Towards Sustainable Supply Chain Management (SSCM): A Case of Leather Industry

Abstract

At present, sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) has gained a great momentum in this competitive business world for any kind of industry. Leather industry (leather, leather products, and footwear) is the second export earning sector of Bangladesh which is scrambling to implement SSCM in its working cycle. There are lot of challenges that are creating barriers for this industry owners in establishing sustainability practices in their supply chain management. There is lack of enough research in identifying the challenges of SSCM for leather industry of Bangladesh. That’s why, it is very imperative to identify the challenges of SSCM for leather industry in Bangladesh which will guide the industry owners to combat these challenges. In this research, we have not only identified the challenges of SSCM for leather industry but also evaluated the relationship among them. Besides, a priority list of identified challenges is depicted through which the industry owners can easily find out the major and minor challenges. Five industrial experts were selected from export-oriented leather and footwear factories in order to sort out the appropriate challenges. Decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) technique was applied to assess the relationship among identified 18 challenges and divided them into two groups such as cause and effect. The casual challenges are lack of knowledge and experience, lack of technical expertise, corruption, social unawareness, lack of acceptance of new technology, lack of training on SSCM, poor organizational culture, market competition and uncertainty, lack of commitment from top management and lack of integration of IT system. On the other hand, lack of eco-literacy among supply chain stakeholders, financial constraints, lack of government rules and regulations, cost of sustainability, limitations of capacity, lack of management initiatives for reverse logistics, demand for lower price and lack of energy and waste management policy were identified as effect group challenges. This study will help the decision-makers of leather industry in formulating strategic policies to address these challenges for in implementing SSCM in leather industry that will drive these sectors toward sustainable development.

Keywords

Sustainable supply chain management challenges leather industry DEMATEL

Introduction

Leather industry is the second largest foreign currency earning sector in Bangladesh after readymade garments (RMG), and it has already been identified as priority sector in the country because of its high value addition and employment opportunities. According to Bangladesh export promotion bureau, the leather sector is a significant contributor to the country economy of Bangladesh in terms of exports and domestic share. It contributes about 2 percent to industrial production and 0.6 percent to the country’s GDP and employees about 558,000 people directly through employment in leather and leather goods production, and 300,000 people indirectly who worked in allied areas (Deb et al., 2018). The government of Bangladesh declared leather, leather goods, and footwear as the ‘Product of the Year’ in January 2017 and a target of export of USD 5 billion by 2021 was forecasted. Notably, Bangladesh’s exports of leather and leather products are highly concentrated in a few markets. In FY 2017, Bangladesh exported 44 leather products to 84 destinations. The annual export growth rate should increase to 16 percent from 9 percent (during FY2013–2019) to attain this target (Sarker et al., 2019). This goal will be workable, as Bangladesh has significant potential to occupy a larger market share. Besides, the government is providing the sector with numerous incentives such as tax incentives and duty-free import of raw materials and machinery for 100 percent export-oriented factories. Leather from Bangladesh is highly reputed for its high qualities of fine grain, uniform fiber structure, smooth feel and natural texture (Paul et al., 2013)caprine (buffalo and cow; sheep and goat, and leather goods and footwear factories are increasingly able to meet the high demands of foreign buyers. This industry has identified as emerging economy in Bangladesh; experts suggest that the industry has ample opportunities to contribute in Bangladesh economy if the owners can materialize sustainability practices in their factories.

Implementation of sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) in footwear and leather sectors is mandatory to achieve projected USD 5 billion by 2021. The leather and footwear industries have the potential to develop the entire supply chain management—starting from hides/skins to leather processing, production of footwear and leather products, since there are possible strong backward linkages with mostly locally sourced raw materials, trainable labor, and its advantageous location. Supply chain management (SCM) is the management of intra- and interconnected businesses of all individuals, organizations, resources, activities and technologies involved in the creation and sale of a product ranging from supplier, manufacturer to consumer. In recent times, sustainability has become a very important issue, receiving central attention in the business and academic research arena. SSCM has expanded as proactive approaches for improving business processes and activities by social economic and environmental impacts. Environmental sustainability and social sustainability have become increasingly popular among researchers and supply chain managers due to government regulations, customer, expectations and pressures imposed on buyers for green products (Moktadir et al., 2018). SCM systems help in reducing inventories, operational costs, compress order cycle time, enhance asset productivity. Apart from these benefits, the leather industry is able to achieve quick response through efficient SSCM practices. Under this domestic and foreign competitive environment, the future survival and development of Bangladeshi leather and footwear sectors are facing enormous challenges.

The main goal of this research study is to find the most important challenges in implementing SSCM in the context of leather industry. The other objectives of this study are summarized below:

to identify social, economic and environmental challenges in implementing SSCM and

to formulate an advanced framework to evaluate the challenges for achieving SSCM.

Literature Review

Supply chain management is a set of activities that ensure the flow of information, finance and goods from supplier to end customer through a proper distribution channel (Bain, 2015).

Supply chain management plays a pivotal role of today’s business world, where sustainability has drawn much focus in supply chain over the last decade. SSCM has three wings, namely social, economic and environmental (Carter & Liane Easton, 2011; Svensson & Wagner, 2015). Supply chain managers are facing different challenges to practice sustainability in their daily functions due to global pressures about implementing SSCM (Marshall et al., 2015). At present, sustainability is no longer considered a choice but a necessity that must be considered for any activity and business (Khan et al., 2018).

In a research by Corbett and Kleindorfer (2009), it was found that all parties of supply chain want to get competitive advantages and improve their respective profits. Many researchers have suggested that firms should not pay attention to profit solely; rather, they should focus on social and environmental responsibility (Ahi & Searcy, 2013; Beske, 2012)which leads to the assumption that management of such chains requires the application of dynamic management theories, such as the dynamic capabilities (DC). Seuring and Müller (2008) defined supply chain as the flow of material, information, and capital through cooperation among firms, focusing on all three dimensions of sustainability. SSCM will help to minimize waste and harmful substances generated from any kind of firms that have detrimental effects on human and environment. In order to meet sustainable development goals (SDG), there is no scope but to address social and environmental challenges by the industry. At present, the export scenario of Bangladeshi leather and footwear industries is declining due to non-compliance issues. The tanneries and footwear factories are not following properly different compliance issues defying social and environmental rules. International prominent buyers are losing their interest to place orders due to the lack of compliance issues. So, implementation of sustainability has emerged as a crucial issue to uplift leather and footwear industries of Bangladesh. That is why, it is a perquisite condition to find the challenges for implementing sustainability of these industries. The aim of the study was to identify several challenges in practicing SSCM and prioritize the challenges according to their importance. Different barriers have been identified through vigorous literature review and experts’ feedback.

Methodology of the Study

Decision-making Trail and Evaluation Laboratory Method

Decision-making trail and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) is an interactive decision-making tool, which can evaluate the decision criteria (Ali et al., 2018). The literature reveals that the lack of studies on relevant industry motivates to carry out this research. Therefore, this research focuses on the state-of-the-art literature by identifying and finding interactions among challenges to SSCM practices in leather and footwear supply chain. Five experts from five reputed and export-oriented leather and footwear sectors were assigned to find out the challenges regarding SSCM implementation and the most important 18 challenges were identified based on experts’ feedback. To assess the cause–effect relationship among challenges, a decision-making trail and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) method can assist in finding the interactions among decision-making criteria. The application of DEMATEL method in the research area is vast and has a good impact on decision-making problems. The mathematical stepwise procedure of DEMATEL method is given below:

Table 1.

Rating Scale Used in this Study

Linguistic Meanings	Rating Value
No impact	0
Very low impact	1
Low impact	2
Medium impact	3
High impact	4
Very high impact	5

Source: The authors.

Step 1: Construct the decision-making initial relation matrices using rating scale.

In this stage, decision-makers establish an initial relation matrix using numerical rating scale. The scale used in this study is shown in Table 1.

Step 2: In this stage, the normalized direct-relation matrix N, is formed using Equations (1) and (2).

S = \frac{1}{\begin{matrix} \max \\ a \leq i \leq 1 \end{matrix} \sum_{j - 1}^{n} Z_{i j}}

(1)

N = s \times Z

(2)

where Z, S, i, j, and n denote consequently initial relation matrix, normalized factor, decision variable and numbers of variable.

Step 3: In this stage, the total relation matrix T is formulated using Equations (3), where the notation I denotes identity matrix.

T = N + N^{2} + N^{3} + \dots \dots \dots \sum_{i - 1}^{\infty} N^{i} = N {(I - N)}^{- 1}

(3)

Step 4: In this stage, using Equations (4)–(7), the overall net effect and importance were determined. Where, the notation P_i means prominence and E_i means net effect.

R_{i} = \sum_{j - 1}^{n} t_{i j} \forall i

(4)

C_{j} = \sum_{i - 1}^{n} t_{i j} \forall j

(5)

P_{i} = {R_{i} + C_{j} | i = j}

(6)

E_{i} = {R_{i} - C_{j} | i = j}

(7)

Table 2.

Identified Challenges to SSCM

Types of Challenges	Name of the Challenges	Identification Code	References
Social	Lack of government rules and regulations (S1)	S1	Balasubramanian (2012)
	Social unawareness (S2)	S2	Prakash and Barua (2015)
	Demand for lower price (S3)	S3	Prakash and Barua (2015)
	Corruption ((S4)	S4	Sarker et al. (2018)
Environmental	Lack of eco-literacy among supply chain stakeholders (E1)	E1	Moktadir et al. (2018b)
	Poor organizational culture (E2)	E2	Fahimnia et al. (2015)
	Lack of management initiatives for reverse logistics (E3)	E3	Sarkis et al. (2011)
	Market competition and uncertainty (E4)	E4	Sarker et al. (2018)
Financial	Financial constraints (F1)	F1	Rauer and Kaufmann (2015)
	Limitations of capacity (F2)	F2	Jayant and Azhar (2014)
	Lack of energy and waste management policy (F3)	F3	Balasubramanian (2012)
	Cost of sustainability (F4)	F4	Singh et al. (2016)
Knowledge	Lack of knowledge and experience (K1)	K1	Jayant and Azhar (2014)
	Lack of training on SSCM (K2)	K2	Ahi and Searcy (2013)
	Lack of commitment from top management (K3)	K3	Drohomeretski et al. (2014)
Technological	Lack of acceptance of new technology (T1)	T1	Kaur et al. (2018)
	Lack of integration of IT system (T2)	T2	Carter and Liane Easton (2011)
	Lack of technical expertise (T3)	T3	Balasubramanian (2012)

Source: The authors.

A Case Application

The method was tested in leather and footwear sectors. The case industry was selected based on the global contribution in country’s economic growth. This sector contributes about 2 percent to industrial production and 0.6 percent to the country’s GDP. About 558,000 people, directly, and 300,000 people, indirectly, are involved in leather and leather goods production. The importance of the sector is therefore remarkable and needs sustainable supply chain practices. This study tried to fix the problems related to implement SSCM practices. The implementation process is broadly described in the following sections.

Phase 1: The most important challenges to SCM practices were identified

In this stage, several potential challenges to SSCM practices are identified from broad literature review and experts’ feedback. The identified most suitable challenges are listed in Table 2. In this regard, various scholarly database namely Science Direct, Scopus, Google Scholar, Web of Science were searched by following keywords such as SSCM practice, challenges to SSCM, leather and footwear supply chain and sustainable supply chain. Five industrial experts were selected whom have at least 10 years of working experience at supply chain, logistic, human resource, production planning and quality control departments for experts’ feedback purpose. A set of questionnaires was prepared for the feedback purpose of experts, which is attached in Appendix A.

Phase 2: In this Phase, using DEMATEL to identify the interrelationship among challenges.

Step 1: In this stage, decision-makers establish an initial relation matrix using numerical rating scale. The linguistic numerical rating scale is given in Table 1 and the initial relation matrix Z is given in Table 3.

Step 2: In this step, using Equations (1) and (2), the normalized direct-relation matrix N is constructed and shown in Table 4.

Step 3: Therefore, using Equations (3), the total relation matrix T is made and is shown in Table 5.

Threshold value = (mean + standard deviation) = 0.303+ 0.0471 = 0.35035

Step 4: Finally, using Equations (4)–(7), the overall net effect and importance were determined. The cause–effect relationship among the identified challenges to SSCM is depicted in Table 6.

The final ranking of the analysis is given in Table 7.

Table 3.

Initial Relation Matrix (Z) Among Identified Challenges

Initial Matrix = Z
	S1	S2	S3	S4	E1	E2	E3	E4	F1	F2	F3	F4	K1	K2	K3	T1	T2	T3
S1	0	2	3	4	3	2	5	3	2	1	1	5	3	2	1	3	1	5
S2	2	0	3	4	4	3	4	2	4	2	1	5	2	2	4	5	2	2
S3	3	1	0	1	4	4	3	4	2	2	3	4	2	3	1	3	2	3
S4	3	2	4	0	5	4	2	2	5	1	5	5	1	2	2	5	3	4
E1	1	4	4	3	0	1	1	2	5	4	5	3	2	3	1	5	5	5
E2	5	4	5	2	5	0	1	2	1	3	5	3	1	3	2	4	5	3
E3	1	5	4	2	5	3	0	3	2	4	4	1	2	2	2	1	1	1
E4	5	5	3	2	1	1	3	0	1	5	3	4	1	4	5	2	2	2
F1	2	1	5	2	4	1	2	2	0	2	2	4	3	5	3	1	2	2
F2	5	1	3	4	4	4	5	1	3	0	4	1	2	1	4	4	1	2
F3	1	1	1	1	3	4	1	2	2	3	0	4	2	4	4	2	1	2
F4	2	1	4	3	4	3	2	4	3	4	3	0	5	1	1	1	5	4
K1	5	1	4	5	1	2	4	4	3	5	5	4	0	1	4	3	2	1
K2	3	1	3	2	5	4	3	1	1	3	1	3	4	0	2	3	4	3
K3	2	3	1	4	2	2	2	5	1	3	5	3	2	3	0	4	3	1
T1	4	5	4	1	2	5	2	3	3	4	4	2	4	2	3	0	4	2
T2	5	2	1	2	1	3	4	4	2	3	4	2	2	4	3	3	0	4
T3	1	5	2	4	3	5	5	3	5	5	3	3	2	2	3	2	5	0

Source: The authors.

Figure 1.

Source: The authors.

Table 4.

Normalized Initial Matrix, N = Z × s

Normalized Matrix, P = Z × S
	S1	S2	S3	S4	E1	E2	E3	E4	F1	F2	F3	F4	K1	K2	K3	T1	T2	T3
S1	0.000	0.034	0.052	0.069	0.052	0.034	0.086	0.052	0.034	0.017	0.017	0.086	0.052	0.034	0.017	0.052	0.017	0.086
S2	0.034	0.000	0.052	0.069	0.069	0.052	0.069	0.034	0.069	0.034	0.017	0.086	0.034	0.034	0.069	0.086	0.034	0.034
S3	0.052	0.017	0.000	0.017	0.069	0.069	0.052	0.069	0.034	0.034	0.052	0.069	0.034	0.052	0.017	0.052	0.034	0.052
S4	0.052	0.034	0.069	0.000	0.086	0.069	0.034	0.034	0.086	0.017	0.086	0.086	0.017	0.034	0.034	0.086	0.052	0.069
E1	0.017	0.069	0.069	0.052	0.000	0.017	0.017	0.034	0.086	0.069	0.086	0.052	0.034	0.052	0.017	0.086	0.086	0.086
E2	0.086	0.069	0.086	0.034	0.086	0.000	0.017	0.034	0.017	0.052	0.086	0.052	0.017	0.052	0.034	0.069	0.086	0.052
E3	0.017	0.086	0.069	0.034	0.086	0.052	0.000	0.052	0.034	0.069	0.069	0.017	0.034	0.034	0.034	0.017	0.017	0.017
E4	0.086	0.086	0.052	0.034	0.017	0.017	0.052	0.000	0.017	0.086	0.052	0.069	0.017	0.069	0.086	0.034	0.034	0.034
F1	0.034	0.017	0.086	0.034	0.069	0.017	0.034	0.034	0.000	0.034	0.034	0.069	0.052	0.086	0.052	0.017	0.034	0.034
F2	0.086	0.017	0.052	0.069	0.069	0.069	0.086	0.017	0.052	0.000	0.069	0.017	0.034	0.017	0.069	0.069	0.017	0.034
F3	0.017	0.017	0.017	0.017	0.052	0.069	0.017	0.034	0.034	0.052	0.000	0.069	0.034	0.069	0.069	0.034	0.017	0.034
F4	0.034	0.017	0.069	0.052	0.069	0.052	0.034	0.069	0.052	0.069	0.052	0.000	0.086	0.017	0.017	0.017	0.086	0.069
K1	0.086	0.017	0.069	0.086	0.017	0.034	0.069	0.069	0.052	0.086	0.086	0.069	0.000	0.017	0.069	0.052	0.034	0.017
K2	0.052	0.017	0.052	0.034	0.086	0.069	0.052	0.017	0.017	0.052	0.017	0.052	0.069	0.000	0.034	0.052	0.069	0.052
K3	0.034	0.052	0.017	0.069	0.034	0.034	0.034	0.086	0.017	0.052	0.086	0.052	0.034	0.052	0.000	0.069	0.052	0.017
T1	0.069	0.086	0.069	0.017	0.034	0.086	0.034	0.052	0.052	0.069	0.069	0.034	0.069	0.034	0.052	0.000	0.069	0.034
T2	0.086	0.034	0.017	0.034	0.017	0.052	0.069	0.069	0.034	0.052	0.069	0.034	0.034	0.069	0.052	0.052	0.000	0.069
T3	0.017	0.086	0.034	0.069	0.052	0.086	0.086	0.052	0.086	0.086	0.052	0.052	0.034	0.034	0.052	0.034	0.086	0.000

Source: The authors.

Table 5.

Matrix of Total Relation, T =

Matrix of total relation T = (P(I − P)−1))
	S1	S2	S3	S4	E1	E2	E3	E4	F1	F2	F3	F4	K1	K2	K3	T1	T2	T3
S1	0.247	0.259	0.323	0.294	0.333	0.293	0.325	0.287	0.265	0.291	0.309	0.359	0.254	0.254	0.240	0.302	0.264	0.318
S2	0.305	0.245	0.348	0.314	0.375	0.331	0.328	0.293	0.316	0.330	0.338	0.384	0.259	0.277	0.308	0.360	0.303	0.292
S3	0.290	0.235	0.263	0.237	0.337	0.314	0.283	0.293	0.253	0.298	0.330	0.333	0.232	0.265	0.234	0.294	0.271	0.279
S4	0.337	0.294	0.382	0.263	0.411	0.367	0.313	0.310	0.349	0.334	0.420	0.406	0.258	0.297	0.293	0.377	0.338	0.344
E1	0.303	0.318	0.373	0.309	0.323	0.318	0.298	0.303	0.346	0.375	0.412	0.368	0.269	0.307	0.278	0.373	0.360	0.351
E2	0.366	0.319	0.387	0.294	0.403	0.298	0.298	0.304	0.280	0.358	0.412	0.369	0.253	0.306	0.289	0.360	0.360	0.324
E3	0.245	0.284	0.313	0.243	0.341	0.285	0.221	0.263	0.244	0.312	0.332	0.274	0.218	0.239	0.241	0.256	0.239	0.233
E4	0.337	0.308	0.325	0.272	0.310	0.285	0.304	0.244	0.251	0.358	0.346	0.352	0.230	0.293	0.313	0.298	0.281	0.276
F1	0.261	0.217	0.328	0.243	0.324	0.254	0.256	0.251	0.208	0.282	0.300	0.320	0.239	0.285	0.252	0.251	0.258	0.251
F2	0.337	0.251	0.331	0.301	0.360	0.333	0.330	0.263	0.286	0.279	0.370	0.306	0.244	0.250	0.296	0.331	0.268	0.279
F3	0.223	0.200	0.240	0.206	0.282	0.277	0.215	0.227	0.219	0.274	0.241	0.292	0.203	0.248	0.250	0.244	0.222	0.227
F4	0.304	0.255	0.355	0.296	0.365	0.325	0.297	0.319	0.296	0.358	0.365	0.298	0.298	0.258	0.261	0.292	0.341	0.319
K1	0.363	0.265	0.369	0.338	0.336	0.324	0.339	0.332	0.304	0.383	0.410	0.379	0.230	0.269	0.319	0.336	0.302	0.283
K2	0.301	0.241	0.321	0.264	0.362	0.324	0.294	0.255	0.247	0.322	0.313	0.325	0.270	0.221	0.256	0.307	0.311	0.288
K3	0.280	0.268	0.281	0.288	0.308	0.287	0.270	0.311	0.240	0.315	0.366	0.322	0.233	0.268	0.224	0.316	0.286	0.248
T1	0.353	0.333	0.373	0.280	0.354	0.375	0.313	0.319	0.307	0.373	0.396	0.352	0.297	0.289	0.308	0.293	0.340	0.302
T2	0.340	0.267	0.296	0.271	0.310	0.318	0.320	0.309	0.267	0.331	0.365	0.321	0.245	0.296	0.284	0.313	0.250	0.309
T3	0.324	0.354	0.366	0.345	0.398	0.397	0.379	0.337	0.361	0.412	0.408	0.389	0.281	0.309	0.327	0.348	0.378	0.288

Source: The authors.

Table 6.

Cause–Effect Relation Among the Identified SSCM Practices Challenges

Barriers to SSCM	Cause–Effect Relation
Barriers to SSCM	R _i	C _i	R_i + C_i	R_i −C_i
Lack of government rules and regulations (S1)	5.2175	5.5149	10.7325	−0.2974
Social unawareness (S2)	5.7067	4.9122	10.6189	0.7945
Demand for lower price (S3)	5.0394	5.9750	11.0144	−0.9356
Corruption ((S4)	6.0921	5.0592	11.1513	1.0329
Lack of eco-literacy among supply chain stakeholders (E1)	5.9862	6.2319	12.2180	−0.2457
Poor organizational culture (E2)	5.9811	5.7031	11.6843	0.2780
Lack of management initiatives for reverse logistics (E3)	4.7809	5.3831	10.1641	−0.6022
Market competition and uncertainty (E4)	5.3831	5.2214	10.6045	0.1617
Financial constraints (F1)	4.7802	5.0385	9.8187	−0.2583
Limitations of capacity (F2)	5.4139	5.9835	11.3975	−0.5696
Lack of energy and waste management policy (F3)	4.2915	6.4320	10.7235	−2.1405
Cost of sustainability (F4)	5.5997	6.1501	11.7499	−0.5504
Lack of knowledge and experience (K1)	5.8801	4.5116	10.3917	1.3685
Lack of training on SSCM (K2)	5.2210	4.9318	10.1528	0.2892
Lack of commitment from top management (K3)	5.1126	4.9709	10.0835	0.1418
Lack of acceptance of new technology (T1)	5.9544	5.6528	11.6072	0.3017
Lack of integration of IT system (T2)	5.4126	5.3714	10.7839	0.0412
Lack of technical expertise (T3)	6.4013	5.2109	11.6122	1.1903

Source: The authors.

Table 7.

Final Evaluation of Barriers with Ranking

Barriers to SSCM	R_i + C_i	Rank	Casual Group	R _i − C _i	Rank
Lack of government rules and regulations (S1)	10.7325	10	Lack of knowledge and experience (K1)	1.36845	1
Social unawareness (S2)	10.6189	12	Lack of technical expertise (T3)	1.190337	2
Demand for lower price (S3)	11.0144	8	Corruption (S4)	1.032894	3
Corruption (S4)	11.1513	7	Social unawareness (S2)	0.794543	4
Lack of eco-literacy among supply chain stakeholders (E1)	12.2180	1	Lack of acceptance of new technology (T1)	0.301659	5
Poor organizational culture (E2)	11.6843	3	Lack of training on SSCM (K2)	0.289184	6
Lack of management initiatives for reverse logistics (E3)	10.1641	15	Poor organizational culture (E2)	0.277988	7
Market competition and uncertainty (E4)	10.6045	13	Market competition and uncertainty (E4)	0.161716	8
Financial constraints (F1)	9.8187	18	Lack of commitment from top management (K3)	0.141757	9
Limitations of capacity (F2)	11.3975	6	Lack of integration of IT system (T2)	0.041182	10
			Effect Group	R_i − C_i	Rank
Cost of sustainability (F4)	11.7499	2	Lack of eco-literacy among supply chain stakeholders (E1)	−0.24572	1
Lack of knowledge and experience (K1)	10.3917	14	Financial constraints (F1)	−0.25829	2
Lack of training on SSCM (K2)	10.1528	16	Lack of government rules and regulations (S1)	−0.29741	3
Lack of commitment from top management (K3)	10.0835	17	Cost of sustainability (F4)	−0.55037	4
Lack of acceptance of new technology (T1)	11.6072	5	Limitations of capacity (F2)	−0.56959	5
Lack of integration of IT system (T2)	10.7839	9	Lack of management initiatives for reverse logistics (E3)	−0.60221	6
Lack of technical expertise (T3)	11.6122	4	Demand for lower price (S3)	−0.93561	7
Lack of energy and waste management policy (F3)	10.7235	11	Lack of energy and waste management policy (F3)	−2.1405	8

Source: The authors.

Results and Discussion

The relationship between the identified challenges and SSCM is depicted in Figure 1 and a threshold value of 0.35035 was accounted to depict this diagraph. The ranking of the casual challenges was observed based on the positive scores of R_i − C_j. The ranking of casual challenges is observed in the following order: lack of knowledge and experience (K1) > lack of technical expertise (T3) > corruption (S4) > social unawareness (S2) > lack of acceptance of new technology (T1) > lack of training on SSCM (K2) > poor organizational culture (E2) > market competition and uncertainty (E4) > lack of commitment from top management (K3) > lack of integration of IT system (T2).

The above results unveiled that ‘lack of knowledge and experience (K1)’ was identified as the first casual challenge to SSCM implementation in leather and footwear sectors in Bangladesh, which has strong positive influences on the other existing challenges. Proper institutional development and training sessions may disseminate knowledge among the management of industry holder, which may facilitate to implement SSCM. Lack of technical expertise (T3) is the second most casual challenge that has direct influences on the effect group challenges. There is a huge lack of technical expertise in leather and footwear sectors, who have insight about SSCM. Hiring of technical person is more important to address SSCM challenges for these sectors. ‘corruption (S4)’ has been identified as the third casual challenge, which may act as a vital issue for addressing SSCM challenges. Proper budgeting and proper utilization of fund for implementation of SSCM should be assured as a part of SSCM implementation. Stakeholders of leather and footwear sectors are not aware of SSCM that was termed as ‘social unawareness (S2)’, which is the fourth casual challenge among 10 challenges. Social awareness and response may play a vital role for implementing sustainability of leather and footwear sectors. ‘Lack of acceptance of new technology (T1)’ was identified as the fifth casual challenge that has positive influences over the other challenges. Since technology is changing fast in this modern industrial arena, leather and footwear sectors should adopt new sustainable technology that will facilitate these sectors to implement SSCM. Proper training of management, employees and workers on corporate social sustainability (CSR), new technology, new machinery and new processes should be provided for achieving sustainability of footwear and leather sectors, which were identified as the sixth challenge, namely ‘lack of training on SSCM (K2)’. ‘Poor organizational culture (E2)’ was the seventh casual challenges among 10 challenges of SSCM. Organizational culture is another important factor that is affected by the country’s culture, social norms and attitude that should be properly focused for implementation of SSCM. ‘Market competition and uncertainty (E4)’ was identified as another casual challenge that came after ‘poor organizational culture (E2)’. Implementation of sustainability will definitely increase cost of the product, which is obviously a great challenge in this competitive business world. ‘Lack of commitment from top management (K3)’ was identified as the ninth casual cause that implies sufficient improvement at the managerial level and should be assured to implement SSCM. Information technology (IT) is an inseparable part of any kind of business in this current century. ‘Lack of integration of IT system (T2)’ was observed as the tenth and last casual challenge to SSCM of leather and footwear sectors.

The challenges of the effect group were sorted based on the negative scores of R_i − C_j that is given in the Table 7 in the following order: lack of eco-literacy among supply chain stakeholders (E1) > financial constraints (F1) > lack of government rules and regulations (S1) > cost of sustainability (F4) > limitations of capacity (F2) > lack of management initiatives for reverse logistics (E3) > demand for lower price (S3) > ‘lack of energy and waste management policy (F3)’.

In the effect group, ‘lack of eco-literacy among supply chain stakeholders (E1)’ has attained less negative value that is closer to casual challenges. Thus, improving this challenge may drive the way of implementing SSCM. ‘Financial constraints (F1)’ was identified as the second most effect challenge to SSCM. Proper fund and budgeting are the crucial perquisite conditions to implement sustainability of footwear and leather sectors that should be addressed before action plan. Government rules and regulations are one of the most important challenges to implement SSCM, which was identified as the third effect challenge, namely ‘lack of government rules and regulations (S1)’. Government proper rules and regulations about SSCM practices will bound the industry owner to implement SSCM. Next, ‘cost of sustainability (F4)’ came as the fourth effect challenge among seven effect challenges. Implementation of SSCM will incur a huge cost for leather and footwear sectors that should be analyzed and monitored properly. ‘Limitations of capacity (F2)’ was identified another effect challenge that came next to ‘cost of sustainability (F4)’. Bangladeshi footwear and leather factories have limited capacity, which is a great obstacle to materialize SSCM. The factories should be flexible enough in its layout to implement SSCM. ‘Lack of management initiatives for reverse logistics (E3)’ is one of the effect challenges and it can be addressed by formulating strategic policy in the leather and footwear companies. ‘Demand for lower price (S3)’ and ‘lack of energy and waste management policy (F3)’ have been identified as last two effect challenges and they can be addressed by all the identified casual challenges.

Leather and footwear industries may get a direction for implementation of SSCM from this study by addressing identified challenges. In this DEMATEL method, challenges were categorized into two types such as casual and effect. In this study, 10 casual and 8 effect challenges were identified, while addressing of casual challenges will minimize the effect group challenges very easily.

Conclusion

At present, SSCM is a pressing issue that will pave the way toward sustainability for any kind of industries. SSCM practices in leather industry of Bangladesh are more important to upgrade industries’ present situations and uplift the country’s economic conditions. This study unveiled the crucial challenges to implement SSCM of leather and footwear sectors. At first, several challenges were identified through vigorous literature review and experts’ feedback in this study. Second, the interactions among several challenges were identified through DEMATEL technique. As a result, ‘Lack of knowledge and experience’, ‘Lack of technical expertise’ and ‘Corruption’ were identified as the first three important casual challenges. Therefore, the owners of leather and footwear factories should pay proper attention to address these issues. On the other hand, ‘Lack of eco-literacy among supply chain stakeholders’, ‘financial constraints’ and ‘Lack of government rules and regulations’ were identified as the first three effect challenges. These findings will guide the decision-makers to formulate short- and long-term strategic policies to address identified challenges to implement SSCM in leather and footwear sectors. The unique contributions of this study are given below.

This study identified challenges to SSCM for unique leather and footwear sectors to implement SSCM practices, which is a specific case.

A total of 18 challenges to SSCM were identified through extant literature review and experts’ opinions.

DEMATEL technique was used to investigate the interrelationship between identified challenges and SSCM in the context of leather and footwear sectors.

This study has some limitations: only 18 challenges were considered and only DEMATEL technique was used to find the interrelationship among identified challenges. The extension of DEMATEL technique and more challenges may be used for future research.

Appendix A

Survey Questionnaires

Q.1 What do you know about sustainable supply chain management (SSCM)?

Q.2 Please select the most appropriate challenges to SSCM for leather and footwear sectors from Table A1.

Q.3 Are you familiar with DEMATEL method?

Q.4 Please fill up the initial co-relation matrices of several challenges following linguistic scale from Table A2.

Table A1.

Initial Challenges to SSCM

Name of Challenges	Yes/No
Lack of government rules and regulations
Social unawareness
Demand for lower price
Corruption
Lack of eco-literacy among supply chain stakeholders
Poor organizational culture
Lack of management initiatives for reverse logistics
Market competition and uncertainty
Financial constraints
Limitations of capacity
Lack of energy and waste management policy
Cost of sustainability
Lack of knowledge and experience
Lack of training on SSCM
Lack of commitment from top management
Lack of acceptance of new technology
Lack of integration of IT system
Lack of technical expertise

Table A2.

Correlation Matrices of Several Challenges to SSCM.

Challenges

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Md Rayhan Sarker

References

Ahi

Searcy

(2013). A comparative literature analysis of definitions for green and sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production , 52, 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.02.018

Ali

, Moktadir

M. A.

, Shaikh

A. A.

, Deb

A. K.

Rashed-Ul-Islam

(2018). Challenges evaluation for adoption of SCP practices in footwear industry of Bangladesh: A DEMATEL approach. Journal of Operations and Strategic Planning , 1,(2), 168–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/2516600X18812984

Bain. (2015). Years after the Rana Plaza tragedy, too many of Bangladesh’s factories are still ‘death traps’. Quartz .

Balasubramanian

(2012). A hierarchical framework of barriers to green supply chain management in the construction sector. Journal of Sustainable Development , 5,(10). https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v5n10p15

Beske

(2012). Dynamic capabilities and sustainable supply chain management. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management , 42,(4), 372–387. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600031211231344

Carter

C. R.

Liane Easton

(2011). Sustainable supply chain management: Evolution and future directions. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management , 41,(1), 46–62. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600031111101420

Corbett

C. J.

Kleindorfer

P. R.

(2009). Environmental management and operations management: Introduction to the third special issue. Production and Operations Management . https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.2003.tb00203.x

Deb

A. K.

, Shaikh

M. A. A.

Sarker

M. R.

Hossain

M. I.

(2018). Assessment of influential factors for purchasing gent’s shoes—Understanding the basic comfort properties. Leather and Footwear Journal , 18,(1), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.24264/lfj.18.1.2

Drohomeretski

, Gouvea da Costa

Pinheiro de Lima

(2014). Green supply chain management. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management , 25,(8), 1105–1134. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-06-2014-0084

10.

Fahimnia

, Sarkis

Davarzani

(2015). Green supply chain management: A review and bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Production Economics , 162, 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.01.003

11.

Jayant

Azhar

(2014). Analysis of the barriers for implementing green supply chain management (GSCM) practices: An interpretive structural modeling (ISM) approach. Procedia Engineering , 97, 2157–2166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2014.12.459

12.

Kaur

, Sidhu

, Awasthi

, Chauhan

Goyal

(2018). A DEMATEL based approach for investigating barriers in green supply chain management in Canadian manufacturing firms. International Journal of Production Research , 56,(1–2), 312–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1395522

13.

Khan

, Hussain

, Gunasekaran

, Ajmal

M. M.

Helo

P. T.

(2018). Motivators of social sustainability in healthcare supply chains in the UAE—Stakeholder perspective. Sustainable Production and Consumption . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2018.01.006

14.

Marshall

, McCarthy

, McGrath

Claudy

(2015). Going above and beyond: How sustainability culture and entrepreneurial orientation drive social sustainability supply chain practice adoption. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal , 20,(4), 434–454. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-08-2014-0267

15.

Moktadir

M. A.

, Ali

S. M.

, Rajesh

Paul

S. K.

(2018). Modeling the interrelationships among barriers to sustainable supply chain management in leather industry. Journal of Cleaner Production , 181, 631–651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.245

16.

Paul

H. L.

, Antunes

A. P. M.

, Covington

A. D.

Evans

Philips

P. S.

(2013). Bangladeshi leather industry: An overview of recent sustainable developments. Journal of the Society of Leather Technologists and Chemists .

17.

Prakash

Barua

M. K.

(2015). Integration of AHP-TOPSIS method for prioritizing the solutions of reverse logistics adoption to overcome its barriers under fuzzy environment. Journal of Manufacturing Systems , 37, 599–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2015.03.001

18.

Rauer

Kaufmann

(2015). Mitigating external barriers to implementing green supply chain management: A grounded theory investigation of Green-Tech Companies’ rare earth metals supply chains. Journal of Supply Chain Management , 51,(2), 65–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12063

19.

Sarker

M. R.

, Ahmed

, Deb

A. K.

Chowdhury

(2018). Identifying barriers for implementing green supply chain management (GSCM) in footwear industry of Bangladesh: A Delphi study approach. Leather and Footwear Journal , 18,(3), 175–186. https://doi.org/10.24264/lfj.18.3.1

20.

Sarker

M. R.

, Deb

A. K.

, Chowdhury

Hossain

M. I.

(2019). Investigation and evaluation of the quality features related to comfort of casual shoes in Bangladeshi leading retail brands using physical and chemical standard test methods. Leather and Footwear Journal , 19,(1), 11–20. https://doi.org/10.24264/lfj.19.1.2

21.

Sarkis

, Zhu

Lai

(2011). An organizational theoretic review of green supply chain management literature. International Journal of Production Economics , 130,(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.11.010

22.

Seuring

Müller

(2008). From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production , 16,(15), 1699–1710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.020

23.

Singh

R. K.

, Rastogi

Aggarwal

(2016). Analyzing the factors for implementation of green supply chain management. Competitiveness Review , 26,(3), 246–264. https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-06-2015-0045

24.

Svensson

Wagner

(2015). Implementing and managing economic, social and environmental efforts of business sustainability propositions for measurement and structural models. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal . https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-09-2013-0099