Supply Chain Simulation of Manufacturing Shirts: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Catherine Yang and Version 1 by Gurinder Kaur.

In supply chain management (SCM), goods and services flow from the raw materials stage to the end user with complexities and uncertainty at each stage. Computer modeling and simulation is a particularly useful method to examine supply chain operational issues because it can solve operational complexities that are challenging and time consuming to analyze. Manufacturing companies fear losing valuable time and assets during the manufacturing process; the inaccurate estimation of raw materials, human capital, or physical infrastructure not only leads to monetary loss for the manufacturing unit, but also has a detrimental effect on the environment. 

  • systems dynamic modeling
  • sustainable supply chain management
  • shirt manufacturing

1. Introduction

System dynamics modeling (SDM) is a powerful tool and computer-aided simulation technique that can be applied to frame, understand, and discuss complex problems [1,2][1][2]. First called industrial dynamics [3], SDM was developed in the mid-1950s by Professor Jay W. Forrester at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology [3,4][3][4]. SDM originates from management and control engineering; this approach involves analyzing complex physical, biological, and social systems from the perspective of feedback and delays [5,6][5][6].
SDM starts with specifying the scope and boundary of the problem and then maps the problem in a visual environment as an interacting systems model that, through a visual programming protocol, can be used to execute quantitative simulations of different scenarios [7].
Supply chain management (SCM) involves managing the flow of goods and/or services from the material stage to the end user [8,9,10,11,12,13][8][9][10][11][12][13]. A well-designed SCM system delivers high-quality goods and services efficiently and reliably. It can be difficult to create an efficient supply chain due to uncertainties and variabilities in materials flow, labor, and equipment availability. To resolve this, managers must understand the causes and impacts of these uncertainties and variabilities and work to reduce or eliminate them. The tools currently available for analyzing uncertainty are based on traditional mathematical approaches, such as single-parameter or local sensitivity analyses [14] that do not take variability into account. Since simulations can cope with variability, they are crucial for analyzing supply chains. In SCM, companies can use computer simulations to study operational problems that are difficult to model or solve analytically. Through simulation, companies can analyze how an innovative inventory system, such as just-in-time (JIT), would perform and how much it would cost without implementing it [15].
Many countries rely heavily on the apparel manufacturing industry to contribute to their national economies [16,17][16][17]. Although it is truly global in nature [18], it is plagued with several sustainability problems [19,20,21][19][20][21]. Excessive water and energy consumption, chemical usage, waste generation, poor labor conditions, and a lack of supply chain transparency all contribute to the environmental and social impacts of the industry. These issues pose serious challenges for the industry and call for immediate attention and action. To create an ethical and sustainable apparel manufacturing process, these issues must be addressed [22,23,24][22][23][24].
To address and improve sustainability and efficiency in apparel manufacturing, identifying the factors leading to a low input–output ratio and high energy consumption in the manufacturing industry is essential. These factors include inefficient production techniques, poor SCM, inadequate energy management systems, material waste and inefficiency, a lack of employee training and awareness, and the absence of sustainable practices. By addressing these factors and implementing appropriate measures, manufacturers can improve their input–output ratio and reduce energy consumption, leading to a more efficient and sustainable manufacturing process [25,26,27,28][25][26][27][28].
Increased globalization of the apparel industry has led to many sustainable supply chain management issues. The sustainability of the supply chain in apparel manufacturing is heavily influenced by uncertainty and variability. To ensure that the entire process runs smoothly, understanding the influence of uncertainty and variability on supply chain sustainability is essential. Uncertainty refers to the lack of predictability or knowledge about future events, while variability represents the degree of change or inconsistency in processes. In the context of the supply chain, both uncertainty and variability can arise from factors such as demand fluctuations, supply disruptions, price volatility, and changing consumer preferences. Uncertainty and variability in the supply chain can significantly affect environmental, social, and economic sustainability efforts. Managing uncertainty effectively through accurate demand forecasting, efficient transportation planning, and strong supplier relationships is crucial for sustainability. Minimizing variability through robust quality control measures, efficient manufacturing processes, and waste reduction strategies also play a vital role. By addressing these challenges, the apparel manufacturing industry can enhance its supply chain sustainability and contribute to a more sustainable future [29,30,31,32,33,34][29][30][31][32][33][34].
Apparel manufacturing in SDM models embodies various characteristics that prioritize sustainability, efficiency, and responsibility. Through an integrated supply chain, sustainable materials, energy efficiency, waste reduction, ethical labor practices, and technology adoption, manufacturers can create a more sustainable and responsible manufacturing process [34,35,36][34][35][36].

2. System Dynamics Modeling and Its Applications in Supply Chain Management

SDM was originally developed in the context of SCM, but it has a broad range of applications. SDM is now used in both the public and private sectors to help analyze and design policies [3]. It is used in policy development and organizational planning [4[4][12],12], public policy and management [13], behavioral economics [14], dynamics with complex nonlinearities [15], modeling in biology and medicine [16], natural and social science theory development [17], energy and the environment [18], dynamic decision-making processes [19], software development/engineering [20], and supply chain management [21,22,23][21][22][23]. This approach applies to complex problems in managerial, social, ecological, or economic systems; in fact, it applies to any dynamic system characterized by interconnection, mutual dependence, information flow, and circularity [6]. Through system dynamics (SD) models, various aspects of business operations [24,25][24][25] have been studied, such as strategic management [26], the management of manufacturing resources and capabilities [25[25][27],27], and marketing capabilities [28]. Recently, SDM has re-emerged in SCM after a prolonged period of dormancy. Recent research on SDM in SCM centers on inventory management and policies, time efficiency, demand augmentation, supply chain planning and implementation, and global supply chain management [2]. Several different conceptual frameworks and models for analysis have been proposed recently for SCM [37]. SDM has been used rarely in those frameworks and models, but given supply chain complexity, it has recently gained popularity [38]. Supply chains include numerous actors who organize the flow of materials and goods by sharing information. A supply chain system’s dynamic behavior is determined by various factors, including uncertainties in customer demand, multiple suppliers, various logistic routes, and different inventory methods. Supply chains are governed by uncertainty; therefore, SD simulations are helpful [38,39][38][39]. Over the last two decades, SD simulation has gained more attention as a tool for analyzing SCM. Forrester [3] initiated SD modeling to simulate production–distribution system interactions, among various supply chain actors. In complex SD models, variables are linked by nonlinear relationships, and feedback loops lead to uncertain system behavior [40]. Angerhofer and Angelides [5] developed categories of SD models for inventory management, amplification of demand, supply chain redesign, and international SCM. The authors examined these areas from the perspective of identifying and solving problems, and enhancing modeling approaches by providing exemplar models and studies that illustrated the applicability of SD to decision-making [5]. SD is used to model forward and reverse supply chains. In both manufacturing and supply chain-related applications, reverse and closed-loop supply chains are prevalent because SD models are based on feedback loops. Due to the dominant motivation of economic value recovery and not social and environmental objectives, reverse and closed-loop supply chains are not considered sustainable [41,42][41][42]. The reverse and closed-loop supply chain may lead to a more sustainable manufacturing approach by restoring financial returns, protecting natural resources, reducing pollution, and considering the social implications of supply chains. Feedback loops in circular economies and closed-loop supply chains require new SSCM requirements [43,44][43][44]. To address these challenges, SDM and a system thinking perspective may be beneficial in assisting sustainable decision-making and understanding complex supply chain systems.

3. System Dynamics Modeling for Sustainable Supply Chain Management

In SCM, customer and stakeholder requirements arise from the economic, environmental, and social dimensions of sustainable development [8,9,10,11,12][8][9][10][11][12]. The SSCM concept combines sustainability and SCM [45,46,47][45][46][47]. As part of a sustainable supply chain, members are expected to meet environmental and social standards, as well as customer needs and related economic requirements, to remain in the chain [48,49,50,51][48][49][50][51]. The literature on SDM for sustainable operations and SCM is sparse compared to well-known modeling methodologies, such as multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) or linear optimization. MCDM, also known as multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), entails analyzing various options for an event or area of research, which can encompass a range of subjects, including social sciences, medicine, daily life, engineering, and more [52,53,54,55][52][53][54][55]. Linear optimization or linear programming is the process of optimizing a linear function, known as the objective function, subject to linear constraints, such as equality or inequality. It is extensively used in theoretical computer science [56,57][56][57]. Only a few conference proceedings that exclusively addressed SCM, sustainable manufacturing, or operations, could be determined [58,59[58][59][60][61][62],60,61,62], which integrated manufacturing in environmental, financial, and social domains using a broad conceptual approach and SD model. Although the model is not studied in depth, the authors defined key components within each domain and outlined possible flow and stock variables for building the model. Kibira [58] presented an SD model framework for sustainable manufacturing to facilitate collaboration among researchers across the globe. It identifies four domains of relevant factors in the framework, including social, manufacturing, financial, and environmental. While the model is not analyzed in detail, it lists crucial components within each domain and identifies possible stock and flow variables for the model building. Likewise, Zhang [2] emphasized sustainable manufacturing and proposed a general framework for SD model development that incorporates sustainability metrics, considering the significance of systems thinking in engineering management. Wofuru-Nyenke [63] presented an approach to classifying manufacturing supply chain models by categorizing them into simulation models, hybrid models, mathematical models, and variations [63]. The study found that while simulation models and hybrid models have increased in use, mathematical models are used more for modeling sustainable manufacturing supply chains.

4. Sustainable Supply Chain Management in Apparel Manufacturing

It is particularly crucial to implement SSCM in the apparel manufacturing industry, which is highly labor intensive, uses materials with environmental effects, and relies heavily on global sourcing [64,65,66,67][64][65][66][67]. Therefore, SSCM in the apparel manufacturing industry is a crucial area of research for both industry and academia [68,69][68][69]. SSCM issues in the apparel industry often center on corporate social responsibility [70[70][71][72],71,72], wages, fair treatment, workplace safety [73[73][74][75],74,75], carbon footprints [76], sustainable partnerships [77], sustainability education [78], and forecasting accuracy [79]. These issues have been studied from operational management [35,80,81,82,83,84][35][80][81][82][83][84] and strategic management [85,86,87,88][85][86][87][88] perspectives. Manufacturing in apparel supply chains generates challenges, including energy and resources usage, labor rights, and waste creation. The literature has extensively explored sustainability in the manufacturing process. Pineda-Henson [89] explored green productivity to improve resource efficiency and waste reduction in sustainable manufacturing. The authors found that water consumption, energy consumption, and land ecotoxicology played key roles in green productivity [89]. Ghazinoory [90] explored the implementation of a clean manufacturing approach in Iran for the promotion of industrial sustainability. This research found that the apparel industry is most in need of cleaner production practices [90]. Jin Gam [91] presented a “cradle-to-cradle apparel design” approach for sustainable apparel manufacturing. Using the proposed model, the authors demonstrated colorfastness and reliable function [91]. Jordeva found that most apparel cutting waste generated during apparel manufacturing in Macedonia is disposed of in landfills and identified a lack of investment in recycling infrastructure [92]. Wickramasinghe studied manufacturing issues in the apparel manufacturing industry and found that cost reduction and quality enhancement were positive effects of total productive maintenance [93]. Pinheiro examined the textile solid waste generated in the garment manufacturing industry in Brazil and suggested reusing raw materials for sustainability [94]. Van der Velden used social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) to analyze the production system in apparel supply chains. According to the author, the S-LCA considers five social issues: wage standards, child labor, poverty, working hours, and health and safety issues [95]. Hirscher offered a consumer-engaged design strategy, which aims to engage consumers in social manufacturing through participatory design [96].

5. System Dynamics Modeling for Supply Chain Management in Apparel Manufacturing

SDM in apparel SCM is rarely used. The researchers only identified a few papers using SDM in apparel manufacturing supply chains. Bala [97] used an SDM of supply chains in the ready-made garment (RMG) industry in Bangladesh for policy analysis and simulated it for the sustainable shipment of garments. The study concluded that the proposed model can be efficiently applied to developing policy scenarios. It can also be used to create a better supply chain approach for sustainable growth for RMGs and to optimize the model for further research in the future [97]. Issa [98] examined the performance of the apparel supply chain involving mass customization, using an SDM. This study showed that, under mass customization, the various products, lead times, return policies, and quality levels had a significant impact on supply chain profitability [98]. Wilson [83] examined the role that the government can play, through its industrial policy, in enhancing competitiveness in apparel manufacturing in Trinidad and Tobago. Using SDM and simulation to analyze data for vertical policies, the study found that three interrelated elements affected apparel manufacturing: the market, apparel products, and productive resources [99]. Mehrjoo examined the fast fashion apparel industry because of its features, including products with a short life cycle, fluctuating demand, uncertainty, impulse buying, high competition for price, and global sourcing. To analyze the fast fashion apparel industry’s behavior and relationships, an SDM was developed for investigating the relationships and behavior of the fast fashion apparel industry with the supply chain [100]. Lidia [101] constructed a supply chain model for a small and medium-sized enterprise in Indonesia by utilizing SD. The purpose of using SD was to introduce a decision support system, which helped management to determine the most effective business strategies [101]. Corinna Cagliano [102] employed SD to simulate the warehouse operations of a leading fast fashion vertical retailer. The author demonstrated case scenario simulations of how warehouse policies can be defined to increase efficiency, reduce costs, reduce inventory, and reduce lead times [102]. Haddad [103] provided a case study on lean implementation at a garment manufacturer in Lebanon. The author constructed an SD model of the production process to simulate the long-term effects of complementary lean techniques on system performance, and concluded that SD models can be used as decision-making tools to mitigate undesirable impacts and ensure the sustainability of lean initiatives over time [103].

References

  1. Radzicki, M.J.; Taylor, R.A. Introduction to System Dynamics; US Department of Energy: Washington, DC, USA, 1997. Available online: http://www.systemdynamics.org/DL-IntroSysDyn/inside.htm (accessed on 20 June 2023).
  2. Zhang, H.; Calvo-Amodio, J.; Haapala, K.R. A conceptual model for assisting sustainable manufacturing through system dynamics. J. Manuf. Syst. 2013, 32, 543–549.
  3. Forrester, J.W. Industrial dynamics. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 1997, 48, 1037–1041.
  4. Radzicki, M.J.; Taylor, R.A. Origin of system dynamics: Jay W. Forrester and the history of system dynamics. In US Department of Energy’s Introduction to System Dynamics; US Department of Energy: Washington, DC, USA, 2008.
  5. Angerhofer, B.J.; Angelides, M.C. System dynamics modelling in supply chain management: Research review. In Proceedings of the 2000 Winter Simulation Conference Proceedings (Cat. No. 00CH37165), Orlando, FL, USA, 10–13 December 2000; pp. 342–351.
  6. Pérez-Pérez, J.F.; Parra, J.F.; Serrano-Garcia, J. A system dynamics model: Transition to sustainable processes. Technol. Soc. 2021, 65, 101579.
  7. Richardson, G.P. Core of System Dynamics. In System Dynamics: Theory and Applications; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 11–20.
  8. Dyllick, T.; Hockerts, K. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2002, 11, 130–141.
  9. Elkington, J.; Rowlands, I.H. Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Altern. J. 1999, 25, 42.
  10. Hill, T.; Hill, T. Manufacturing Strategy: Text and Cases; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2000; Volume 2.
  11. World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future; Peterson’s: Colorado Springs, CO, USA, 1987.
  12. Carter, C.R.; Rogers, D.S. A framework of sustainable supply chain management: Moving toward new theory. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2008, 38, 360–387.
  13. Ghufran, M.; Khan, K.I.A.; Thaheem, M.J.; Nasir, A.R.; Ullah, F. Adoption of Sustainable Supply Chain Management for Performance Improvement in the Construction Industry: A System Dynamics Approach. Architecture 2021, 1, 161–182.
  14. Marino, S.; Hogue, I.B.; Ray, C.J.; Kirschner, D.E. A methodology for performing global uncertainty and sensitivity analysis in systems biology. J. Theor. Biol. 2008, 254, 178–196.
  15. Schunk, D.; Plott, B. Using simulation to analyze supply chains. In Proceedings of the 2000 Winter Simulation Conference Proceedings (Cat. No. 00CH37165), Orlando, FL, USA, 10–13 December 2000; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2000; Volume 2, pp. 1095–1100.
  16. Dicken, P. Global Shift: Reshaping the Global Economic Map in the 21st Century; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2003.
  17. Nayak, R.; Padhye, R. Introduction: The apparel industry. In Garment Manufacturing Technology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 1–17.
  18. Bheda, R.; Narag, A.; Singla, M. Apparel manufacturing: A strategy for productivity improvement. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. Int. J. 2003, 7, 12–22.
  19. Muthu, S.S. Handbook of Sustainable Apparel Production; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2015.
  20. Chowdhury, N.R.; Chowdhury, P.; Paul, S.K. Sustainable practices and their antecedents in the apparel industry: A review. Curr. Opin. Green Sustain. Chem. 2022, 37, 100674.
  21. Chowdhury, M.M.H.; Rahman, S.; Quaddus, M.A.; Shi, Y. Strategies to mitigate barriers to supply chain sustainability: An apparel manufacturing case study. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2023, 38, 869–885.
  22. Shen, B.; Li, Q.; Dong, C.; Perry, P. Sustainability issues in textile and apparel supply chains. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1592.
  23. Bubicz, M.E.; Barbosa-Póvoa, A.P.F.D.; Carvalho, A. Social sustainability management in the apparel supply chains. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 280, 124214.
  24. Köksal, D.; Strähle, J.; Müller, M.; Freise, M. Social sustainable supply chain management in the textile and apparel industry—A literature review. Sustainability 2017, 9, 100.
  25. Rathore, B. Future of textile: Sustainable manufacturing & prediction via chatgpt. Eduzone Int. Peer Rev./Ref. Multidiscip. J. 2023, 12, 52–62.
  26. Jiang, L.; Folmer, H.; Bu, M. Interaction between output efficiency and environmental efficiency: Evidence from the textile industry in Jiangsu Province, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 113, 123–132.
  27. Fatima, A.; Tufail, M. Improving Efficiency of Apparel Manufacturing Through the Principles of Resource Management. Cloth. Text. Res. J. 2023, 41, 225–235.
  28. Mukherjee, K. Energy use efficiency in the Indian manufacturing sector: An interstate analysis. Energy Policy 2008, 36, 662–672.
  29. Oelze, N. Sustainable supply chain management implementation—Enablers and barriers in the textile industry. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1435.
  30. Freise, M.; Seuring, S. Social and environmental risk management in supply chains: A survey in the clothing industry. Logist. Res. 2015, 8, 2.
  31. Awudu, I.; Zhang, J. Uncertainties and sustainability concepts in biofuel supply chain management: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 1359–1368.
  32. Sreedevi, R.; Saranga, H. Uncertainty and supply chain risk: The moderating role of supply chain flexibility in risk mitigation. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2017, 193, 332–342.
  33. Barnett, V.; O’Hagan, A. Setting Environmental Standards: The Statistical Approach to Handling Uncertainty and Variation; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1997.
  34. Merschmann, U.; Thonemann, U.W. Supply chain flexibility, uncertainty and firm performance: An empirical analysis of German manufacturing firms. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2011, 130, 43–53.
  35. Shen, B. Sustainable fashion supply chain: Lessons from H&M. Sustainability 2014, 6, 6236–6249.
  36. Zimon, D.; Domingues, P. Proposal of a concept for improving the sustainable management of supply chains in the textile industry. Fibres Text. East. Eur. 2018, 26, 8–12.
  37. Herrmann, F.F.; Barbosa-Povoa, A.P.; Butturi, M.A.; Marinelli, S.; Sellitto, M.A. Green supply chain management: Conceptual framework and models for analysis. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8127.
  38. Hillier, F.S. Introduction to Operations Research; McGrawHill: New York, NY, USA, 2001.
  39. Shamsuddoha, M. Integrated supply chain model for sustainable manufacturing: A system dynamics approach. In Sustaining Competitive Advantage via Business Intelligence, Knowledge Management, and System Dynamics; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2015; pp. 155–399.
  40. Forrester, J.W. System dynamics, systems thinking, and soft OR. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 1994, 10, 245–256.
  41. Wee Kwan Tan, A.; Kumar, A. A decision-making model for reverse logistics in the computer industry. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2006, 17, 331–354.
  42. Poles, R. System Dynamics modelling of a production and inventory system for remanufacturing to evaluate system improvement strategies. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2013, 144, 189–199.
  43. Ghisellini, P.; Cialani, C.; Ulgiati, S. A review on circular economy: The expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 114, 11–32.
  44. Genovese, A.; Acquaye, A.A.; Figueroa, A.; Koh, S.L. Sustainable supply chain management and the transition towards a circular economy: Evidence and some applications. Omega 2017, 66, 344–357.
  45. Santos, M.J. Theoretical contributions towards rethinking corporate social responsibility. Manag. Res. J. Iberoam. Acad. Manag. 2014, 12, 288–307.
  46. Fontes, C.H.d.O.; Freires, F.G.M. Sustainable and renewable energy supply chain: A system dynamics overview. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 82, 247–259.
  47. Rebs, T.; Brandenburg, M.; Seuring, S. System dynamics modeling for sustainable supply chain management: A literature review and systems thinking approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 208, 1265–1280.
  48. Kaveh, A.; Vazirinia, Y. Optimization of tower crane location and material quantity between supply and demand points: A comparative study. Period. Polytech. Civ. Eng. 2018, 62, 732–745.
  49. Andersen, M.; Skjoett-Larsen, T. Corporate social responsibility in global supply chains. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2009, 14, 75–86.
  50. Saberi, S.; Kouhizadeh, M.; Sarkis, J.; Shen, L. Blockchain technology and its relationships to sustainable supply chain management. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2019, 57, 2117–2135.
  51. Abdelkafi, N.; Täuscher, K. Business models for sustainability from a system dynamics perspective. Organ. Environ. 2016, 29, 74–96.
  52. Triantaphyllou, E.; Triantaphyllou, E. Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2000.
  53. Majumder, M.; Majumder, M. Multi criteria decision making. In Impact of Urbanization on Water Shortage in Face of Climatic Aberrations; Springer: Singapore, 2015; pp. 35–47.
  54. Wang, J.-J.; Jing, Y.-Y.; Zhang, C.-F.; Zhao, J.-H. Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2009, 13, 2263–2278.
  55. Taherdoost, H.; Madanchian, M. Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods and concepts. Encyclopedia 2023, 3, 77–87.
  56. Karloff, H. Linear Programming; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008.
  57. Gass, S.I. Linear Programming: Methods and Applications; Courier Corporation: North Chelmsford, MA, USA, 2003.
  58. Kibira, D.; Jain, S.; McLean, C. A system dynamics modeling framework for sustainable manufacturing. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual System Dynamics Society Conference, Albuquerque, NM, USA, 26–30 July 2009; Volume 301, pp. 1–22.
  59. Jain, S.; Kibira, D. A framework for multi-resolution modeling of sustainable manufacturing. In Proceedings of the 2010 Winter Simulation Conference, Baltimore, MD, USA, 5–8 December 2010; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2010; pp. 3423–3434.
  60. Jain, S.; Lindskog, E.; Johansson, B. Supply chain carbon footprint tradeoffs using simulation. In Proceedings of the 2012 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), Berlin, Germany, 9–12 December 2012; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2012; pp. 1–12.
  61. Jain, S.; Lindskog, E.; Andersson, J.; Johansson, B. A hierarchical approach for evaluating energy trade-offs in supply chains. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2013, 146, 411–422.
  62. Jain, S.; Sigurðardóttir, S.; Lindskog, E.; Andersson, J.; Skoogh, A.; Johansson, B. Multi-resolution modeling for supply chain sustainability analysis. In Proceedings of the 2013 Winter Simulations Conference (WSC), Washington, DC, USA, 8–11 December 2013; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2013; pp. 1996–2007.
  63. Wofuru-Nyenke, O.K.; Briggs, T.A.; Aikhuele, D.O. Advancements in sustainable manufacturing supply chain modelling: A review. Process Integr. Optim. Sustain. 2023, 7, 3–27.
  64. Bentahar, O.; Benzidia, S. Sustainable supply chain management: Trends and challenges. HAL Post-Print 2018, hal-02511038.
  65. Choi, T.-M.; Cai, Y.-J. Impacts of lead time reduction on fabric sourcing in apparel production with yield and environmental considerations. Ann. Oper. Res. 2020, 290, 521–542.
  66. Choi, T.-M.; Cai, Y.-J.; Shen, B. Sustainable fashion supply chain management: A system of systems analysis. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2018, 66, 730–745.
  67. Asif, A. An overview of sustainability on apparel manufacturing industry in Bangladesh. Sci. J. Energy Eng. 2017, 5, 1–12.
  68. Li, Y.; Zhao, X.; Shi, D.; Li, X. Governance of sustainable supply chains in the fast fashion industry. Eur. Manag. J. 2014, 32, 823–836.
  69. Morana, R.; Seuring, S. A three level framework for closed-loop supply chain management—Linking society, chain and actor level. Sustainability 2011, 3, 678–691.
  70. Amatulli, C.; De Angelis, M.; Korschun, D.; Romani, S. Consumers’ perceptions of luxury brands’ CSR initiatives: An investigation of the role of status and conspicuous consumption. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 194, 277–287.
  71. Perry, P.; Towers, N. Determining the antecedents for a strategy of corporate social responsibility by small-and medium-sized enterprises in the UK fashion apparel industry. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2009, 16, 377–385.
  72. Perry, P.; Towers, N. Conceptual framework development: CSR implementation in fashion supply chains. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2013, 43, 478–501.
  73. Mair, S.; Druckman, A.; Jackson, T. Investigating fairness in global supply chains: Applying an extension of the living wage to the Western European clothing supply chain. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2018, 23, 1862–1873.
  74. Mair, S.; Druckman, A.; Jackson, T. Higher wages for sustainable development? Employment and carbon effects of paying a living wage in global apparel supply chains. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 159, 11–23.
  75. Clarke-Sather, A.; Cobb, K. Onshoring fashion: Worker sustainability impacts of global and local apparel production. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 208, 1206–1218.
  76. Morgan, E.; Foxon, T.J.; Tallontire, A. ‘I prefer 30°’?: Business strategies for influencing consumer laundry practices to reduce carbon emissions. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 190, 234–250.
  77. Ma, K.; Wang, L.; Chen, Y. A collaborative cloud service platform for realizing sustainable make-to-order apparel supply chain. Sustainability 2017, 10, 11.
  78. Garcia, S.; Cordeiro, A.; de Alencar Nääs, I.; Neto, P.L.d.O.C. The sustainability awareness of Brazilian consumers of cotton clothing. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 215, 1490–1502.
  79. Choi, T.-M. Incorporating social media observations and bounded rationality into fashion quick response supply chains in the big data era. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2018, 114, 386–397.
  80. Na, Y.; Na, D.K. Investigating the sustainability of the Korean textile and fashion industry. Int. J. Cloth. Sci. Technol. 2015, 27, 23–33.
  81. Atilgan, T. Eco-labelling applications in the textile & apparel sector in Turkey. Fibres Text. East. Eur. 2007, 15, 14.
  82. Yang, Y.; Han, H.; Lee, P.K. An exploratory study of the mechanism of sustainable value creation in the luxury fashion industry. Sustainability 2017, 9, 483.
  83. Li, Y.; Luo, Y.; Wang, Y.; Wang, L.; Shen, M. Decomposing the decoupling of water consumption and economic growth in China’s textile industry. Sustainability 2017, 9, 412.
  84. Li, B.; Wu, K. Environmental management system adoption and the operational performance of firm in the textile and apparel industry of China. Sustainability 2017, 9, 992.
  85. Chi, T. Building a sustainable supply chain: An analysis of corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices in the Chinese textile and apparel industry. J. Text. Inst. 2011, 102, 837–848.
  86. Dabija, D.-C.; Pop, N.A.; Postelnicu, C. Ethics of the garment retail within the context of globalization and sustainable development. Ind. Textilă 2016, 67, 270–279.
  87. Shi, X.; Qian, Y.; Dong, C. Economic and environmental performance of fashion supply chain: The joint effect of power structure and sustainable investment. Sustainability 2017, 9, 961.
  88. Nagurney, A.; Yu, M. Sustainable fashion supply chain management under oligopolistic competition and brand differentiation. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2012, 135, 532–540.
  89. Pineda-Henson, R.; Culaba, A.B. A diagnostic model for green productivity assessment of manufacturing processes. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2004, 9, 379–386.
  90. Ghazinoory, S. Cleaner production in Iran: Necessities and priorities. J. Clean. Prod. 2005, 13, 755–762.
  91. Jin Gam, H.; Cao, H.; Farr, C.; Heine, L. C2CAD: A sustainable apparel design and production model. Int. J. Cloth. Sci. Technol. 2009, 21, 166–179.
  92. Jordeva, S.; Tomovska, E.; Trajković, D. Current state of pre-consumer apparel waste management in Macedonia. Fibres Text. East. Eur. 2015, 23, 13–16.
  93. Wickramasinghe, G.; Perera, A. Effect of total productive maintenance practices on manufacturing performance: Investigation of textile and apparel manufacturing firms. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2016, 27, 713–729.
  94. Pinheiro, E.; Francisco, A. Management and characterization of textile solid waste in a local productive arrangement. Fibres Text. East. Eur. 2016, 4, 8–13.
  95. Van der Velden, N.M.; Vogtländer, J.G. Monetisation of external socio-economic costs of industrial production: A social-LCA-based case of clothing production. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 153, 320–330.
  96. Hirscher, A.-L.; Niinimäki, K.; Armstrong, C.M.J. Social manufacturing in the fashion sector: New value creation through alternative design strategies? J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 4544–4554.
  97. Bala, B.; Islam, M.; Ghosh, S.; Hossain, M.; Hoque, A.; Saha, S. Modelling of supply chain of ready-made garments in Bangladesh. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 2020, 37, 38–55.
  98. Issa, M.; Elgholmy, S.; Shetab, A.; Fors, M.N. A system dynamics model of apparel supply chain under mass customization. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Toronto, ON, Canada, 23–25 October 2019.
  99. Wilson, S. Building apparel manufacturing competitiveness through policy—A system dynamics approach. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. Int. J. 2020, 24, 277–302.
  100. Mehrjoo, M.; Pasek, Z.J. Risk assessment for the supply chain of fast fashion apparel industry: A system dynamics framework. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2016, 54, 28–48.
  101. Lidia, M.W.; Arai, T.; Ishigaki, A.; Yudoko, G. Applying system dynamics approach to the fast fashion supply chain: Case study of an SME in Indonesia. Asian J. Technol. Manag. 2012, 5, 42–52.
  102. Corinna Cagliano, A.; DeMarco, A.; Rafele, C.; Volpe, S. Using system dynamics in warehouse management: A fast-fashion case study. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2011, 22, 171–188.
  103. Haddad, M.; Otayek, R. Assessing the Sustainment of a Lean Implementation Using System Dynamics Modeling: A Case Study of Apparel Manufacturing in Lebanon. Int. J. Syst. Dyn. Appl. (IJSDA) 2019, 8, 14–29.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback