Advertisement

Economic and Environmental Performance of the Firm: Synergy or Trade-Off? Insights from the EOQ Model

  • Jack A. A. van der VeenEmail author
  • V. Venugopal
Chapter
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 197)

Abstract

Over the last decades, corporations are increasingly expected to perform well on the triple bottom line: People, Planet and Profit. However, both in academia and in practice, there is no consensus on the feasibility of doing good and doing well simultaneously. The traditional view is that there is an unavoidable trade-off between the social and environmental performance of an organisation and its profitability. The other school of thought claimed that breaking the trade-off and creating a synergy, is not only desired but actually feasible. In this chapter, the validity of both views is tested by using a multi-objective approach to a variant of the well-known EOQ model. It is demonstrated that both views are not contradictory but valid under different conditions. As such this chapter helps to reach a better understanding of the factors that drive trade-offs and synergy behaviour of the triple bottom line measures.

Keywords

Sustainability Purchasing Inventory Energy Management Government 

References

  1. Benjaafar S, Li Y, Daskin M (2010) Carbon footprint and the management of supply chains: insights from simple models. Working paper, University of Minnesota. http://isye.umn.edu/faculty/pdf/beyada-10-02-10-final.pdf, accessed 19 January 2013
  2. Bonney M, Jaber MY (2011) Environmentally responsible inventory models: Non-classical models for a non-classical era. International Journal Production Economics, 133(1): 43–53Google Scholar
  3. Boons F, Wagner M (2009) Assessing the relationship between economic and ecological performance: Distinguishing system levels and the role of innovation. Ecological Economics 68: 1908–1914Google Scholar
  4. Borgonovo E (2010) Sensitivity analysis with finite changes: An application to modified EOQ models, European Journal of Operational Research 200: 127–138Google Scholar
  5. Bouchery Y, Ghaffari A, Jemai Z, Dallery Y (2012) Including sustainability criteria into inventory models, European Journal of Operational Research 222: 229–240Google Scholar
  6. Brønn P, Vidaver-Cohen D (2009) Corporate motives for social initiative: legitimacy, sustainability, or the bottom line? Journal of Business Ethics 87: 91–109Google Scholar
  7. Butner K, Geuder D, Hittner J (2008) Mastering carbon Management: Balancing trade-offs to optimize supply chain efficiencies. IBM Institute for Business Value. http://www-935.ibm.com/services/uk/bcs/pdf/mastering_carbon_management.pdf, accessed 19 January 2013
  8. Can Arslan M, Turkay M (2010) EOQ revisited with sustainability considerations. Working paper, Koç University, Istanbul, Turkey. http://home.ku.edu.tr/~mturkay/pub/EOQ_Sustainability.pdf, accessed 19 January 2013
  9. Chen X, Benjaafar S, Elomri A, (2012) The carbon-constrained EOQ, Operations Research Letters, doi: 10.1016/j.orl.2012.12.003
  10. Corbett CJ, Klassen RD (2006), Extending the horizons: Environmental excellence as key to improving operations. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management 8(1): 5–22Google Scholar
  11. Filbeck F, Gorman RF (2004) The relationship between the environmental and financial performance of public utilities. Environmental and Resource Economics 29: 137–157Google Scholar
  12. Franck A (2008) Sustainable Supply Chain Management: A tool for reinforcing shareholder value. Accenture Supply Chain Management Viewpoint. http://www.accenture.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/PDF/Accenture-Sustainable-Supply-Chain-Management.pdf, accessed 19 January 2013
  13. Griffin JJ, Mahon JF (1997) The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate: Twenty-five years of incomparable research. Business and Society 36(1): 5–31Google Scholar
  14. Gupta MC (1995) Environmental management and its impact on the operations function. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 15(8): 34–51Google Scholar
  15. Hua G, Cheng TCE, Wang S (2011) Managing carbon footprints in inventory management, International Journal Production Economics 132: 178–185Google Scholar
  16. Hsu T (2011) Wal-Mart’s motive is no secret: going green saves it money. Los Angeles Times. June 4. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/04/business/la-fi-walmart-green-20110604, accessed 19 January 2013
  17. King A, Lenox M (2001) Does it really pay to be green? An empirical study of firm environmental and financial performance, The Journal of Industrial Ecology 5(1): 105–116Google Scholar
  18. Klassen R, McLaughlin C (1996) The impact of environmental management on firm performance, Management Science 42(8): 1199–1215Google Scholar
  19. Linton JD, Klassen R, Jayaraman V (2007) Sustainable supply chains: An introduction. Journal of Operations Management 26(6): 1075–1082Google Scholar
  20. Palme K, Wallace E, Portney P (1995) Tightening environmental standards: The benefit-cost or the no-cost paradigm. Journal of Economic Perspectives 9(4): 119–132Google Scholar
  21. Porter ME, Van der Linde C (1995), Green and competitive: Ending the stalemate. Harvard Business Review, Sept-Oct: 120–134Google Scholar
  22. Seuring S, Muller M (2008), From a Literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner production 16: 1699–1710Google Scholar
  23. Schaltegger S, Synnestvedt T (2002): The link between ‘green’ and economic success: environmental management as the crucial trigger between environmental and economic performance. Journal of Environmental Management 65: 339–346Google Scholar
  24. Walley N, Whitehead B (1994), It’s not easy being green. Harvard Business Review 72(3): 2–7Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Marketing and Supply Chain ManagementNyenrode Business UniversiteitBreukelenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations