IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlogis/v6y2022i3p58-d886583.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Industrial Packaging Performance Indicator Using a Group Multicriteria Approach: An Automaker Reverse Operations Case

Author

Listed:
  • Marcelo Miguel da Cruz

    (LATEC—Laboratory of Technology, Business Management and Environment, Federal Fluminense University (UFF), Niterói, Rio de Janeiro 24000-000, Brazil)

  • Rodrigo Goyannes Gusmão Caiado

    (Industrial Engineering Department, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro (PUC-Rio), Rio de Janeiro 22541-041, Brazil)

  • Renan Silva Santos

    (LATEC—Laboratory of Technology, Business Management and Environment, Federal Fluminense University (UFF), Niterói, Rio de Janeiro 24000-000, Brazil
    Industrial Engineering Department, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro (PUC-Rio), Rio de Janeiro 22541-041, Brazil)

Abstract

Background : Due to the growing integration between the various logistics entities and other internal operations, packaging management in the automotive industry is becoming increasingly important from the strategic point of view of the logistics operations of automakers. Performance evaluation of reverse operations is also necessary for managers to know their efficiency, avoid unnecessary resource use and promote circular thinking, enabling more sustainable supply chains. Methods : This research proposes a group decision-making (GDM) approach to evaluate packaging performance in automakers to assist return activities in developing countries. The reverse flow in an automaker was mapped, and by combining literature and empirical views of a packaging engineering team of a Brazilian company, a multicriteria indicator for performance evaluation of packaging was elaborated. It was prioritized through the analytic hierarchy process (AHP)-GDM method, combining judgments to establish a structured technical consensus. Results : It was possible to integrate multiple views of packaging engineering specialists within the same company to know which packaging deserves greater attention from managers when implementing reverse operations from a circular perspective. Conclusions : To demonstrate applicability, this composite indicator also aims to be a quick application approach, considering the restricted time and availability of the specialists in their daily routines.

Suggested Citation

  • Marcelo Miguel da Cruz & Rodrigo Goyannes Gusmão Caiado & Renan Silva Santos, 2022. "Industrial Packaging Performance Indicator Using a Group Multicriteria Approach: An Automaker Reverse Operations Case," Logistics, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-18, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlogis:v:6:y:2022:i:3:p:58-:d:886583
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2305-6290/6/3/58/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2305-6290/6/3/58/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Raul Oltra-Badenes & Hermenegildo Gil-Gomez & Vicente Guerola-Navarro & Pau Vicedo, 2019. "Is It Possible to Manage the Product Recovery Processes in an ERP? Analysis of Functional Needs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-16, August.
    2. Zhang, Qinhong & Segerstedt, Anders & Tsao, Yu-Chung & Liu, Biyu, 2015. "Returnable packaging management in automotive parts logistics: Dedicated mode and shared mode," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 234-244.
    3. Sebastjan Škerlič & Robert Muha, 2020. "A Model for Managing Packaging in the Product Life Cycle in the Automotive Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-19, November.
    4. Zvonimira Sverko Grdic & Marinela Krstinic Nizic & Elena Rudan, 2020. "Circular Economy Concept in the Context of Economic Development in EU Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-13, April.
    5. Esmee M. Veenstra & Naomi Ellemers, 2020. "ESG Indicators as Organizational Performance Goals: Do Rating Agencies Encourage a Holistic Approach?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-15, December.
    6. J. Hummel & John Bridges & Maarten IJzerman, 2014. "Group Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process in Benefit-Risk Assessment: A Tutorial," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(2), pages 129-140, June.
    7. Ramanathan, R. & Ganesh, L. S., 1994. "Group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: An evaluation and an intrinsic process for deriving members' weightages," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 249-265, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Xu, Zeshui, 2005. "Deviation measures of linguistic preference relations in group decision making," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 249-254, June.
    2. Ni Li & Minghui Sun & Zhuming Bi & Zeya Su & Chao Wang, 2014. "A new methodology to support group decision-making for IoT-based emergency response systems," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 16(5), pages 953-977, November.
    3. Mateos, A. & Jimenez, A. & Rios-Insua, S., 2006. "Monte Carlo simulation techniques for group decision making with incomplete information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 174(3), pages 1842-1864, November.
    4. Abderahman Rejeb & Karim Rejeb & Suhaiza Zailani & Yasanur Kayikci & John G. Keogh, 2023. "Examining Knowledge Diffusion in the Circular Economy Domain: a Main Path Analysis," Circular Economy and Sustainability,, Springer.
    5. Forman, Ernest & Peniwati, Kirti, 1998. "Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 165-169, July.
    6. Henao, Felipe & Cherni, Judith A. & Jaramillo, Patricia & Dyner, Isaac, 2012. "A multicriteria approach to sustainable energy supply for the rural poor," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 218(3), pages 801-809.
    7. Chenyu Lu & Yang Zhang & Hengji Li & Zilong Zhang & Wei Cheng & Shulei Jin & Wei Liu, 2020. "An Integrated Measurement of the Efficiency of China’s Industrial Circular Economy and Associated Influencing Factors," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-21, September.
    8. José María Moreno-Jiménez & Manuel Salvador & Pilar Gargallo & Alfredo Altuzarra, 2016. "Systemic decision making in AHP: a Bayesian approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 245(1), pages 261-284, October.
    9. Davor Mance & Siniša Vilke & Borna Debelić, 2020. "Sustainable Governance of Coastal Areas and Tourism Impact on Waste Production: Panel Analysis of Croatian Municipalities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-16, September.
    10. Sebastjan Škerlič & Robert Muha, 2020. "A Model for Managing Packaging in the Product Life Cycle in the Automotive Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-19, November.
    11. Jacinto González-Pachón & Carlos Romero, 2007. "Inferring consensus weights from pairwise comparison matrices without suitable properties," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 123-132, October.
    12. Asimina Kouriati & Christina Moulogianni & Georgios Kountios & Thomas Bournaris & Eleni Dimitriadou & George Papadavid, 2022. "Evaluation of Critical Success Factors for Enterprise Resource Planning Implementation Using Quantitative Methods in Agricultural Processing Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-13, May.
    13. Wiebke Mohr & Anika Rädke & Adel Afi & Franka Mühlichen & Moritz Platen & Annelie Scharf & Bernhard Michalowsky & Wolfgang Hoffmann, 2022. "Development of a Quantitative Preference Instrument for Person-Centered Dementia Care—Stage 2: Insights from a Formative Qualitative Study to Design and Pretest a Dementia-Friendly Analytic Hierarchy ," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-21, July.
    14. Xiaxia Ma & Wenliang Bian & Wenchao Wei & Fei Wei, 2022. "Customer-Centric, Two-Product Split Delivery Vehicle Routing Problem under Consideration of Weighted Customer Waiting Time in Power Industry," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-23, May.
    15. Bolloju, N., 2001. "Aggregation of analytic hierarchy process models based on similarities in decision makers' preferences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(3), pages 499-508, February.
    16. Sureeyatanapas, Panitas & Sriwattananusart, Kawinpob & Niyamosoth, Thanawath & Sessomboon, Weerapat & Arunyanart, Sirawadee, 2018. "Supplier selection towards uncertain and unavailable information: An extension of TOPSIS method," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 69-79.
    17. B S Ahn & S H Choi, 2008. "ERP system selection using a simulation-based AHP approach: a case of Korean homeshopping company," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 59(3), pages 322-330, March.
    18. Mark Fuller, 2022. "Wheat and chaff: the degree to which strategic management principles are integrated within corporate social responsibility reporting among large Canadian firms," International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 1-17, December.
    19. Xunjie Gou & Zeshui Xu & Xinxin Wang & Huchang Liao, 2021. "Managing consensus reaching process with self-confident double hierarchy linguistic preference relations in group decision making," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 51-79, March.
    20. Škamlová Lucia & Klobučník Michal, 2021. "Recycling of municipal waste in Slovak cities," Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series, Sciendo, vol. 53(53), pages 43-54, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlogis:v:6:y:2022:i:3:p:58-:d:886583. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.