Problem statement:

Having both formulations in the proposed optimization model through integrating greenness with
traditional components of supply chains is intended to fill a missing research gap in the pertinent
literature and is considered the motivation behind this study.

Introduction:
With increasing local and global awareness on environmental concerns, and increasing pressures on
firms to reduce their adverse effects on environment, many organizations have started to adopt and
apply green practices to improve their environmental performance as well as to alleviate their negative
environmental effects.

In the context of GSCM, Jabbour and de Sousa Jabbour (2015) constructed a new framework that
integrates green human resources management (GHRM) with GSCM

They argued that organizations seeking sustainability in their supply chains are required to integrate
these two paradigms in one setting.

This research provides a model that takes into consideration human factors (i.e. green driving index
(GDI), selecting, training, and motivating of drivers) in addressing the GSCM optimization problem.

The second formulation builds on a bi-objective function including the total costs across the supply chain
as one objective function and the green issues in another objective function

Having both formulations in the proposed optimization model through integrating greenness with
traditional components of supply chains is intended to fill a missing research gap in the pertinent
literature and is considered the motivation behind this study.

Literature review
GSCM has received a considerable attention from scholars, researchers and managers in recent years, as
a result of increased awareness about the negative impact of supply chain on environment and human.

In the same context, Diabat and Simchi-Levi (2009) introduced an optimization model that integrates
GSC network design problem with carbon emissions constraint

In their model, the throughput capacity of the manufacturing site, storage capacity of the distribution
centers and their locations are considered as decision variables in order to ensure that the total amount
of CO2 emissions in the entire supply chain does not violate the determined carbon emissions cap, while
minimizing the total supply chain cost.

On the other hand, Memari, Rahim, and Ahmad (2015) developed a novel multi-objective mixed integer
linear program (MILP) model for GSCM
The aim of this model is to minimize the total costs of production, distribution, holding and shortage
cost as well as minimizing the environmental impact the CO2 emissions of the supply chain network.

The model considers a set of drivers who are classified into three levels according to their driving
behavior, which influences fuel consumption and CO2 emission, and works on optimally assigning those
drivers to different types of vehicles in order to minimize GHG emission and other costs in the entire
supply chain

Methodology:
Model description
The proposed multi-site, multi-product and multi-period APP problem in a GSC network can be
described as follows, the network consists of a set of suppliers with various supply capacities; a set of
distribution centers (DCs) with various storage capacities; a set of retailers with different demands and
different storage capacities.

The problem aims to determine: (1) the type and the quantity of products to be shipped from suppliers
to DCs and from DCs to retailers in each period, (2) the quantity of products should be stored at each DC
and each retailer in each period, (3) the number of vehicles from each vehicle types should be used to
transport products from each DC to each retailer in each period, (4) the optimal periodic assignment
among vehicles and drivers by taking into account the vehicle types and the GDI of the drivers, so each
driver should be assigned to one and only one vehicle and vice versa, (5) periodic assignment of these
pairs of vehicles and drivers to each shipment of products from DCs to retailers according to distances
between DCs and retailers, (6) the number of drivers would be hired, fired or trained in each period

All these shall be identified in such a way that the total costs are minimized and total CO2 emissions do
not exceed the predetermined CO2 emissions level.
Objective function
To reduce the total costs and CO2 emissions across the entire supply chain network, the main cost
components are considered in the objective function of the model.

These are as follows: Total labor costs denoted by.

Total transportation cost that includes fixed and variable costs, the fixed cost depends on the number of
vehicles needed of each type in each period, and the variable cost depends on the types of vehicles used
and the drivers assigned to these vehicles as well as on the distances between DC and retailers.

The total transportation cost is denoted by

Formulation one: single objective function optimization model

According to the above-mentioned costs components, without considering any environmental costs in
the objective function, the objective function of the model would be written as shown in Eq (1).

The number of m-level drivers available at DC j in period t and given by…

The total number of laying off or training of drivers’ level m in current period cannot exceed the number
of drivers’ level m who X are available in the previous period and given by…

This constraint ensures that upgrading drivers from level m0 to level m is possible, if and only if this
training session is available and given by ….

Non-negativity and integers constraints are given by equation ….

Formulation two: multi-objective optimization model
A new version of the previous model is developed. The previous model is converted from a single
objective MIP model to a multi-objective MIP model.

The new model contains two conflicting objectives; one aims to minimize the total cost across supply
chain denoted by (Z1) and the second objective aims to minimize the GHG emissions generated from the
supply chain and is denoted by (Z2).

tive function is reformulated by taking the summation of normalized difference between each objective
and the ideal optimal values of them (Branke, Deb, Miettinen, & Slowinski, 2008).

Ð28Þ where 0 6 x 6 1 is the relative weight of components involved in the objective functions and the
value of x depends on the decision maker’s preference

Hypothetical data
Subject to all constraints in the previous model except constraint number (21) which is the constraint
that is converted to the second objective function (Z2).

The LP-metrics method is one of the famous multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods for solving
multi-objective models with conflicting and inconsistent objectives simultaneously, (Entezaminia et al,
2016).

The principle behind this method is that a multi-objective model is solved by taking each objective
function separately and a single objec-.

Each worker can be represented by his/her available working hours in each period and each product
needs a specific time to be handled

Results
All computations were run using Gomory cuts, MIR cuts and branch and bound (B&B) algorithms
accessed via Matlab 2015a on a PC IntelÒ coreTM i5 CPU M450 2.40 GHZ and 4.00 GB RAM under win
10 pro, with total running time is 6.64 s.

The driver’s plan is shown, where drivers from level 1 are dominant during planning horizon, but with
tighter GHG restriction in period 3, the number of drivers’ level 1 reduced and number of drivers’ level 2
and 3 increased, in DC2, because the distance between DC2 and retailers is more than that between DC1
and retailers, so the selection of drivers become more critical

More elaboration on this observation is given later in sensitivity analysis section.

Table shows the interaction between DCs, retailers and the vehicle types.

Elaboration on formulation two’s model is presented in the sensitivity analysis

Varying the GHG levels
Sensitivity analysis is conducted to examine the change in total cost at each level of GHG emission.

It is found that the optimal total cost of the model becomes more sensitive to variation in GHG level in
range of 435 kg/period to about 700 kg/period.

The minimal GHG limit (435 kg/period) would represent an ethical commitment or a green strategy the
companies are willing to adopt and fulfil in managing their supply chains.

This limit would be interpreted as threshold limit imposed by the.

Governmental and environmental agencies on companies where any violation of this limit could cost the
company to pay extra CO2 taxes as a result of such violations

These results are compatible with (Mirzapour Al-e-hashem et al, 2013)’s model results which was
conducted on a real case study in Iran Wood and Paper Industries Company

Trade-offs between economic and environmental objective functions

The results of the previous sensitivity analysis could be achieved when the multi-objective model is
solved instead of the single objective model.

This curve efficiently gives the decision makers the ability to choose the x value suitable for satisfying
their environmental goals and strategies.

The behavior of both environmental objective and economic objective is compatible with similar results
in the literature, namely, Entezaminia et al (2016), where their results are obtained from studying a
hypothetical supply chain and Wang et al (2011) whose results are based on a real case from a world-
class company in China

Effect of GHG limits on drivers selection

Another sensitivity analysis is performed to investigate the effect of reducing the GHG limit on the
number of drivers’ level m needed.

When GHG level was reduced to its lowest level (435 kg/period), the model selected respectively, 12, 20
and 65 from level 1-, level 2- and level 3-drivers.

This result emphasizes the importance of GHRM in implementing successful GSCM.

To achieve greenness, the organization should carefully select the suitable number of drivers from each
level
This result agrees with Jabbour and de Sousa Jabbour (2015), who have stressed out the necessity for
integrating GHRM with GSCM to have sustainable supply chains.

Such sustainability could be practically guaranteed through careful selection, training, motivating,
rewarding, empowering and performance evaluating of drivers in the supply chain network

Effect of travelling distance on drivers’ selection

The effect of travelling distances from DCs to retailers on selecting level m-drivers is investigated.

Increasing the distances to 500 km, the model, respectively, selected 2, 89 and 6 drivers from level 1,
level 2 and level 3.

Distances of 50 km from both DC1 and DC2 to retailer 2 were considered

As seen in the tabulated results, for long distances, such as between DC1 and retailer 1, the model
revealed that most optimal assignments were between level 3-drivers with type 3-vehicles.

For short distances, the most optimal assignments were between level 1-drivers with type 3-vehicles

Conclusions
A novel approach for incorporating drivers’ differences with APP at tactical and operational levels in
GSCM is proposed.

In contrast to previous researches that have completely ignored the differences between drivers in
designing and managing GSCs, this research contributes to the literature by offering a more realistic
model that integrates GHRM with GSCM to fulfil the organizational goals of reducing fuel consumption
and the generated CO2 emissions.

Such integration could be realized through augmenting the drivers’ differences represented by their GDI,
drivers’ selection, training and motivating in the traditional supply chain network models.

Unlike most prior studies of GHRM, the current study proposed an approach to quantify the intangible
human aspect that is difficult to measure, which helps any organization to manage their drivers’
behavior to improve their environmental and economic performance in their supply chains networks
Future research extensions
Despite the model’s novelty and strength, it has a number of limitations such as the proposed model
relied on hypothetical data in addition to data derived from literature.

Evaluating driver’ performance based on fairly performance evaluation methodology (Liimatainen, 2011)
or by developing a multi-criteria approach for selecting and evaluating drivers may give more realistic
results.

Another limitation is that, all parameters in the developed model are assumed to be deterministic and
known.

In the current GSCM problem, only direct shipping distances from DCs to retailers are considered, while
in GVRP problem, the entire travelling routes should be considered

Under this setting of GVRP, the effects of drivers’ differences are more critical and the solutions of the
model would be more beneficial