Green supply chain for plastic films: A framework for the coexistence of ecosystems and plastic industry for a better environment

Abstract

The green supply chain (GrSC) performance for different industries is varying. It depends on the GrSC framework adoption and its implementation. In this line, this paper discusses the plastic films supply chain for its environmental pollutants through the ‘environmental effect multi-fishbone’ diagram. The paper reports the five steps suggested for developing the framework for GrSC for plastics. The construct is developed and reported based on the theoretical tools available in the GrSC arena and elaborates ‘green supply chain for plastic’ as a method for the convergence of the plastic manufacturing industry and the environment.

Keywords:

• GrSCP
• plastic manufacturing industry
• convergence
• framework
• ecosystem

1. Introduction

The ecosystem is a system of dependency between living and non-living elements for existence in nature. These ecosystems forming cross-dependencies become eco-webs in the environment. The state of the parameters (temperature, acidification, etc.) in the environment characterises the ecosystems. The large rate of fluctuation of these parameters may damage the ecosystem. Higher parameter fluctuation occurs when the flow in the eco-web accelerates or decelerates. It results in a factor (such as CO₂ and CFC) concentration beyond sustainable levels. This is termed as pollution (Peter 2009). Its main cause is the industrial systems. Hence, efforts are required for directing actions to reduce the pollution due to the industrial system.

The industrial system, viz. plastic film manufacturing units, provides a sustainable solution in their applications. Hence, the consumption of plastics is increasing with an expected three-fold increase by 2030. However, due to their short lifespan, thinness and non-biodegradability, plastic films are persistently finding their way into waste streams. To illustrate, in India, the generation of plastic waste and the rate of recycling it in 2006–2007 was 47% of the total consumption and 60% of the plastic waste generation, and it will be 69% and 35% respectively by 2029–2030 (Gupta et al. 1998, Technology Information Forecasting and Assessment Council (TIFAC) 2001, Mutha et al. 2005). This plastic film waste and its accumulative existence due to non-biodegradability are threatening the environment in a very different manner.

Environmental detailing of the supply chain for plastic films confirms an escalation in environmental pollution (Table 2). Conventional and non-conventional are broad categories of environmental burdens due to plastic films (Figure 1). Conventional environmental burdens due to plastic films include climate change, acidification/eutrophication, human health, land use, energy use, etc., which can be measured (Ross and Evans 2003, Franklin 2007). Non-conventional environmental burdens include decrease in the fertility of soil, blockage of drains, ill-health effects in animals due to ingestion of plastic films, plastic waste disposal and treatment problems, filthy landscape due to litter of plastic films, etc.

Figure 1 Classification of environmental burdens for film plastic.

Detailing also confirms that these environmental effects are also varying among supply chain partners. For example, manufacturing and use of plastic films are sustainable compared with other materials (Scott 1999, The Energy and Research Institute (TERI) 2001), but the environmental burdens due to plastic film waste are huge, non-conventional and hence difficult to measure (Kunnapallil and Srithijith 2003). Its convergence with the ecosystem is critical and needs to be analysed (Nayak and Swain 2002). It has become the ‘need of the hour’ (Golghate et al. 2010). However, managing operations at one life stage of the plastic film will not minimise the environmental burdens due to interdependencies of the life stage of plastic films at use and end-of-life features and environmental burdens. Strategies for managing environmental burdens at sourcing and manufacturing stages alone may not reduce the environmental burdens at the end-of-life stages and vice versa. Thus, we need to integrate life stages to evaluate the environmental burdens. Hence, a holistic approach like green supply chain (GrSC) is required (Hunt 1991, Zhang 2001). This necessitates, first, developing the framework for the convergence of the ecosystem and the plastic film industry in the perspective of the GrSC. This paper is devoted to developing the framework, and has sections on literature review, methodology selected for developing the framework, developed framework, discussion and conclusions.

2. Literature review

A brief report of the literature review is given below.

2.1 Environmental burdens due to plastic

Plastic consumption in India, including recycling, will be 26,600 MT by 2030 (Mutha et al. 2005, Credit Rating and Information Services of India Ltd. (CRISIL 2007). The consumption of plastics in India for packaging is about 42% because of its sustainability over other materials (Shashvat 2008). Packaging plastic consumption constitutes 37% of plastic films (Mutha et al. 2005). The demand of plastic films in packaging is increasing (CPMA (Chemicals and Petrochemicals Manufacturer's Association Delhi) 2003). This indicates an increase in the environmental burden due to packaging films. The non-conventional type of environmental burden is prominent in the case of packaging films (due to non-degradability). In addition, because of old technology, management style and practices, conventional environmental burdens are all along the supply chain partners (Kunnapallil and Srithijith 2003, Sara et al. 2005).

2.2 Existing efforts/approaches to reduce the environmental burden

Mainly, researchers attempted to reduce the non-conventional environmental burden (United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) 1991, Woodard et al. 2001, Ross and Evans 2003, Kofoworola 2007, Peter 2007, United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP] 2009). It includes regulation of minimum thickness of packaging films (Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) 2005) and plastic waste separation (Nanavaty 1997, Shah and Rajaram 1997, Narayan 2001, Kunnapallil and Srithijith 2003, Tachwali et al. 2007). In addition, conversion of waste plastic into fuel (Zadgaonkar 2004), use of waste plastic for road construction (Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) 2005) and useful textile auxiliaries (Shukla et al. 2008), use of waste plastic for low-quality plastic products (Narayan 2001), etc., is also elaborated by researchers. Recycling research follows an arm's length approach for plastic films (Pohlen and Farris 1992, Patel et al. 1998, Bellmann and Khare 1999, Ashraf 2000, Kawaguchi et al. 2005, Lindahl and Winsnes 2005, Hisao 2006, Al-Salem et al. 2009). Bioplastic is an alternative way of dealing with plastic film waste (Ramani and Patel 2000, Nayak and Swain 2002, Camilla 2005). Design for litterability, as described by Verghese et al. (2006), is one of the applications of environmentally initiated practices for plastic film. Some experts opine that these strategies fail in India due to the role of the informal sector, environmental awareness of the user and the infrastructure to implement these strategies (Shah and Rajaram 1997, Narayan 2001). Integrated approaches such as GrSC, life cycle analysis (LCA) and material flow analysis (MFA) are described in the literature to view the environmental problem in a holistic manner. The comparative study of holistic approaches is given in Table 1.

Table 1 Integrated approaches for plastic film supply chain.

Sr. No.	Criteria	GrSC	LCA	MFA
1.	Basic concept	MFA, LCA and strategies in a dynamic state are developed to monitor and control environmental pollution	MFA and its environmental impacts are assessed for different supply chain partner	Flow of material with volume and rate is depicted for supply chain partner
2.	Applications	To monitor and control environmental burdens	To assess the impact of environmental inventory release	Determining and projecting future demand and flow level
3.	Implementation problems	MFA and LCA not developed	Impacts for many environmental inventory releases are not feasible and measurable	Flow data for plastic film are not available especially for end-of-life stage
4.	Advantages	Most comprehensive and integrated for practices implementation	Many software are available and give bird's-eye view of the supply chain	Easy to evaluate and analyse.
5.	Status of development in the literature	Not developed	Partially developed for conventional environmental burdens	Partially developed to manufacturing phase
6.	Sources	Dillon (1999)	Daniel et al. (2007), Ghosh (2004), James and Grant (2005), Kuta et al. (1995), Sybille et al., (2008)	Mutha et al. (2005), Shashvat (2008).

Mutha et al. (2005) and Shashvat (2008) explore MFA in an Indian paradigm for plastic. The MFA by referring these studies is partial because of the data provided for end-of-life stages for plastic films. In addition, MFA enumerates the flow of the material and integrates the supply chain at only the mass load level. Thus, it serves as an impetus for LCA and GrSC.

The LCA is used to evaluate the environmental burden and thereafter, a comparison of plastic films with other material in packaging, as described by Daniel et al. (2007), Ghosh (2004), James and Grant (2005), Kuta et al. (1995), Sybille et al. (2008), Hoon (2006) and others. LCA being a static tool limits the implementing dynamics in the process or over the supply chain.

The GrSC approach is truly dynamic, combining MFA and LCA and further expanding the implementing strategies to reduce the environmental burden in a real-time manner. In his work, Dillon (1999) focuses on developing a supply chain for the plastic recycling infrastructure only. Christopher (2009) addresses for non-film plastic product.

2.3 GrSC framework

The implementation of the GrSC practices in a timely and economically viable manner requires selection of the right tools forming the framework (Paquette 2005). The choice of tools for the reduction of the environmental burden depends on the intensity of the inventory release and its net effect (Shah and Rajaram 1997). GrSC solutions and frameworks available in the literature are too generalised, specifically as described by Beamon (1999), Sarkis (2003), Vachon (2007), etc. The kind of environmental burden imposed by plastic films, particularly at the end-of-life stage, is of very different nature because of non-biodegradability and difficult to measure. In addition, the plastic industry being a small-scale industry, cannot provide resource support to evolve with framework customisation and necessary upgradation from time to time. Hence, it always requires simplified, time-tested and cost-effective models for implementation. The modelled approach should address the poorly measurable environmental burdens as well as give timely solutions for adoption. From the literature it is clear that even though the GrSC is a better approach, it lags in use because the required framework has yet to be developed. Hence, framework development is described in the next section.

3. Methodology for framework development

To develop a customised green supply chain for plastic (GrSCP) framework for plastic films, the authors have developed a five-step procedure as shown in Figure 2. The procedure has evolved as a result of the application of the industrial engineering systematic approach to minimise the causes of the environmental burden due to film plastics and to improve the effectiveness of the industrial system. Initially, the authors had identified seven steps, such as those discussed in the ‘Methods Study’, which were later reduced to five steps after expert suggestions. Opinion concluded the approach adaptation for mass load level measurement of environmental burden. As the framework is scaled at the mass load level, the measurement of environmental performance becomes easy compared with the other approaches described in the literature. The use of the ‘environmental effect multi-fishbone diagram’ to depict the causes of the environmental burden and its relative significance for an entire supply chain make this procedure unique for mass load level evaluation. Environmental performance evaluation is considered at the mass load level because the literature for the environmental burdens of the plastic film end-of-life stages, wherein unsustainability issues are huge, is very limited.

Figure 2 Five-step procedure for development of GrSC framework.

The procedure described here is applied to linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) films as a product because of their consumption contribution in plastic films.

3.1 Step 1: Computation of the environmental inventory release and environmental effects

It deals with gathering and analysing environmental inventory release for each supply chain partner for the product. The environmental inventory release for the supply chain partner then relates to the environmental effects at mass load level (Table 2). In this study, the authors conducted a thorough literature survey for detailing the environmental inventory release of LLDPE films. Table 2 also depicts the permissible limits for each environmental inventory release for each supply chain partner to emphasise the environmental burden. Further, it relates the environmental inventory release to different environmental burdens. The measurement of the environmental inventory release could be carried out by methods shown in Table 2. The environmental inventory release can be neglected if it is 0.1%, 1%, 1% and 1%, respectively, by flow, mass, energy and environmental importance as described in the LCA approach.

Table 2 Environmental inventory release for LLDPE film supply chain.

		Long-term exposure limit		Short-term exposure limit
Environmental factors (LLDPE Resin manufacturer + film producer + film recycling [feed-stock] + film recycling [mechanical] + film land filling + film incineration) in grams.	Measurement method	ppm	mg/cum	ppm	mg/cum	Environmental parameters
Air emission
Acrolein (0+0+6.11E-09+0+0+0 =	CG- NPD, FID/MS	0.1	0.25	0.3	0.8	Eco-toxicity
Aldehydes- 6.99E-15+0+3.75E-05+0+0+0 =	GC- FID/MS	100	180	150	270	Eco-toxicity, carcinogens, respiratory
Ammonia-30.14E-10+0+2.594E-06+0+0.225E-03+4.39E-03 =	VIS-Auto, IC	25	17	35	24	Acidification/eutrophication respiratory
Antimony- 2.22E-10+0+8.28E-09+0+0 = 0 =	ICP-AES	–	0.5	–	–
Arsenic- 5.2E-11+0+1.48E-07+0+0+0 =	HYAAS, ICP-AES	–	0.2	–	–	Eco-toxicity, carcinogens
Asbestos- 3.55E-15+0+0+0+0+0 =	PCM		2 fibre		10 fibre	Carcinogens, respiratory
Benzene- 1.14E-17+0+5.54E-08+0+5.29E-05+0.487E-03 =	TD/GC-MS, GC, GC/FID, FTIR	30	–	–	–	Eco-toxicity, carcinogens, respiratory
Benzene, ethyl- 6.66E-19+0+0+0+0+0 =	GC/FID	100	435	125	545	Respiratory
Beryllium- 0+0+4.0E-08+0+0+0 =	ICP-AES	–	0.2
Cadmium- 1.73E-10+0+6.02E-08+0+2.25E-07+5.36E-06 =	ICP-AES		0.05		0.2	Eco-toxicity, carcinogens
Carbon disulfide- 6.57E-11+0+0+0+0+0 =	GC-FPD	20		20
Chlorinated fluorocarbons Soft- 7.87E-09+0+0+0+0+0 =	GC-FID		0.5		1
Chlorine-4.875E-11+0+4.02E-06+0+0+0 =	IC	1	3	3	9	Eco-toxic
Chromium- 2.37E-10+0+2.86E-07+0+0+0 =	FAAS, ICP-AES		0.5			Eco-toxicity, resource, carcinogens
CO - 0.002382+0+0.0043+0+0.0827+2.156 =	IRA, EC	50	55	400	450	Respiratory
CO2 - 1.488+0+1.48+0+128+3038 =	GC-TCD	5000	9000	15,000	27,000	Climate change
Copper- 2.47E-11+0+0+0+0+0 =	ICP-AES, FAAS		0.2			Eco-toxicity, resource
Dioxins, measured as 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin- 1.19E-31+0+3.34E-14+0+0.0259+65.24E-06 =	GC-FID		0.2			Eco-toxicity, carcinogens
Ethane, 1,2-dichloro- 1.07E-11+0+5.83E-09+0+0+0 =	GC-FID	200	790	250	1000	Eco-toxicity, carcinogens, respiratory
Ethane, chloro- 0.24E-09+0+5.77E-09+0+0+0 =	GC-FID	100	210	125	260	Carcinogens, respiratory
Ethane- 1.57E-06+0+0+0+0+0 =	GC-FID	100	250	125	325	Respiratory
Fluorene- 8.7E-11+0+0+0+0+0 =	HPLC- FL/UV	1	1.6	2	3.1	Eco-toxicity
Formaldehyde- 0+0+2.39E-06+0+0+0 =	HPLC- FL/UV, GC-FID, VIS, GC-FID/MS,FTIR	2	3	2	3	Eco-toxicity, carcinogens, respiratory
H2SO4- 4.24E-15+0+0+0+0+0 =	IC		1
HCl-35.06E-06+0+3.05E-05+0+5.47E-05+ 1.05E-03 =	IC	5	7	5	7	Eco-toxic
Hydrocarbons- 0.00269+0+0+0.1E-03+5.04E-09+4.22E-06 =	GC- FID	0.5				Respiratory
Hydrocarbons, aromatic- 22.89E-06+0+0+0+8.84E-05+0.949E-03 =	GC-FID		736		163	Respiratory
Hydrocarbons, chlorinated- 7.53E-06+0+0+0+0+0 =	GC-ECD	500		750
Hydrogen- 41.2E-06+0+0+0+0+0 =
Hydrogen cyanide- 2.12E-18+0+0+0+0+0 =	VIS, IC-DC Amp, ISE	10	10	10	10
Hydrogen fluoride-1.32E-06+0+4.26E-06+0+9.43E-06+29.1E-06	ISE, IC	3	2.5	6	5	Eco-toxicity
Hydrogen sulfide-14.66E-10+0+0+0+0+0 =	IC	10	14	15	21	Eco-toxicity
Kerosene- 0+0+1.56E-07+0+0+0 =	GC-FID					Resource
Lead- 4.39E-09+0+7.28E-08+0+1.01E-06+ 4.04E-06 =	FAAS, XRF, GFAAS, ASV, ICP-AES,					Eco-toxicity, resource
Manganese- 0+0+4.63E-07+0+2.17E-08+ 0.198E-06 =	ICP-AES		5		5	Resource
Mercaptans -18.65E-12+0+0+0+0+0 =	GC-FPD	1	5			Eco-toxicity
Mercury- 1.43E-09+0+1.74E-080+0+1.11E-05+1.4E-03 =	AAS		0.05		0.15	Eco-toxicity, resource
Metals- 1.26E-06+0+1.4E-07+0+5.23E-05+0 =	ICP-AES					Resource
Methane- 0.014+0+0.006+0+14.5+0.231 =		400		400		Respiratory, climate change
Methane Halon 1301- 0+0+0+0+0+0.77E-06	GC-FID	1000				Climate change, ozone layer depletion
Methane Halon01- 0+0+0+0+1.01E-06+0	GC-FID	1000				Climate change, ozone layer depletion
Methane tetrachlore CFC-10- 0+0+1.1E-08+0+ 0+0 =	GC-FID	10	65	20	130	Climate change, ozone layer depletion
Methane, dichloro-, HCC-30- 4.21E-14+0+2.59E-08+0+0+0 =	GC-FID	200	700	250	870	Eco-toxicity, carcinogens, respiratory, climate change, Ozone layer depletion
N2O- 3.71E-13+0+9.01E-06+0+0.939E-03+2.98E-03 =	VIS	5	9	5	9	Climate change
Naphthalene- 0+0+5.4E-10+0+0+0 =	GC-FID, HPLC-FL/UV	10	50	15	75
Nickel- 6.71E-14+0+4.58E-07+0+6.84E-06+7.21E-06 =	ICP-AES		1			Carcinogens, resource
NMVOC, non-methane volatile organic compounds- 63.98E-06+0+0.008375+0+0.0897+0.3157 =	TD/GC-MS		800 Gg			Respiratory
N-Nitrodimethylamine- 0+0+1.29E-09+0+0+0 =	GC-FID	6.9m				Carcinogens
NO2 - 0.00295+0+0.00622+0+0.198+0.907 =	VIS	5	9	5	9	Respiratory, climate change, acidification/Eutrophication
Organic substances- 0.00023+0+0.000635+0+ 0+0 =	HPLC-GFAAS					Respiratory
Oxygen- 2.71E-233+0+0+0+0+0 =	SENSOR
PAH, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons- 0.0062E-06+0+0+0+1.44E-07+0.29E-06 =	HPLC-FL/UV	3 μg				Respiratory
Particulates( < 10 um)- 0.001152+0+0.001446+0+0.014+0.001152 =	GRAV		4		10	Respiratory
Phenols- 0+0+.94E-08+0+0+0 =	TD/GC-MS, GC-FID	5	19	10	38	Eco-toxicity
Propane- 1.16E-06+0+0+0+0+0 =			1000		1800	Respiratory
Radioactive – 0+0+8.57+0+1560+919 = kBq	Photographic, Gas Filled,		0.05 Sv			Ionising radiation
Selenium compounds- 3.4E-25+0+0.94E-08+0+ 0+0 =	ICP-AES		0.2
Silver- 9.84E-24+0+0+0+0+0 =	ICP-AES		0.1			Radiation
SO2 - 0.00352+0+0.024+0+0.0395+0.148 =	IC	2	5	5	13	Respiratory, acidification/eutrophication
Styrene- 9.4E-20+0+0+0+0+0 =	GC-FID, FTIR	50	213	100	426	Eco-toxicity
Toluene- 1.9E-18+0+0+0+0+0 =	TD/GC-MC, GC-FID, FTIR	100	375	150	560	Respiratory, eco-toxicity
Xylene- 8.81E-19+0+0+0+0+0 =	TD/GC-MC, GC-FID, FTIR	100	435	150	650	Respiratory
Zinc- 13.4E-09+0+0+0+0.136E-03+0.191E-03 =	ICP-AES					Eco-toxicity, resource
Water Emission
Acidity 0+0+6.5E-05+0+0+0 =
Acids- 1.127E-06+0+6.5E-05+0+0+0 =	IC	10	25	15	37
Aluminum- 1.147E-06+0+0+0+0.111E-03+ 1.45E-03 =	ICP-AES		10		20	Resource
Aluminum Ion-0+0+0+0+0.0171+0 =	ICP-AES
Ammonia- 0+0+8.24E-07+0+0+0 =	VIS-Auto, IC	25	17	35	24	Acidification/eutrophication
Ammonium, ion- 2.17E-06+0+0+0.0171+0 =	VIS-Auto, IC
AOX, Adsorbable Organic Halogen as Cl- 9.02E-13+0+0+0+0.82E-06+0.63E-06 =		100				Climate change
Arsenic, ion- 7.22E-10+0+0+0+3.81E-07+ 1.85E-06 =	HYAAS, ICP-AES		0.2
Barium-0+0+0+0+0.54E-03+0.472E-03 =	FAAS, ICP-AES		0.5
Benzene- 1.31E-21+0+0+0+0+0 =	TD/GC-MS, GC, GC/FID, FTIR	30				Eco-toxicity, carcinogens
BOD5, Biological Oxygen Demand- 64.26E-06+0+7.39E-05+0+19.0E-06+15.1E-06 =			360-1300
Boron - 0+0+3.06E-05+0+0+0 =	ICP-AES	2	12	3	18
Bromate- 1.17E-09+0+0+0+0+0 =	IC	0.1	0.7	0.3	2
Cadmium, ion- 1.21E-10+0+1.71E-06+0+1.96E-06+0.575E-06 =	ICP-AES		0.05
Calcium, ion- 0.124E-06+0+1.34E-07+0+0+0 =	ICP-AES
Carbonate- 0.14E-03+0+0+0+0+0 =
Chlorate- 0.327E-06+0+0+0+0+0 =
Chloride- 0.109E-03+0+0.0017+0+0.114+0.106 =
Chlorinated solvents- 19.39E-09+0+0+0+0+0 =						Eco-toxicity, climate change
Chlorine- 2.25E-09+0+0+0+0+0 =	IC	1	3	3	9
Chromium- 1.347E-11+0+1.71E-06+0+2.87E-06+0.01E-03 =	FAAS, ICP-AES		0.5			Eco-toxicity, resource
COD, Chemical Oxygen Demand- 0.296E-03+0+0.496E-03+0+0.619E-03+0.469E-03 =		50
Copper, ion- 0.153E-06+0+0+0+6.9E-06+0.032E-03 =	FAAS, ICP-AES		0.2
Cyanide- 4.136E-11+0+2.526E-09+0+8.31E-07+0.64E-06 =	ISE, VIS		5
Detergent, oil- 33.16E-06+0+0.669E-03+0+0.00565+0.0043 =	IR		5			Acidification/eutrophication, resource
Dioxins, measured as 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin- 2.08E-16+0+0+0+0+0 =	GC-FID					Eco-toxicity, carcinogens
DOC, Dissolved Organic Carbon- 6.6E-06+0+6.9E-05+0+1.63E-06 = 10.34E-06 =
Ethane, 1,1-dichloro- 2.43E-13+0+0+0+0+0 =	GC-FID	200	790	250	1000	Eco-toxicity, carcinogens
Ethane, chloro- 4.44E-12+0+0+0+0+0 =	GC-FID	10	40	20	80	Eco-toxicity, carcinogens
Fluoride- 9.83E-09+0+6.21E-07+0+0+0+0+0 =	ISE		2.5
Hydrocarbons -0+0+0+0+0+0.139E-03 =	GC-FID
Hydrocarbons- 15.11E-06+0+0+0+0.183E-03+2.1E-06 =	GC-FID
Hydrocarbons, Chlorinated- 0+0+0+0+0.187E-06+0.152E-06 =	IC
Iron, ion- 48.48E-09++4.01E-05+0+0.174E-03+0.48E-03 =	ICP-AES		1		2
Kjeldahl-N-0+0+0+0+7.83E-05+58.8E-06 =
Lead- 0.001E-06+0+3.78E-10+0+1.09E-06+4.78E-06 =	FAAS, XRF, GFAAS, ASV, ICP-AES,		30μg			Eco-toxicity
Magnesium- 7.69E-09+0+2.43E-05+0+0+0 =	ICP-AES		10
Manganese- 1.74E-09+0+0+0+0+0 =	ICP-AES		5		5	Resource
Mercury- 1.67E-10+0+1.33E-10+0+6.56E-06+10.9E-06 =	AAS		0.05		0.15	Eco-toxicity, resource
Metallic ions- 9.04E-06+0+4.53E-06+0+1.31E-03+1.09E-03 =	ICP-AES
Nickel Ion-0+0+0+0+0+4.81E-06 =	ICP-AES		0.1		0.3
Nickel, ion- 1.25E-09+0+0+0+1.13E-06+4.81E-06 =	ICP-AES
Nitrate- 4.32E-06+0+5.86E-08+0+0.054+0.795E-03 =
Nitrogen- 2.69E-06+0+0+0+0.45E-03+0.341E-03 =
Organic substances- 6.44E-11+0+4.44E-05+0+0+0 =	HPLC-GFAAS
PAH, Polycyclic Aromatic- 0+0+0+0+2.77E-06+2.1E-06 =	HPLC-FL/UV
Phenol- 0.717E-06+0+1.48E-08+0+2.81E-05+2.4E-06 =	TD-GC-MS, GC-FID	5	19	10	38	Eco-toxicity
Phosphate- 0+0+7.13E-06+0+8.51E-06+53.4E-06
Phosphorus- 0.137E-06+0+0+0+0+0 =	GC-FPD, ICP-AES		0.1		0.3
Potassium, ion- 3.13E-09+0+0+0+0+0 =	ICP-AES
Propane- 8.81E-10+0+0+0+0+0 =		200	500	250	625
Radioactive Species, unspecified- 0+0+0+0+14.4+8.53 =						Radiation
Silicon- 1.32E-19+0+0+0+0+0 =	XRD		0.3
Sodium, ion- 0.137E-03+0+2.47E-07+0+0+0 =	ICP-AES
Solved solids- 23.1E-06+0+0.037+0+0.0827+0.0646 =
Strontium- 3.55E-1+0+0+0+0+0 =	ICP-AES					Radiation
Sulfate- 0.464E-03+0+0.0014+0+0.0535+0 =
Sulfide- 0+0+3.0E-05+0+0+0 =
Sulfur- 2.73E-13+0+0+0+0+0 =
Sulphide-0+0+0+0+0+5.07E-06 =
Sulphuric Acid- 0+0+7.65E-06+0+0+0 =	IC		1
Suspended solids- 0.145E-03+0+0.778E-03+0+0.0122+1.28E-03 =	GRAV
Tin, ion- 2.6E-16+0+0+0+0+0 =	ICP-AES		0.1		0.2
TOC, Total Organic Carbon- 34.88E-06+0+0+0+0.254+0.116 =
Toluene- 0+0+0+0+2.52E-05+19.17E-06 =	TD/GC-MC, GC-FID, FTIR	100	375	150	560
Zinc, ion- 0.0805E-06+0+1.44E-06+0+2.83E-05+11.0E-06 =	ICP-AES
Emission to Ground
Cadmium-0+0+0+0+7.51E-07+0 =	ICP-AES		0.05			Eco-toxicity, carcinogens
Carbon0+0+0+0+0.172+0 =	GRAV		3.5		7
Chemical waste, regulated- 4.6E-03
Coal tailings- 0.682E-03
Compost- 4.676E-06
Construction waste- 4.56E-03
Energy Input- 72.67+1.3356+48.17+13.6+204.1+190.38 =						Resource
Lead-0+0+0+0+2.09E-08+0 =	FAAS, XRF, GFAAS, ASV, ICP-AES					Eco-toxicity, resource
Material Input: NG – 1, Crude Oil − 0.44, Coal -0.021 Water -124+1.035+ NG 0.386, C Oil 0.126, Scrap 0.55						Resource
Mercury-0+0+0+0+6.3E-06+0	AAS		0.05		0.15	Eco-toxicity, resource
Metal waste- 88.21E-09
Mineral waste- 0.806E-03
Nitrogen-0+0+0+0+1.35E-03+0 =
Packaging waste- 6.53E-09
Plastic waste- 1.68E-06
Slag's and ashes- 5.48E-03
Waste- 0.003+0.035
Waste in incineration- 0.547E-03
Waste returned to mine- 0.0136
Waste to recycling- 0.596E-03
Waste, industrial- 1.136E-03
Waste, unspecified- 0.972E-03
Wood waste- 0.147E-06
Zinc-0+0+0+0+7.33E-10+0 =	ICP-AES					Eco-toxicity, resource
Notes: AAS, Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry; FAAS, Flame AAS; FI, Flame Injection; FID, Flame Ionisation Detector; FL, Fluorescence Detector; FPD, Flame Photomrtic Detector; GC, Gas Chromatography; GFAAS, Graphite Furnace AAS; HPLC, High Performance Liquid Chromatography; HYAAS, Hydride generation AAS; IC, Ion Chromatography; ICP-AES, Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectroscopy; IR, Infrared Spectrophotometry; ISE, Ion Specific Electrode; MS, Mass Spectrometry; NPD, Nitrogen Phosphorous Detector; PCM, Phase Contrast Microscopy; PID, Photo Ionisation Detector; TCD, Thermal Conductivity Detector; TD, Thermal Desorption Tube; UV, Ultraviolet; VIS, Visible Absorption Spectrophotometry; XRF, X-Ray Fluorescence; GRAV, Gravitational. SOURCE: Jadhav and Chitnis (1993), Franklin (2007), American Plastic Council (1997), Daniel et al. (2007), Ghosh (2004), James and Grant (2005), Sara et al. (2005).

3.2 Step 2: Draw ‘environmental effect multi-fishbone’ diagram

This step illustrates the construction of an ‘environmental effect multi-fishbone’ diagram, considering the supply chain partner as a node, and the environmental effect and inventory release (causes) as branches and sub-branches. The environmental inventory release considered at this stage is as per the LCA approach. This gives an integrated view of the complete supply chain and its environmental burden at a micro-level. Refer to Figure 3 for a sample ‘environmental effect multi-fishbone’ diagram for the LLDPE supply chain.

Figure 3 Environmental effect multi-fishbone diagram for plastic film supply chain.

Figure 3 shows that for each supply chain partner, the sub-branches are environmental burdens. Tertiary branches depict environmental inventory release with actual and permissible maximum mass load (Table 2). The main branch depicts the environmental effect on the ecosystem. The comparison of the actual mass load and permissible mass load gives the intensity of the environmental burden and compares it with other supply chain partners.

3.3 Step 3: Investigate and validate the environmental tools

All GrSC practices as environmental (burdens/effects reduction) tools are required to be collected. The sources may be literature, industry practitioners or academicians. Further environmental tools are required for the critical analysis of its causes and validated for pollution reduction. The environmental tools are also required to be prioritised based on the objectives of the GrSCP implementation and integrated effect of the environmental tool for pollution reduction. Thus, finalising the environmental tools for GrSC practice implementation for given product supply chain.

In LLDPE films, considering the different distinct phases of the life cycle as plan, source, make, deliver and return (Dalwadi 2000, Diwekar 2005), and with the scope of literature, environmental tools are collected as shown in Table 3.

Table 3 GrSC practices as environmental tools.

Sr. No.	GrSC phase	GrSC practices/environmental tools	Validation (sources)
1.	Plan phase	# Design for environment •Design for disassembly/remanufacturing •Design for recycling/reuse/close loop SC Design for green manufacturing •Design for disposal/waste minimisation •Design under legislation & regulations. # Environmental cost accounting # Life cycle analysis (LCA) •Inventory/energy analysis •Impact analysis •Life cycle costing •Improvement analysis	Matthews (2001), Villalba et al. (2004), Beamon (1999), Srivastava (2008), Wells and Orsato (2005). Esther et al. (2007), Carter and Keeler (2007), Dunk (2002). Hunt (1995), Hoon (2006), Franklin (2007).
2.	Source phase	# Green purchasing •Inbound logistics and procurement •Material management # Environmental auditing # Environmental certification # Buyer supplier relation # Second-tier supplier management	Matthews and Hendrickson (2003) Mouritsen et al. (2000) Noci (1997), Business for Social Responsibility (BSR 2001)
3.	Make phase	# Green manufacturing/remanufacturing # Pollution prevention # Resource/energy use # EMS/TQM model development # ISO 14000 implementation # Industrial ecosystems	Chouinard and Brown (1997), Kiesmuller (2003) Esther et al. (2007) Hue et al. (2001), Barla (2007) Zhu et al. (2007)
4.	Delivery phase	# Mode of transport and transportation distance packaging •Warehouse management	Sheu et al. (2005) Bose and Chatterjee (2008)
5.	Return phase	# Reverse logistics/supply loops # Recycling # Reuse/refurbish # Disposal	Vlachos et al. (2007) Shah and Rajaram (1997), Roth and Eklund (2003) Shukla et al. (2008)

The validation of the collected environmental tools is again within the scope of literature. The generalised framework available in the literature is omitted merely to direct our research in a random manner. It is evident from Table 3 that GrSC practices as environmental tools for plastic film supply chain are generic in nature. A few validation sources are only related to plastic films (Hunt 1995, Shah and Rajaram 1997, Roth and Eklund 2003, Hoon 2006, Franklin 2007). In addition, the validation sources are more generic towards broad environmental tools such as ‘design for environment’, ‘life cycle analysis’ and ‘recycling’. Further, it could be inferred from Steps 4 and 5 that the selection of the environmental tool is merely a choice based on the available resources and practicability in a viable manner. Validation according to Steps 4 and 5 strengthens the environmental tool selection process.

3.4 Step 4: Map environmental tools for environmental effects and their causes

Validated and prioritised environmental tools are then mapped on the ‘environmental effect multi-fishbone’ diagram for their respective cause reduction at a particular phase of the life cycle. It is ready for the implementation of the GrSCP practices with an integrated view.

A comparative judgemental analysis is carried out for the selection of the environmental tool and reduction in the environmental burden. This also ensures the selection of the right environmental tool for the reduction of the multiple environmental effect throughout the supply chain. Figure 4 shows the mapping of the validated environmental tools at their respective phases of LLDPE packaging film supply chain.

Figure 4 Mapping of environmental tools on extended fishbone diagram.

3.5 Step 5: Evaluate GrSCP framework

This step deals with the evaluation of the GrSCP framework based on the mapped diagram described in Step 4. This includes the economic, operational and environmental feasibility analysis of the individual environmental tools to be included in the framework. In consideration of the LLDPE supply chain and based on a judgemental comparison made in Step 4, feasibility analysis is within the scope of literature.

4. Developed GrSCP framework

Finding the necessity of developing the GrSCP framework followed by searching the non-availability of such a framework in the literature, the authors suggested a five-step procedure for developing the framework. Taking the LLDPE film, the authors demonstrated the procedure and arrived at the GrSCP framework as shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5 GrSC framework for converging LLDPE film manufacturing units and environment.

Starting with strategic planning and in view of the operating model, the LLDPE film manufacturing units could select any combination of validated and mapped environmental tools for their planning phase, as shown in Figure 5. In our opinion, the ‘design for reuse’, ‘design for recycling’, ‘design for film waste separation from municipal solid waste’ and ‘design for minimum litter’ tools are the best alternatives for reducing the environmental burdens of a plastic film supply chain. In the sourcing phase, recycling units could concentrate on ‘environmental auditing and certification’ tools. LLDPE film manufacturing units could target for ‘reduction in material use and energy use’ and ‘improvement in the technology’ resulting in ‘green manufacturing’. As the end-of-life stage of plastic films adds tremendous environmental burdens, ‘recycling’ and ‘reuse’ strategies could be the best ways of managing the environmental burden. Nevertheless, recycling requires segregation of plastic films from the mixed plastic waste, thus ‘design for segregation’ of plastic films from municipal solid waste could be an effective tool for reducing the environmental burden.

5. Discussion and summary

	• The environmental burdens of plastics, and in particular film plastics, are increasing and are varied in nature. The environmental effects are of conventional and non-conventional types, but the latter is prominent. The major difficulty in the case of non-conventional environmental burdens is to measure the environmental effects. In addition, the micro-mechanics of the environmental effects are very complex to understand and systemise, for instance, the reduction in the fertility of soil, chocking of drains, ingestion by micro-marine entities, etc. These effects are cumulative in nature due to the non-biodegradability of plastic films. Further, these can alter the nature of the eco-web in a very complex and different manner. Thus, escalating environmental pollution due to plastic films demands an immediate environmental solution.
	• The available solutions, though targeting non-conventional environmental pollution, are only concerned with the individual supply chain partner and follow an arm's length approach. In a country like India, though the recycling rates of plastics (60% of plastic waste, but uncertain about the plastic film component) are highest, the efforts at the reduction of the environmental burden are fewer. In addition, an integrated approach, such as GrSC and its framework for the plastic film, are yet to be developed.
	• The authors developed a five-step procedure to arrive at the GrSCP framework. The procedure is the outcome of the intensive application of the industrial engineering approach and the ‘fishbone diagram’ extended to the supply chain. Experts in the field have validated the procedure. The results of the procedure are workable for plastic films and could be applied to any product having a poor measurable environmental burden. Measurable environmental burdens could result in more specific and detailed frameworks for the convergence of industry and the environment as reported by Vachon (2007), Sarkis (2003), etc. Thus, the procedure demonstrated is found suitable for LLDPE films.
	• The results of the five-step procedure mentioned above are achievable through the GrSC framework. Prioritisation of the environmental effects is plausible based on the causes for deploying resources for the implementation of GrSC practices. It is similar to the implementation of ISO 14000 wherein, depending on the capability of resource deployment and regulation, the implementation of GrSC practices are factorial in nature and any suitable combination is workable.
	• The methodology adopted to arrive at the GrSCP framework ensures the convergence of the plastic film manufacturing industry and the environment. The units may select the tools depending on their need and ability of implementation. The selected combination of tools by different supply chain partners will ensure the reduction of the environmental burden for the entire supply chain. The selected tool or its combination ensures the reduction of the overall environmental burden throughout the supply chain. The flexibility of selecting environmental tools among alternatives makes it economically viable.

6. Conclusion

Present knowledge about reducing the environmental burden and the present efforts are not enough to arrest the escalating environmental pollution (non-conventional type) due to plastic films. In view of the current research plausibility for applying GrSCP to converge the plastic film supply chain and the environment, the framework for the implementation of the GrSC practices is absent for this small-scale industry. In an effort to develop such a framework, the five-step procedure is suggested. The developed framework ensures the convergence of plastic film manufacturing units and the environment. The suggested systematic procedure ensures the identification of the environmental burden, its causes and further GrSC practice implementation to converge the plastic film industry and the environment. The procedure that has been developed also ensures the selection of the right environmental tool for the specific environmental burden. The scope of the research is confined to small-scale units not capable of investing much in the environmental management programme and where the majority of environmental burden is non-conventional. In addition, the framework does not quantify the environmental burden of the non-conventional type. The implementation of the individual GrSC practices and its effect assessment on the performance of GrSC and forming the fixed combination of GrSC practices implementation for economic, operational and environmental viability could be a further extension and future research area.

Acknowledgement

We thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.