Int. J.

Production Economics 128 (2010) 43–50

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Int. J. Production Economics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpe

Modeling carbon footprints across the supply chain

Balan Sundarakani a,, Robert de Souza b, Mark Goh c,d, Stephan M. Wagner e, Sushmera Manikandan b
a
Faculty of Business and Management, University of Wollongong in Dubai, Knowledge Village, Dubai 20183, United Arab Emirates
b
The Logistics Institute—Asia Pacific, National University of Singapore, 21 Heng Mui Keng Terrace, 119613, Singapore
c
NUS Business School, National University of Singapore, 1 Business Link, 117592, Singapore
d
Division of Business, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia
e
Chair of Logistics Management, Department of Management, Technology, and Economics, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, Scheuchzerstrasse 7, 8092 Zurich,
Switzerland

a r t i c l e in fo abstract

Article history: Environmental consciousness has become critical in the design and operation of globally integrated
Received 19 December 2008 supply chain networks. This research examines the carbon footprint across supply chains and thus
Accepted 13 January 2010 contributes to the knowledge and practice of green supply chain management. The analytical model
Available online 22 January 2010
uses the long-range Lagrangian and the Eulerian transport methods. Analytical and finite difference
Keywords: methods are used to approximate the three-dimensional infinite footprint model. A simplified
Green supply chain management numerical example validates and illustrates the proposed approach. The results show that carbon
Carbon footprint emissions across stages in a supply chain can constitute a significant threat that warrants careful
Lagrangian box model attention in the design phase of supply chains.
Eulerian box model
& 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Heat link

1. Introduction Controlling for carbon emissions and measuring the carbon

Firms involved in the design and operation of modern supply
chain networks have traditionally focused on the efficiency of the
networks and logistics processes and on value creation for
downstream customers. These firms have created value in supply
chain relationships by increasing the benefits of the product for
the customers, reducing the costs of the product, improving
delivery service, or reducing the time of delivery (Christopher,
2005; Ulaga and Eggert, 2006). Recently, customers have attached
greater value to less obvious dimensions, such as low-risk
supply chains (Wagner and Bode, 2008), better visibility across
supply chain (Balan et al., 2009), socially responsible supply
chains (Boyd et al., 2007), or green supply chains (Quariguasi
Frota Neto et al., 2008). The latter is the focus of this article.
Many progressive companies, such as Walmart, Tesco, Hewlett
Packard, and Patagonia, have capitalized on the opportunities of
green supply chain management and are therefore very con-
cerned with the environmental burden of their supply chain
processes. Throughout the supply chain, customers and therefore
firms designing and operating supply chains are particularly
sensitive to reducing their carbon emissions (Hoffman, 2007).
Operationally, this might involve carbon control of assets and
infrastructure, the use of energy-efficient vehicles, waste reduc-
tion through process optimization, and recycling.
 Corresponding author. Tel.: + 971 4 3672466.
E-mail address: balansundarakani@uowdubai.ac.ae (B. Sundarakani).
footprint across a supply chain is a challenge for organizations
today. For instance, IBM has attempted to provide a carbon heat
map to illustrate the degrees of carbon impact on the operations
of a typical supply chain (Butner et al., 2008). Despite these initial
attempts in corporate practice and some preliminary research
(e.g., Cholette and Venkat, 2009; Sundarakani et al., 2008; Wu
et al., 2006), there is a need to study carbon footprint measure-
ment across supply chains and to better understand, quantify and
rigorously analyze the impact of carbon emissions in global
supply chain networks. Thus, the objective of this article is to
contribute to the knowledge and practice of measuring and
controlling the carbon footprint across supply chains.
2. Literature review
Green supply chain management (GrSCM) can be defined as
the integration of environmental thinking into supply chain
management, including product design, supplier selection and
material sourcing, manufacturing processes, product packaging,
delivery of the product to the consumers, and end-of-life
management of the product after its use (Beamen, 1999; Linton
et al., 2007; Srivastara, 2007; Zhang et al., 1997). As such, GrSCM
ranges from green product design to a closed loop product return
processing, and requires high-level and detailed planning and
steering of complete supply chains on an end-to-end basis.

0925-5273/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.01.018
44 B. Sundarakani et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 128 (2010) 43–50
Studies in this area are concerned with the practices, drivers and
barriers, measurement, and benefits of GrSCM.
Walker et al. (2008) study the drivers of environmentally
friendly practices in the supply chains of public and private sector
organizations, and the barriers these organizations face in
implementing GrSCM practices. Firms initiate GrSCM practices
due to regulatory or social changes, customer preferences, or
competitive pressure. Barriers include the costs associated with
such practices, the lack of legitimacy to implement such practices,
or poor commitment from suppliers. Simpson et al. (2007) show
that suppliers are more responsive to the client’s environmental
requirements under certain conditions of the supply chain
relationship (e.g., level of relationship-specific investment).
Measuring green supply chain practices as well as GrSCM
performance poses several challenges, since practices occur at
dislocated stages in multi-stage supply chains and the perfor-
mance implications are multi-faceted. Some initial measurement
models on how to tap GrSCM practices (e.g., Zhu et al., 2008), and
conceptual frameworks and selected metrics of environmental
performance (e.g., Hervani et al., 2005) are presented in the
literature.
As an outcome, GrSCM can reduce waste, minimize pollution,
save energy, conserve natural resources, and reduce carbon
emissions (Bloemhof-Ruwaard et al., 1995; Parry et al., 2007).
An empirical study shows that relationships between GrSCM
operational practices and environmental and economic perfor-
mance exist, and that these relationships are moderated by
quality management and lean manufacturing practices (Zhu and
Sarkis, 2004) and by institutional (market, regulatory and
competitive) pressure (Zhu and Sarkis, 2007).
Some research has measured, modeled, and optimized supply
chains based on green practices. Derived from the understanding
that GrSCM practices should be evaluated from an environmental
and economic dimension, Kainuma and Tawara (2006) propose
and apply the multiple attribute utility theory method for
assessing both dimensions. Ferretti et al. (2007) evaluate the
economic (e.g., scrap values, total costs) and environmental
(pollution) effects of receiving aluminum alloys from suppliers
in the liquid phase instead of the traditional supply of solid
material. They identify an efficiency boundary for the combined
economic-environmental efficiency. In a linear multi-objective
programming model, Sheu et al. (2005) optimize the operations
of integrated logistics networks based on factors such as the
used-product return ratio or subsidies from governmental
organizations for reverse logistics. Their numerical example
suggests that such a model can improve supply chain profits by
more than 20%.
Despite the modeling efforts in the area of GrSCM, the supply
chain and operations management literature is scarce with
respect to modeling carbon emissions. Sundarakani et al. (2008),
for example, discuss how carbon footprints across supply chains
can be measured. Within the context of supply chain networks for
electric power, Wu et al. (2006) propose a model that captures the
behavior of power generators with a portfolio of power plant
options and subject to pollution taxes. Cholette and Venkat (2009)
calculate the energy and carbon emissions associated with the
transportation links and warehousing activities in food and
beverage supply chains, particularly in the wine industry. They
show that, depending on the supply chain design, energy
consumption and carbon emission can vary substantially.
Despite these initial attempts of modeling carbon footprints
across supply chains, a better understanding of the heat (carbon)
flux in supply chains is critical as carbon emissions and carbon
constraints ‘‘can financially affect a company even if they occur
not in the company itself, but within the value chain of the
company.’’ (Busch and Hoffmann, 2007, p. 519) That is, companies
that do not measure and manage carbon emissions along their
supply chains and in collaboration with their supply chain
partners will place themselves at a disadvantage.
3. System specification
We use a long-range transport modeling approach to shed
light on carbon emissions from nodes (stages) across supply
chains and apply a mobile (logistics) emission diffusion model for
inbound and outbound logistics activities. This allows us to
understand the heat (carbon) flux at each node of the supply chain
and to calculate the total carbon transferred from one stage of the
supply chain to another. By applying the limiting factors
(acceptable, borderline and unacceptable emissions), we can then
identify and locate the areas of sensible heat flux and acceptable
carbon emissions.
As a product enters a supply chain node, its heat flux increases
due to various processes. This increase in intensity depends on the
performance of the product and process drivers of the supply
chain (Fig. 1). The processes consume energy and emit carbon and
other wastages.
In order to formulate the transport model, we consider a closed
loop end-to-end supply chain with nodes (stages) as shown in
Fig. 2. The carbon emissions in the supply chain arise from various
processes, ranging from the processing of raw materials to the
dispatching of finished goods. At the supplier stage, the processing
of raw materials and preparing the semi-finished parts emits
hydrocarbons, oxides of sulfur (SOx) and wastages in the form of
gaseous and acidic compounds. At the stage of the logistics service
provider (logistics), the levels and types of carbon emissions
depend on the mode of transportation, choice of fuel used, and
distance travelled. Diesel engine vehicles such as heavy trucks
emit carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), particulate matter
(PM), and volatile organic compounds (Hui et al., 2007). The total
carbon emissions at the stage of the manufacturer (manufacturing
plant) can be measured from direct and indirect emissions of the
different manufacturing processes such as processing the raw
materials, cleaning them, furbishing, molding and processing until
final assembly of the product. Finally, the total carbon emissions
at the stage of the distribution center (warehouse) depend on the
type of packaging used, trade policy, consumer density, and the
level of reuse.
We consider two broad categories of emissions from
these stages of the supply chain: stationary source (emissions
from material processing, manufacturing, and warehousing)
and non-stationary source (emissions from inbound and out-
bound logistics). Therefore, the total carbon emission across the
supply chain consists of both stationary and non-stationary
emissions.
To delineate the scope of our research and to facilitate for
formulation of a model, the following assumptions pertaining to
the supply chain were made:
 emissions from suppliers, manufacturing plants and distribu-
tion warehouses are assumed to be stationary, and inbound
and outbound logistics emissions are assumed to be non-
stationary;
 only primary tier-1 supplier emission is considered in order to
reduce the complexity;
 customer-side emissions are minimal when compared to
emissions from suppliers, manufacturers, warehousing and
transportation;
 carbon emissions consist of CO2, N2O, methane, hydrofluor-
ocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and other
particulate matter;
 B. Sundarakani et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 128 (2010) 43–50 45

Energy use
Technology use Network density and route

CO2 emissions

Supply chain node

Product in Product out

Inventory policy Shipment policy

Trade policy

Intensity of heat flux

Fig. 1. Driving forces of green supply chain.

Energy consumption Energy consumption Energy consumption Energy consumption

CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2

Supplier
Inbound
Distribution
Suppliers logistics service Manufacturer Customer
center
providers
Supplier

Wastages Wastages Wastages

Customer
Outbound
logistics service
providers

Reengineering Remanufacturing Refurbishing Reuse Wastages

Fig. 2. Nodes (stages) of the closed loop end-to-end supply chain.

 turbulent mixing along the diffusion is considered constant ai dry deposition velocity in m/s of node i
and homogenous; Li coefficient of carbon deposition (washout coefficient) of
 all other impinging variables remain constant during the node i in s  1
determination of the footprint. u wind velocity at x coordinate in m/s
v wind velocity at y coordinate in m/s
w wind velocity at z coordinate in m/s
4. Model to measure carbon emissions V control volume in m3
In the literature, analytical expressions are popular and U mean wind speed in m/s
extensively used for flux footprint analysis (e.g., Hsieh et al., h measurement height in m
2000; Schuepp et al., 1990). In our research, we employ the un friction velocity in m/s
Eulerian and Lagrangian transport models to calculate the d zero plan displacement in m
emissions because they have been widely applied in models to k von Karman constant
study water quality, submarine outfalls, sediment erosion, oil Ky Eddy diffusion coefficient across the wind direction of
dispersion and other types of pollution (Lee et al., 2000; Taylor, node i
1989). Although, the application of this model in carbon footprint Kz Eddy diffusion coefficient in the vertical direction of
measurement in a supply chain has not been reported, we find node i
that it is an appropriate method of measurement because it F carbon deposition flux in gm  2 S  1
considers both active and passive tracers in carbon footprint. Q carbon emission concentration in gm  3
ciU upper bound emission from node i
4.1. Notations ciL lower bound emission from node i
ciBL border line emission from node i
Ei emission rate of source point i in kg/s gi weighting factor of node i
Ri(ci) rate of change of chemical transformation and emission f function with diffusivity
of node i Ra aerodynamic resistance in sm  1
46 B. Sundarakani et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 128 (2010) 43–50

Rq quasi-laminar transfer resistance in sm  1 Markiewicz (2004). The diffusion equation is of the form
Rs surface resistance of emission in sm  1 Z Z Z Z Z Z     
@ci @ @c @ @c
x total energy consumption of all sources (n) in sm  1 dx dy dz ¼ Kx i þ Ky i
V @t V @x @x @y @y
L Monin–Obukhov length in m   Z Z Z  
@ @ci @ci @ci @c
e error coefficient þ Kz dx dy dz u þv þw i dx dy dz
@z @z @x @y @z
wn convective velocity scale Z Z Z Z Z VZ  
ai  ci
þ ðRi ðci ÞÞ dx dy dz þ Li ci dx dy dz ð5Þ
The general Lagrangian model expressed by Lee et al. (2000) is as V V h
follows:
dci a ðc Þ where V denotes the control volume of the assumed plume
¼ Ei þRi ðci Þ i i Li ci ð1Þ box; u,v,w are the wind velocity components at the respective
dt h
co-ordinates. By introducing the initial and the boundary
We chose to apply this model to our study as this allows for
conditions, this diffusion equation can be solved either analyti-
sufficient explanation of emissions growth in an open space and is
cally or by numerical approximation methods.
a good match with a carbon emission growth variable in an open
space domain. Therefore, the modified model takes the form
4.3. Diffusion measurement from non-stationary source
dci a  ci
¼ ðEx þEy þ Ez Þ þRi ðci Þ i Li ci ð2Þ
dt h
Considering a single source in a supply chain network, we
where Ex, Ey and Ez are emission rates in the x, y and z directions, follow the principle of the Lagrangian box model, because this
respectively. The factor ‘‘emission rate’’ is calculated from the approach considers that the control volume box moves with the
total heat emission of all sources. The total heat emissions consist air and this is an appropriate measure of non-stationary (mobile)
of heat energy liberated due to CO2, NO2, methane, hydrofluor- source emissions. Therefore, to calculate the diffusion, we assume
ocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Each node that the carbon footprint follows a three-dimensional trajectory,
and linkage emits these gases at different intensities (Fig. 3). The adapted from the TRACE model (Tran, 1984). The diffusion
total heat flux induced in a particular node is expressed as equation is of the form
     
Ex ; Ey ; Ez ¼ f ðqÞ ¼ fCO2 þ CH4 þHFCS þ N2 Oþ PFCS þ SF6 g ð3Þ @ci @ @c @ @c @ @c a  ci
¼ Kx i þ Ky i þ Kz i þ Ri ðci Þ i Li ci
@t @x @x @y @y @z @z h
The total supply chain carbon footprint can be measured over
time from its stationary and non-stationary sources as ð6Þ
        Likewise, by introducing the initial and the boundary conditions,
dci dci dci dci
¼ þ þ this diffusion equation can be solved either analytically or by
dt Supply Chain dt Supplier dt Manufacturing Plant dt Warehouse
|fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl} numerical approximation methods.
Stationary Sources
 
dci 4.4. Dry deposition measurement
þ ð4Þ
dt Inbound; Outbound and Reverse Logistics
|fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl}
Non-stationary Sources Dry deposition is the process by which gases and particles are
transported from the earth’s atmosphere to its surface other than
precipitation. Generally, it depends on conditions such as wind
speed, atmospheric stability, surface roughness and composition,
4.2. Diffusion measurement from stationary source time of day and season, and the nature of the deposition
substance. The phenomena of dry deposition to the supply chain
Considering all primary stationary sources in the supply chain, emission problem is more appropriate, as it occurs only after the
we measure the emission by taking a small control volume as plume interacts with the terrain features, at a certain height h
characterized by the Eulerian box model approach stated in (Hicks et al., 1987). It is normally measured by the deposition

Carbon
Energy Other particles

Heat flux in Heat flux out

Wastages CO2
CF4+HFCS+N2O+PFCS

Fig. 3. Heat flux through a node.

 B. Sundarakani et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 128 (2010) 43–50 47

velocity, which is the ratio of the pollutant deposition flux F and expressed by
pollutant concentration Q. Thus, we have Pn Pm
C c k ¼ 1 ck
F 1 CER ¼ ¼ Pni ¼ 1 i þ Pm ð12Þ
ai ¼ ¼ ð7Þ x i ¼ 1 ei k ¼ 1 ek
Q Ra þRq þ Rs
where ci is the carbon emission from stationary node (i= 1,y, n)
where Ra is the atmospheric resistance through the turbulent and ck is the carbon emission from all non-stationary sources
surface layer, Rq is the quasi deposition resistance, Rs is the (k =1, y, m) and similar the energy consumption ei and ek.
vegetation surface resistance. Ra can be computed from Wesley
and Kicks (1977):
    4.7. Estimating the limits
1 hs
Ra ¼ ln cc ð8Þ
k  u h0
Let ciU and ciL be the upper (unacceptable emission) and lower
where k is the von Karman constant (E0.40), hs is the reference (acceptable emission) emission bounds, respectively. Then, the
height (m), h0 is the roughness length (m), u is the friction borderline emission can be derived as
velocity (ms  1). Zannetti (1990) has experimented with friction
ciBL ¼ gi ciU þ ð1gi ÞciL ; gi A ½0; 1 and
velocities for different profiles and wind speeds and expresses the
relation: minðciL ; ciU Þ o ciBL omaxðciL ; ciU Þ; gi A ½0; 1 ð13Þ

kuðhÞ
u ¼  
h
ln
h0
and cc is the stability correction term. The quasi deposition
resistance can be parameterized as a function of the Schmidt
number (Sc) as
! varying boundary conditions, finding the exact solution is very
Sdc 2
Rq ¼ d1  ð10Þ
k  u
with Sc ¼ f=D where f is the kinematic viscosity of air (m2 s  1)
and D is molecular diffusivity of the carbon (m2 s  1) and d1, d2 are
empirical parameters.
In reality, multiple resistances could affect emission from a
single source (e.g., manufacturing center, moving vehicle emis-
sion). This deposition varies, depending on the emission source.
For example, the nodal point emission depends on the node’s
condition. At the same time, the transportation emission (arc)
depends on wind velocity, dynamics of source in addition to its
original conditions such as atmospheric stability or surface
roughness. Lee et al. (2000) conducted many experiments to
evaluate the surface resistance for various categories of surfaces
and hybrid surface conditions under different boundary layer
phenomena.
4.5. Wet deposition measurement
Wet deposition is caused by both precipitation and scavenging
of the surface impact of emission droplets of fog or cloud. It can be
measured from the emission coefficient based on the precipitation
condition and rain. Finlayson-Pitts (1986), Hales (1989), Lee et al.
(1999), and Seinfeld (1986) discuss the wet deposition scheme for
numerous applications. In a supply chain problem, similar to the
dry deposition, wet deposition also varies depending on the
source type and its significance. The wet flux of carbon pollutant
emission to the surface can be measured from
R1 )
Wg ¼ 0 Lðh; tÞi ci ðx; y; z; tÞ dz /For GasesS
R1 ð11Þ
Wp ¼ 0 Lðdp ; h; tÞi ci ðdp ; x; y; z; tÞ dz /For ParticlesS
where L is the washout coefficient and c is the concentration
expressed as a function of particle diameter dp . The washout
coefficient values vary spatially and temporally.
ð9Þ
5. Solving the model
When considering systems of differential equations with
difficult and therefore approximation methods such as the finite
difference or finite element methods are needed. Eq. (5) can be
solved analytically, and to solve the carbon diffusion Eq. (6) we
follow the classical finite difference method of approximation
since it has been well defined in many heat conduction problems.
The finite difference method is based on the replacement of the
derivatives by their approximate values expressed through the
values of a function at certain discrete nodal points (Luikov,
1968). As a result, it is possible to replace the differential equation
with an equivalent finite-difference relation whose solution is
reduced to simple algebraic manipulations. The result is given by
an expression, whereby the value of ‘‘future’’ footprint potential at
a given nodal point is a function of time, which is represented by
its ‘‘present’’ footprint potential and the ‘‘future’’ potential of
neighboring nodal points.
5.1. Case 1: measuring logistics diffusion at zero phase
transformation and zero deposition
We now assume that heat diffusion occurs on a bounded,
infinite two-dimensional region without any chemical phase
transformation (R(C)-0), dry deposition (ai-0) and wet deposi-
tion (W-0). We also assume that the wind moves along the
vehicle (logistics) movement in the x direction, therefore:
@ci =@x ¼ 0
Hence, the carbon diffusion Eq. (6) becomes
   
@ci @ @c @ @c
¼ Ky i þ Kz i ð14Þ
@t @y @y @z @z
To solve this equation, we use the finite difference method. The
explicit solution with central differencing of Eq. (14) is
cijn þ 1 cijn 2 2
¼ Ky Dy cijn þ Kz Dz cijn þ e
Dt

cijn þ 1 cijn Kyj þ 1=2 ðcijn þ 1 cijn ÞKyj1=2 ðcijn cij1

n
Þ
4.6. Carbon energy ratio ¼
Dt ðDyÞ2
Kzj þ 1=2 ðcijn þ 1 cijn ÞKzj1=2 ðcijn cij1
n
Þ
The carbon energy ratio (CER) can be computed by taking the þ þe ð15Þ
2
ratio of carbon emission (C) to the energy consumption (x) and is ðDzÞ
48 B. Sundarakani et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 128 (2010) 43–50

and the implicit function with central differencing becomes Table 1

Input parameters.
cijn þ 1 cijn Kyj þ 1=2 ðcijn þ
þ1 nþ1
1 cij ÞKyj1=2 ðcijn þ 1 cij1
nþ1
Þ
¼ 2 Variable name Value measured Unit Source
Dt ðDyÞ
Kzj þ 1=2 ðcijn þ
þ1
1
cijn þ 1 ÞKzj1=2 ðcijn þ 1 cij1
nþ1
Þ Measurement height 10 m Zannetti (1990)
þ 2
þe ð16Þ Deposition velocity (a) 0.003 m/s Sehmel (1980)
ðDzÞ
Resistance factor (R) Ra = 0 s/m Lee et al. (1999)
Rq = 5.0E+ 02
where e is the error term coefficient. The vertical diffusivity ðKy Þ
Ra = 0
follows the stable condition as stated by Businger and Arya (1974): Friction velocity (u*) 1 m/s Assumed
  Monin–Obukhov length (L) + 630a m Venkatram (1980)
k  u  h 8f h
Ky ¼  exp  ð17Þ Dry deposition 22 ktonne/yr Lee et al. (2000)
h u
0:74þ 4:7 Wet deposition 93 ktonne/yr Lee et al. (2000)
L Error co-efficient 0 Assumed

The horizontal diffusivity ðKz Þ is considered from Willis and a

L measured at stable conditions with a downward heat flux of 10 w/m2.
Deardorff (1976):
3=4
Kz ¼ 0:1hi ðk  LÞ1=3 u ð18Þ
Table 2
The value of the Monin–Obukhov length (L) is a parameter that Carbon footprint across a supply chain.
characterizes the stability of the surface layer and is calculated
Supply chain stage Supplier Logistics Plant Warehouse Total
from Venkatram (1980):
h ðu Þ3 9 Model results (kWh) 0.5021 0.4365 0.7894 0.2671 1.493
L i ; for day time =
kðw Þ ð19Þ
;
L  1:1  103  u2 ; for night time carbon footprint emission across the supply chain. For this
illustration, we take a simple four-echelon automotive supply
5.2. Case 2: measuring stationary sources of emission chain located in China consisting of a supplier, manufacturer,
warehouse and logistics service provider. Some of the model input
Applying the Divergence (Gauss Ostrogradzki) Theorem parameters were taken from the literature (Table 1). In addition,
(Markiewicz, 1994), the volume integral of the higher order we collected some primary and secondary emission data sets
partial differential equation can be reduced to a surface integral from public domain websites.
over the boundary of the volume. From Eq. (5) The model input parameters are fed into the simplified partial
Z Z Z differential equations (Eqs. (5), (6), (14), and (20)), the results are
@ci
dx dy dz calculated and summarized in Table 2. The total carbon footprint
V @t across the supply chain network is an aggregated sum of carbon
Z Z  
@c @c @c
¼ Kx i dy dzþ Ky i dx dzþ Kz i dx dy released by the supplier (0.5021 kwh), logistics (0.4365 kwh),
S @x @y @z manufacturing plant (0.7894 kwh) and warehouse (0.2671 kwh).
Z Z
 ððu  ci Þ dy dz þ ðv  ci Þ dx dz þðw  ci Þ dx dyÞ Manufacturing plant and supplier side emissions are higher in the
Z ZS Z Z Z Z   automotive supply chain because of automotive supply chain
ai  ci
þ ðRi ðci ÞÞ dx dy dz þ Li ci dx dy dz processes and assembly lines.
V V h
ð20Þ
6.2. Visualization of carbon footprint in a network
Under certain assumptions, the partial differential equation can
be solved. The carbon footprint can be visualized from the network diagram
with three color codes based on green, amber and red. Green depicts
5.3. Validation: integrated absolute error (IAE) acceptable carbon emissions, amber warns of borderline carbon
emission and red shows unacceptable carbon emissions. Fig. 4
For validation, the calculated future carbon footprints should depicts an example of a network in the Asia-Pacific.
be compared with the actual projected value. We measure the In the upstream part of the supply chain, the environmental
integrated absolute error and mean square error deviation of the impacts are moderate (bound with ore processing and ore
projected figure from the actual value to improve the accuracy of cleaning). Both manufacturing and transportation processes
the findings. The IAE is calculated as a cumulative difference consume energies such as oil, acids, amino-carbons, and elec-
between the actual carbon footprint and its projected footprint tricity, and thus generate significant carbon emissions. At this
value. Mathematically, stage of the reverse auto supply chain, the return movement of
Z 1 products back to the distribution centers or manufacturers
IAE ¼ jACFi ðtÞPCFi ðtÞj dt ð21Þ reduces the waste and is environmentally friendly, even though
0
the transportation of used cars back to the manufacturer
where ACF is the actual carbon footprint and PCF is the projected generates carbon emissions. At the downstream side of the
carbon footprint. supply chain, the amount of carbon emissions is less than that of
the supply chain network. Moreover, they are strictly controlled
by environmental regulatory pressures and emission standards.
6. Application

6.1. Numerical example 6.3. Strategies to mitigate the carbon emissions

Due to the difficulty of obtaining actual industry data, we use From the analysis and example outlined thus far, it is obvious
our model and provide a numerical example for measuring the that carbon emissions stemming from several stages in a supply
 B. Sundarakani et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 128 (2010) 43–50
Korea/Thailand (Suppliers)
D t it
Detroit Chi (M
China (Manufacturers)
f t
Ch
Chennai
i Si
Singapore (DCs)
(DC )
Middl and
Middle d Australia
A t li
West Asian (Consumer)
Countries
(
(Consumer) )
Fig. 4. Supply chain network showing carbon emissions.
chain warrant managerial attention. Although it goes beyond the
analysis presented in this article, we recommend some ways for
firms to mitigate the carbon emissions across the supply chain.
Firms could:
 design products and supply chains concurrently with carbon
emissions in mind;
 add carbon emission rates to supplier selection criteria;
 have green supply and purchasing policies;
 maintain acceptable carbon regulation at the manufacturing
level;
 leverage innovation in logistics services to reduce carbon
emissions;
 reduce inventory and increase visibility at the distribution
level;
 have green packaging and distribution strategies;
 reduce, reuse and recycle at the consumption stage;
 create awareness among consumers on carbon emissions.
7. Conclusion
This article discusses the carbon footprint across the supply
chain, examines various ‘‘heat’’ transfer devices and presents an
initial analytical model that measures carbon emissions from both
stationary and non-stationary supply chain processes. Specifically,
the ‘‘heat links’’ across various stages in a supply chain are
measured. The model helps to understand the heat flux and
carbon wastage at each node of the supply chain and allows to
calculate the total heat (and hence carbon) transferred from one
stage of the supply chain to another. Controlling this flux and
carbon emissions requires monitoring of the entire supply chain.
With the approach presented in this article, firms can see what
and where the areas of sensible heat flux and acceptable carbon
emissions are. Further, based on this knowledge, firms can design
supply chain networks and implement measures in their opera-
tions to reduce carbon emissions.
This article is an early attempt to mitigate carbon emissions
across the supply chain. The difficulty of obtaining real industry
data for an end-to-end automotive supply chain has limited this
study to preliminary results. The model can be validated by
applying it to a real supply chain network environment and across
several supply chains. This research can be extended on a global
49
C b
Carbon emission:
i i
Acceptable
Boderline
p
Unacceptable
)
H
Hong Kong
K (DCs)
(DC )
Indonesia
I d i Taiwan
T i
(Consumer) (Consumer)
scale by taking the cost of carbon emissions into account. We limit
our analysis to a simple four-echelon supply chain without
considering the turbulent mixing of emissions in the atmosphere.
This article can also be extended by considering turbulent mixing
on a multi-echelon supply chain, and by considering the
organizational pressures in the model at each stage of the supply
chain. In its practical applicability, the initial framework, model
development and analysis help managers to understand the total
network.
References
Balan, S., Vrat, P., Kumar, P., 2009. Information distortion in a supply chain and its
mitigation by using Soft Computing Approach. OMEGA 37 (2), 282–299.
Beamen, B.M., 1999. Designing the green supply chain. Logistics Information
Management 12 (4), 332–342.
Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J.M., Van Beek, P., Hordijk, L., Van Wassenhove, L.N., 1995.
Interactions between operational research and environmental management.
European Journal of Operational Research 85 (2), 229–243.
Boyd, D.E., Spekman, R.E., Kamauff, J.W., Werhane, P., 2007. Corporate social
responsibility in global supply chains: a procedural justice perspective. Long
Range Planning 40 (3), 341–356.
Busch, T., Hoffmann, V.H., 2007. Emerging carbon constraints for corporate risk
management. Ecological Economics 62 (3–4), 518–528.
Businger, J.A., Arya, S.P., 1974. Height of the mixed layer in the stably stratified
planetary boundary layer. In: Frenkiel, F.N., Munn, R.E., Landsberg, H.E., van
Mieghem, J. (Eds.), Advances in Geophysics, vol. 18. Academic Press, New
York, pp. 73–92.
Butner, K., Geuder, D., Hittner, J., 2008. Mastering carbon management: balancing
trade-offs to optimize supply chain efficiencies. IBM Global Business Services,
Somers, NY.
Cholette, S., Venkat, K., 2009. The energy and carbon intensity of wine distribution:
a study of logistical options for delivering wine to consumers. Journal of
Cleaner Production 17 (16), 1401–1413.
Christopher, M., 2005. Logistics and Supply Chain Management: Creating Value-
Adding Networks, third ed. Financial Times Prentice Hall, Harlow.
Ferretti, I., Zanoni, S., Zavanella, L., Diana, A., 2007. Greening the aluminium supply
chain. International Journal of Production Economics 108 (1–2), 236–245.
Finlayson-Pitts, B.J., Pitts Jr., J.N., 1986. Atmospheric Chemistry: Fundamentals and
Experimental Techniques. Wiley, New York.
Hales, J.M., 1989. A generalized multidimensional model for precipitation
scavenging and atmospheric chemistry. Atmospheric Environment 23 (9),
2017–2031.
Hervani, A.A., Helms, M.M., Sarkis, J., 2005. Performance measurement for green
supply chain management. Benchmarking: An International Journal 12 (4),
330–353.
Hicks, B.B., Baldocchi, D.D., Meyers, J.R., Matt, D.R., 1987. A preliminary multiple
resistance routine for deriving dry deposition velocities from measured
quantities. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 36 (3–4), 311–330.
Hoffman, W., 2007. Who’s carbon-free? Wal-Mart takes on supply chains of
products as expansive carbon measuring plan eyes distribution. Traffic World
271 (42), 15.
50 B. Sundarakani et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 128 (2010) 43–50
Hsieh, C.-I., Katul, G., Chic, T.-W., 2000. An approximate analytical model for
footprint estimation of scalar fluxes in thermally stratified atmospheric flows.
Advances in Water Resources 23 (7), 765–772.
Hui, K.H., Spedding, T.A., Bainbridge, I., Taplin, D.M.R., 2007. Creating a green
supply chain: a simulation and modeling approach. In: Sarkis, J. (Ed.), Greening
the Supply Chain. Springer, New York, pp. 341–361.
Kainuma, Y., Tawara, N., 2006. A multiple attribute utility theory approach to lean
and green supply chain management. International Journal of Production
Economics 101 (1), 99–108.
Lee, D.S., Kingdon, R.D., Jenkin, M.E., Garland, J.A., 2000. Modelling the atmospheric
oxidised and reduced nitrogen budgets for the UK with a Lagrangian multi-
layer long-range transport model. Environmental Modeling and Assessment 5
(2), 83–104.
Lee, D.S., Kingdon, R.D., Pacyna, J.M., Bouwman, A.F., Tegen, I., 1999. Modelling
base actions in Europe—sources, transport and deposition of calcium. Atmo-
spheric Environment 33 (14), 2241–2256.
Linton, J., Klassen, R., Jayaraman, V., 2007. Sustainable supply chains: an
introduction. Journal of Operations Management 25 (6), 1075–1082.
Luikov, A.K., 1968. Analytical Heat Diffusion Theory. Academic Press, New York.
Markiewicz, M., 1994. Gaussian air pollution dispersion model which takes into
account the change of input parameters. Part I: formulation of the model.
Environmental Protection Engineering 20, 123–132.
Markiewicz, M., 2004. Modelling of the air pollution dispersion. Working Paper,
Models and Techniques for Health and Environmental Hazard Assessment and
Management, Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, pp. 304–348.
Parry, P., Martha, J., Grenon, G., 2007. The energy-efficient supply chain.
Strategy +Business 47 (Summer), 10.
Quariguasi Frota Neto, J., Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J.M., van Nunen, J.A.E.E., van Heck, E.,
2008. Designing and evaluating sustainable logistics networks. International
Journal of Production Economics 111 (2), 195–208.
Schuepp, P.H., Leclerc, M.Y., MacPherson, J.I., Desjardins, R.L., 1990. Footprint
prediction of scalar fluxes from analytical solutions of the diffusion equation.
Boundary-Layer Meteorology 50 (1–4), 355–373.
Sehmel, G.A., 1980. Particle and gas dry deposition: a review. Atmospheric
Environment 14 (9), 983–1011.
Seinfeld, J.H., 1986. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics of Air Pollution. Wiley, NJ.
Sheu, J.-B., Chou, Y.-H., Hu, C.-C., 2005. An integrated logistics operational model
for green-supply chain management. Transportation Research Part E 41 (4),
287–313.
Simpson, D., Power, D., Samson, D., 2007. Greening the automotive supply chain: a
relationship perspective. International Journal of Operations and Production
Management 27 (1), 28–48.
Srivastara, S.K., 2007. Green supply-chain management: a state-of-the-art
literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews 9 (1), 53–80.
Sundarakani, B., De Souza, R., Goh, M., Shun, C., 2008. Measuring carbon footprints
across the supply chain. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium
on Logistics, July 2008, Bangkok, Thailand, pp. 555–562.
Taylor, J.A., 1989. A stochastic Lagrangian atmospheric transport model to
determine global CO2 sources and sinks: a preliminary discussion. Chemical
and Physical Meteorology 41 (3), 272–285.
Tran, K., 1984. User’s Guide for Photochemical Trajectory Model TRACE. Report 81/
003, Applied Modeling Inc., California.
Ulaga, W., Eggert, A., 2006. Value-based differentiation in business relationships:
gaining and sustaining key supplier status. Journal of Marketing 70 (1), 119–136.
Venkatram, A., 1980. Estimating the Monin-Obukhov length in the stable
boundary layer for dispersion calculations. Boundary-Layer Meteorology 19
(4), 481–485.
Wagner, S.M., Bode, C., 2008. An empirical examination of supply chain
performance along several dimensions of risk. Journal of Business Logistics
29 (1), 307–325.
Walker, H., Di Sisto, L., McBain, D., 2008. Drivers and barriers to environmental
supply chain management practices: lessons from the public and private
sectors. Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 14 (1), 69–85.
Wesley, M.L., Kicks, B.B., 1977. Some factors that affect the deposition rates of
sulfur dioxide and similar gases on vegetation. Journal of the Air Pollution
Control Association 27 (11), 1110–1116.
Willis, G.E., Deardorff, J.W., 1976. A laboratory model of diffusion into the
convective planetary boundary layer. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteor-
ological Society 102 (432), 427–445.
Wu, K., Nagurney, A., Liu, Z., Stranlund, J.K., 2006. Modeling generator power plant
portfolios and pollution taxes in electric power supply chain networks: a
transportation network equilibrium transformation. Transportation Research
Part D 11 (3), 171–190.
Zannetti, P., 1990. Air Pollution Modeling: Theories, Computational Methods and
Available Software. Computational Mechanics Publications, New York.
Zhang, H.C., Kuo, T.C., Lu, H., Huang, S.H., 1997. Environmentally conscious design
and manufacturing: a state-of-the-art survey. Journal of Manufacturing
Systems 16 (5), 352–371.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., 2004. Relationships between operational practices and
performance among early adopters of green supply chain management
practices in Chinese manufacturing enterprises. Journal of Operations Manage-
ment 22 (3), 265–289.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., 2007. The moderating effects of institutional pressures on
emergent green supply chain practices and performance. International Journal
of Production Research 45 (18), 4333–4355.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Lai, K.-H., 2008. Confirmation of a measurement model for green
supply chain management practices implementation. International Journal of
Production Economics 111 (2), 261–273.