al. (2018) proposed a sustainable
minimization of cost. Sarkar et al. (2018a) presented a single-setup- supply chain with uncertain circumstances. The social, environmental,
multiple-delivery policy in a global sustainable supply chain under and economic dimensions of sustainability are addressed in this model
variable carbon emission cost. Ding et al. (2016) evaluated the eco- and solved with fuzzy multi-objective programming.
nomic performance of the environmentally sustainable product from
the perspective of the supply chain. Omair et al. (2017) make a step 2.3. Second-generation biofuel: A step towards sustainable raw material
towards sustainability by minimizing carbon emission and total cost in and sustainable end-product
sustainable manufacturing with the effect of variable production
quantity. Sarkar et al. (2017) assessed the environmental and economic Biofuel generation from energy or food crops lessens the availability
aspect of the closed-loop supply chain with returnable transport items of foodstuff and is heavily debated among most researchers. The usage
and remanufacturing. Sarkar et al. (2018b) stated that cost of carbon of agricultural land and grains for the generation of biofuel causes an
emissions is also incorporated in the function to incorporate the en- upward burden on availability of foodstuff and its prices (Escobar et al.,
vironmental impact on total profit. Ahmed et al. (2018) make an effort 2009). The consumption of energy crops for the generation of elec-
to exploit structural properties in the total profit function by making a tricity and fuel invokes a serious risk for future generations. Koizumi
payment under the multi-trade-credit-policy and to mark theoretical (2015) calculated the economics of expanding biofuel evolution against
outcomes in sustainability. Balaman et al. (2018) developed an in- food security. Ji and Long (2016) stated that the utilization of energy
tegrated optimization of transportation networks and a sustainable crops for bioenergy is expected to increase the price of foodstuff pro-
supply chain. The hybrid solution approach with a combination of fuzzy ducts. There is no doubt that sustainable resources are available, which
set and ε-constraint method is used in their method. Moazzam et al. can be utilized for the generation of sustainable energy for the next-
(2018) introduced an analytical framework that integrates environ- generation. Residual biomass is a sustainable raw material and has the
mental dimension of sustainability and risk assessment in context of promising ability to be converted into biofuel for sustainable energy.
food supply chain. Xu and Wang (2018) studied sustainable manu- Residual biomasses are the remaining portion of food crops after col-
facturing in a closed-loop supply chain under consideration of re- lecting grains on agricultural land (e.g., corn stover and wheat straw).
manufacturing and emission reduction. Sarkar (2019) introduced a Using residual biomass for bioenergy reduces both greenhouse gas
waste-reduction policy in a manufacturing-remanufacturing process but emissions and the hazards associated with fossil fuel energy (Cherubini
still he did not think the biofuel and the concept of bioenergy. Thus, the and Ulgiati, 2010). Residual biomass is low-priced and rich in nature
research gap exists, which the proposed study solves. (Manganaro et al., 2011). The literature stated that 204,536 tons of
residual biomass can generate approximately 2605 TJ amount of bio-
2.2. Social pillar pertaining to the sustainable supply chain energy per year, which can be a potential source of electricity to 76,000
consumers (Roberts et al., 2015). It is essential to transport and gen-
Sustainable supply chains are observed as encircling components of erate economical biofuel to achieve a sustainable source of energy
the triple bottom line approach, for which organizations dealing with (Chuah et al., 2016).
supply chains need to be involved (Elkington, 1997). In 2005, The practice of using feedstock for biofuel generation is sustainable
Kleindorfer et al. (2005) developed the concept of “triple bottom line” and helpful for keeping the environment clean (Chuah et al., 2017). In
based on the balanced approach of profit, planet, and people. In the several countries, biofuel is established as a sustainable and more
triple bottom line framework, the policymaker likes to deliberate social, cleaner substitute energy for next-generation vehicles (Asif et al.,
environmental, and financial factors at the same time. Sustainable de- 2017). The biofuel produced from residual biomass is referred to as
velopment linked to social, ecological, and economic concerns helps second-generation biofuel, the supply chain of which is divided into up-
organizations to develop social responsibilities and environmental stream chain, mid-stream chain, and finally down-stream chain. Up-
practices through their supply chains. The balance between the three stream activities consist of harvesting residual biomass, forming it into
columns of the triple bottom line (society, economics, and environ- bales, temporary storage at an agricultural field, and transportation to a
ment) involves a better understanding of how business actions affect biorefinery. Mid-stream activities include pre-processing and fermen-
the existing and upcoming environment (Hutchins and Sutherland, tation for converting solid biomass to liquid biofuel. Finally, in the
2008). Later, Teuteberg and Wittstruck (2010) presented the “House of down-stream part, the biofuel is transported from biorefineries to de-
Sustainable Supply Chain” constructed on three columns of the triple pots and markets for final usage. The uncertainties consist of but are not
bottom line approach. These columns are the basic pillars to retain the partial to RB supply, end-product demand, pre-treatment, yield, pro-
house in balance, where compliance management and risk forms the duction, distribution, and price uncertainties. To attain optimum
foundation of the building. The main theme of the triple bottom line output, the judgments of biofuel SCM must integrate such uncertainties
approach is that social factors are also a key dimension that is neglected (Awudu and Zhang, 2012). The SGBSCM has insignificant research
in the literature of sustainable supply chains. under uncertain variables (Sharma et al., 2013). Many researchers
The number of new job opportunities is considered as a primary discussed the uncertain parameters in the field of biofuel SCM. For

4
W. Ahmed and B. Sarkar Resources, Conservation & Recycling 150 (2019) 104431

instance, Kim et al. (2011) proposed an optimal network and compar- managing and designing a second-generation biofuel supply chain with
ison study of the biomass SCM under uncertainty. Yue et al. (2014b) an optimization approach. The decision-making techniques and tools
described opportunities and the key challenges in optimization and can help firms make more informed and effective sustainable biofuel
modeling of the biofuel SCM. supply chain design decisions. Additionally, to advance this study, an
In recent years, a limited number of researchers and practitioners improved augmented ε-constraint methodology using lexicographic
have dedicated their work on biofuel supply chain modeling with multi- optimization is proposed. Zhang and Reimann (2014) provided a clear
objective optimization. Most of the work in this area focuses on im- augmented ε-constraint methodology to solve multi-objective mathe-
proving the economic dimension by either reducing the cost or making matical optimization problems. This paper considers carbon footprint
more profit. Ekşioğlu et al. (2009) designed a supply chain structure for and the number of new jobs generated along with cost minimization by
biomass transportation from farms to refineries. They evaluated the multi-objective optimization model for planning sustainable second-
location, size, and a number of biorefineries based on the approach- generation biofuel supply chains. Additionally, this research examines
ability of biomass. Akgul et al. (2012) presented a multi-objective op- the application using a case study to illustrate the effectiveness of the
timization model of the supply chain to target the environmental and proposed approach.
economic aspects of the second-generation bioethanol. El‐Halwagi et al.
(2013) integrated a safety factor into the biorefinery capacity man- 3. Problem description, notation, and assumptions
agement and location-selection problem and achieve a tradeoff between
safety and economic issues using Pareto curves. Balaman and Selim This section provides the problem description, notations for para-
(2014) proposed a supply chain model to determine the quantity, lo- meters and decision variables, and assumptions for the designed
cation, and capacity of biomass storage using a mixed-integer-linear- structure.
programming approach. The primary objective of their study was to
maximize profit. Murillo-Alvarado et al. (2015) designed a biofuel 3.1. Problem description
supply chain network having multiple objectives that minimize the
environmental influence and maximizes the net present value. They In this section, the integrated sustainable supply chain structure,
concluded that second generation biofuel generates environmental and quantity-allocation, and location-allocation planning for sustainable
social benefits. Woo et al. (2016) presented a hydrogen supply chain energy with a chain of sustainable raw-material is demonstrated. The
model having a single objective to decrease the total cost. Ye et al. multi-objective mathematical model for a sustainable supply chain for
(2018) claimed that by confirming a sustainable supply of residual second-generation biofuel is presented and generate an optimum solu-
biomass, perfect coordination of the biofuel supply chain can be suc- tion by capturing social, environmental, and economic aspects of the
ceeded. Ghaderi et al. (2018) proposed a sustainable switchgrass-based triple bottom line approach. All three dimensions of sustainability are
multi-objective model having robust possibilistic programming for the sequentially executed in the same framework. The carbon cap and tax
framework of the bioethanol supply chain. In their study, both en- scheme are also integrated into the supply chain management that can
vironmental and economic aspects of sustainability (with the addition be used as part to safeguard the environment. This sustainable supply
of a social perspective) are incorporated into the model. Table 1 shows chain model has an objective of designing the residual biomass-based
the contributions of different authors cited in the above literature. sustainable supply chain for second-generation biofuel by organizing
Based on the above discussions, a sustainable supply chain model decisions based on: (i) formation of the second-generation biofuel
consisting of all dimensions of sustainability under a triple bottom line supply chain network, (ii) location and quantity allocation of sustain-
approach is presented. The end-product is biofuel from residual bio- able raw-material in the shape of residual biomass resources from
mass, which is sustainable as it helps in lowering greenhouse emissions multi-agricultural regions, (iii) distribution of biofuel by meeting the
as compared to fossil fuels and can be a source for rural development. demands of multiple particular markets, and (iv) make an optimized
This study intends to fill this gap in the literature. Indeed, a small solution by trade-off between conflicting objectives. The proposed
number of papers have reflected all three aspects of sustainability in model considers the trade-offs between total supply chain cost, carbon

Table 1
Literature contribution to the sustainable supply chain in second-generation biofuel.
Author (s) Sustainability Supply chain optimization FGB SGB Environmental aspect Social aspect Augmented ε-constraint method

Elkington (1997) ✓ ✓ ✓
Zhou et al. (2000) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Kleindorfer et al. (2005) ✓ ✓ ✓
Ekşioğlu et al. (2009) ✓ ✓
Cherubini and Ulgiati (2010) ✓
You and Wang (2011) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Manganaro et al. (2011) ✓
Akgul et al. (2012) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Pishvaee and Razmi (2012) ✓ ✓ ✓
Yue et al. (2013) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Mohammadi et al. (2014) ✓ ✓ ✓
Balaman and Selim (2014) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Zhang and Reimann (2014) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Mota et al. (2015) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Murillo-Alvarado et al. (2015) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Allaoui et al. (2016) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Ding et al. (2016) ✓ ✓ ✓
Chuah et al. (2017) ✓ ✓
Tsao et al. (2017) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Ghaderi et al. (2018) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Balaman et al. (2018) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
This Paper ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

FGB: First-generation biofuel; SGB: Second-generation biofuel.

5
W. Ahmed and B. Sarkar Resources, Conservation & Recycling 150 (2019) 104431

emissions associated with all supply chain activities, and opportunities 4.1. Economic objective
for job employment in rural areas along with the transportation sector.
An effective approach is also needed to solve this multi-objective op- The framework of the mathematical model was formed, with eco-
timization problem under the triple bottom line. Fig. 2 shows the pro- nomic objective having minimizing of total cost in the whole second-
blem definition of sustainable supply chain structure for a second- generation biofuel supply chain by quantity-allocation of residual bio-
generation biofuel. The minimization of the supply chain cost and mass and biofuel according to the demand nodes. In previous biofuel
carbon emissions and maximizing employment are conflicting objec- supply chain models for cost minimization, the demand of the market
tives. Hence, it is necessary to acquire the trade-offs within these ob- centers, the resource expenses in agricultural regions, and the yield of
jectives. Thus, the main aim of the proposed model was to optimize all agricultural residual biomass was assumed to be constant. In actual
three factors of sustainability, i.e. social, environmental, and economic scenarios, situations are different, and these variables change with the
aspects, in the second-generation biofuel supply chain under a triple time period. The proposed model was structured by creating these
bottom approach. The notations of the designed mathematical model parameters as uncertain values and thus represented by fuzzy numbers
formulations are provided in Section 3.2 of this paper. The assumptions in the model. The carbon emissions cost in the form of a carbon tax (Ctx)
of defined problem are presented in Section 3.3. The proposed supply is also incorporated into the entire model. The carbon tax is employed
chain network design for second-generation biofuel is illustrated in on hazardous emissions during different farm activities, i.e., harvesting
Fig. 3. and bailing, transportation of raw material, and transportation of bio-
fuel.
The first term of the proposed objective function is the cost incurred
3.2. Model assumptions in agricultural regions and consists of residual biomass cost and carbon
emissions cost in form carbon tax. The second term in the function is
1 The policy of emission tax is implemented on entire players of a the transportation cost of residual biomass. The third term consists of
supply chain management. The emission limit is assigned according carbon emissions cost for the shipment of residual biomass to bior-
to the government policies for urban areas, rural area, and high- efinery plants from agricultural regions. The fourth term of the objec-
ways. Thus, the main objective is about the economic objective, tive function is the biofuel production cost at biorefineries plants and
succeeding environmental and social objectives. the cost of carbon emissions for unit production of biofuel at bior-
2 The initial investment cost of a biorefinery plant and the expense of efineries. The fifth term consists of a transportation cost of biofuel. The
making secondary products are assumed to be fixed and ignored in final term of the first objective function is the carbon emissions cost for
the model (Ren et al., 2015). The investment cost of vehicles for the shipment of biofuel to given market centers.
transporting RB and SGB is also assumed to be fixed and ignored.
3 The end product is not stored in a biorefinery and transported di-
rectly to market centers. The node distance is known. The capacity
of transportation mode is assumed to be known and same for all
zones to entire biorefineries and similarly for all biorefineries to
entire markets.

4. Formulation of a mathematical model

The mathematical formulation structure of the described model is


presented in this section. The model consists of three objectives as (1)
the minimization of entire supply chain cost, (2) the minimization of
carbon emissions, and (3) the maximization of new job opportunities.

Fig. 2. Problem structure for a sustainable supply chain of a second-generation biofuel under the triple bottom line.

6
W. Ahmed and B. Sarkar Resources, Conservation & Recycling 150 (2019) 104431

Fig. 3. Proposed network structure for the second-generation biofuel supply chain.

F R respectively. And let er represents the carbon emissions for a unit of


Min TC = ∑ ∑ [ (C˜ fha co st ld
+ C˜ f + C˜ f + C˜ f ) + (ef × C tx × αf ) ] Qfr biofuel generated at biorefineries. Emission functions are linear in
f =1 r=1
F R
quantity transported between nodes and processed in facilities. The
+ ∑ ∑ [((Cfrtr × dsfr ) + θfrtr ) × Vfr ] Tfr following function of the environmental objective minimizes the total
f =1 r=1 carbon emissions in the entire biofuel supply chain.
F R
F R F R R M
+ ∑ ∑ [(efr × C tx × ψfr ) × Vfr × dsfr ] Tfr Min TE = ∑ ∑ ef × Qfr + ∑ ∑ efr × Qfr + ∑ ∑ er × Qrm
f =1 r=1
f =1 r=1 f =1 r=1 r=1 m=1
R M
R M
+ ∑∑ [Crp + (er × C tx × βr )] Qrm + ∑ ∑ erm × Qrm
r=1 m=1
r=1 m=1
R M
+ ∑∑ tr
[((Crm × dsrm) + tr
θrm ) × Vrm ] Trm (2)
r=1 m=1
R M
+ ∑∑ [(erm × C tx × ϕrm) × Vrm × dsrm ] Trm
4.3. Social objective
r=1 m=1

(1) The social objective is to maximize local employment in a regional


economy. These jobs are created to support operational activities in the
agricultural zone. This objective will help in rural development.
4.2. Environmental objective Additionally, job development due to transportation and operations in
biorefineries is also considered in this framework. The amount of new
The second objective is the environmental objective, which is to jobs created due to transportation between nodes is linear and depends
minimize the total carbon emissions resulting from different farm ac- on the distances between nodes and quantity of residual biomass and
tivities for sourcing residual biomass, transportation of residual bio- biofuel shipped. Let jf represent the local job accrued due to agricultural
mass, biofuel production at biorefineries, and transportation of biofuel. farm operations. Let jr represent the jobs gained due to biorefinery
The model captures carbon emissions emitted from fuel consumption operations. Finally, let jfr and jrm represent the local jobs accrued due to
during transportation of residual biomass from agricultural regions to transportation activities for shipment of residual biomass and biofuel,
biorefineries plants and transportation of biofuel from biorefineries respectively. Finally, the social function is written as follows:
plants to market centers. The proposed model also captures carbon
F R F R R M
emissions due to the agricultural farm activities, i.e., harvesting,
bailing, collecting, storing, and loading. In addition, operations during
Max TJ = ∑ ∑ jf × Qfr + ∑ ∑ jfr × Qfr + ∑ ∑ jr × Qrm
f =1 r=1 f =1 r=1 r=1 m=1
biofuel production activities in biorefineries also emit carbon emissions, R M
which are captured in the designed mathematical model. Let ef re- + ∑ ∑ jrm × Qrm
present the carbon emissions per ton of residual biomass in an agri- r=1 m=1
cultural zone. Let efr and erm represents the emissions for transporting
(3)
unit of residual biomass and unit of biofuel per unit distance,

7
W. Ahmed and B. Sarkar Resources, Conservation & Recycling 150 (2019) 104431

The fuzzy parameters in the economic objective are converted into over the maximum carrying capacity of the individual truck.
crisp values using a signed distance method as follows. The detail of
Qfr
defuzzification is shown in Appendix A. Tfr = ∀f ∀r
Vfr (13)
ha ha ha 1
C˜ f = d (C˜ f , 0̃ f ) = Cfha + (Δ2ha ha
f − Δ1f )
4 (4)
Qrm
Trm = ∀r ∀m
co co co 1 Vrm (14)
C˜ f = d (C˜ f , 0̃ f ) = C fco + (Δ2cof − Δ1cof )
4 (5)

st st st 1
C˜ f = d (C˜ f , 0̃ f ) = Cfst + (Δ2stf − Δ1stf ) 4.8. Carbon cap constraint
4 (6)

ld ld ld 1 Equations (15–18) limit the amount of carbon emitted during op-


C˜ f = d (C˜ f , 0̃ f ) = Cfld + (Δ2ldf − Δ1ldf )
4 (7) erational activities of agricultural regions, biorefineries, and the
The constraints of the designed model are given below. transportation sector with their respective carbon caps. A setting where
the different sectors must adhere to a fixed carbon cap is considered.
4.4. Residual biomass supply constraint This ensures that the cap on respective carbon emissions over the de-
fined horizon is not exceeded. Let E fcap , E frcap, Ercap, and Erm
cap
be carbon
Equation (8) shows the residual biomass supply constraint, which caps in agricultural regions, transportation routes from agricultural
indicates that the supply of residual biomass from a single agricultural regions to biorefineries, biorefineries, and transportation routes from
zone should not exceed its availability. The availability of residual biorefineries to market centers, respectively. These caps could be au-
biomass is the product of the area of the agricultural zone and farm thorized by a monitoring body external to these sectors or could cor-
yield. This yield parameter at farms is considered to be uncertain due to respond to a judgement made internally by an organization to adhere to
weather and pest factors and is denoted by a fuzzy number. The de- particular limits on emissions.
fuzzification of the yield parameter is done by signed distance ap- R
proach. The detail of defuzzification is shown in Appendix B. The crisp ef × ∑ Qfr ≤ E fcap ∀f
form of this constraint is presented in Equation (10) as follows: r=1 (15)
R R R
∑ Qfr ≤ Af y˜f ∀f ∑ efr × dfr × Qfr ≤ ∑ E frcap ∀f
r=1 (8) (16)
r=1 r=1
R
M
∑ Qfr ≤ Af d (y˜f , 0̃f ) ∀f
r=1 (9) er × ∑ Qrm ≤ Ercap ∀r
m=1 (17)
R
1
∑ Qfr ≤ Af ⎛yf + (Δ2f − Δ1f ) ⎞
4
∀f M M
r=1 ⎝ ⎠ (10) ∑ erm × drm × Qrm ≤ cap
∑ Erm ∀r
m=1 m=1 (18)

4.5. Mass balance

4.9. Demand constraint


The Equation (11) shows the flow balance constraint at agricultural
regions, biorefineries, and markets. The relationship shows that total
Equation (19) makes sure that the biofuel demand is satisfied in
inflow of residual biomass shipped from all agricultural regions multi-
each demand zone. The demand variable is uncertain and is presented
plied by the conversion factor of each biorefinery plant should be equal
as a fuzzy number. The defuzzification of the demand parameter is done
to the total outflow of biofuel from biorefineries to market centers. The
by the signed distance approach. The detail of defuzzification is shown
mass balance is written as
in Appendix C. The final crisp form is written in Equation (20) as fol-
F M
lows:
∑ Qfr × γr = ∑ Qrm ∀r
f =1 m=1 (11) R
∑ Qrm = d (D˜m , 0̃m) ∀m
r=1 (19)
4.6. Production capacity
R

Equation (12) limits the amount of residual biomass transported to ∑ Qrm = d (D˜m , 0̃m) ∀m
r=1 (20)
biorefineries to the maximum production capacity of a biorefinery
plant. It shows that the maximum production capacity of the particular R
biorefinery is higher or equal to the amount of biofuel that is shipped to 1
∑ Qrm = Dm +
4
(Δ2m − Δ1m ) ∀m
the desired market center. r=1 (21)
M
∑ Qrm ≤ cpr ∀r
m=1 (12) 4.10. Non-negativity constraint

4.7. Transportation capacity Qfr , Qrm, Tfr , Trm, ≥ 0 ∀ f , r, m (22)

Equations (13–14) indicate that the total number of transportation The concluding objective functions of the designed model w.r.t the
trips by trucks in shipping residual biomass and biofuel is equal to the mentioned constraints are given as follows:
total quantity of residual biomass and biofuel, respectively, divided 1st objective:

8
W. Ahmed and B. Sarkar Resources, Conservation & Recycling 150 (2019) 104431

R
Min TC
ef × ∑ Qfr ≤ E fcap ∀f
= r=1 (32)
R R

F ⎡ R ∑ efr × dfr × Qfr ≤ ∑ E frcap ∀f


(33)
∑ ∑ ⎢⎢ r=1 r=1

f =1 r=1 ⎢ M
⎣ er × ∑ Qrm ≤ Ercap ∀r
(34)
⎛Cf + 1 (Δ2ha
ha ha co
f − Δ1f ) + C f +
1 co
(Δ2f − Δ1cof ) ⎞ m=1

⎜ 4 4 ⎟ M M
1 1 cap
⎜⎜+ Cfst + (Δ2stf − Δ1stf ) + Cfld + (Δ2ldf − Δ1ldf ) ⎟⎟ ∑ erm × drm × Qrm ≤ ∑ Erm ∀r
⎝ 4 4 ⎠ m=1 m=1 (35)
⎤ Qfr , Qrm, Tfr , Trm, ≥ 0 ∀ f , r, m (36)

+ (ef × C tx × αf ) ⎥ Qfr

⎦ 5. Solution methodology
F R
+ ∑ ∑ [((Cfrtr × dsfr ) + θfrtr ) × Vfr ] Tfr The methodology for solving designed model is based on an ap-
f =1 r=1
proach that generates a set of prescribed Pareto optimum solutions for
F R
the proposed multi-objective problem. The Pareto optimum solutions
+ ∑ ∑ [(efr × C tx × ψfr ) × Vfr × dsfr ] Tfr
f =1 r=1 set is also known as the set of most favorable, efficient, non-inferior,
R M and non-dominated solutions. In such solutions, it is unable to increase
+ ∑∑ [Crp + (er × C tx × βr )] Qrm the value of a single function without compromising the performance of
r=1 m=1 the remaining objective functions. The weighted sum and ε-constraint
R M
approach are the two main methods used in previous studies to solve a
+ ∑∑ tr
[((Crm tr
× dsrm) + θrm ) × Vrm ] Trm multi-objective optimization problem. Mavrotas (2009) mentioned that
r=1 m=1
R M
the ε-constraint approach is computationally more efficient than the
+ ∑∑ [(erm × C tx × ϕrm) × Vrm × dsrm ] Trm weighted sum approach. The ε-constraint technique is one of the well
r=1 m=1 (23) organized and most widely used approaches to deal with multi-objec-
nd tive problems. It optimizes one of the objective functions, and the re-
2 objective:
maining objective functions are integrated into the set of constraints.
F R F R R M Assume the following multi-objective problem is considered as
Min TE = ∑ ∑ ef × Qfr + ∑ ∑ efr × Qfr + ∑ ∑ er × Qrm problem P:
f =1 r=1 f =1 r=1 r=1 m=1
R M max/min (f1(u, x, z), f2(u, x, z), …fn(u, x, z))
+ ∑ ∑ erm × Qrm
r=1 m=1 subject to: u, x, z ∈ W (37)

(24) where f1 (u, x, z), f2 (u, x, z), …fn (u, x, z) are the total number of
rd objective functions; u, x, z are vectors of decision variables; and W is the
3 objective:
range of feasibility. Using the ε-constraint method, the problem P is
F R F R R M
converted to P' as shown below:
Max TJ = ∑ ∑ jf × Qfr + ∑ ∑ jfr × Qfr + ∑ ∑ jr × Qrm
f =1 r=1 f =1 r=1 r=1 m=1 max / min f1(u,x,z)
R M
+ ∑ ∑ jrm × Qrm subject to: f2(u, x, z) ≤ ε1 for min functions
r=1 m=1
f2(u, x, z) ≥ ε2 for max functions (38)
(25)
fn (u, x, z) ≥ εn-1
subject to
R
u, x, z ∈ W
1
∑ Qfr ≤ Af ⎛yf + (Δ2f − Δ1f ) ⎞
4
∀f In such a way, the multi-objective problem function is converted
r=1 ⎝ ⎠ (26)
into a single-objective as follows:
M
∑ Qrm ≤ cpr ∀r min Total Cost (u, x, z) (1st objective)
m=1 (27)
subject to: (26–36)
F M
∑ Qfr × γr = ∑ Qrm ∀r Total emissions (u, x, z) ≤ ε1 (39)
f =1 m=1 (28) Number of jobs(u, x, z) ≥ ε2 (40)
Qfr The values of ε1 and ε2 are limits set on the value of social and
Tfr = ∀f ∀r
Vfr (29) environmental objectives. In this research, a modified form of the ε-
constraint approach is adopted in which the ranges of ε1 and ε2 are
Qrm
Trm = ∀f ∀r generated using a lexicographic optimization technique. The usage of
Vrm (30) this optimization method to find the ranges of ε1 and ε2 is known in the
R literature as an augmented ε-constraint method. The efficacy of the
1
∑ Qrm = Dm +
4
(Δ2i − Δ1i ) ∀m solution is endorsed since the appropriate surplus or slack variables are
r=1 (31) formulated in the reframed ε-constraint model.

9
W. Ahmed and B. Sarkar Resources, Conservation & Recycling 150 (2019) 104431

5.1. Lexicographic optimization to generate the ranges of ε1 and ε2 Total emissions (u, x, z) + S1= ε1 (41)

Number of jobs (u, x, z) – S2= ε2 (42)


The lexicographic optimization approach is a series of functions in
which the objective function with the highest priority level is optimized S1,S2≥ 0
first, followed by possible substitute goals optimize for the second
function and so on. It starts by positioning the objective functions on In reframed function, δ is a small number which typically carries
the basis of priority level. The objective with the highest preference is values from 10−3 and 10-6. The developed procedure presents an effi-
placed at the top. In the proposed case, the economic objective has the cient solution to solve the proposed multi-objective optimization pro-
top priority, followed by environmental and social objectives. Using the blem. The steps of procedures are drawn in Fig. 4.
lexicographic optimization approach, the subsequent three problems
are optimized and evaluate the corresponding objective. The first pro- 6. Numerical example
blem is to optimize the total cost as min TC s.t. (26–36). The optimal
solution for this problem is (u*, x*, z*), whereas the corresponding To analyze the developed model with the proposed algorithm, a
value of the objective function is f11 = TC (u*, x*, z*). The obtained numerical example is presented in which some parameter values are
solution is later used to compute the objective function value of en- taken from the relevant study and are being cited as used. The model
vironmental (f21 ) and social (f31 ) functions. The second problem is to was studied on a large scale, which entailed fifteen agricultural regions
optimize total emissions as min TE s.t. (26–36) with the extra constraint
for the supply of residual biomass, eight biorefineries for producing
TC (u, x, z) = f11 + δ1. Here, δ1 is a too small number whose value is
biofuel, and twenty market centers to fulfill the required demand. It is
increased from 0 to a small +ve value to get a feasible solution for the
considered that a truck has two drivers and 40 operational hours in a
problem. The addition of this extra constraint assures that the new
week, working 50 weeks in a year. A truck can carry 46 tons of solid
solution will optimize the total emissions (TE) while minimizing the
residual biomass, and the average traveling speed is assumed to be
value of the total cost function (TC). The objective function value for
60 km/hour. Based on the above assumptions, the kilometers moved by
total emissions is f22 = TE (ŭ , x̆ , z̆ ), and the new solution is denoted as
single truck is (40 hours/week) × (50 weeks/year) × (60 km/
(ŭ , x̆ , z̆ ). The obtained solution is later utilized to evaluate the objective
hour) = 120,000 km/year. So, the number of ton-kilometers for single
function values of economic (f12 ) and social (f32 ) functions.
truck is (120,000 km/year) × (46 tons) = 5, 520,000 tons-km/year.
Subsequently, the third and final problem is to optimize the social
Therefore, the number of new jobs created for ton-km is (2 drivers) /
function as max TJ s.t. (26–36) with two extra constraints TC (u, x, z) =
(5,520,000 tons-km/year). To compute the number of transportation
f12 + δ1 and TE (u, x, z) = f22 + δ2. Here δ1 and δ2 are very small
jobs per ton from agricultural regions to biorefineries, it is multiplied
numbers whose value is increased from 0 to small +ve value to get a
(2/5,520,000) by the distance. The same approach is followed to
feasible solution to the problem. The addition of this extra constraint
evaluate trucking jobs from biorefineries plants to market centers. The
assures that the new answer will optimize the total jobs (TJ) while
number of new jobs created in agricultural farms due to residual bio-
minimizing the values of the cost function (TC) and carbon emissions
... mass utilization as a raw material is linear and depends on the amount
function (TE). The objective function value for total jobs is f33 = TJ (u ,
... ... ... ... ... of biomass harvested. It is assumed that machinery has 2 operators, 40
x , z ), and the new solution is denoted as (u , x , z ). The obtained so-
working hours in a week, and 8 weeks per season of the year during
lution is later used to compute the objective function values of eco-
harvest. The average processing rate is assumed to be 5 tons/hour (Gent
nomic (f13 ) and environmental (f23 ) function. The payoff table con-
et al., 2017).
structed in the result of lexicographic optimization is shown in Table 2.
Based on the above assumptions, the number of tons processed by
If S1max = min(f21 , f22 , f23 ) , S2max = min(f31 , f32 , f33 ) , S1min =
1 2 3 min 1 2 3 one piece of equipment is (40 hours/week) × (8 weeks/year) × (5
min(f2 , f2 , f2 ) , and S2 = min(f3 , f3 , f3 ) during the optimization, then
tons/hour) = 1600 ton/season. So, the number of tons processed per
these values are used to find the ranges of ε1 and ε2. To get efficient
piece of equipment is 1600 tons/year. Therefore, the amount of new
estimates for the values of ε1 and ε2, these intervals are divided into h
jobs created for one ton of residual biomass processed is (2 operators) /
equal sub-intervals. The advantage of the lexicographic optimization
(1600 tons/year). To compute the number of farms jobs needed in
approach is that it investigates a number of values that can be adapted
agricultural regions, it is multiplied (2/1600) with the amount of re-
by ε1 and ε2 because these values present a dense illustration of the
sidual biomass. The number of jobs accrued due to operational activ-
Pareto optimal set. The incorporation of surplus or slack variables in the
ities in agricultural zone depends upon the amount of residual biomass
range of constraints influences the algorithm and generates only an
harvested. The number of local employment needed for biorefinery
efficient solution to the given multi-objective problem. The new pro-
plant operations is calculated from the Jobs and Economic
blem is written as follows:
Development Impact (JEDI), a structure developed by the National
Min Total Cost (u, x, z) + δ(S1+ S1) Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL 2013). It estimates the economic
effect of operating a biofuel plant. The values of parameters for dif-
subject to: (26–36) ferent agricultural regions consisted of yield of residual, the harvesting
costs, the storage costs at farm locations, the collection costs, the

Table 2
Payoff table from lexicographic optimization.
Optimization Problems Objective function values

Economic function Environmental function Social Function

First Problem minimize TC s.t. (26-36) Calculate: (u*, f21 = TE (u*, x*, z*) f31 = TJ (u*, x*, z*)
x*, z*) f11 = TC (u*, x*, z*)
Second Problem f12 = TC (ŭ , x̆ , z̆ ) minimize TE s.t. (26-36) TC = f11 + δ1 Calculate: f32 = TJ (ŭ , x̆ , z̆ )
(ŭ , x̆ , z̆ ) f22 = TE (ŭ , x̆ , z̆ )
... ... ... ... ... ...
Third Problem f13 = TC (u , x , z ) f23 = TE (u , x , z ) minimize TJ s.t. (26-36) TC = f12 + δ1 TE = f22 + δ2
... ... ... ... ... ...
Calculate: ( u , x , z ) f33 = TC (u , x , z )

10
W. Ahmed and B. Sarkar Resources, Conservation & Recycling 150 (2019) 104431

Fig. 4. Systematic procedure for the Pareto optimal solution with the reframed ε-constraint method.

loading costs, area of farms, and the carbon emissions throughout farm Table d3 of Appendix D. The value of the demand parameter by market
activities, as shown in Table D1 of Appendix D. The values of para- centers is given in Table D4 of Appendix D. The distances among the up-
meters for the transportation sector in terms of cost and carbon emis- stream nodes and down-stream nodes are shown in Table D6 and Table
sions are presented in Table D2 and Table D5, respectively, of Appendix D7, respectively, of Appendix D.
D. The biorefinery capacity, production cost, conversion ratio of the
individual biorefinery, carbon emissions for generation unit biofuel,
and number of job opportunities created by biorefineries are shown in

Fig. 5. Pareto curve for total cost versus carbon emissions for a targeted number of job created.

11
W. Ahmed and B. Sarkar Resources, Conservation & Recycling 150 (2019) 104431

6.1. Results liquid biofuel between nodes, and the carbon emissions costs due to the
carbon tax on the transportation route supplying liquid biofuel. The
The multi-objective model for the sustainable supply chain of a Pareto analysis on the basis of total cost acquired in the second-gen-
second-generation biofuel supply under the triple bottom line approach eration biofuel sustainable supply chain is given in Fig. 8, which shows
was solved using the augmented ε-constraint method. The Pareto curve that the cost of biofuel production at biorefineries was the major pro-
for total cost versus carbon emissions for a targeted number of jobs is portion of the entire supply chain cost at almost 54.65% of the total
shown in Fig. 5. The multi-objective model trades-off among given cost. The cost of carbon emissions from all sectors contributed a minor
objectives by prioritizing the economic objective following environ- portion of the entire cost, as this cost sums to only 0.16% of the entire
mental and social objectives. The optimal cost in the entire supply chain cost.
for the multi-objective model is $ 284,267,771.16 (2.54 $/gallon), ac- The entire supply chain emitted 24,576.25 tons of carbon to the
counting for 24,576.25 tons (199.24 g/gallon) of carbon emissions with environment. It is interesting to see that the transportation sector plays
a total of 3005 jobs in the entire supply chain. To evaluate the per- an important role in the generation of carbon emissions in the en-
formance of the designed model, a comparison was also developed vironment. The results show that about 86.5% of the total carbon is
between cost minimization model and multi-objective model, which is emitted from this segment, of which 53.3% is from transportation from
shown in Fig. 6. The comparison shows the optimized values in multi- agricultural regions to biorefineries. The agricultural regions had the
objective with a trade-off between conflicting objectives, as compared lowest carbon emissions in the environment, only 4.4% of total emis-
to the single-objective problem when only one objective is taken for the sions. Carbon emissions for the entire supply chain are summarized in
specific study. As nowadays sustainable supply chain is more appealing, Fig. 9.
in which environmental and social concern are also taken into account Agricultural regions create more job opportunities in the whole
with addition to the economic dimension, so it is recommended that supply chain. The number of new jobs accrued during second-genera-
multi-objective with a trade-off between objectives is best suitable. tion sustainable supply chain was 3,005, in which 1923 jobs were from
The network diagram with the optimal distribution of raw material the agricultural sector, or 64.0% of the total jobs. The transportation
and the final product is presented in Fig. 7. On the basis of the results, it sector from an agricultural zone to biorefineries generated the least
is worth mention to state that no residual biomass was shipped to number of jobs or 1.4% of total jobs. A summary of total jobs accrued in
biorefinery R1 from any agricultural region under the multi-objective all sectors of second-generation biofuel is presented in Fig. 10.
condition. In contrast, the maximum amount of residual biomass was Fig. 11 compares the different scenarios having trade-off values
supplied to biorefinery R5 because biorefinery R5 is nearer to the based on exchanging the priority level of given objectives. The main
maximum number of agricultural regions and market centers, it fulfills priority in the proposed model was cost minimization, followed by
the demand of seven market centers, and the conversion ratio of bior- minimization of carbon emissions and maximization of jobs. This
efinery R5 is high relative to other biorefineries. In contrast, the loca- comparison shows the optimal solution on the basis of exchanging the
tion of biorefinery R1 is far from the agricultural region and market priority level of objectives. Six scenarios were developed, and an op-
centers compared to other biorefineries. The outcomes of the optimal timal solution based on the same methodology was created for com-
distribution of residual biomass among agricultural regions to bior- parison. The minimum cost was observed in Case 1 and Case 2, in which
efineries the final biofuel transportation from biorefineries to market the economic objective was the first priority. If the economic objective
centers are shown in Table 3 and Table 4, respectively. The number of is placed as the first priority, as shown in Case 1, the environmental
transportation trips between agricultural regions to biorefinery plants objective (tons of carbon emissions) grew by 0.18%. Furthermore, in
and biorefinery plants to markets is given in Table 5 and Table 6, re- Case 3 and Case 4 When environmental objective (tons of carbon
spectively. emissions) was the first priority rather than the economic objective, the
The joint total cost of the whole supply chain for second-generation cost increased by 0.02%. The minimum carbon emissions resulted in
biofuel covered the costs of residual biomass, the carbon emissions cost Case 3, in which the environmental objective was the first priority,
due to carbon tax implemented by government authorities during dif- followed by the economic and social objectives. Similarly, for Case 5
ferent activities in agricultural farms, the transportation cost from the and Case 6, the social objective is pioneer priority. The cost is increased
agricultural regions to biorefinery plants to distribute residual biomass by 40.32% if social objective (number of jobs) was the first priority. On
as a raw material, the carbon emission cost owed to carbon tax for the other hand, as shown in Case 6, when the social objective (the
transportation routes between nodes, the cost of biofuel production at number of jobs) had first priority, then the environmental objective
biorefineries, the carbon emissions cost due to carbon tax for biofuel (tons of carbon emissions) increased by 111.69%. The social objective
production at biorefinery plant, the transportation cost for shipping increased by 9.31% when it had first priority.

Fig. 6. Model comparison between single-objective and multi-objective based on biofuel delivery.

12
W. Ahmed and B. Sarkar Resources, Conservation & Recycling 150 (2019) 104431

Fig. 7. Optimal second-generation biofuel supply chain for quantity distribution and location-allocation.

6.2. Sensitivity analysis Table 4


Number of transportation trips between agricultural regions to biorefineries.
This section provides an insight analysis of the impact of changes in Number of trips R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8
different key parameters Dm , CfP , ef , CrP , er , Cfrtr , E frcap , Crm
tr cap
, Ctx , Erm , efr ,
and erm on the first objective (expected total cost of supply chain), the F1 – – – – – 2,935 – –
second objective (total emissions during supply chain), and the third F2 – – – 2,858 – – – –
F3 – 1,866 – – – – – –
objective (number of jobs accrued during entire supply chain process).
F4 – – – – – 3,043 – –
The sensitivity analysis is done on the basis of increasing and de- F5 – – 3,342 – – – – –
creasing, 25% and 50% of the individual parameter, and the change on F6 – – – – 2,358 – – –
the objectives is noticed due to these change in the individual para- F7 – – – – – – 2,984 –
meter. The sensitivity analysis of the stated parameters on all objectives F8 – – – – – – – –
F9 – – – – – – – –
such as total cost (TC), total emissions (TE), and a total number of jobs
F10 – – – – 3,082 – – –
created (TJ) of the proposed model based is presented in Table 7. The F11 – – – – – – – –
following conclusions were drawn: F12 – – – – – – – 2,769
F13 – – – – 2,241 – – –
F14 – 2,721 – – – – 524 –
1 Positive and negative change in the value of demand Dm parameter
F15 – – – – 2,724 – – –
for all market centers causes a major change in all objectives. If the
value of Dm is increased by 25% than TC, TE and TJ are increased by “-” shows that no transportation trip from agricultural region f to biorefinery r.
29.13%, 36.58%, and 23.67% respectively. However by increasing

Table 3
Quantity of residual shipped between agricultural regions to biorefineries.
Quantity (tons) R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8

F1 – – – – – 135,000 – –
F2 – – – 131,480 – – – –
F3 – 85,813 – – – – – –
F4 – – – – – 140,000 – –
F5 – – 153,720 – – – – –
F6 – – – – 108,460 – – –
F7 – – – – – – 137,280 –
F8 – – – – – – – –
F9 – – – – – – – –
F10 – – – – 141,750 – – –
F11 – – – – – – – –
F12 – – – – – – – 127,090
F13 – – – – 103,090 – – –
F14 – 125,149 – – – – 24,091 –
F15 – – – – 125,300 – – –

“-” shows that no amount was distributed from agricultural region f to biorefinery r.

13
W. Ahmed and B. Sarkar Resources, Conservation & Recycling 150 (2019) 104431

Table 5
Quantity of biofuel shipped between biorefinery plants to market centers.
Quantity (104 gallons) M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 M12 M13 M14 M15 M16 M17 M18 M19 M20

R1 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
R2 – – – – – – – – – – – 415 – 450 680 – – – – –
R3 – – – 473 – – – 446 – – 161 – – – – – – – – –
R4 49 – – – – – – – – – – – 400 – – – 7 – – –
R5 551 – – – 690 – – – 550 640 579 – – – – 370 – 670 – –
R6 – – – – – – 480 – – – – 25 – – – – 493 – 360 670
R7 – 470 420 227 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
R8 – – – – – 720 – 194 – – – – – – – – – – – –

“-” shows that no biofuel is shipped from biorefinery plant r to market center m.

demand by 50%, and keeping all other variables constant than the causes a major change in TC only. The TE and TJ have no effect on
solution becomes non-feasible for all objectives. As demand is not this change. Total cost is equally sensitive to both positive and ne-
fulfilled under these conditions. In addition, by decreasing the gative changes in Cfrtr . Additionally, if Cfrtr is increased by 25% and
parameter Dm by 25% and 50%, then TC is decreased by 26.59% and 50%, then the total cost increases. In contrast, a decrease in Cfrtr by
51.92%, TE is decreased by 29.51% and 55.54%, and TJ is de- 20% and 50%, then the total cost decreases. These results demon-
creased by 24.11% and 48.38% respectively. It shows that all ob- strate that Cfrtr exists in an equilibrium state.
jectives are uniformly sensitive to a positive and negative change of 7 An increase in carbon cap E frcap for a transportation sector from an
parameter Dm. agricultural zone to biorefineries by 25% and 50% has no effect on
2 The outcome of parameter change in the cost of different activities the total cost and total emissions, but the total number of jobs is
at agricultural farms CfP causes a major change only in total cost. increased by 0.75% and 1.50%, respectively. On the other hand, a
The remaining objectives of total emissions and total jobs accrued decrease in E frcap by 25% or 50% causes a minor increase in the
have no effect on this change. Furthermore, if CfP is increased by economic objective and minor decrease in the social objective.
25% and 50%, then TC increases. However, a decrease in CfP by 25% However, a decrease in E frcap by 25% causes a minor increase in total
and 50%, then TC decreases. This indicates that CfP lies in an equi- emissions, but a major increase was observed for a 50% decrease.
librium state. Also, it shows that TC is uniformly sensitive to positive This is due to the fact that, if one route comes under cap constraint,
and negative changes in CfP . it finds another optimal route to meet demand, which may have a
3 Changing the carbon emissions during farm activities ef causes a longer distance between previous nodes and causes an increase in
major change in total emissions. TE is equally sensitive to both carbon emissions and total cost.
positive and negative changes in ef . In addition, the economic ob- 8 Changing the transportation cost from biorefineries to markets Crm tr

jective is only sensitive to the positive change of this parameter. The causes a major change in the economic objective only. The en-
social objective has no effect on the change in ef . If the value of ef is vironmental and social objectives are not affected by changes to Crm tr
.
increased by 25% and 50%, then TC increases by 0.82% and 3.32%, tr
Furthermore, if Crm is increased by 25% and 50%, then the total cost
and TE increases by 3.43% and 11.70%, respectively. TE decreases increases by 3.17% and 6.34%, respectively. In the same way, the
by only 1.10% and 2.20% upon decreasing ef by 25% and 50%, tr
decrease in Crm by 20% and 50%, then the total cost decreases by
respectively. 3.17% and 6.34%, respectively. This shows that total cost is equally
4 Change in the production cost of biofuel at biorefinery CrP cause sensitive to both positive and negative changes in Crm tr
. The results
major changes only in total cost. The environmental and social also illustrate that the solution exists in an equilibrium position.
objectives have no effect on this change. Moreover, if the value of 9 Changing the carbon tax Ctx for the transportation sector from an
CrP is increased by 25% and 50%, then TC increases. However, a agricultural zone to biorefineries causes only a minor change in the
decrease in CrP by 25% and 50%, then TC decreases and lies in an economic objective only. If the value of Ctx is increased by 25% and
equilibrium position. TC is uniformly sensitive to positive and ne- 50%, then the total cost increases. Similarly, a decrease in Ctx by
gative changes in CrP . 20% and 50%, the total cost decreases. Thus, the total cost is uni-
5 A parameter change in carbon emissions during the production of formly sensitive to positive and negative changes in Ctx . The out-
biofuel er causes a minor change in total cost but a major change in come also demonstrates that the solution is in an equilibrium state.
total emissions. On the other hand, the social objective has no effect 10 Increasing the carbon cap Erm cap
parameter for the transportation
on the change in er . If er is increased by 25% and 50%, then TC and sector from biorefineries to markets by 25% and 50% has no effect
TE increase. Similarly, if a decrease in er by 25% and 50%, then the on the total cost and total emissions, but the total number of jobs
TC and TE decrease. slightly increased. Similarly, a decrease in Erm cap
by 25% causes a very
6 Transportation cost from agricultural farms to biorefineries Cfrtr small increase in total cost (which is negligible), has no effect on

Table 6
Number of transportation trips between biorefinery plants to market centers.
Number of trips M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 M12 M13 M14 M15 M16 M17 M18 M19 M20

R1 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
R2 – – – – – – – – – – – 1,426 – 1545 2334 – – – – –
R3 – – – 1,624 – – – 1,531 – – 553 – – – – – – – – –
R4 169 – – – – – – – – – – – 1373 – – – 24 – – –
R5 1,891 – – – 2,369 – – – 1,888 2,197 1,988 – – – – 1270 – 2300 – –
R6 – – – – – – 1,648 – – – – 85 – – – – 1693 – 1236 2300
R7 – 1613 1442 779 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
R8 – – – – – 2472 – 667 – – – – – – – – – – – –

“-” shows that no transportation trip between biorefinery plant r to market center m.

14
W. Ahmed and B. Sarkar Resources, Conservation & Recycling 150 (2019) 104431

Fig. 8. Pareto analysis on the basis of total cost acquired in the second-generation biofuel.

change in the environmental objective and minor changes in the


economic and social objectives. However, if efr is decreased by 25%
and 50%, then there is no effect on total cost, while a major decrease
is observed in total emissions and a minor increase is obtained in
total jobs. The results illustrate that total cost is only sensitive to a
positive change in efr , whereas total emissions and total jobs are
uniformly sensitive to positive and negative changes.
12 An increase in carbon emissions erm from transportation between
biorefineries to markets by 25% and 50% has a major effect on total
emissions, which increased by 8.34% and 16.63%, respectively. The
total cost is only sensitive to positive 50% changes, whereas an in-
crease of 25% and decreases by 25% and 50% of erm have no effect
on the total cost. The total number of jobs is decreased by 0.46%
and 1.27% by increasing this parameter by 25% and 50%, respec-
tively. Decreasing erm by 25% and 50% has a major effect on total
emissions, which decrease by 8.34% and 16.69%, while the total
Fig. 9. Amount of carbon discharged in the second-generation biofuel supply number of jobs is only slightly affected with increases of 0.19% and
chain. 0.23%. Total emissions and total jobs are equally sensitive to both
positive and negative changes in erm .

7. Discussions

In this segment of the study, the key verdicts and insights for
managers dealing with second-generation biofuel supply chains with
the integration of environmental and social aspects were discussed. The
concerned was in studying the impact of technological enhancements
on minimizing carbon emissions in the supply chain. This was observed
in the case of biorefinery R5, as its conversion ratio was higher than all
other refineries. This advancement in technology both helped in low-
ering carbon emissions and also minimized the entire cost of the supply
chain because more raw materials come to this biorefinery, which
fulfilled the maximum demand. This helped in growing job opportu-
nities both in the operational sector and the transportation routes
linked with this biorefinery. It was also worth noting that the market
demand for an individual biorefinery plant was achieved from that
Fig. 10. Number of jobs accrued in the second-generation biofuel supply chain.
agricultural region initially because it had the smallest distances among
the biorefineries. Similarly, for the supply of liquid biofuel, the demand
total emissions and results in a minor decrease in job opportunities. for a specific market center was achieved from that particular bior-
cap
On the same track, a decrease in Erm by 50% causes a minor in- efinery plant first, and it had the shortest transportation distance be-
crease in the total cost and total emissions but a major cut in jobs. tween the biorefinery plant and the market. The distance between
11 Increases in carbon emissions efr from transportation between nodes, annual carbon cap, and biorefinery capacity were important
agricultural regions and biorefineries of 25% and 50% cause a major parameters that optimized the solution.

15
W. Ahmed and B. Sarkar Resources, Conservation & Recycling 150 (2019) 104431

Fig. 11. Scenarios trade-off values based on exchanging the priority level of given objectives.

The finding proved that the transportation sector between agri- chain activities would increase the total cost of the supply chain. This
cultural regions to biorefinery plants was a primary source of carbon can have a great impact on carbon emissions reduction by marginally
emissions. The distance between nodes performed an important role in increasing total cost. The findings also proved that under an optimal
generating carbon emissions for a specific route. Carbon caps were solution, the maximum number of jobs was accrued in rural areas,
implemented by the regulatory authority for the defined route, which which was about 63.98% of total jobs. The next number of jobs were
restricted carbon emissions over a certain amount. But, the transpor- accrued in a biorefinery. These jobs were due to operational activities in
tation cost might increase under the capping scenario, as the system these sectors. The entire transportation sector accrued 7.18% of total
searched for an alternate route where there was still an allowance for jobs. The annual demand for biofuel created an upward trend in jobs. A
carbon emissions. It was clear from outcomes that an increase in the 25% increase in demand increased jobs by about 23.67% in the whole
distance between the nodes, resulted in an increase in total cost and setup. No doubt the number of employment increased the labor cost in
carbon emissions in the whole supply chain network. The carbon the individual sector, and it directly affected the per unit delivery cost
emissions analysis proved that the transportation sector contributes of biofuel. The observations from Table 7 shew that, if the targeted
approximately 86.52% of total carbon in the environment. The agri- number of jobs was increased from 3005 to 3285 (an increase of
cultural regions to biorefineries node generated 53.30% of carbon 9.31%), the total cost increased by 40.32% and carbon emissions in-
emissions followed by the biorefineries to markets node, which ac- crease by 111.69%.
counted for 33.22% of total carbon emissions. The largest occurrence of Biofuel production cost at biorefineries was a major portion of the
carbon emissions was mainly in rural areas, which could be accom- total unit delivery cost in the whole supply chain, approximately
modated to some extent as trees and crops along the road and coun- 54.65%. To cut down the overall cost of second-generation biofuel,
tryside absorb the carbon emissions. In contrast, the second chunk was experts should focus on minimizing the production costs at bior-
most harmful, as these transportation routes were toward market cen- efineries. Execution of new technologies in biorefinery plants is re-
ters located between the centers of big cities, representing a major part commended to improve the unit production cost of biofuel. The trans-
of urban pollution. The smallest quantity of carbon was released during portation cost of distributing residual biomass from agricultural regions
the up-stream phase of the supply chain, which contributed 4.38% of to biorefineries was the next major cost, which was almost 18.44% of
the entire carbon in the environment. Biorefineries for the production the entire cost. The cost of transporting biofuel to the markets accounts
of biofuel added 9.10% of the carbon for the supply chain. The total for 14.05% of the overall cost and was the third crucial cost. The whole
carbon emission costs were entirely from down-stream, mid-stream, transportation sector represented 34.69% of the total cost. The opera-
and up-stream accounted for 0.16% of the total cost. Although 0.16% tional activities in agricultural regions represented almost 14.05% of
was a very small slice of the total percentage, but its effect is substantial the entire supply chain cost. The transportation sector and operational
for supply chain sustainability. activities in agricultural regions along with operational activities at
The results indicated that total cost increased as the carbon emis- biorefineries jointly contributed to approximately 99.84% of the whole
sions decreased for a specific job target. The relationship between these supply chain cost. These outcomes could be acceptable to some external
was intuitive. Also, as the number of job increased, total cost upturned variables, for instance, the decreasing market price of fossil fuels and
as well. The increment in a number of jobs thus affected worker income, shift of state policies for executing carbon taxes and caps on rural and
and the unit delivery cost of biofuel also increased. The observations urban areas.
gave a negative relationship between total cost and carbon emissions.
This indicated that reducing carbon emissions from different supply

16
W. Ahmed and B. Sarkar Resources, Conservation & Recycling 150 (2019) 104431

Table 7 carbon tax. This study will be helpful for industrial managers to capi-
Sensitivity analysis of changing key parameters. talize on sustainable technologies in agricultural machinery as well as
Parameter % change Cost ($) % Emissions (tons) Jobs (numbers) % in biorefineries and to select transport substitutes that minimize the
change % change change entire supply chain cost and reduce carbon emissions.

Dm +50 N.F.S. N.F.S. N.F.S.


8. Conclusions
+25 +29.13 +36.58 +23.67
−25 −26.59 −29.51 −24.11
−50 −51.92 −55.54 −48.38 This article developed a mathematical modeling based through a
CfP +50 +7.02 N.E. N.E. multi-objective optimization for a second-generation biofuel supply
+25 +3.51 N.E. N.E. chain under a triple bottom line approach. The decision variables were
−25 −3.51 N.E. N.E.
optimized in all dimensions of the sustainable supply chain manage-
−50 −7.03 N.E. N.E.
ef +50 +3.32 +11.70 N.E. ment by incorporating social, environmental, and economic aspects
+25 +0.82 +3.43 N.E. simultaneously. The economic objective represented the transportation
−25 −0.00042 −1.10 N.E. cost between nodes and operational costs in agricultural regions and
−50 −0.00054 −2.20 N.E.
biorefinery plants. The carbon emission costs in the form of a carbon tax
CrP +50 +27.33 N.E N.E.
+25 +13.67 N.E N.E.
policy scheme were also incorporated in all stages of second-generation
−25 −13.67 N.E N.E. biofuel supply chain for the economic objective. The environmental
−50 −27.35 N.E N.E. objective comprised of carbon emissions due to operational activities in
er +50 +0.21 +4.88 N.E. agricultural regions and biorefineries. Additionally, carbon emissions
+25 +0.08 +2.37 N.E.
due to the transportation sector in a shipment of residual biomass be-
−25 −0.0006 −2.28 N.E.
−50 −0.0006 −4.56 N.E. tween agricultural regions to biorefineries and distributing biofuel from
C tr
fr
+50 +9.19 N.E. N.E. biorefineries to market centers were also considered. The social objec-
+25 +4.60 N.E. N.E. tive represented the rural development by means of local jobs gained
−25 −4.61 N.E. N.E. due to operational activities in agricultural regions and in biorefineries.
−50 −9.22 N.E. N.E.
cap +50 N.E N.E. +1.50
Along with this, a number of jobs were created in the transportation
E fr
+25 N.E N.E. +0.75 business. The residual biomass yield, the expense of resources in agri-
−25 +0.01 +0.03 −0.75 cultural regions, and the demand for biofuel in markets were assumed
−50 +1.26 +3.49 −1.78 uncertain and given by fuzzy numbers. The signed distance method was
tr +50 +6.34 N.E. N.E.
Crm used to convert them into crisp values. The proposed multi-objective
+25 +3.17 N.E. N.E.
−25 −3.17 N.E. N.E. problem was solved with an augmented ε-constraint approach. This
−50 −6.35 N.E. N.E. method generated a set of Pareto optimal solutions for an established
Ctx +50 +0.03 N.E. N.E. optimization problem. The range of the constraints was calculated using
+25 +0.01 N.E. N.E. a lexicographic optimization. These values represented an illustration
−25 −0.01 N.E. N.E.
−50 −0.03 N.E. N.E.
of an efficient set. The results revealed the trade-offs between eco-
cap
Erm +50 N.E. N.E. +0.22 nomic, social, and environmental dimensions in the sustainable supply
+25 N.E. N.E. +0.16 chain for a second-generation biofuel.
−25 +0.0012 N.E. −0.66 The analysis provided rich managerial insights to benefit decision
−50 +0.26 +0.41 −3.75
makers and companies in making sustainable supply chain design and
efr +50 +0.13 +27.17 −1.00
+25 +0.01 +13.29 −0.60 transportation decisions under uncertain parameters in the field of
−25 −0.00003 −13.29 +1.00 second-generation biofuel. The analysis decided how the allocation of
−50 −0.00004 −26.63 +3.01 the resources would be and what would be the sustainable supply chain
erm +50 +0.05 +16.63 −1.27 configuration. The minimum cost optimization model only optimized
+25 +0.0003 +8.34 −0.46
−25 −0.00005 −8.34 +0.19
the delivery cost of second-generation biofuel, but the proposed multi-
−50 −0.00007 −16.69 +0.23 objective optimization framework had a larger positive influence on
society and the environment. The incorporation and examination of the
N.F.S. (No feasible solution), N.E. (No effect). carbon cap and carbon tax policy in the model might result in
amendments in the operational strategy, resulting in a minor increase in
7.1. Managerial insights operational and transportation costs. Even though this carbon emissions
cost was a very small percentage of the total cost, yet it had an adverse
In this section, the valuable insights based on analysis and im- impact on the environment. However, there was a benefit in decreasing
portant observations for industrial managers dealing with the sustain- the number of carbon emissions by inserting carbon policies into the
able supply chain of second-generation biofuel under a triple bottom model. The proposed model could be used to frame a comprehensive
line approach is provided. The investigation of different uncertain sustainable supply chain network. This model could make a large range
parameters provides important guidelines for the biofuel supply chain of decisions from the broad framework of the sustainable source of raw-
and environmental decision makers. The outcomes of a sustainable material procurement toward a sustainable supply chain. Also, it could
supply chain model under the triple bottom line approach indicate that consider the material flow amount, location-allocation for the entire
the targets set for the production of sustainable energy can be met. The supply chain activities, and finally the sustainable end-product, which
optimized model invests in constructing large size biorefineries to were necessary for operating and designing a large scale supply chain.
benefit from the economies of scale and employ additional people. The The mathematical model was generic and could be easily adapted to
allocation and selection of agricultural regions and biorefineries to sa- different planning and design scenarios using the same general struc-
tisfy the market demand are the foremost factors that depend on the ture. A numerical example with sensitivity analysis of key parameters
distances among nodes. The results of the study provide managerial used in this model was also illustrated to enhance the validity of the
insights to gain a wider and better thought of sustainable supply chain designed model. This study enhanced the literature with practical,
networks. Furthermore, the outcomes of this study clearly established a managerial and policy implications in the sustainable supply chain
path for policymakers to design several aspects of sustainable second- management for the second-generation biofuel.
generation biofuel supply chain networks with carbon caps and the Future research will further extend this study to include inventory

17
W. Ahmed and B. Sarkar Resources, Conservation & Recycling 150 (2019) 104431

representation of the sustainable supply chain. Inventory management licenses under uncertain environments. In terms of biofuel supply chain
can affect the entire supply chain turnover. Another research direction coordination, the same structure can be taken as a new trade tactic,
is worth considering, namely, developing forecasting models for market where local agrarians deliver the residual biomass to biorefineries and
demand in a sustainable supply chain structure, where time-series then offered a subsidized rate for purchasing biofuel. This route may
models may use. Additional research directions are integrating un- add worth in a closed-loop sustainable supply chain for second-gen-
certainty in the GHG license purchasing and forming a model that is eration biofuel that reduces the environmental impact and maximizes
established on carbon trading, that is procuring and selling carbon the social effects.

Appendix A

The expense of resources at agricultural zones are considered to be uncertain and expressed by fuzzy numbers as shown below
F R
∑ ∑ [C˜ fha + C˜ fco + C˜ fst + C˜ fld + (ef × C tx × αf )] Qfr
f =1 r=1 (A.1)
The curly bar (˜) represents the fuzzification. Consequently, the above scenario can be represented by a fuzzy triangular number.
f
C˜ = (C f − Δ1f , C f , C f + Δ2f ) (A.2)
f
and 0 < Δ1f < Cr and Δ1f Δ2f > 0. The sign distance of Ĉ is given by
3 f 1
d (C f , 0 f ) = C + (C f − Δ1f )
4 4 (A.3)
f f
d (C˜ , 0̃ ) >0
And
f
d (C˜ , 0̃ f ) ∈ (C f − Δ1f , C f + Δ2f ) (A.4)
Defuzzification of fuzzy numbers based on the signed distance method is given as:
f 1 2f
d (C˜ , 0̃ f ) = C f + (Δ − Δ1f )
4 (A.5)
So the Equation (A.1) in crisp form is written as
ha ha ha 1
C˜ f = d (C˜ f , 0̃ f ) = Cfha + (Δ2ha ha
f − Δ1f )
4 (A.7)

co co co 1
C˜ f = d (C˜ f , 0̃ f ) = C fco + (Δ2cof − Δ1cof )
4 (A.8)

st st st 1
C˜ f = d (C˜ f , 0̃ f ) = Cfst + (Δ2stf − Δ1stf )
4 (A.9)

ld ld ld 1
C˜ f = d (C˜ f , 0̃ f ) = Cfld + (Δ2ldf − Δ1ldf )
4 (A.10)

⎡Cfha + 1 (Δ2ha ha co
f − Δ1f ) + C f +
1 co
(Δ2f − Δ1cof ) ⎤
F R ⎢ 4 4 ⎥
∑∑ ⎢ st 1 st st ld 1 ld ld
⎥Q
⎢+ Cf + (Δ2f − Δ1f ) + Cf + (Δ2f − Δ1f ) ⎥ fr
f =1 r=1
⎢ 4 4 ⎥
⎢ + (ef × C tx × αf ) ⎥ (A.11)
⎣ ⎦

Appendix B

The yield at agricultural zones are considered to be uncertain and expressed by fuzzy numbers as shown below
R
∑ Qfr ≤ Af y˜f ∀f
r=1 (B.1)
The curly bar (˜) represents the fuzzification. Consequently, the above scenario can be represented by a fuzzy triangular number.
y˜ f = (y f − Δ1f , y f , y f + Δ2f ) (B.2)
and 0 < Δ1f < yf and Δ1f Δ2f > 0. The sign distance of ŷ f is given by
3 1
d (yf , 0f ) = yf + (yf − Δ1f )
4 4 (B.3)

d (y˜f , 0̃f ) > 0

and
d (y˜f , 0̃f ) ∈ (yf − Δ1f , yf − Δ2f ) (B.4)

18
W. Ahmed and B. Sarkar Resources, Conservation & Recycling 150 (2019) 104431

Defuzzification of fuzzy numbers based on the signed distance method is given as:
1
d (y˜f , 0̃f ) = yf + (Δ2f − Δ1f )
4 (B.5)
So the Equation (B.1) in crisp form is written as
R
∑ Qfr ≤ Af d (y˜f , 0̃f ) ∀f
r=1 (B.6)
R
1
∑ Qfr ≤ Af ⎛yf +
4
(Δ2f − Δ1f ⎞ ∀ f
r=1 ⎝ ⎠ (B.7)

Appendix C

The demand for market centers is considered to be uncertain and expressed by fuzzy numbers as shown below.
R
∑ Qrm = D˜m ∀m
r=1 (C.1)
The curly bar (˜) represents the fuzzification. Consequently, the above scenario can be represented by a fuzzy triangular number.
Dˆ m = (Dm − Δ1m , Dm , Dm + Δ2m ) (C.2)
m
and 0 < Δ1s < Ds and Δ1s Δ2s > 0. The sign distance of D̂ is given by
3 1
d (Dm , 0m) = Dm + (Dm − Δ1m )
4 4 (C.3)

d (D˜m , 0̃m ) > 0 and d (D˜m , 0̃m) ∈ (Dm − Δ1m , Dm + Δ2m ) (C.4)
Defuzzification of fuzzy numbers based on the signed distance method is given as:
1
d (D˜m , 0̃m) = Dm + (Δ2m − Δ1m )
4 (C.5)
So the Equation (C.1) in crisp form is written as
R
∑ Qrm = d (D˜m , 0̃m) ∀m
r=1 (C.6)
R
1
∑ Qrm = Dm + 4
(Δ2m − Δ1m ) ∀ m
r=1 (C.7)

References production of methyl ester using waste cooking oil derived from palm olein using a
hydrodynamic cavitation reactor. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 4505–4514.
Ding, H., Liu, Q., Zheng, L., 2016. Assessing the economic performance of an environ-
Ahmed, W., Sarkar, B., 2018. Impact of carbon emissions in a sustainable supply chain mental sustainable supply chain in reducing environmental externalities. Eur. J.
management for a second generation biofuel. J. Clean. Prod. 186, 807–820. Oper. Res. 255 (2), 463–480.
Ahmed, W., Sarkar, B., Ullah, M., 2018. Impact of reparation for imperfect quality items Dyllick, T., Hockerts, K., 2002. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Bus.
having shortages in the system under multi-trade-Credit-Periodl. Dj J. Eng. Appl. Strategy Environ. 11 (2), 130–141.
Math. 5 (1), 1–16. Ekşioğlu, S.D., Acharya, A., Leightley, L.E., Arora, S., 2009. Analyzing the design and
Akgul, O., Shah, N., Papageorgiou, L.G., 2012. An optimisation framework for a hybrid management of biomass-to-biorefinery supply chain. Comput. Ind. Eng. 57 (4),
first/second generation bioethanol supply chain. Comput. Chem. Eng. 42, 101–114. 1342–1352.
Allaoui, H., Guo, Y., Choudhary, A., Bloemhof, J., 2016. Sustainable agro-food supply El‐Halwagi, A.M., Rosas, C., Ponce‐Ortega, J.M., Jiménez‐Gutiérrez, A., Mannan, M.S.,
chain design using two-stage hybrid multi-objective decision-making approach. El‐Halwagi, M.M., 2013. Multiobjective optimization of biorefineries with economic
Comput. Oper. Res. and safety objectives. Aiche J. 59 (7), 2427–2434.
Asif, S., Ahmad, M., Bokhari, A., Chuah, L.F., Klemeš, J.J., Akbar, M.M., Sultana, S., Elkington, J., 1997. Cannibals With Forks. The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century. pp. 73.
Yusup, S., 2017. Methyl ester synthesis of Pistacia khinjuk seed oil by ultrasonic- Escobar, J.C., Lora, E.S., Venturini, O.J., Yáñez, E.E., Castillo, E.F., Almazan, O., 2009.
assisted cavitation system. Ind. Crops Prod. 108, 336–347. Biofuels: environment, technology and food security. Renewable Sustainable Energy
Balaman, Ş., Matopoulos, A., Wright, D.G., Scott, J., 2018. Integrated optimization of Rev. 13 (6–7), 1275–1287.
sustainable supply chains and transportation networks for multi technology bio-based Eskandarpour, M., Dejax, P., Miemczyk, J., Péton, O., 2015. Sustainable supply chain
production: a decision support system based on fuzzy ε-constraint method. J. Clean. network design: an optimization-oriented review. Omega 54, 11–32.
Prod. 172, 2594–2617. Gent, S., Twedt, M., Gerometta, C., Almberg, E., 2017. Theoretical and Applied Aspects of
Balaman, Ş.Y., Selim, H., 2014. A fuzzy multiobjective linear programming model for Biomass Torrefaction: For Biofuels and Value-added Products. Butterworth-
design and management of anaerobic digestion based bioenergy supply chains. Heinemann.
Energy 74, 928–940. Ghaderi, H., Moini, A., Pishvaee, M.S., 2018. A multi-objective robust possibilistic pro-
Carter, C.R., Rogers, D.S., 2008. A framework of sustainable supply chain management: gramming approach to sustainable switchgrass-based bioethanol supply chain net-
moving toward new theory. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 38 (5), 360–387. work design. J. Clean. Prod.
Chaabane, A., Ramudhin, A., Paquet, M., 2012. Design of sustainable supply chains under Habib, M.S., Sarkar, B., 2017. An integrated location-allocation model for temporary
the emission trading scheme. Int. J. Product. Econ. 135 (1), 37–49. disaster debris management under an uncertain environment. Sustainability 9 (5),
Cherubini, F., Ulgiati, S., 2010. Crop residues as raw materials for biorefinery systems–A 716.
LCA case study. Appl. Energy 87 (1), 47–57. Ji, X., Long, X., 2016. A review of the ecological and socioeconomic effects of biofuel and
Chuah, L.F., Klemeš, J.J., Yusup, S., Bokhari, A., Akbar, M.M., 2017. A review of cleaner energy policy recommendations. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 61, 41–52.
intensification technologies in biodiesel production. J. Clean. Prod. 146, 181–193. Kemausuor, F., Kamp, A., Thomsen, S.T., Bensah, E.C., Østergård, H., 2014. Assessment of
Chuah, L.F., Yusup, S., Aziz, A.R.A., Bokhari, A., Abdullah, M.Z., 2016. Cleaner biomass residue availability and bioenergy yields in Ghana. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.

19
W. Ahmed and B. Sarkar Resources, Conservation & Recycling 150 (2019) 104431

86, 28–37. for environmental impact through partial backordering and multi-trade-Credit-
Kleindorfer, P.R., Singhal, K., Wassenhove, L.N., 2005. Sustainable operations manage- Period. Sustainability 10 (12), 4761.
ment. Prod. Oper. Manag. 14 (4), 482–492. Sarkar, B., Ahmed, W., Kim, N., 2018b. Joint effects of variable carbon emission cost and
Koizumi, T., 2015. Biofuels and food security. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 52, multi-delay-in-payments under single-setup-multiple-delivery policy in a global sus-
829–841. tainable supply chain. J. Clean. Prod. 185, 421–445.
Manganaro, J., Chen, B., Adeosun, J., Lakhapatri, S., Favetta, D., Lawal, A., Farrauto, R., Sarkar, B., Ganguly, B., Sarkar, M., Pareek, S., 2016. Effect of variable transportation and
Dorazio, L., Rosse, D., 2011. Conversion of residual biomass into liquid transportation carbon emission in a three-echelon supply chain model. Transp. Res. Part E Logist.
fuel: an energy analysis. Energy Fuels 25 (6), 2711–2720. Transp. Rev. 91, 112–128.
Mavrotas, G., 2009. Effective implementation of the ε-constraint method in multi-ob- Sarkar, B., Saren, S., Sinha, D., Hur, S., 2015. Effect of unequal lot sizes, variable setup
jective mathematical programming problems. Appl. Math. Comput. 213 (2), cost, and carbon emission cost in a supply chain model. Math. Probl. Eng. 2015.
455–465. Sarkar, B., Tayyab, M., Kim, N., Habib, M.S., 2019. Optimal production delivery policies
Mohammadi, M., Torabi, S., Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., 2014. Sustainable hub location for supplier and manufacturer in a constrained closed-loop supply chain for return-
under mixed uncertainty. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 62, 89–115. able transport packaging through metaheuristic approach. Comput. Ind. Eng In press.
Mota, B., Gomes, M.I., Carvalho, A., Barbosa-Povoa, A.P., 2015. Towards supply chain Sarkar, B., Ullah, M., Kim, N., 2017. Environmental and economic assessment of closed-
sustainability: economic, environmental and social design and planning. J. Clean. loop supply chain with remanufacturing and returnable transport items. Comput. Ind.
Prod. 105, 14–27. Eng. 111, 148–163.
Moazzam, M., Akhtar, P., Garnevska, E., Marr, N.E., 2018. Measuring agri-food supply Seuring, S., Müller, M., 2008. From a literature review to a conceptual framework for
chain performance and risk through a new analytical framework: a case study of New sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (15), 1699–1710.
Zealand dairy. Prod. Plan. Control. 29 (15), 1258–1274. Teuteberg, F., Wittstruck, D., 2010. A systematic review of sustainable supply chain
Murillo-Alvarado, P.E., Guillén-Gosálbez, G., Ponce-Ortega, J.M., Castro-Montoya, A.J., management. Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik 2010, 203.
Serna-González, M., Jiménez, L., 2015. Multi-objective optimization of the supply Tiwari, S., Ahmed, W., Sarkar, B., 2018. Multi-item sustainable green production system
chain of biofuels from residues of the tequila industry in Mexico. J. Clean. Prod. 108, under trade-credit and partial backordering. J. Clean. Prod. 204, 82–95.
422–441. Tsao, Y.-C., Thanh, V.-V., Lu, J.-C., Yu, V., 2018. Designing sustainable supply chain
Omair, M., Sarkar, B., Cárdenas-Barrón, L.E., 2017. Minimum Quantity Lubrication and networks under uncertain environments: fuzzy multi-objective programming. J.
Carbon Footprint: A Step towards Sustainability. Sustainability 9 (5), 714. Clean. Prod. 174, 1550–1565.
Palak, G., Ekşioğlu, S.D., Geunes, J., 2014. Analyzing the impacts of carbon regulatory Validi, S., Bhattacharya, A., Byrne, P., 2014. A case analysis of a sustainable food supply
mechanisms on supplier and mode selection decisions: an application to a biofuel chain distribution system—a multi-objective approach. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 152,
supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 154, 198–216. 71–87.
Pishvaee, M.S., Razmi, J., 2012. Environmental supply chain network design using multi- Ye, F., Li, Y., Yang, Q., 2018. Designing coordination contract for biofuel supply chain in
objective fuzzy mathematical programming. Appl. Math. Model. 36 (8), 3433–3446. China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 128, 306–314.
Roberts, J.J., Cassula, A.M., Prado, P.O., Dias, R.A., Balestieri, J.A.P., 2015. Assessment of You, F., Wang, B., 2011. Life cycle optimization of biomass-to-liquid supply chains with
dry residual biomass potential for use as alternative energy source in the party of distributed–centralized processing networks. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 50 (17),
General Pueyrredón. Argentina. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 41, 10102–10127.
568–583. Zhang, W., Reimann, M., 2014. A simple augmented∊-constraint method for multi-ob-
Roni, M.S., Eksioglu, S.D., Cafferty, K.G., Jacobson, J.J., 2017. A multi-objective, hub- jective mathematical integer programming problems. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 234 (1),
and-spoke model to design and manage biofuel supply chains. Ann. Oper. Res. 249 15–24.
(1–2), 351–380. Zhou, Z., Cheng, S., Hua, B., 2000. Supply chain optimization of continuous process in-
Sarkar, B., 2019. Mathematical and analytical approach for the management of defective dustries with sustainability considerations. Comput. Chem. Eng. 24 (2–7),
items in a multi-stage production system. J. Clean. Prod. 218, 896–919. 1151–1158.
Sarkar, B., Ahmed, W., Choi, S.B., Tayyab, M., 2018a. Sustainable inventory management

20

Potrebbero piacerti anche