Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Bi-objective optimization of a supply chain: identification of the key impact category and green management

  • 5 Accesses

Abstract

In the present work, a bi-objective optimization model is proposed for the green management of the supply chain of fresh fruit considering transportation costs, and environmental impact categories given by the ReCiPe methodology. The ε-constraint method is used to convert the bi-objective function into a single-objective optimization problem and it is applied to two case studies to test the model in a tomato supply chain, providing a set of Pareto solutions. Results showed that the most affected environmental impact category is “climate change” from the emission of greenhouse gases and that there are greater CO2 emissions at the stage of transportation from producers to warehouses. Solutions obtained by the proposed approach provided useful information such as the best operating points for the green management of the supply chain. Moreover, the model can be used in similar situations for regional development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Abbreviations

BPO:

Best practical option

C1:

Scenario 1

C2:

Scenario 2

f N :

Nadir point

f U :

Utopia point

GHG:

Greenhouse gases

GSCM:

Green supply chain management

LCA:

Life cycle assessment

LCIA:

Life cycle impact assessment

LP:

Linear programming

MK k :

Supermarket k

MILP:

Mixed integer linear programming

MOO:

Multi-objective optimization

NMVOC:

Non-methane volatile organic compounds

Pi :

Producer i

SC:

Supply chain

SCM:

Supply chain management

W j :

Warehouse j

F :

Multiobjective function

f 1 :

Economic function

f 2 :

Environmental function

i :

Index of producer i

j :

Index of warehouse j

k :

Index of supermarket k

b i :

Minimum amount must deliver

ca jk :

Transportation cost from warehouse j to supermarket k

cp ij :

Transportation cost from producer i to warehouse j

dm k :

Supermarket k total demand

da j :

Warehouse j demand

ecoPW ij :

Impact (kg) from producer i to warehouse j

ecoW jk :

Impact (kg) from warehouse j to supermarket k

sa j :

Quantities offered by the warehouse

sp i :

Producer i production capacity

tp ij :

Distance from producer i to warehouse j

tw jk :

Distance from warehouse j to supermarket k

ε :

Épsilon for constrained objective functions

x 1ij :

Total distributed from producer i to warehouse j

x 2jk :

Total distributed from warehouse j to supermarket k

M1:

Agricultural land occupation (m2a)

M2:

Climate change (kg CO2-eq)

M3:

Fossil depletion (kg oil-eq)

M4:

Freshwater ecotoxicity (kg 1,4-DC)

M5:

Freshwater eutrophication (kg 1,4-DC)

M6:

Human toxicity (kg 1,4-DC)

M7:

Ionising radiation (kg U235-eq)

M8:

Marine ecotoxicity (kg 1,4-DC)

M9:

Marine eutrophication (kg N-eq)

M10:

Metal depletion (kg Fe-eq)

M11:

Natural land transformation (m2a)

M12:

Ozone depletion (kg CFC-11)

M13:

Particulate matter (kg PM10-eq)

M14:

Photochemical oxidant (kg NMVOC)

M15:

Terrestrial acidification (kg SO2-eq)

M16:

Terrestrial ecotoxicity (kg 1,4-DC)

M17:

Urban land occupation (m2a)

References

  1. Azapagic A, Clift R (1998) Linear programming as a tool in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3(6):305–316

  2. Bare JC, Hofstetter P, Pennington DW, Udo de Haes HA (2000) Midpoints versus endpoints: the sacrifices and benefits. Int J Life Cycle Assess 5:319–326

  3. Bauer PE, Maciel Filho R (2004) Incorporation of environmental impact criteria in the design and operation of chemical processes. Braz J Chem Eng 21:405–414

  4. Brandenburg M, Govindan K, Sarkis J, Seuring S (2013) Quantitative models for sustainable supply chain management: developments and directions. Eur J Oper Res 233:299–312

  5. Camilo R, Mano TB, Rocha LB, Almeida RA, Rezende RVP, Ravagnani MASS (2017) Sustainable of tomatoes supply chain management—cases of study. In: 6th international workshop advances in cleaner production: ten years working together for a sustainable future, São Paulo

  6. Carreras J, Pozo C, Boer D, Guillén-Gosálbez G, Caballero JA, Ruiz-Femenia R, Jiménez L (2016) Systematic approach for the life cycle multi-objective optimization of buildings combining objective reduction and surrogate modeling. Energy Build 130:506–518

  7. Chang MA (2014) Scenario-based mixed integer linear programming model for composite power system expansion planning with greenhouse gas emission controls. Clean Technol Environ Policy 16:1001–1014

  8. Clift R (2003) Metrics for supply chain sustainability. Clean Technol Environ Policy 5:240–247

  9. D’Amore F, Bezzo F (2017) Economic optimisation of European supply chains for CO2 capture, transport and sequestration. Int J Greenh Gas Control 65:99–116

  10. De Feo G, Forni M, Petito F, Renno C (2016) Life cycle assessment and economic analysis of a low concentrating photovoltaic system. Environ Technol 37:2473–2482

  11. De Silva TA, Forbes SL (2016) Sustainability in the New Zealand horticulture industry. J Clean Prod 112:2381–2391

  12. Deb K, Gupta S (2011) Understanding knee points in bicriteria problems and their implications as preferred solution principles. Eng Optim 43:1175–1204

  13. Ehrgott M, Ruzika S (2008) Improved ε-constraint method for multiobjective programming. J Optim Theory Appl 138:375–396

  14. Eskandarpour M, Dejax P, Miemczyk J, Péton O (2015) Sustainable supply chain network design: an optimization-oriented review. Omega 54:11–32

  15. Gomes P, Malheiros T, Fernandes V, Sobral MC (2016) Environmental indicators for sustainability: a strategic analysis for the sugarcane ethanol context in Brazil. Environ Technol 37:16–27

  16. Guillén-gosálbez G, Caballero JA, Jiménez L (2008) Application of life cycle assessment to the structural optimization of process flowsheets. Ind Eng Chem Res 47:777–789c

  17. Huijbregts MAJ, Steinmann ZJN, Elshout PMF, Stam G, Verones F, Vieira MDM, Hollander A, Zijp M, Van Zelm R (2016) A harmonized life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. Report I: characterization, Bilthoven

  18. Islam S, Ponnambalam SG, Lam HL (2017) A novel framework for analyzing the green value of food supply chain based on life cycle assessment. Clean Technol Environ Policy 19:93–103

  19. ISO 14040 (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

  20. Khoshnevisan B, Rafiee S, Mousazadeh H (2013) Environmental impact assessment of open field and greenhouse strawberry production. Eur J Agron 50:29–37

  21. Luo X, Hu J, Zhao J, Zhang B, Chen Y, Mo S (2014) Multi-objective optimization for the design and synthesis of utility systems with emission abatement technology concerns. Appl Energy 136:1110–1131

  22. Mano TB, Guillén-Gosálbez G, Jiménez L, Ravagnani MASS (2019) Synthesis of heat exchanger networks with economic and environmental assessment using fuzzy—analytic hierarchy process. Chem Eng Sci 195:185–200

  23. Mavrotas G (2009) Effective implementation of the ε-constraint method in multi-objective mathematical programming problems. Appl Math Comput 213:455–465

  24. Monteiro JGMS, Silva PAC, Araújo OQF, Medeiros JL (2010) Pareto optimization of an industrial ecosystem: sustainability maximization. Braz J Chem Eng 27:429–440

  25. Ortiz-Gutiérrez RA, Giarola S, Bezzo F (2013) Optimal design of ethanol supply chains considering carbon trading effects and multiple technologies for side-product exploitation. Environ Technol 34:2189–2199

  26. Palomares-Rodríguez C, Martínez-Guido SI, Apolinar-Cortés J, Chávez-Parga MC, García-Castillo CC, Ponce-Ortega JM (2017) Environmental, technical, and economic evaluation of a new treatment for istewater from slaughterhouses. Int J Environ Res 11(4):535–545

  27. QGIS (2015) Development Team—QGIS Geographic Information System. Open Source Geospatial Foundation. http://qgis.osgeo.org. Accessed 18 Feb 2019

  28. Quaglia A, Sarup B, Sin G, Gani R (2012) Integrated business and engineering framework for synthesis and design of enterprise-wide processing networks. Comput Chem Eng 38:213–223

  29. Rashidi J, Rhee G, Kim M, Nam K, Heo S, Yoo C, Karbassi A (2018) Life cycle and economic assessments of key emerging energy efficient wastewater treatment processes for climate change adaptation. Int J Environ Res 12:815–827

  30. Robertson K, Garnham M, Symes W (2014) Life cycle carbon footprint of the packaging and transport of New Zealand kiwifruit. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1693–1704

  31. Russell A, Ghalaieny M, Gazdiyeva B, Zhumabayeva S, Kurmanbayeva A, Akhmetov KK, Althonayan A (2018) A spatial survey of environmental indicators for Kazakhstan: an examination of current conditions and future needs. Int J Environ Res 12(5):735–748

  32. Saer A, Lansing S, Davitt NH, Graves RE (2013) Life cycle assessment of a food waste composting system: environmental impact hotspots. J Clean Prod 52:234–244

  33. Sales LDPA, Luna FMTD, Prata BDA (2018) An integrated optimization and simulation model for refinery planning including external loads and product evaluation. Braz J Chem Eng 35:199–215

  34. SEAB (2016) Secretaria de Estado de Abastecimento (State Secretary of Supply), Olericultura—Análise do Conjuntura Agropecuária. Paraná, Brazil [in Portuguese]. http://www.agricultura.pr.gov.br/arquivos/File/deral/Prognosticos/2017/Olericultura_2015_16.pdf. Accessed 18 Feb 2019

  35. Silva RO, Torres CM, Bonfim-Rocha L, Lima OCM, Coutu A, Jiménez L, Jorge LMM (2018) Multi-objective optimization of an industrial ethanol distillation system for vinasse reduction—a case study. J Clean Prod 183:956–963

  36. Song J, Park H, Lee D, Park S (2002) Scheduling of actual size refinery processes considering environmental impacts with multiobjective optimization. Ind Eng Chem Res 41:4794–4806

  37. Soode E, Lampert P, Weber-Blaschke G, Richter K (2015) Carbon footprints of the horticultural products strawberries, asparagus, roses and orchids in Germany. J Clean Prod 87:68–179

  38. Spielmann M, Bauer C, Dones R, Tuchschmid M (2007) Transport Services. Ecoinvent report no. 14. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf

  39. Wolf M, Pant R, Chomkhamsri K, Sala S, Pennington D (2010) JRC Report on the International Reference Life Cycle Data System Handbook—EUR 24982—Joint Research Centre—Institute for Environment and Sustainability. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg

  40. Zhang Q, Shah N, Issick J, Helling R, Egerschot VP (2014) Sustainable supply chain optimization: an Industrial case of study. Comput Ind Eng 74:68–83

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful for the financial support from Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel—Process 88881.171419/2018-01—CAPES (Brazil) and the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (Brazil).

Author information

Correspondence to Rodrigo Camilo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix A: State of art

See Table 4.

Table 4 Contributions on green management supply chain

Appendix B: Pareto fronts obtained by optimizing the cost function and restricting to the impact categories M3, M6, M7, M10 and M17, respectively

The blue points comprise the Pareto Front, the green triangle represents the Utopia Point, the purple diamond indicates the Nadir Point, and the letter “x” shows the Knee Point.

See Figs. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12.

Fig. 8
figure8

Pareto fronts for the fossil depletion category are shown in a for C1 and in b for C2

Fig. 9
figure9

Pareto fronts for the human toxicity category are shown in a for C1 and in b for C2

Fig. 10
figure10

Pareto fronts for the ionizing radiation category are shown in a for C1 and in b for C2

Fig. 11
figure11

Pareto fronts for the metal depletion category are shown in a for C1 and in b for C2

Fig. 12
figure12

Pareto fronts for the urban land occupation category are shown in a for C1 and in b for C2

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Camilo, R., Bonfim-Rocha, L., Macowski, D.H. et al. Bi-objective optimization of a supply chain: identification of the key impact category and green management. Braz. J. Chem. Eng. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43153-020-00028-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Linear programming
  • ε-constraint
  • Transportation stage
  • Greenhouse gases
  • Climate change