• صفحه اصلی
  • ارائه الگوی ترکیبیِ تحلیل کیو و تفسیری ریسک‌ِ زیست‌محیطی زنجیره تامین پایدار فناورانه

اشتراک گذاری

آدرس مقاله


کد مقاله : JEST-2108-5482 (R1) بازدید : 84 صفحه: 25 - 37

10.30495/jest.2022.62845.5482

نوع مقاله: پژوهشی

ارائه الگوی ترکیبیِ تحلیل کیو و تفسیری ریسک‌ِ زیست‌محیطی زنجیره تامین پایدار فناورانه

محورهای موضوعی : اقتصاد محیط زیست

پیمان قلی زاده 1 (دانشجوی دکتری مدیریت صنعتی، واحد مسجدسلیمان، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، مسجدسلیمان، ایران.)
صابر ملاعلیزاده زواردهی 2 (استادیار گروه مهندسی صنایع، واحد مسجدسلیمان، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، مسجدسلیمان، ایران. *(مسوول مکاتبات))
اله کرم صالحی 3 (استادیار گروه حسابداری، واحد مسجدسلیمان، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، مسجدسلیمان، ایران.)

تاریخ دریافت : 1400/06/06 تاریخ پذیرش : 1400/08/04 تاریخ انتشار : 1402/06/01

کلید واژه: تحلیل کیو ( ), تحلیل تفسیرگرایانه/ساختارمند, ریسک‌محیط‌زیستِ زنجیره تامین پایدار,

چکیده مقاله :

زمینه و هدف: یکی از مهمترین رویکردهای استراتژیک رقابتی، کسب پایداری در مدیریتِ زنجیره تامین فناوریِ اطلاعات به دلیل ایجاد توازن اطلاعات در بین تصمیم گیرندگان می‌باشد که می‌تواند در قالب ابعاد مختلفی همچون اقتصادی؛ اجتماعی؛ زیست محیطی نمایان گردد. هدف این پژوهش ارائه الگوی ترکیبیِ تحلیل کیو و تفسیری ریسک‌ِ زیست‌محیطی زنجیره تامین پایدار فناورانه در شرکت‌های دانش بنیان می‎باشد. روش بررسی: روش شناسی پژوهش ترکیبی است و برای شناسایی گزاره‌های ریسک محیط‌زیست از تحلیل فراترکیب و دلفی استفاده شد و در بخش کمی از تحلیل کیو استفاده شد و سپس باهدفِ تعیین تاثیرگذارترین گزاره‌ی ریسک محیط‌زیستِ هریک از سناریوهای شناسایی شده‌ی ریسک زنجیره تامین پایدار از تحلیل تفسیری ساختاری جامع استفاده شد. این پژوهش در بازه زمانی یکساله انجام شد. یافته‌ها: نتایج وجودِ ۲۸ گزاره اولیه را برای شناسایی ریسک محیط زیستِ زنجیره تامین پایدار تایید کردند که پس از تحلیل دلفی باهدفِ رسیدن به حد کفایت نظری تعداد ۲۱ گزاره‌ی نهایی تایید شدند. سپس انجام تحلیل کیو، جهت تعیین گزاره های ریسک محیط زیست پایدار در سناریوهای مختلف صورت گرفت. بحث و نتیجه‌گیری: نتایج بدست آمده گویایی این واقعیت است که دو گزاره ی فقدان استانداردهای مطلوب و عدم‌نظارت‌های نهادی در کنترل ضایعات و وجود تاثیر بلایای طبیعی به دلیل عدم‌امکان‌سنجی جغرافیایی توسعه فناوری به عنوان تاثیرگذارترین معیارهای ریسک محیط زیست زنجیره تامین پایدار محسوب می شوند.

چکیده انگلیسی:

Background and Objective: The Purpose of this research is Provide a Combined Model of Q-Analysis and Interpretation of Environmental Risk of Technologically Sustainable Supply Chain. Material and Methodology: Based on this, first, the components and propositions of the risks of the sustainable were identified by the research experts and then, based on the link analysis, which includes the analysis of internal links and the relationships between links and the systemic impact of links to determine the most important element of a connection between the statements of components related to the technological risks sustainable supply chain. Findings: Accordingly, the three components of the economic risk of a sustainable technological supply chain; the social risk of the technologically stable supply chain and the environmental risk of the technologically sustainable supply chain were determined in the form of 28 initial propositions, they entered the Delphi analysis section in order to reach the theoretical adequacy level. In this section, 21 final propositions were approved in the second phase of Delphi analysis. Discussion and Conclusion: It was also found that the two propositions of lack of desirable standards and lack of institutional oversight in waste control and the impact of natural disasters due to the geographical impossibility of technology development are considered as the most effective environmental risk measures of sustainable supply chain.

منابع و مأخذ:


  1. Shafiee, S., Rajabzadeh Ghatari, A., Hasanzadeh, A., & Jahanyan, S. (2018). Studying the effect of IT on sustainable development of tourism destinations toward developing smart tourism destinations (Based on the Meta Synthetize approach) (In Persian). New Marketing Research Journal, 7(4), 95-116. https://doi.org/10.22108/nmrj.2017.103939.1247
    2.
  2. Li, Y., & Mathiyazhagan, K. (2018). Application of DEMATEL approach to identify the influential indicators towards sustainable supply chain adoption in the auto components manufacturing sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 2931-2941.
    3.
  3. Scavarda, A., Daú, G. L., Scavarda, L. F., & Korzenowski, A. L. (2019). A proposed healthcare supply chain management framework in the emerging economies with the sustainable lenses: The theory, the practice, and the policy. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 141, 418-430.
    4.
  4. Carter, C. R., Rogers, D. S. (2008). A framework of sustainable supply chain management: moving toward new theory. International journal of physical distribution & logistics management, 38(5): 360-387.
    5.
  5. Gurnani, H., Ray, S. and Wang, Y. (2011). Global Supply Chain Risk Management”. Special Issue of Production and Operations Management: Production and Operations Management, 20(5): 786-804.
    6.
  6. Tang, O., Matsukawa, H., Nakashima, K. (2012). Supply chain risk management, International Journal of Production Economics, 139(1): 102-117.
    7.
  7. Xu, M., Cui, Y., Hu, M., Xu, X., Zhang, Zh. Liang, S., Qu, Sh. (2019). Supply chain sustainability risk and assessment, Journal of Cleaner Production, 225(10): 857-867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.307
    8.
  8. Ahmed, E, M. (2020). Modelling Information and Communications Technology Cyber Security Externalities Spillover Effects on Sustainable Economic Growth, Journal of the Knowledge Economy. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-020-00627-3
    9.
  9. De Barros, A, P., Ishikiriyamab, C, S., Cordeiro Peresc, R., Simões Gomesd, C, F. (2015). Processes and benefits of the application of information technology in supply chain management: an analysis of the literature, Procedia Computer Science, 55(3): 698 –705.
    10.
  10. Blankley, A. (2008). A conceptual model for evaluating the financial impact of supply chain management technology investments, The International Journal of Logistics Management, 19(3): 155-182.
    11.
  11. Steurer, R., Langer, M. E., Konrad, A., & Martinuzzi, A. (2005). Corporations, stakeholders and sustainable development I: a theoretical exploration of business–society relations. Journal of business ethics, 61(3): 263-281.
    12.
  12. Garcia, S., Cintra, Y., Torres, R. de C. S. R., & F. G Lima (2016). Corporate Sustainability Management: A Proposed Multi-criteria Model To Support Balanced Decision-making, Journal of Cleaner Production, 136(1/2): 181-196.
    13.
  13. Dočekalová, M. P., Kocmanová, A. (2016). Composite Indicator for Measuring Corporate Sustainability, Ecological Indicators, 61(2): 612–623.
    14.
  14. Berardi, U. (2015). Sustainability Assessments of Buildings, Communities, and Cities, Assessing and Measuring Environmental Impact and Sustainability. 35(1): 497-545.
    15.
  15. Chow, W. S., Chen, Y. (2011). Corporate Sustainable Development: Testing a New Scale Based on the Mainland Chinese Context, Journal of Business Ethics, 105(4): 519–533.
    16.
  16. Adesanya, A., Yang, B., Bin Iqdara, F, W., Yang, Y. (2020). Improving sustainability performance through supplier relationship management in the tobacco industry, Supply Chain Management, 25(4): 413-426. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-01-2018-0034
    17.
  17. Baliga, R., Raut, R., Kamble, S. (2019). The effect of motivators, supply, and lean management on sustainable supply chain management practices and performance: Systematic literature review and modeling, Benchmarking: An International Journal, 27(1): 347-381. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-01-2019-0004
    18.
  18. Colicchia, C., Creazza, A. and Menachof, D.A. (2019). Managing cyber and information risks in supply chains: insights from an exploratory analysis, Supply Chain Management, 24(2): 215-240. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-09-2017-0289
    19.
  19. Sundram, V, P, K., Bahrin, A.S., Abdul Munir, Z, B. Zolait, A, H. (2018). The effect of supply chain information management and information system infrastructure: The mediating role of supply chain integration towards manufacturing performance in Malaysia, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 31(5): 751-770. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-06-2017-0084
    20.
  20. Bartnik, R., Park, Y. (2018). Technological change, information processing and supply chain integration: A conceptual model, Benchmarking: An International Journal, 25(5): 1279-1301. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-03-2016-0039
    21.
  21. Sangbor, M., Safi, M., & Azar, A. (2019). Application of fuzzy cognitive maps (FCM’s) to analysis and design the causal structure of sustainable supply chain management enabler’s in the petrochemical industry (In Persian). Public Management Researches, 12(1), 5-29. https://doi.org/10.22111/jmr.2019.4741
    22.
  22. Farhadi, F., Taghizadeh Yazdi, M., Momeni, M., & Sajjadi, S. (2019). Presenting sustainable supply chain agility model in the brick industry of Isfahan province (In Persian). Logistics Thought, 18(2), 27-44. http://lot.jrl.police.ir/article_92523.html?lang=en
    23.
  23. Farrokh, M., Zabihi Jamkhaneh, M., Sholeh, M. (2019). Evaluating risks of sustainable supply chain by the failure mode and effect analysis method in fuzzy environment (case study: Saba battery), 14(48): 97-112.
    24.
  24. Nazeri, A., & Nosratpoor, M. (2016). Supply chain sustainability: A risk management approach (Translation and summary) (In Persian). Iranian Journal of Supply Chain Management, 53(18), 68-80. https://scmj.ihu.ac.ir/article_203604.html
    25.

 

 

_||_

  1. Shafiee, S., Rajabzadeh Ghatari, A., Hasanzadeh, A., & Jahanyan, S. (2018). Studying the effect of IT on sustainable development of tourism destinations toward developing smart tourism destinations (Based on the Meta Synthetize approach) (In Persian). New Marketing Research Journal, 7(4), 95-116. https://doi.org/10.22108/nmrj.2017.103939.1247
    2.
  2. Li, Y., & Mathiyazhagan, K. (2018). Application of DEMATEL approach to identify the influential indicators towards sustainable supply chain adoption in the auto components manufacturing sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 2931-2941.
    3.
  3. Scavarda, A., Daú, G. L., Scavarda, L. F., & Korzenowski, A. L. (2019). A proposed healthcare supply chain management framework in the emerging economies with the sustainable lenses: The theory, the practice, and the policy. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 141, 418-430.
    4.
  4. Carter, C. R., Rogers, D. S. (2008). A framework of sustainable supply chain management: moving toward new theory. International journal of physical distribution & logistics management, 38(5): 360-387.
    5.
  5. Gurnani, H., Ray, S. and Wang, Y. (2011). Global Supply Chain Risk Management”. Special Issue of Production and Operations Management: Production and Operations Management, 20(5): 786-804.
    6.
  6. Tang, O., Matsukawa, H., Nakashima, K. (2012). Supply chain risk management, International Journal of Production Economics, 139(1): 102-117.
    7.
  7. Xu, M., Cui, Y., Hu, M., Xu, X., Zhang, Zh. Liang, S., Qu, Sh. (2019). Supply chain sustainability risk and assessment, Journal of Cleaner Production, 225(10): 857-867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.307
    8.
  8. Ahmed, E, M. (2020). Modelling Information and Communications Technology Cyber Security Externalities Spillover Effects on Sustainable Economic Growth, Journal of the Knowledge Economy. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-020-00627-3
    9.
  9. De Barros, A, P., Ishikiriyamab, C, S., Cordeiro Peresc, R., Simões Gomesd, C, F. (2015). Processes and benefits of the application of information technology in supply chain management: an analysis of the literature, Procedia Computer Science, 55(3): 698 –705.
    10.
  10. Blankley, A. (2008). A conceptual model for evaluating the financial impact of supply chain management technology investments, The International Journal of Logistics Management, 19(3): 155-182.
    11.
  11. Steurer, R., Langer, M. E., Konrad, A., & Martinuzzi, A. (2005). Corporations, stakeholders and sustainable development I: a theoretical exploration of business–society relations. Journal of business ethics, 61(3): 263-281.
    12.
  12. Garcia, S., Cintra, Y., Torres, R. de C. S. R., & F. G Lima (2016). Corporate Sustainability Management: A Proposed Multi-criteria Model To Support Balanced Decision-making, Journal of Cleaner Production, 136(1/2): 181-196.
    13.
  13. Dočekalová, M. P., Kocmanová, A. (2016). Composite Indicator for Measuring Corporate Sustainability, Ecological Indicators, 61(2): 612–623.
    14.
  14. Berardi, U. (2015). Sustainability Assessments of Buildings, Communities, and Cities, Assessing and Measuring Environmental Impact and Sustainability. 35(1): 497-545.
    15.
  15. Chow, W. S., Chen, Y. (2011). Corporate Sustainable Development: Testing a New Scale Based on the Mainland Chinese Context, Journal of Business Ethics, 105(4): 519–533.
    16.
  16. Adesanya, A., Yang, B., Bin Iqdara, F, W., Yang, Y. (2020). Improving sustainability performance through supplier relationship management in the tobacco industry, Supply Chain Management, 25(4): 413-426. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-01-2018-0034
    17.
  17. Baliga, R., Raut, R., Kamble, S. (2019). The effect of motivators, supply, and lean management on sustainable supply chain management practices and performance: Systematic literature review and modeling, Benchmarking: An International Journal, 27(1): 347-381. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-01-2019-0004
    18.
  18. Colicchia, C., Creazza, A. and Menachof, D.A. (2019). Managing cyber and information risks in supply chains: insights from an exploratory analysis, Supply Chain Management, 24(2): 215-240. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-09-2017-0289
    19.
  19. Sundram, V, P, K., Bahrin, A.S., Abdul Munir, Z, B. Zolait, A, H. (2018). The effect of supply chain information management and information system infrastructure: The mediating role of supply chain integration towards manufacturing performance in Malaysia, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 31(5): 751-770. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-06-2017-0084
    20.
  20. Bartnik, R., Park, Y. (2018). Technological change, information processing and supply chain integration: A conceptual model, Benchmarking: An International Journal, 25(5): 1279-1301. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-03-2016-0039
    21.
  21. Sangbor, M., Safi, M., & Azar, A. (2019). Application of fuzzy cognitive maps (FCM’s) to analysis and design the causal structure of sustainable supply chain management enabler’s in the petrochemical industry (In Persian). Public Management Researches, 12(1), 5-29. https://doi.org/10.22111/jmr.2019.4741
    22.
  22. Farhadi, F., Taghizadeh Yazdi, M., Momeni, M., & Sajjadi, S. (2019). Presenting sustainable supply chain agility model in the brick industry of Isfahan province (In Persian). Logistics Thought, 18(2), 27-44. http://lot.jrl.police.ir/article_92523.html?lang=en
    23.
  23. Farrokh, M., Zabihi Jamkhaneh, M., Sholeh, M. (2019). Evaluating risks of sustainable supply chain by the failure mode and effect analysis method in fuzzy environment (case study: Saba battery), 14(48): 97-112.
    24.
  24. Nazeri, A., & Nosratpoor, M. (2016). Supply chain sustainability: A risk management approach (Translation and summary) (In Persian). Iranian Journal of Supply Chain Management, 53(18), 68-80. https://scmj.ihu.ac.ir/article_203604.html
    25.

 

 

سکوی نشر دانش

سند یا سکوی نشر دانش ،سامانه ای جهت مدیریت حوزه علمی و پژوهشی نشریات دانشگاه آزاد می باشد

پیوندهای سایت

مراکز مرتبط

پشتیبانی

صفحات رسمی

حقوق این وب‌سایت متعلق به سامانه مدیریت نشریات دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی است.
حق نشر © 1403-1400

صفحه اصلی| عضویت/ ورود| درباره سند| تماس با ما|
[English] [العربية] [en] [ar]