Assessing challenges to sustainability and resilience of energy supply chain in Pakistan: a developing economy from Triple Bottom Line and UN SDGs’ perspective

ABSTRACT

This research aims to identify and analyse the challenges faced by the energy–power supply chain (LNG Power) in Pakistan a developing economy from combined perspectives of supply chain sustainability and resilience in the context of the Triple Bottom Line framework, UN SDGs 7, 13 and energy security. The significance of this research increases many folds as energy-power supply chains have been severely disrupted by events such as COVID-19, the Russia–Ukraine war and massive devastation caused by floods in Pakistan. Pakistan meets more than 60% of its energy-power needs from natural gas (including LNG), being less harmful than coal and oil power generation. The industry is in a state of deep crisis as it faces a complex set of challenges. Exploratory research design using a mixed method case study approach was used for the identification and shortlisting of challenges. Later these were ranked using group BWM. Major challenges were lack of strategy, top management commitment, weak compliance to UN SDGs, stalled structural reforms, disasters, lack of supply chain orientation, risk management culture, financial instability, LNG non-availability, demand uncertainty, infrastructure inadequacies and lack of awareness of Industry 4.0. The research enables policy-making besides providing energy practitioners a roadmap to overcome these challenges.

KEYWORDS:

• Energy supply chain
• sustainability
• resilience
• power utility
• LNG
• energy governance

Highlights

• Addressing challenges faced by energy/power supply chains facing severe disruptions in developing countries in the context of TBL and UN SDGs.

• Identification of challenges faced by (the LNG Power supply Chain) from combined perspectives of SSCM and SC Resilience using (mixed method) case research methodology.

• Prioritisation of these challenges through Group Best Worst Method using expert’s input.

• Government policies/regulations, top management commitment and lack of supply chain orientation were major impediments to the sustainability and resilience of energy supply chains.

1. Introduction

Energy sustainability and efficiency are the most important socio-economic pillars for meeting the UN SDGs goals for sustainable development, i.e. SDG 7, ‘affordable, reliable and sustainable energy’ and SDG 13, ‘climate change’ (Castor, Bacha, and Nerini 2020). Nowadays approximately 80% of global energy comes from burning fossil fuel, 62% of which accounts for electricity generation, the largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions (Cho and Strezov 2020). Global energy supply chains (ESCs) have been adversely affected by the global pandemic (COVID-19), regional conflicts (the Russia–Ukraine war), scarcity of fossil fuels and extreme weather patterns. Necessitating the need for restructuring of ESC networks by simultaneous implementation of sustainability and resilience practices (Hosseini-Motlagh, Samani, and Shahbazbegian 2020).

Pakistan a developing economy contributes less than 1% to global greenhouse gas emissions, but it had to pay the heaviest prices as one-third of the country was inundated by floods in September 2022 (World Bank 2022), resulting in estimated losses of over $30 Billion to the economy, rending 33 million people homeless/without a livelihood and leaving over 2000 dead. Moreover, the energy-power supply chains were severely disrupted leaving millions without electricity for over three weeks (UNOCHA 2022).

Pakistan’s power sector is in a state of deep crisis leading towards total collapse. Nowadays, fossil fuels account for 57% share of power generation, out of which natural gas contributes 60% (incl imported LNG) (NEPRA 2021). Pakistan’s LNG Power Industry comprises multi-billion US $ state-of-the-art combined cycle power plants (equipped with heat recovery steam generator (HRSG)) with energy efficiency in combined-cycle operations up to 60% (General Electric 9HA Gas Turbine) and equipped with flue gas monitoring and wastewater treatment systems (Ferat Toscano et al. 2019; Agrawal et al. 2014; Cho and Strezov 2020). These are also equipped with the latest digitally automated systems which have made real-time power production monitoring and maintenance possible (Hossein Motlagh et al. 2020; Agrawal, Narain, and Ullah 2019). However, due to a host of complex supply chain challenges these have been rendered effectively redundant. Instead of addressing these challenges/barriers the government has decided to rapid expansion of the coal power generation fleet having serious socio-economic and environmental consequences.

With this in view, there is an urgent need for identifying and analysing challenges faced by (the LNG Power) energy supply chain in Pakistan a developing economy from SSCM (sustainable supply chain management), SC Res (supply chain resilience) under the framework of TBL and UN SDGs, thereby, enabling better energy governance/policy-making and corrective actions by energy professionals for the removal of these challenges leading to affordable, reliable and less ecologically detrimental energy for all.

Literature review confirms the findings of pre- and post-COVID-19 studies by researchers demanding the adoption of combined sustainability and resilience practices based on stakeholder preferences and organisational objectives (Chowdhury et al. 2021; Jabbarzadeh, Fahimnia, and Sabouhi 2018). While sustainability has been defined, ‘meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations’ (UN Brundtland Commission), its operationalisation has been done by Elkington’s triple bottom line ‘TBL’ concept, which advocates equal importance for the environment, social, ecological and governance dimensions (Shou et al. 2019). On the other hand, SC Res has been viewed as the ability of the system to prepare for the threat, absorb impacts, recover and adapt following persistent series of disruptive events (Marchese et al. 2018). Both these concepts have been linked with ‘energy security’, whose scope has been extended from ensuring fuel supply to include its affordability and reliability while minimising socio-economic impacts (Jenkins et al. 2016).

Mixed method case research methodology (semi-structured interviews, survey) has been used. Theoretical lens of five theories, literature review and input from energy professionals/industrial/academia were used for identifying and analysing the challenges. Later their ranking was carried out using expert-based Group-BWM (Sovacool, Axsen, and Sorrell 2018).

Although this research focuses primarily on LNG Power Industry in Pakistan it has a wider scope as it is also applicable to other developing economies facing similar socio-economic-political challenges as being faced by Pakistan. The extent of the supply chain considered for this case study has been limited to encompassing processes from primary fuel sourcing, i.e. delivery of LNG at the port, RLNG transmission to LNG Power plants, electricity generation, electricity transmission and power sector governance/operations, due to resource and time limitations.

Nexus to the above following objectives has been formulated, i.e. (a) Identification of challenges faced by energy supply chain (LNG Power) from sustainability and resilience perspectives, (b) Prioritising these challenges, (c) Analysing these challenges in light of the literature review and insight obtained from energy professionals, (d) Implications for policy-makers, managers and energy professionals.

The overall structure of the paper consists of five parts, i.e. part 2 deals with the theoretical foundation and literature review, part 3 deals with research context and research methodology, part 4 deals with results, part 5 deals with discussion, part 6 deals with research novelty and implications, followed by conclusion and references.

2. Theoretical foundation and literature review

The first theories used for conceptualising the complex challenges are given, followed by a literature review. The last portion deals with a brief description of the shortlisted challenges.

2.1. Theoretical foundation

The study takes its philosophical roots from contingency, stakeholder, institutional, dynamic capability and information processing theories, as a single theory may not be able to capture the full understanding of combined sustainability and resilience challenges (Negri et al. 2021). According to the ‘contingency approach’, external pressures on a firm impact its overall strategy and performance. The ‘fit’ of the firm with its structure and processes, and the environment determines the performance of the firm (Wong et al. 2020), while ‘Stakeholder theory’ argues that a firm should create value for all stakeholders (Meixell and Luoma 2015). ‘Institutional theory’ explores how organisations fit with and are shaped by national, societal and global environments by using strategies of normative, coercive and mimetic pressures (Glover et al. 2014). ‘Dynamic capability’ explains organisation’s ability to integrate, build and reconfigure internal and external resources to deal with a rapidly changing business environment (M. M. H. Chowdhury and Quaddus 2017). ‘Information processing theory’ tries to explain the communication and information processing requirements in complex supply chain networks and is used to explain the effect of Industry 4.0 technologies on modern supply chains (Srinivasan and Swink 2018).

2.2. Literature review

Guidelines given by Denyer and Tranfield (2009) were followed to base the research on firm footings, along with the use of eminent research databases, i.e. ProQuest, Google Scholar, Emerald, etc. Initially ‘512’ articles were selected from peer-reviewed reputed journals (in the English language), after scoping studies and using snowball method ‘214’ articles were finally selected for a full reading. It is not possible to synthesise such diversified domains in one research paper; however, effort has been made to present the essential material to give the reader a sufficient understanding of the issues addressed by this research.

2.2.1. Supply chain sustainability and resilience conceptual underpinnings

The paradigm of sustainability took centre stage after the Brundtland commission report and later its operationalisation by Ellington’s Triple Bottom line (TBL) which advocated equal balance among economic, environmental, social and governance considerations in strategic and operational decision-making. Sustainability practices being applied include green design, sustainable manufacturing, sustainable procurement, life cycle approach, etc., whose objectives are increasing process efficiency leading to waste reduction and cost minimisation (Patel and Desai 2019). Sustainability in terms of SC Res takes its roots in risk management practices which were implemented to ensure business continuity (Ho et al. 2015). SC Res enables organisations/supply chains with the capacity to cope with and recover from disruptions to the original or better state. It reflects the dynamic capability of an organisation to survive, learn, adapt, respond, recover and grow when confronted with disruptions or uncertainty. Generally, this capability comes at an extra cost as it demands redundancy in terms of resources as a buffer against shocks and better supply chain visibility/end-to-end real-time collaboration (Ali and Gölgeci 2019).

Bas (2013) described the value of sustainability of the electric (power) supply chain to society in terms of TBL, i.e. maximising system reliability, ensuring power adequacy and availability, minimising total costs and mitigating socio-environmental effects. In terms of resilience, it is the ability of a system to ensure the continuity of electric supply under normal and disruptive conditions.

2.2.2. Supply chain in the context of COVID-19

Around 94% of Fortune 1000 companies experienced coronavirus-driven supply chain disruptions and highlighted a lack of empirical and grounded theory research to ascertain the impact of COVID-19 on SC resilience and sustainability (Chowdhury et al. 2021). Sarkis (2020) while examining the effects of COVID-19 on SCs concludes that sustainability and resilience are complementary and require joint investigation by researchers.

Abu-Rayash and Dincer (2020) discussed the electricity demand uncertainty during COVID-19, while Kuzemko et al. (2020) investigated the effects of energy governance on sustainable energy transition in the context of the pandemic. As per Norouzi et al. (2020), the oil and gas supply chains were more severely affected during the COVID-19 pandemic, undermining energy security due to global lockdowns.

2.2.3. Nexus between energy security, SSCM, SC Res and UN SDGs

Energy security has been defined as an adequate and reliable supply of energy resources at a reasonable price (Bielecki 2002). Sovacool, Axsen, and Sorrell (2018) emphasised that energy security comprises five main dimensions, namely ‘Availability’, ‘Affordability’, ‘Technology Development’, ‘Environmental Sustainability’,and ‘Governance & Regulations’. World Energy Council defines energy security as, ‘the management of primary energy supply from domestic/indigenous and external sources, reliability of energy infrastructure, ability to meet current and future demand’. Thus, energy security reflects a nation’s capacity to meet current and future demands reliably and bounce back swiftly from system shocks with minimal disruption to supplies (Ang, Choong, and Ng 2015).

The above definitions inextricably link and extend the paradigms of energy security to include energy supply chain sustainability and resilience. Supply chain sustainability governance efforts, policies and practices in the energy domain are aimed at guaranteeing energy security, this is complemented by supply chain resilience policies/practices which enable the energy SC to deal with stress and shocks ensuring continuity of supply (Axon and Darton 2021a). Fu et al. (2021) highlighted that gap in the literature exists regarding the joint investigation of sustainability, resilience and energy security in energy supply chains.

2.2.4. Research on joint implementation of SSCM and SC Res

The concept of combining sustainability and resilience practices in supply chains is not new, yet empirical research in this field is lagging (Fahimnia, Sarkis, and Talluri 2019). A review of post-COVID-19 impacts on SCs highlights the significance of joint implementation of these two paradigms (Sarkis 2020). Researchers recommend a trade-off between contradictory facets of sustainability and resilience, as SC Res advocates excess capacity and flexibility, strategic buffer inventor and supplier redundancy at an extra cost as opposed to strategies of cost, waste minimisation and suppliers’ base reduction as advocated by SSCM (Rajesh 2021). While sustainability policies enable waste minimisation and efficiency enhancement, similarly resilience policies of sourcing from multiple suppliers, facilities’ fortification against disasters/terrorist attacks, redundancy of infrastructure, production capacity flexibility, location and quantity of critical inventory (fuel, spares and supplies) and the use of digital technologies such as IoT, Big Data enable the energy supply chains to deal with stresses/disruptions effectively ensuring energy security (Ivanov 2018; Piya, Shamsuzzoha, and Khadem 2022). However, it is up to the stakeholders to make the final call, as the ultimate goal of both strategies is to benefit the society, environment and economy by the optimal trade-off between SSCM and SC Res practices.

2.2.5. Research on energy supply chain (including power and LNG SC)

Review shows that multi-objective optimisation studies dominate the area of electricity SC lacking empirical research (Bas 2013). Hosseini-Motlagh, Samani, and Shahbazbegian (2020) used a multi-objective optimisation study for electric SC chains and concluded that CSR practices and resilience development can only be achieved at a cost premium. Tziogas, Georgiadis, and Papadopoulos (2019) provided a comprehensive analysis framework fostering the transition of electric systems towards sustainability and energy security. Hossein Motlagh et al. (2020) described the benefits of using IoT (Industry 4.0) in different processes of the power supply chain. Lyridis et al. (2022) proposed a BPM-based framework for the impact assessment of blockchain (Industry 4.0) to the midstream LNG supply chain sustainability.

Urciuoli et al. (2014) used multiple case study approach for the assessment of the resilience of the oil and gas supply chain to Europe and found that a combination of disruption strategies, including portfolio diversification, flexible contracts, transport capacity planning and safety stocks is a must for ensuring energy supply chain resilience.

Al-Haidous and Al-Ansari (2019) reviewed quantitative models for the sustainability of LNG SCM and described that energy security has evolved to cover the whole supply chain and needs to couple sustainability and resilience/risk as part of an integrated approach to managing energy supply chains. Berle, Norstad, and Asbjørnslett (2013) studied optimisation techniques for risk assessment and resilience development in LNG transportation systems.

Axon and Darton (2021b) described causes of risk in the fuel supply chain and identified ‘lack of access to capital’, ‘changing policy or regulatory framework’ and ‘public concern’ as causes of risk. Zubairu et al. (2021) used AHP to identify and evaluate LNG supply chain strategies that drive financial performance.

2.2.6. Barriers/challenges to SSCM and SC Res with a special focus on energy supply chains

SC sustainability and resilience barriers vary according to research objectives, industry and contextual settings. Barriers to sustainable supply chain have reached almost saturation point with important ones being: Lack of information and transparency, lack of training and expertise, supplier in-competencies, cost implications, lack of top management commitment, lack of financial resources, SC complexity (Ansari and Kant 2017); functional silos (Saeed and Kersten 2019); lack of regulations, lack of competitive pressure, firm size and resources, unsustainable purchasing, corporate structure (Walker, Di Sisto, and McBain 2008); in developing countries context lack of political support, lack of knowledge and awareness, lack of infrastructure, cultural and social barriers, corruption and mock compliance (Jia et al. 2018); lack of vision, resistance to change, poor organisational capabilities, uncertain demand, lack of IT system compatibility and standards, poor communication (Khan et al. 2021); perception of low economic return, lack of employee involvement, ineffective project management, lack of clear vision and plan, poor execution, lack of strategy/roadmap, replicating other strategy (Patel and Desai 2019); Industrial sector, position in SC, geographical location and the level of SSCM maturity (Saeed and Kersten 2019).

Barriers to SC Res include lack of collaboration, visibility and trust, financial weakness, non-IT integration, lack of automation (Ali and Gölgeci 2019); in developing countries context-long supply routes, raw material delays and shortages, supplier in competency and financial difficulties, breakdowns, skills deficiency, poor risk management culture, customer order and payments risks, demand variations, political instabilities, disasters, theft, corruption, exchange rate fluctuations, power shortages, poor transportation infrastructure (Tukamuhabwa et al. 2015); lack of risk management culture, lack of risk assessment and contingency planning, ineffective performance management system (Shahin 2020); lack of hedging (effectively locking in the price of LNG by making a contract with LNG seller, even if it will actually be bought or resold in physical form in the future) for commodity price risk, contractual flexibility, safety culture, lack of infrastructure redundancy and flexibility and nonflexible sourcing (Donadoni et al. 2019).

In the energy sector, barriers to sustainability in the oil and gas sector included global climate pressure, resource scarcity, environmental regulations, awareness, stakeholder pressure, CSR practices, regulation and standards, energy consumption, health and safety (Raut, Narkhede, and Gardas 2017); barriers to SSCM in thermal power plants include media attention, lack of academic involvement, scarcity of natural resources (Biswal, Muduli, and Satapathy 2017); barriers to smart grid adoption include a lack of regulatory framework, a lack of open standards and cyber security (Luthra et al. 2014); barriers to energy security/governance include weak institution structure, market reforms, policy consistency, tariff determination, corruption, bureaucratic complexities and underdeveloped grid (Zaman and Brudermann 2018).

2.2.7. Identification of research gap

Barriers/challenges to SSCM and SC Res have been investigated separately in the past lacking focus on energy (LNG power) supply chains (Industry). Moreover, the extant research focuses mostly on developed or strong developing economies like BRICS countries while neglecting struggling developing economies such as Pakistan, Sri Lanka and most African countries. The consequences of global disruptive events on complex global energy supply chains have had serious energy security ramifications for nations, highlighting another gap in the literature which needs to be addressed. Moreover, this research recommends energy supply chain sustainability and resilience as the direct enabler of energy security and a fundamental part of energy supply chains which would enable nations to meet UN SDGs 7 and 13.

2.2.8. Classification of challenges/barriers

The review of literature and energy professionals/academia input obtained from mixed method case research resulted in the finalisation of ‘23’ challenges which were further divided into four main groups for further analysis (Yadav et al. 2020). A brief description of these challenges along with their relationship with domains of SSCM, SC Res and ES has been established, as shown in Table 1 (Irfan et al. 2020).

Table 1. Brief description and linkage of energy supply chain (LNG Power) challenges to SSCM, SC Res and energy security dimensions.

Main group	CODE	Sub-group challenge effecting ESC	Brief description in context of Pakistan’s energy and power sector supply chain	Dimensions linkage
Supply Side Challenges (SSC)	SSC 1	Non-availability of fuel	LNG price volatility and constrained supply capacity in International Market resulting in spike in LNG prices. Moreover, oil price indexation to US $ puts heavy burden on foreign reserves of weak economies, resulting in non-availability of fuel.	Se, Sg, SCR, ES
	SSC 2	Lack of (LNG) fuel storage and regasification facilities	Inadequate regasification infrastructure and lack of storage capacity for LNG/RLNG, except for buffer stock available in gas line packing. Thereby putting the RLNG Power SC at risk.	Se, Sg, SCR, ES
	SSC 3	Excessive delays in payment to fuel suppliers	Long delays in payment to fuel suppliers both in-land and abroad. Thereby limiting the ability of suppliers to purchase LNG from International market besides taking loans from banks to remain solvent.	Se, Sg, SCR, ES
	SSC 4	Procurement delays	Procurement delays are mostly due to inflexible/legacy procurement rules and inapt planning practices at all levels in the energy supply chain. It also includes inability of suppliers to provide LNG on time and non-sustainable procurement practices.	Se, Sen, Sg, SCR, ES
	SSC 5	Poor supplier’s commitment to sustainability and resilience	Lack of supplier commitment and involvement for sustainability and resilience adoption due to lack of awareness, financial resources and power held in ESC.	Sen, Sg, SCR
	SSC 6	In-sufficient infrastructural capacity and high gas transmission losses	Lack of gas infrastructure flexibility/redundancy and considerably high transmission losses due to poor maintenance and theft.	Se, Sen, Sg, SCR
	SSC 7	Exposure to natural and man-made disasters	Vulnerability to extreme weather events, war, terrorism and pandemic risks, political unrest, terrorism.	Se, Sen, Sg, SCR, ES
Demand Side Challenges (DSC)	DSC 1	Uncertain power demand	Uncertainty in annual power purchase planning due to abolishment of 66% min power takeoff contractual clause by the government and grim sector outlook, curtailing power generation by 2030.	Se, Sg, ES
	DSC 2	Lack of capacity in power transmission infrastructure	Capacity constraints limiting amount of power evacuation, i.e. inadequate transmission infrastructure. Poor planning and foresight at SC level.	Se, Sg, SCR
	DSC 3	High power transmission losses and frequent breakdowns	High T&D losses due to legacy infrastructure, lack of maintenance and malpractices. Frequent breakdown in peak summers and rains. Death of citizens due to short circuiting in rains.	Se, Sg, SCR
	DSC 4	Unethically prioritising highly polluting power generation	Violation of merit order by running inefficient, high cost, polluting plants mostly on furnace oil/coal instead of RLNG plants by system operator (NTDC).	Se, Ss, Sg, Sen
	DSC 5	Inadequate and environmentally averse power tariff structure	Non-inclusion of carbon pricing CO2 per KWh in EMO (Economic merit order) by power purchaser, leading to less utilisation of efficient and environmentally friendly LNG Base Power Plants.	Se, Sen, Sg
Operational Challenges (OC)	OC 1	Inefficient, expensive, unreliable and no eco-friendly power generation and transmission	Production inefficiency due to under-utilisation of RLNG plants generation capacity, i.e. running on partial load in addition to complete shutdown. High gas and power transmission losses accompanied by frequent breakdowns.	Se, Sg, Sen
	OC 2	Out-sourcing of plant operation and maintenance (O&M) to foreign companies	Increasing reliance on foreign companies for O&M services. Resulting in less job opportunities for locals, lack of transfer of expertise (skill development) and prone to exploitation.	Se, Sg, ES
	OC 3	Non-availability of skilled/qualified Human Resource	Lack of skilled technical manpower including expertise on implementing SSCM, SC Res and Industry 4.0 technology’s. No dedicated institute for power sector workforce.	Ss, Sg, SCR
	OC 4	Excessive delays in payment to Power Producers	Financial insolvency of power producers with mounting bank loans, as a result of long delays in payment by Power Purchaser.	Se, Ss, Sg, SCR, ES
	OC 5	Inadequate sustainability reporting practices and poor risk management culture	Inadequacy of sustainability reporting standards being followed by Power and Energy Industries. Legacy risk management mechanism undermines sustainability and resilience of the RLNG Power Supply Chain.	Sen, Sg, SCR
	OC 6	Lack of Supply Chain Orientation	Lack of collaboration, trust and supply chain visibility among SC members, as most of the key players in Energy/Power Industries are operating in Public Sector.	Sg, SCR
Strategic Governance Challenges (SGC)	SGC 1	Lack of vision, strategy and top management commitment towards Sustainability and Resilience in ESCs and UN SDGs	Lack of vision and strategy to achieve sustainability and resilience in ESCs, which can be mainly be attributed to unawareness of their vital importance to national energy security by sectoral/government officials/top level management. This is also linked to half-hearted commitment to UN SDGs i.e. SDG 7 and 9 by all stakeholders.	Sg, SCR
	SGC 2	Absence of policies, regulations and standards	Absence of National Integrated Energy Policy and Standards, Regulations for adoption of practices for implementing SSCM, SC Res and Industry 4.0 Technologies in ESCs. Poor enforcement of commitments to UN SDGs by stakeholders.	Sg, SCR, ES
	SGC 3	Bureaucratic Supply Chain Governance Mechanism and departmental silos	Bureaucratic culture, working in functional silos, lack of integrated planning culture, poor accountability standards and lack of trust and information sharing among ESC members.	Ss, Sg, SCR
	SGC 4	Non usage of Industry 4.0 technology’s	Non-adoption of ICT, data analytics and Industry 4.0 technologies (IoT, BDA, AI, Block chain, etc.,) for enhancing sustainability and resilience of ESCs. This can be attributed due to unawareness among stakeholders of their immense potential to transform the ESC.	Se, Sen, Ss, Sg, SCR
	SGC 5	Stalled and incomplete energy sector structural reforms	Sluggish Power and Energy (LNG) sector reforms towards open market structure, mostly due to lack of political will and vested interest of officials/politicians/cartels.	Sg, SCR, ES

Legend: Supply Chain Sustainability (S) (Sub-dimensions: Economic (e), Social (s), Environment (en), Governance (g)), Supply Chain Resilience (SCR), Energy Security (ES).

3. Research design

In this section, first the dynamics of Pakistan’s energy sector are briefly discussed in the context of the LNG Power supply chain, followed by research methodology.

3.1. Case context – dynamics of Pakistan’s energy (power) sector

Pakistan’s (energy) power sector comprises weak institutional organisations infested by corruption and political interference, a major contributing factor to the slow pace of structural reforms. The sector is facing challenges such as inefficient power generation, high power and gas transmission losses, the capacity of power transmission infrastructure, poor maintenance practices, inadequate sustainability reporting, poor risk management practices, theft, organisational/departmental/functional silos devoid of supply chain orientation, poor collaboration, lack of joint planning, outdated procurement practices and lack of IT infrastructure integration (Bacon 2019). The most alarming problem is outstanding dues against the government (Circular Debt) of early Rs 2.5 trillion, i.e. payables to fuel suppliers and power producers in addition to other stakeholders’ affecting sectors’ financial liquidity and future viability (Bacon 2019; NEPRA 2021).

Pakistan is an energy-insecure country as it imports more than one-third of its energy requirements. The energy sector has the largest share in GHG emissions around 51%, i.e. over 650 million tons equivalent in 2020 (Durrani, Khan, and Ahmad 2021). Natural gas (including LNG) meets more than 50% of the country’s energy requirements with a 32% share in power generation. In FY 20–21 Thermal generations accounted for 57% (131151.3 GWh) of total power generated out of which 60% share was of natural gas (including 33% RLNG) (NEPRA 2021). Pakistan will be out of indigenous gas in the next few years, as gas reserves are depleting at a very fast rate of ∼9% per year with no new major discoveries insight. Lacking on-shore gas storage facilities, Pakistan has failed to expand its LNG regasification capacity and gas transmission network in the last decade, seriously undermining the country’s energy security in times to come.

The LNG Power sector is almost publicly owned with the most efficient, eco-friendly multi-billion $ power plants with a total capacity above 4900 MW. However, a rise in global LNG prices, procurement delays, inadequate power evacuation capacity, sales tax on imported LNG, absence of carbon taxation mechanism in tariff and inapt planning by stakeholders, i.e. increasing reliance on coal and hydro/renewable power by 2030 while decreasing LNG Power generation to mere 5% (NTDC 2021). These factors have far-reaching socio-economic and socio-environmental implications for the citizens, besides impeding UN SDGs 7 and 13.

3.2. Research methodology

An exploratory research design using (a mixed-method) case research methodology was adopted for this research, as per guidelines given by (Yin 2018). The case research comprised seven organisations in the energy supply chain (LNG Power Sector), spanning from the arrival of LNG at the port to the final delivery of electricity to the power distributor. A thorough literature review and energy professionals/academia experts’ input followed by a pilot study provided solid foundations for conducting the case research. The methodology adopted is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Research methodology.

3.2.1. Case research analysis (survey along with semi-structured interviews)

Case research methodology is advocated for investigating complex phenomena in their real-life context, as it allows for analysing different stages of the supply chain directly (Seuring 2008). Recurring themes along with ‘74’ challenges were initially identified from the literature review, this was followed by discussion sessions with energy sector professionals/academia experts for the finalisation of the survey instrument (using a Likert scale of ‘1-5’) and a questionnaire for semi-structured interviews. The criteria for the selection of energy sector professionals were based on a minimum of 15 years of relevant work experience at different levels in the industry, their qualification and certifications projects track record and academic experts (PhDs/Masters) were selected on basis of more than 10 years of expertise relevant to the research domain, their research contributions and involvement with energy sector projects/studies.

A pilot study was conducted at one of the LNG Power Plants and on input received the language of these questionnaires was refined, besides the finalisation of ‘33’ combined challenges for the survey. The sample size for the survey was ‘52’ and ‘15’ for the semi-structured interviews which are considered adequate for such exploratory studies (Alam 2020; Domingues et al. 2017).

All the survey forms were filled out in the presence of the researchers. The respondents were briefed before the process and all choirs were answered during the process. This was followed by statistical analysis of survey data, performed using the statics programme SPSS version 26.

Next, semi-structured interviews were conducted during the process of a case study. Before the conduct of the interview the respondents were briefed on the study objectives. The interview was transcribed, evaluated and cross-checked followed by thematic analysis. Following the guidelines given by Saldaña (2014), the codification process of themes and codes were developed from the literature review. The analysis was carried using NVivo software version 11 as per the procedure adopted by Alam (2020).

Sequel to the case research final list of ‘23’, combined challenges were further processed for ranking by segregation them into four main groups. These groups are supply-side challenges (SSC), demand-side challenges (DSC), operational challenges (OP) and strategic governance challenges (SGC).

3.2.2. Group best worst method and sensitivity analysis

The choice of MCDM applications is dependent upon the research objectives. BWM was selected for finding the ranking of challenges as it is considered a robust tool using fewer inputs and experts, lesser pairwise comparison and result consistency. Although many authors have used five experts or fewer, (Rezaei 2016) recommends between 4 and 10 experts.

Three energy professionals and two academic experts with experience above 15 years were selected for the ranking process. Each member was visited by the authors, giving a detailed presentation on the objectives of the research, the challenges shortlisted and a description of the BWM procedure. While conducting BWM, the experts were first asked to choose the best criteria and then make a pairwise comparison with the rest of the criteria using a linguistic scale ‘1–9’. Then the experts were again asked to choose the worst criteria and then make a pairwise comparison with the rest on a scale of ‘1–9’. Results were considered acceptable if the consistency index ‘C.I’ was less than or equal to ‘10%’ (Rezaei 2016). All five respondents were asked to rate the challenges individually and later the average of weights obtained from the ratings of each respondent was taken to arrive at the final ranking of major groups and their sub-group (challenges). Finally, global weights were obtained by multiplying the main group weights with their corresponding sub-group weights, based on which the ranking of challenges was carried out. The consistency of results was checked at each stage followed by sensitivity analysis. Microsoft Excel-based linear solver made by Rezaei (2016) available at https://bestworstmethod.com/software/ was used for calculations.

4. Results

This section deals with the results of case research (survey and semi-structured interviews) followed by Group BWM and sensitivity analysis.

4.1. Case research analysis (mixed method analysis)

4.1.1. Descriptive statistical analysis of survey (quantitative analysis)

Descriptive analysis of the survey data was carried out using SPSS software version 26. Based on energy professionals’/academia experts’ input and previous similar research, the cut-off threshold values for mean ‘Ẋ’ ≥ 3.2 and standard deviation ‘σ’ ≤ 1.5 were kept as benchmarks. Resulting in ‘27’ challenges, whose internal consistency was again checked, resulting in a value of Cronbach’s alpha ‘α’ equal to ‘0.62’, considered acceptable for such exploratory research (Luthra and Mangla 2018). Due to space limitation, descriptive statistics results for ten challenges are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Survey descriptive statistics – shortlisting of challenges.

#	Challenges/barriers	Mean ‘Ẋ’	SD ‘σ’
1	Government/top management commitment and awareness about sustainability and resilience	4.2	0.55
2	Lack of energy sector specific policy and regulations on sustainability and resilience	4.12	0.84
3	Stalled and incomplete energy sector structural reforms	4.4	0.89
4	Exposure to natural and man-made disasters	3.8	0.97
5	Lack of Supply Chain Orientation	3.4	0.55
6	Bureaucratic Supply Chain Governance Mechanism	3.2	0.84
7	Poor supplier’s commitment to Sustainability and Resilience	3.4	0.89
8	Inadequate sustainability reporting practices and poor risk management culture	3.32	0.71
9	Non usage of Industry 4.0 technology’s	3.6	1.14
10	Uncertain power demand	3.9	0.55

The challenges about actions at the government level were accorded the highest priority followed by fuel supply challenges, power demand challenges and power sector operational challenges.

4.1.2. Qualitative analysis – insight obtained from the analysis of semi-structured interviews carried out during the case study

The analysis of semi-structured interviews was done using qualitative analysis software NVivo version 12.0. Due to space limitations, only important aspects are being highlighted. The results of the thematic analysis confirm the selection of combined sustainability and resilience barriers for the energy supply chain. Unawareness or lack of knowledge about SSCM, SC Res and goals of UN SGDs, was commonly cited barrier by the top management and middle management, as one of the directors said ‘ … had we prior knowledge of what SSCM and SC Res actually is and its benefits, we would have surely started implementing these practices long ago … but with ministerial permission off-course’. As for UN SDGs one senior manager said, ‘ … . we have limited knowledge on UN SDGs … that too obtained from electronic media … . we are unaware of the specific targets and goals of SDG 7 and 13’.

As most of the organisations in the energy supply chain belong to the public sector (Bacon 2019), one of the senior management officials said, ‘ … we are government sector organization … . our hands are tired … we cannot take any initiatives on our own …  government has to set policies and regulations for implementing sustainability and resilience initiative … .’.

Another important issue highlighted was regarding resources and training (Yadav et al. 2019), a senior HR manager in one organisation said that ‘ … without training, financial and material resources … . it would be very difficult to achieve any headway …  there is an urgent need training institute for training power sectors human resource … ’.

In the wake of the colossal damage caused by recent floods one of the transmission company senior engineers said, ‘ … most of our grid stations in flood areas were inundated with water … besides routing of high volatile transmission lines  …  there were large areas without electricity for over three weeks … . even roads and bridges have been washed away … we were not prepared for such devastation … .’.

Regarding sustainability reporting the OH&S manager of one plant said that ‘ … . We are only reporting as per format provided to us by the environment ministry … . we do not know about GRI standards or its utility specific reporting requirements … .’.

Delays in payment to fuel suppliers and power producers was a common complaint, as one of the senior finance managers at a power plant highlighted that,

 … . there is a considerable delay, even upto 6 months at a stretch by power purchasers in payment for the power provided by us … . resulting in long delays in payment to our fuel suppliers … . on occasions we remain without RLNG for months … . we are borrowing from banks to avoid liquidity risks … .

Uncertainty of power demand was a major concern, as a senior manager at an LNG power plant complained that

 … most of the time our plants are run at partial load resulting in lower production efficiencies … . at times the power evacuation capacity is not available …  on several occasions coal and oil plants have been run by system operator violation the power evacuation merit order … ..

Regarding lack of planning and poor supply chain orientation, a senior official at the ministry said ‘ … . we already have our hands full  …  the other ministries should approach us for … . matters … . we have our own targets to meet … . we strictly follow government procurement rules … .’

Many senior energy professionals/officials highlighted that the continuation of ‘Energy/Power Sector Structural Reforms’, as one of the viable measures to overcome most of these challenges. As one senior managing director said, ‘ … better energy sector governance, followed by privatization and promoting of competition among all stakeholders in utility supply chain … . is one of ways to overcome these challenges’. After shortlisting and thorough deliberations, ‘23’ combined sustainability and resilience challenges were finalised for ranking through Group-BWM.

4.2. Group best/worst method – prioritisation of challenges

Three energy professionals and two academia experts gave their input for calculating the priority of these challenges. First the weights of the main groups were calculated by each of the five experts, afterwards the results were aggregated as shown in Table 3 (Moktadir et al. 2019).

Table 3. Group best worst method results – main groups.

Expert #	Best/worst		SSC	SGC	DSC	OC	CR = ξ/C.I
1	Best	SGC	2	1	3	4	0.0909
	Worst	OC	4	5	2	1
	Weights Obtained		0.27	0.45	0.18	0.091
2	Best	SSC	1	2	3	4	0.05
	Worst	OC	4	3	2	1
	Weights Obtained		0.4655	0.25	0.172	0.104
3	Best	DSC	3	2	1	5	0.0677
	Worst	OC	3	2	4	1
	Weights Obtained		0.186	0.237	0.492	0.0847
4	Best	OC	4	2	5	1	0.087
	Worst	DSC	3	2	1	7
	Weights Obtained		0.15	0.26	0.082	0.51
5	Best	SGC	2	1	4	5	0.066
	Worst	OC	3	4	2	1
	Weights Obtained		0.28	0.48	0.14	0.12
Average weights*			0.2703	0.335	0.213	0.1819	0.07232
Group ranking			2nd	1st	3rd	4th

*Indicates mean weights obtained through judgements made by experts input.

‘Strategic Governance’ challenges have the highest mean ranking followed by ‘fuel supply side challenges’, ‘power demand side challenges’ and lastly ‘internal or operational challenges. The MCDM results are valid, as the consistent ratio ‘CR’ is less than or equal to ‘10%’.

Next, the local weights of each sub-group were calculated for each of the five experts. Later, the results of each sub-group were aggregated as done for the main groups. The aggregated sub-group weights or ‘local weights Ls’, were multiplied by their corresponding main group weight ‘MWs’, to get the final global weights ‘GWs’. Finally, the ranking of challenges was carried out. Consistency of results was checked at each step, the maximum value of the consistency ratio for sub-group challenges was CR ‘0.084’, which is well below the limit of ‘0.1’ (Rezaei 2016). Due to the paucity of space only the final ranking of the challenges is given as shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Group best worst method – global weights and final ranking of challenges.

Main group	Main group weights ‘MWs’	Sub-group challenges	Local weights ‘LWs’	Global weights ‘GWs’	CR = ξ/C.I	Final ranking
SGC	0.335	SGC1	0.262	0.0879	0.072	1
		SGC2	0.260	0.0872		2
		SGC3	0.208	0.0698		5
		SGC4	0.087	0.0292		17
		SGC5	0.255	0.0855		3
SSC	0.270	SSC1	0.135	0.0365	0.084	12
		SSC2	0.130	0.0351		13
		SSC3	0.122	0.0330		15
		SSC4	0.123	0.0332		14
		SSC5	0.190	0.0514		9
		SSC6	0.060	0.0162		21
		SSC7	0.260	0.0703		4
DSC	0.213	DSC1	0.250	0.0533	0.068	8
		DSC2	0.120	0.0256		19
		DSC3	0.077	0.0164		20
		DSC4	0.200	0.0426		11
		DSC5	0.260	0.0554		7
OC	0.182	OC1	0.146	0.0266	0.064	18
		OC2	0.063	0.0115		22
		OC3	0.060	0.0109		23
		OC4	0.165	0.0300		16
		OC5	0.270	0.0491		10
		OC6	0.320	0.0582		6

From the results one can see that four out of the top five challenges pertaining to the strategic governance group, demanding better energy governance, implementing sustainability and resilience practices along the lines of TBL and UN SDGs.

4.2.1. Sensitivity analysis – robustness and validity of research

Sensitivity analysis gives important insight into the variability in the ranking for the rest of the challenges as the weight of the top-ranking challenges is varied. This research follows the procedure adopted by Moktadir et al. (2019) for carrying out sensitivity analysis. Microsoft Excel 2019 was used for this purpose. The weight of the top most challenge SGC 1 originally ‘0.0879’ varied from 0.1 to –0.9 and the variation in ranking for the rest of the results was calculated. Consistency in ranking for the rest of the barriers e.g. challenge SGC 2 retained its second position throughout, i.e. when SGG 1 was changed from ‘0.10’ to ‘0.9, SGC 2’s weight varied from ‘0.0860’ to ‘0.0096’. Similar results were observed for the rest of the challenges, which shows the validity and reliability of MCDM results. The sensitivity plots are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Sensitivity analysis of global challenges.

5. Discussion on findings of the case study and group BWM from TBL and UN SDG perspective

Insight obtained from the literature review, mixed method case research and prioritisation of challenges by experts through Group BWM, form the basis for this discussion; however, space constraints limit the extent of details covered. From the global ranking above, we can see that four out of top five challenges belong to strategic governance group and demand actions at government, ministerial and higher management level covering aspects under domains of Energy Governance and Energy sustainability. Among the challenges, SGC 1 (1st) ‘Lack of strategy, vision and top management commitment’, to sustainability and resilience in energy supply chain stood at first position, this is cognizant with the fact that the sector is mostly publicly owned and highly regulated. The ministries and top management commitment have a critical role to play, to develop awareness and understanding of UN SDGs, sustainability and resilience concepts besides taking measures to implement them. Similar findings have been reported by Centobelli, Cerchione, and Esposito (2018; Raut, Narkhede, and Gardas 2017). The 2nd challenge is SGC 2 ‘Absence of Policies/Regulations/Industrial Standards’, imply lack of coercive institutional pressure by relevant stakeholders for application of sustainability and resilience practices in organisations and their supply chains, this in concurrence to findings by Biswal, Muduli, and Satapathy (2017) and is explained by ‘Institutional and Stakeholder theory’. The 3rd challenge is SGC 5 ‘Stalled energy/power Structural Reforms’, the power sector reforms started in the early 1990s with World Bank assistance, but transition towards free market operations is proceedings at a very low pace due to lack of interest by government officials, political interference, bureaucratic hurdles and corrupt officials. As per the expert’s opinion, free market operation and corporate governance culture shall enable overcoming many of the identified energy SC challenges if not all, this is supported by findings of Bacon (2019).

The 5th challenge is SSC7, ‘Exposure to natural and man-made disasters’, global supply chains have been the most adversely effected by COVID-19, moreover, the recent devastation caused in Pakistan by massive floods has exposed the fragility of the energy/power supply chains. Absence of risk mapping and dedicated response plans makes the energy/power sector susceptible to frequent breakdowns and even complete collapse as in case of Pakistan (Shahin 2020). This factor has been explained using ‘Contingency, Institutional and Stakeholder theory’, and has far-reaching social, economic and environmental implications for Pakistan.

The 6th challenge is, SGC3 ‘Bureaucratic Supply Chain Governance Mechanism and Departmental/functional silos’, most of the energy/power sector organisations are public enterprises in which bureaucratic and red tape culture still prevails. Leading to poor coordination, unnecessary delays and lack of joint planning at all levels of the energy supply chain. This factor is directly linked to the 7th challenge of OC6 ‘Lack of Supply Chain Orientation’, this has been attributed to bureaucratic culture and ignorance of the benefits of working as a supply chain, similar finding has been reported by (Schaltegger et al. 2014).

Factors leading to demand-side challenges include, DSC5 (4th) ‘Inadequate and environmentally averse power tariff structure’, this is directly linked with lack of CO₂ pricing mechanism, i.e. introduction of emissions trading scheme that puts a price on carbon pollution above certain limits set by each country in form of tax’s, in power tariff structure (Zaman and Brudermann 2018), imposing of heavy tax’s on imported LNG while subsidising fuel cost for coal and oil plants, thus making LNG Power production un-competitive. In addition, DSC4 (12th) ‘Unethically prioritizing highly polluting power generation’, explains the purchase of expensive and highly polluting power produced by oil and coal plants by system operator (many times) violating the merit order, as also noted by the power sector regulator (NEPRA 2021). This is directly linked with DSC1 (8th) ‘Uncertainty in power demand’, this has been attributed to socio-economic impact of COVID-19, increase of fuel prices leading to nearly tripling of electricity tariff, destruction of energy infrastructure due to massive floods, and by approval of plan to curtail power generation from eco-friendly/energy efficient LNG Power plants to 5%, while substantially increasing power production from coal and intermittent hydro/renewable power sources (NTDC 2021). These factors seriously undermine the sustainability and resilience of the LNG Power Industry, besides violating UNFCCC Framework Convention on Climate Change (2006), Babiker, Reilly, and Jacoby. (2000), Huang and Zhai (2021) and Smith (2020) to which Pakistan is a signatory.

Supplier involvement and commitment to sustainability has been time and again highlighted in literature. The 9th challenge of SSC5 ‘Poor supplier’s commitment to sustainability and resilience’, is one of the major supply-side challenges, as most of local suppliers are either unaware of the sustainability/resilience practices or do not have the financial/human resources to implement them. Moreover, being highly regulated sector coercive institutional and stakeholder pressure are necessary for supplier’s compliance to sustainability and resilience measures. This observation is in accordance with finding of Amindoust (2018). The 10th challenge is, OC5 ‘Inadequate sustainability reporting practices and poor risk management culture’, this challenge has been attributed to lack of institutional pressure, inadequate regulations/industry-specific standards and also reflect upon the organisational risk culture. Need is there for implementing GRI GR-4 reporting standards along with SCOR 12.0 indicators for standardising the performance measurement of electric/power supply chains (Traxler and Greiling 2019).

Digitisation has revolutionised the modern supply chains. Energy supply chains are also benefiting from advances in digital technologies and networking with other members. The 11th challenge is SGC 4 ‘Non usage of Industry 4.0 technology’s’, besides mobile communications, legacy industrial automation systems and limited usage of IT resources, most of the respondents were unaware of the potential applications of the Industry 4.0 technologies (IoT, Big Data Analytics, AI, etc.), in energy (power) supply chains. Integration of Industry 4.0 technologies in energy/power SC has been found to increase sustainability, efficiency and reliability (Hossein Motlagh et al. 2020; Mabkhot et al. 2021).

The other significant challenges related to gas and power infrastructure capacity and efficiency are SSC2 (14th) ‘Lack of (LNG) fuel storage and regasification facilities’, DSC2 (19th) SSC6 (21st), ‘In-sufficient infrastructural capacity and high gas transmission losses’, ‘Lack of capacity in power transmission infrastructure’, DSC3 (20th) ‘High power transmission losses and frequent breakdowns’. These factors are a result of poor ministerial coordination, lack of foresight, bureaucratic culture, corruption and vested interest of politicians (Bacon 2019; NEPRA 2021).

Other significant challenges which pose threat to business continuity are, SSC1 (13th) ‘Non availability of fuel’, SSC4 (15th) ‘Procurement delays’, SSC3 (16th) ‘Excessive delays in payment to fuel suppliers’, OC4 (17th) ‘Excessive delays in payment to Power Producers’. Poor economic condition of the country, rapid currency devaluation, post-COVID-19 spikes in global fuel prices have resulted in inability of government to procure affordable LNG. Undermining the nation’s energy security besides making multibillion dollars eco-friendly power generation assets redundant (IEEFA a 2021). The undesirable effect of long delays in payment to power producers and fuel suppliers by the government results in serious liquidity issues. Need is there for timely payment of dues by all stake holders.

The human resource-related challenges are OC2 (22nd) ‘Out-sourcing of plant operation and maintenance (O&M) to foreign companies’, OC3 (23rd) ‘Non availability of skilled/qualified Human Resource’, these challenges can be attributed to lack of training institute for power sector human resource and low literacy rate in the country, similar findings were reported by Yadav et al. (2019).

The cumulative effect of these challenges is, OC1 (18th) ‘Inefficient, expensive, unreliable and no eco-friendly power generation and transmission’. The electricity tariff has become unaffordable for all segments of society forcing closure of industry/businesses while putting unbearable financial burden on the domestic consumers. The high energy (gas /power transmission) losses along the power supply chain along with energy sector governance and operational inefficiencies are seriously undermining the economic stability of the country.

Nexus to above, addressing these challenges through policy initiative, better energy governance and bench marking global operational best practices would enable energy sustainability (efficiency) and resilience (reliability) incorporation along the supply chain. Resulting in relief to citizens in form of reliable electric supply, affordable tariff, social uplift, ecological preservation while bringing financial stability to the sector.

6. Research novelty and implications for policy makers, energy professionals and society

To the best of author’s knowledge, this is the first study that attempts to identify the combined challenges/barriers to energy supply chain (LNG Power) from perspective of supply chain sustainability, resilience and energy security in context of developing economy using mixed method research.

The research influences public policy making, calling upon policy makers/governmental officials and energy practitioners for better energy governance and removal of causes of energy injustice leading to affordable, reliable and sustainability supply of electricity as per UN SDG 7 and 13. The research is of immense practical value, as implementing sustainability through application of TBL auditing framework and resilience by implementing robust disruption strategies, LNG supplier portfolio diversity, flexible contracts, efficient transport planning, placing of safety stocks, government-to-government communications, infrastructure capacity flexibility–redundancy, use of digital technologies and public–private partnership shall not only enable the energy supply chains to deal with shocks in a better manner but will also lead to enhancing energy security.

The research has far reached effect upon the society and environment, i.e. influencing stake holder’s attitudes and affecting the quality of life of the citizen. Depleting natural gas reserves, make LNG major shareholder in meeting the present–future energy needs of Pakistan. Already enough damage has been done to the environment, people’s health and country’s economy by running coal and oil inefficient power plants instead of efficient LNG power plants, poor energy sector governance, inadequate infrastructure planning/maintenance, supply-side constraints and power demand uncertainty. The planned expansion of highly polluting coal power generation in Pakistan needs to be checked by removing the challenges faced by LNG Power supply chain. Moreover, this research answers the call for empirical research on challenges/barriers influencing energy sector performance from TBL perspective.

7. Conclusion, research limitations and future research directions

The research addresses the challenges faced by LNG Power Sector in developing economies from combined supply chain sustainability and resilience perspectives. The research influences public policy making in the energy sector, addressing energy governance issues besides providing direction to energy professionals in shaping of the energy (power) supply chain to provide maximum benefit to common citizens in form of affordable tariff, power availability and reliability (SDG 7). Minimising wastages of precious resources/harm to the environment (SDG 13) and improving the economic viability of the energy supply chain (TBL) sustainably.

The results showed that energy governance challenges (SGC) were the most important ones followed by fuel (LNG) supply-side challenges, challenges effecting power demand (DSC) and operational challenges (OP). Resulting in (energy poverty) unaffordable power tariffs, poor system reliability, excessive GHG emissions, economic losses due to inefficient gas transmission and power production and distribution.

The objectivity and significance for policy makers and practitioners have been greater enhanced by focusing on the single fuel energy supply chain (LNG Power Sector) in developing country context. The study has been based on the sound theoretical and empirical foundation and the methodology and findings can be used in broader contexts, i.e. other fossil fuel (coal/oil/diesel) power supply chains and fossil fuel supply chains in other developing countries, with modifications as per their unique context.

The researchers are invited to extend this research by investigating the causal relationship between these challenges by using techniques like ISM (interpretive structural modelling) and using MICMAC (Matrice d’Impacts Croisés Multiplication Appliqués à un Classement) matrix multiplication applied to a classification analysis, a graphical method used for classification of challenges based on their driving – dependence power and validation of the ISM results.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The data used/obtained for this is research are under confidentiality agreement and cannot be disclosed.