Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM) (Tseng et al., 2019), has emerged as a critical approach for organizations aiming to balance economic growth with increasing environmental sustainability demands. Globalization and the growing complexity of supply chains have significantly amplified the ecological impacts of business activities, from raw material extraction to end-of-life disposal (Arfeen et al., 2020). In response, organizations are increasingly recognizing GSCM as an essential strategy for addressing environmental and ecological challenges across the entire supply chain. Unlike traditional supply chain management, GSCM extends its focus to environmental considerations by emphasizing sustainable practices and long-term ecological responsibility. While Supply Chain Environmental Management (SCEM) (Saleem and Basit, 2020), primarily concentrates on monitoring supplier environmental performance, GSCM adopts a broader scope that includes multifaceted practices such as green procurement and environmentally responsible operations.

The adoption of GSCM practices is driven by several interconnected forces reshaping the contemporary business environment. Stringent environmental regulations have made compliance mandatory, while heightened consumer awareness has increased demand for products with verified sustainability credentials (Gao et al., 2022). Additionally, pressure from investors, governments, non-governmental organizations, and society has compelled firms to demonstrate tangible commitments to environmental responsibility. Economic factors, such as resource scarcity and price volatility, further reinforce the importance of resource efficiency. Export-oriented firms face additional challenges due to strict environmental requirements imposed by European and North American markets. Collectively, these pressures have encouraged organizations to integrate comprehensive environmental measures into their operational policies (Ahmed and Arfeen, 2022). As a result, firms increasingly view GSCM as a source of competitive advantage, offering benefits such as enhanced brand reputation, improved operational efficiency, reduced environmental risks, and more effective sustainability-oriented risk management strategies (Shahzad, 2020).

Despite the growing recognition of GSCM and the expanding body of related literature, significant methodological limitations continue to hinder effective implementation. Organizations face challenges in systematically managing the complex trade-offs between environmental sustainability and financial performance. Many studies report persistent difficulties in clearly defining and accurately measuring sustainable supply chain initiatives. Sustainability decisions must simultaneously address environmental protection, economic viability, and equity among stakeholders, creating a highly complex decision-making environment (Afnan, 2020). Moreover, the diversity of stakeholders involved in supply chains each with distinct interests, capabilities, and regulatory constraints further complicates the execution of environmental initiatives. While existing research identifies patterns in sustainable practices and evolving regulations, it also highlights gaps in decision-support mechanisms capable of handling such complexity.

One particularly challenging aspect of GSCM is the evaluation and ranking of green suppliers. This process involves numerous criteria and relies heavily on expert judgments that are often subjective, imprecise, and incomplete. Uncertainty regarding what criteria to assess, how to measure them, and why they are relevant introduces vagueness that conventional evaluation methods struggle to address (Ibupoto et al., 2022). These challenges are intensified by limited data availability and the qualitative nature of many environmental performance indicators.

The difficulty of systematically addressing sustainability-related decision variables is widely acknowledged in the literature. Organizations frequently struggle to balance environmental objectives with financial and social considerations while making consistent and informed decisions. Stakeholder diversity across supply chains adds further uncertainty, especially when information is incomplete or conflicting. Although prior studies emphasize the importance of sustainable supply chain management, they also reveal a lack of robust frameworks for supporting decision-making under such conditions (Ashraf, 2020).

To address these challenges, recent research advocates the integration of advanced multi-criteria decision-making techniques with fuzzy logic to manage uncertainty and ambiguity more effectively (Muhammad et al., 2020). In this study, the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) is employed to determine criteria weights by incorporating expert opinions (Zeeshan and Muhammad, 2022), while the fuzzy technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (FTOPSIS) is used to rank suppliers relative to ideal performance benchmarks (Durr, 2024). The combined application of these methods mitigates the limitations of individual approaches and enhances the reliability, consistency, and robustness of green supplier evaluation within Green Supply Chain Management frameworks (Zuhair et al., 2023).

The proposed study adopts an integrated multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) framework that combines the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) and the Fuzzy Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (FTOPSIS). The purpose of this hybrid approach is to systematically evaluate Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM) performance while addressing uncertainty, subjective judgment, and incomplete information commonly encountered in sustainability assessments. The structure of proposed framework is organized into four key stages, each contributing to a systematic and reliable assessment process illustrated in Figure 1. The first stage of the framework focuses on identifying the criteria essential for evaluating Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM). This involves a thorough review of existing literature, sustainability reporting standards, and consultations with domain experts. The purpose of this step is to ensure that the selected criteria comprehensively represent all critical dimensions of GSCM, including green procurement, energy use, waste management, environmental performance, supplier collaboration, and regulatory compliance. By establishing a well-structured set of criteria, the assessment gains both relevance and analytical depth.

In the second stage, the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) is applied to determine the relative importance of each criterion. Because expert opinions often involve uncertainty and subjective interpretation, FAHP is used to capture this ambiguity through fuzzy numbers. Experts compare criteria in pairwise matrices, which are then transformed into triangular fuzzy values. These are processed to derive fuzzy weights that reflect expert judgment while maintaining mathematical consistency. Finally, the fuzzy weights are defuzzified to obtain crisp priority values for each criterion, forming a robust foundation for subsequent evaluations.

The third stage employs the Fuzzy Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (FTOPSIS) to rank the alternatives or performance levels associated with GSCM practices. Using the weighted criteria obtained from FAHP, FTOPSIS constructs a fuzzy decision matrix representing the performance of each alternative. It then normalizes and weights the matrix, calculating the distance of each alternative from both the ideal best and ideal worst solutions. The closeness coefficient is computed for each option, enabling an objective ranking based on how closely each alternative approaches the optimal sustainability performance.

The final stage integrates the results from FAHP and FTOPSIS to generate a complete evaluation and ranking of the alternatives. This integrated approach minimizes the limitations of using either method alone by combining FAHP’s strength in handling imprecise judgments with FTOPSIS’s ability to provide a clear, quantitative ranking. The result is a transparent and reliable decision-making framework that supports organizations in selecting the most effective GSCM practices and strategies for improving environmental performance.

The domain of green supply chain management has developed extensively over the past two decades and has revealed complex relations between ecological practices and other aspects of a business’s performance. The first literature review papers exploring the role of environmental factors in making an investment in applying electricity have initially supported a relation between ecological factors and a decrease in industrial output. However, subsequent papers have increasingly revealed that a beneficial relation between a business’s performance and ecological conduct actually exists and that there is not a presumption that an investment in a sustainable environment is associated with financial costs. The proposed structure and evidence from various literature review papers have supported a positive market share and cost savings effect of ecological practices regarding a reduction in costs. The contemporary literature has provided a review of a summary regarding dynamics in supply chain activity that have focused on improvements in efficiency through ecological and sustainable practices concerned with a shift in strategies ranging from a largely palliative end-of-pipe strategy (Memon et al., 2025), to preventive approaches to a sustainable environment.

The trends and factors that have worked for adopting GSCM have been examined thoroughly, and there have been some noticeable different patterns in different contexts. There has been an observation that SMEs and regional companies have easily adopted sustainable environmental approaches in their organization contexts because of their malleable organization context and easier and closer stakeholder linkages. On the other hand, large multinationals have better resources and technological capabilities to build large-scale programs for commitment to GSCM. There have been some observations that connecting with suppliers has helped in adopting and creating innovative and sustainable environmental approaches in the sector. Incorporating other stakeholders like customers and employees in collaborative ventures has helped in better climate change performances. The joint efforts of different partners in the supply chain in Research and Development have been noted to be especially fruitful in innovative environmental performances. The push from stakeholders like government bodies, investors, clients, and NGOs has come to the fore as a prominent factor for adoptability in GSCM initiatives in different sectors. The visibility in their sectors has motivated large companies to work for more environmental objectives (Akram et al., 2024).

The economic dimensions of the execution of GSCM remain a matter of continued debate and study in academic circles. Whether there is a positive and negative impact of GSCM on economic performance is still a matter to be determined as the actual impact has not yet been accurately ascertained through a simple evaluation based solely on individual parameters ranging from productivity to sales in a similar term. The impact of more effective environmental management practices can often come up with additional costs in the earlier term due to different kinds of spending related to more advanced technology, training, and monitoring and compliance infrastructure for more environment-centric strategies, but is soon likely to yield better market share and brand equity value as well as stakeholder ties and reduced costs as a consequence of minimized waste and better utilization. The key point in this regard is that this impact occurs in a different term where costs are generally incurred in the earlier term and are not simply available in a direct financial evaluation that operates in a similar term. Meta-analyses developed over different empirical patterns have often had mixed variations depending on individual parameters like industry and geography.

The literature has realized that environmental management can be conceptualized as a fundamentally innovative and more efficient institutional design. There is evidence that an eco-efficient management approach is not only capable of reducing costs in a business organization but is also capable of bettering its functionally efficient performances through a variety of approaches that include waste reduction and conservation of energy (Aslam, 2023). There is a clear linkage between achieving environmental goals and employee participation in environmental management. There is evidence that cost returns will provide a positive effect if the concerned consumer preferences are in favor of more focused and demanding strategies in relation to environment-friendly business goods and services. Secondly, cost can lower down if concrete attention is rendered to related environmental aspects that are recognized as sources for generating costs incurred in relation to legal liability. Environmentally focused strategies have demonstrated a capability to initiate innovative approaches in relation to a product and a process that can offer a first-mover advantage to a business organization. There is evidence that a positive linkage between community involvement and business performances as well as value addition to society has been observed in various literature. There is scope for shared value addition through GSCM.

But still, there is a meager number of inclusive and extensive empirical studies that have specifically targeted practices associated with GSCM and its related dimensions. The critical factors that have emerged in studies associated with this theme are as follows: (i) how different practices of green supply chain management affect the environment and efficiency in different operational contexts for enterprises, (ii) different environmental management practices that are more successful and capable of elevating ecologically efficient performance for companies, (iii) how different practices associated with GSCM are complementary and cumulatively develop one over each other in a cumulative fashion for achieving success, and (iv) different capabilities and factors associated with organizations that mediate for making a difference in relation to successful performance gains as a consequence of adopting a strategy for GSCM. Different researchers and frameworks have emerged to locate connections between different practices associated with GSCM related to aspects of environmental management and cooperation between clients and producers for different aspects of environment. There is a substantial consensus in different literature and frameworks associated with this theme that ecologically different practices are a critical key factor that has to accomplish a greater level of success for different enterprises within a resource-proxied and concerned market.

Various dimensions for measuring GSCM have been established in previous studies that encompass a wide set of green supply chain practices. The dimensions cover upstream aspects, including supplier environmental evaluation and collaboration; in-plant aspects like green fabrication and environmental management systems; and downstream aspects like green logistics and marketing. It has been noticed that GSCM can yield a host of benefits that vary from direct cost reduction through reduced material usage and waste disposal costs to enhanced stakeholder participation and eventually enhanced market share for sustainable consumer segments. The need to incorporate sustainability in all dimensions has increasingly made environmental factors and concerns central to strategic formulation and planning. Green marketing campaigns and sustainable packaging are some marketing-focused initiatives that can improve supply chain performance in relation to environmental factors while positively impacting brands. In a bid to address packaging material concerns and consequently packaging-generated waste in different nations worldwide, initiatives and programs for extending producer responsibility have emerged to ensure minimized packaging waste through design requirements and material limitations and recycling. Research has suggested that more sophisticated recyclable packaging and advanced merchandise designs can lower material demands and even lower turnaround time to make final goods more cost-efficient in long-term life cycles.

The idea of eco-efficient manufacturing covers many interrelated principles and practices ranging from material and resource choices in earlier phases of a supply chain to the application of CLP (Dharejo et al., 2021), techniques to reduce solid and liquid waste output to the end use of ecologically sustainable logistics practices in transportation routing and routing methodologies as well as the use of different transportation fuels and consolidated shipments. Certain practices of GSCM that have generated much interest are sustainable procurement policies that favor vendors adopting qualified EMSs, life cycle approaches for estimating ecological impact in product development and design for environment strategies to enable product recyclability and disassembling. Closed-loop supply chain approaches that manage used-to-product goods for generating additional revenues are also one of those practices. The role of return on investment is well acknowledged in a more distinctive and clear fashion as a critical component in implementing a successful GSCM within organizations that demand frameworks to address not only financial but even unquantified factors like corporates’ reputation enhancement and risk management. Current literature has in recent times moved to TBL frameworks that estimate economic and social as well as ecological performances (Zeeshan, 2025).

The approaches in methods used in GSCM studies have shifted and advanced from a dominance of qualitative case studies and conceptual papers to more complex quantitative methods and techniques like structural equation modeling for testing theory-based hypothesized relations and links between variables, data envelopment analysis for evaluating efficiency, and different multi-criteria approaches for making decisions and evaluating suppliers and priorities in practices related to GSCM. However, there are still some critical knowledge and information gaps that need to be filled in more related and current works and studies in this field of interest and endeavor. The integration of new and emergent technologies like blockchain for transparency in supply chain management, Internet of Things for monitoring and studying environmental factors and aspects through different kinds of environmental sensors and devices, and big data for performance analysis and evaluation in different aspects represents a new and emerging and important area that is gradually attracting and commanding substantial attention in more current and related studies in this field (Shahzad, 2025).

In this study, data for the four observed companies were obtained directly from publicly accessible and verified sources such as sustainability reports, annual environmental disclosures, corporate responsibility documents, and official performance dashboards published by each organization. These sources provide audited information on carbon emissions, water efficiency, waste management, packaging performance, energy use, and overall environmental progress. For each company, only reported and verifiable metrics were used to ensure transparency and avoid subjective interpretation. The data collection process focused on extracting (i) environmental performance indicators, (ii) supply-chain-related sustainability initiatives, and (iii) year-to-year progress toward declared environmental goals presented through Figure 2.

The first stage of the framework focuses on identifying the criteria essential for evaluating Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM). This involves a thorough review of existing literature, sustainability reporting standards, and consultations with domain experts. The purpose of this step is to ensure that the selected criteria comprehensively represent all critical dimensions of GSCM, including green procurement, energy use, waste management, environmental performance, supplier collaboration, and regulatory compliance. By establishing a well-structured set of criteria, the assessment gains both relevance and analytical depth. This stage ensures comprehensive and relevant evaluation criteria, forming a strong conceptual foundation for GSCM assessment.

In the second stage, the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) is applied to determine the relative importance of each criterion. Because expert opinions often involve uncertainty and subjective interpretation, FAHP is used to capture this ambiguity through fuzzy numbers. Experts compare criteria in pairwise matrices, which are then transformed into triangular fuzzy values. These are processed to derive fuzzy weights that reflect expert judgment while maintaining mathematical consistency. Finally, the fuzzy weights are defuzzified to obtain crisp priority values for each criterion, forming a robust foundation for subsequent evaluations. This stage quantifies expert judgments under uncertainty, producing reliable and consistent weights for decision-making.

The third stage employs the Fuzzy Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (FTOPSIS) to rank the alternatives or performance levels associated with GSCM practices. Using the weighted criteria obtained from FAHP, FTOPSIS constructs a fuzzy decision matrix representing the performance of each alternative. It then normalizes and weights the matrix, calculating the distance of each alternative from both the ideal best and ideal worst solutions. The closeness coefficient is computed for each option, enabling an objective ranking based on how closely each alternative approaches the optimal sustainability performance. This stage enables objective comparison and ranking of alternatives based on proximity to optimal sustainability performance.

The final stage integrates the results from FAHP and FTOPSIS to generate a complete evaluation and ranking of the alternatives. This integrated approach minimizes the limitations of using either method alone by combining FAHP’s strength in handling imprecise judgments with FTOPSIS’s ability to provide a clear, quantitative ranking. The result is a transparent and reliable decision-making framework that supports organizations in selecting the most effective GSCM practices and strategies for improving environmental performance. This stage delivers a robust, transparent framework supporting informed selection of effective GSCM strategies.

When one looks at how four top companies handle GSCM, should start to see just how many ways there are to tackle the same goal. Each of these organizations comes from a different corner of the business world chemical manufacturing, financial services, consumer goods, and professional services. They are all leaders in their fields, and they have actually put their environmental data out there for everyone to see. That openness, plus how thoroughly they have rolled out GSCM, makes them stand out. The companies were not picked at random. They hit a bunch of marks: they lead their markets, they share solid data, their GSCM efforts run deep, they come from different places around the world, and what they do could actually work elsewhere. This makes their stories useful, not just for themselves, but for anyone trying to pick up good habits (Kausar, 2024). This analysis gets into the details what GSCM practices they actually use, what kind of progress they have made in environmental performance, how they have managed to work new systems into their old routines, and the headaches they have hit along the way. These companies set the tone. The hope is, their successes (and mistakes) can be roadmaps for smaller businesses, competitors, and even policymakers who want better supply chain management and care about the environment. The comparative evaluation of the proposed framework is presented through Tables 1, 2 highlight the key environmental performance statistics.

The findings confirm the growing importance of Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM) as a strategic mechanism for improving environmental performance. However, beyond the demonstrated benefits, the results also reveal several practical and structural challenges that complicate the effective implementation of GSCM practices. While environmental improvements are evident, their realization often requires substantial organizational commitment, financial investment, and coordination across multiple supply chain actors. These requirements may limit the pace and depth of GSCM adoption, particularly in complex or globally dispersed supply chains.

A critical challenge identified relates to the trade-off between environmental performance and implementation costs. Although GSCM initiatives contribute to waste reduction, energy efficiency, and regulatory compliance, they frequently involve high initial costs associated with technology adoption, supplier audits, employee training, and process redesign. This finding aligns with prior studies that report cost-related barriers as a major constraint in sustainability-oriented supply chain transformations. Consequently, organizations must balance short-term financial pressures against long-term environmental and operational benefits, which may not be immediately measurable.

When compared with existing literature, the study’s findings both reinforce and extend earlier research. Consistent with prior empirical studies, the results demonstrate that structured evaluation frameworks and decision-support tools enhance the effectiveness of green supplier selection and sustainability assessment. However, unlike studies conducted in single-industry or region-specific contexts, this research highlights how regulatory intensity, market expectations, and supply chain maturity influence GSCM outcomes differently across organizational settings. These contextual variations suggest that GSCM effectiveness cannot be generalized uniformly and must be interpreted within specific industrial and institutional environments.

Another important consideration emerging from this study is stakeholder heterogeneity within supply chains. Differences in environmental awareness, technical capability, and financial capacity among suppliers can constrain the uniform implementation of green practices. This complexity underscores a limitation of centralized sustainability strategies, as their success depends heavily on supplier readiness and collaboration. Without adequate alignment mechanisms, such as incentives or capacity-building programs, the intended environmental benefits of GSCM may be unevenly realized.

Focusing specifically on environmental mechanisms, Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM) directly reduces carbon emissions and increases water use efficiency through targeted operational and collaborative interventions. Carbon emissions are mitigated by optimizing logistics networks to minimize transportation distances, transitioning to low-carbon energy sources in manufacturing and warehousing, and selecting suppliers based on their carbon footprint. Furthermore, GSCM promotes circular economy practices like remanufacturing and recycling, which reduce the energy-intensive extraction and processing of virgin materials. Water efficiency is enhanced by implementing water auditing across the supply chain, adopting closed-loop water systems in production processes, and collaborating with suppliers to reduce water pollution and consumption in raw material cultivation or component manufacturing. These improvements are realized because GSCM provides a structured framework for measuring resource flows, setting joint environmental targets with partners, and investing in technologies that decouple operational output from resource input, thereby embedding conservation at a systemic level rather than through isolated initiatives.

The applicability of these findings to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) requires careful consideration. Unlike large organizations, SMEs often face significant resource constraints that limit their ability to adopt comprehensive GSCM frameworks. While practices such as green procurement policies and basic environmental monitoring may be transferable, advanced evaluation methods and extensive supplier audits may be impractical for SMEs (Choi, 2025) without external support. Therefore, scalability and adaptability are essential for translating GSCM success from large firms to smaller organizations. Incremental adoption, collaborative initiatives, and policy-driven incentives may offer feasible pathways for SMEs to engage in sustainable supply chain practices.

For industry practitioners, adopting Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM) practically should begin with a phased approach: conduct a baseline sustainability audit, prioritize quick-win projects like packaging optimization, and integrate environmental criteria into supplier contracts. Key steps include developing collaborative partnerships for innovation and investing in data-tracking technologies. However, implementation faces significant challenges, including poor data quality from suppliers, high upfront costs (Ashraf, 2026) that strain short-term budgets, and the difficulty of aligning diverse partners with varying capabilities and commitment levels. Success requires strong leadership, clear communication of long-term benefits, and proactive support for suppliers through incentives and capacity-building to overcome these barriers and ensure consistent adoption.

The credibility of finding is strengthened by a frank acknowledgment of the study’s limitations, such as its constrained sample size and the potential for data bias in self-reported measures. Recognizing these constraints provides necessary context for the findings, clarifies the boundaries of their applicability, and strengthens the research’s overall credibility through transparency. This candor also establishes a clear pathway for future work to address these methodological gaps.

Emphasizing collaboration with suppliers and other stakeholders is a cornerstone of effective Green Supply Chain Management, as environmental impact is a shared responsibility across the entire value network. This goes beyond setting compliance requirements to fostering active partnerships where goals, data, and innovations are co-developed. Successful collaboration involves integrating key suppliers into sustainability planning, conducting joint audits and capacity-building programs, and creating transparent channels for sharing best practices and performance data. Such an approach helps overcome fragmented implementation, aligns incentives, and leverages collective expertise to solve complex challenges like material traceability or circular design, ultimately leading to more resilient, innovative, and genuinely sustainable supply chains.

Overall, this study contributes to the GSCM literature by moving beyond performance reporting to critically examine implementation challenges, trade-offs, and contextual limitations. The findings emphasize the need for flexible, resource-sensitive frameworks that acknowledge organizational diversity while supporting informed sustainability decision-making. Future research should further explore longitudinal impacts, cross-industry comparisons, and simplified decision-support tools tailored to resource-constrained environments.

The study examined GSCM implementation across four industry-leading organizations from diverse sectors. The findings demonstrate that comprehensive GSCM frameworks enable companies to simultaneously address environmental challenges while enhancing operational efficiency and competitive advantage. Carbon emission reduction emerged as the most significant challenge, yet organizations fully committed to GSCM achieved substantial benefits including cost reductions, new revenue streams, enhanced reputation, and improved risk management. The research reveals that GSCM success depends on contextual factors such as regulatory intensity, stakeholder collaboration, and resource availability. While large organizations showed measurable environmental improvements, implementation barriers particularly high initial costs and supplier alignment remain critical concerns. As environmental pressures intensify, integrating sustainability throughout supply chains will increasingly differentiate market leaders.