Supply Chain Performance Measurement Methodology for COVID-19 Disruption Recovery- Natural Gas Retailing in India
Asim Prasad,
Research Scholar,
Amity Business School
Amity University, Amity Road, Noida
Anita Kumar,
Director,
CII School of Logistics
Amity University, Amity Road, Noida
Abstract
The coronavirus(COVID-19)pandemic disruption adversely impacted the Supply Chain for Natural Gas(NG) retailing, jeopardizing committed targets for thesocio-economic transition toa gas-based economyleading to inclusive growth in India. Furthermore, Omicron’srapid spread is a cause of global concern. This research aims to develop a conceptual Supply Chain Performance (SCP) measurement methodology for reducing recovery time post exogenous disruption. Exploratory research involving an integrative literature review identifies different approaches, frameworks, models, and techniques for Supply Chain PerformanceMeasurement(SCPM). Analysis reveals that the application of DMAIC improves the reliability of Supply Chain Management (SCM) functional processes during disruption recovery while synthesizing the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) with Triple Bottom Line(TBL) accounting approach provides a rigorous robust method to represents financial, social, and environmental performance goals. Accordingly, findings present a methodology with nine systematic steps to evaluate performance by City Gas Distribution(CGD)entities to accelerate NG retail consumption andspeed up network expansion to meetthe growing clean energy demand of the urban populace. Additionally, anIndian model for transition to a gas-based economy is also presentedto distinguish competing goals to harmonize growth with environmental sustainability and ecological modernization. Though SCP is a mature concept, the literature on its methodology during disruption recovery for NG retailing is scanty. Hence, the proposed action-oriented SCPM methodology has practical implicationsfor improving SCP,contributing uniquely to the retail SCM domain for NG. Its application will instigate industry practitioners to review Supply Chain Management (SCM) processes and strategies to improve service effectiveness and delivery efficiency.
Keywords: Balanced Score Card, City Gas Distribution, COVID-19, DMAIC, Ecological Modernization, Natural Gas, Supply Chain Performance, Sustainability, Triple Bottom Line
Introduction
Supply Chain Performance Measurement (SCPM) has maturedover the years (Lin & Li, 2010). It gained prominence among practitioners and contemporary researchers (Guersola et al., 2018; Jagan Mohan Reddy et al., 2019; D. Mishra et al., 2018; Shekarian & Mellat Parast, 2020)for its ability to accurately determine the efficiency and effectiveness of Supply Chains (SC's) in delivering products, services at the right price, quality, and time in a competitive market environment to meet consumer requirementsto the greatest extent economically(Neely et al., 1995). However, the Supply Chain Performance (SCP) has been impacted by rising exogenous disruptions (Dubey et al., 2019; Masys et al., 2014; Queiroz et al., 2020), making the usual business vulnerable (Christopher & Peck, 2004; Gallopín, 2006). The two waves of Low-Frequency High Impact (LFHI), COVID-19 pandemics(Ivanov & Das, 2020; Queiroz et al., 2020; WHO, 2022b)that struck the world successivelyin2020, 2021 have had a detrimental global impact on the lifestyle, public health, business, SC’s, economy(IMF, 2021), energy systems causing uncertainties. This retarded GDP,inflicted compulsions beyond imagination, forcednew practices, home isolation, work from home,online education, reinvented strategies to manage Supply Chain Disruption (SCD) innovatively (Accenture, 2020). As the global business was limping back to revival, the current "variant of concern" Omicron (WHO, 2022a) rapid spread threatens global recovery (IMF, 2022).Hence efficient operations of SCs is essentialfor disruption recovery by implementing new SCM strategies(Pettit et al., 2019), adapting digital SC models (Deloitte Global, 2020), crisis risk management (Culp, 2021), building sustainability (Rajak et al., 2021) etc., with available resources suiting environmental conditions to reduce recovery time(Barroso et al., 2012). Restoring SCP is essential to maneuverthe SCM operations along the efficiency frontier curve (Shah Janat, 2019). Hence, a tailored SCPM methodology is paramount to portray a realistic picture during disruption recovery.
Past research classifies SCPM(Arzu Akyuz & Erman Erkan, 2010; Balfaqih et al., 2016; Gill, 2015; Gopal & Thakkar, 2012; Angappa Gunasekaran & Kobu, 2007; Jagan Mohan Reddy et al., 2019; Maestrini et al., 2017; D. Mishra et al., 2018; Najmi et al., 2013; Neely et al., 1995, 2005)intoan approach, framework, model, and techniques without emphasizing on the disruptive environment.Kennerley & Neely (2002) points out that the traditional measurement initiatives have been static. Different authors argue that businesses need to modify their SCPM to adapt to changing environments to remain relevant.Singh & Singh (2020), empirically concluded that SC operational performance improves with careful monitoring and implementation of the SCPM system. Past studies are silent regarding disruption as the cause of change in the external business environment, making the performance measurement ineffective and irrelevant (Meyer & V, 1994). Several authors argue that Performance Measurement System(PMS) must prioritize objectives as per changing environment, need to reflect changes, must be reviewed, revised at different levels, and suggest audit tools to identify the appropriateness of PMSs (Bititci et al., 2000; Bourne et al., 2000; Dixon et al., 1990; Wisner & Fawcett, 1991).However, SCPM solutions in practice only measure past performance, ignoring instantaneous or current performance.They are not suitable to provide an early warning with the onset of disruption risk. Therefore, an innovative SCPM methodology to support the hierarchical decision-making processes is required to trigger the top management to implement real-time strategies to restore SCP quickly during disruption.
As evidenced by the compilation in Table 1, research on COVID-19 impact is conducted in various Indian sectors. However, research in the Indian Natural Gas Sector, with a planned investment of USD 60 billion (MOPNG, 2021)to develop SC infrastructure for affordable clean energy access, is lacking.
Table-1 Studies on COVID-19 impact in the various Indian context
|
Author |
Findings |
|
A. Sharma, (2020) |
impact and trend prediction in India |
|
Bhatt, (2020) |
impact of COVID-19 in India |
|
Garg, (2020) |
challenges faced by the Indian economy in sectors like tourism, entertainment/events/sports, tourism/hospitality, automobile industry, banking sector, MSME |
|
Maheshwari & Goyal, (2020) |
recovery strategies for the Indian aviation sector |
|
Saveeta, (2020) |
impact on key sectors like travel and tourism,agriculture, manufacturing |
|
Joshi, (2021) |
change in consumer buying behavior due to pandemic |
|
S. Sharma et al., (2021) |
the impact of COVID-19 on rapid urbanization |
|
Soni, (2021) |
the environmental perspective of COVID-19 in India |
Source: Authors Compilation
NG is the fastest growing (Dara et al., 2020), hydrogen-rich (Economides & Wood, 2009), environment-friendly, clean fossil fuel(Kadam & Kar, 2019), a transition fuel, and global choice (Demirbas, 2006). Its share in the global primary energy mix is 24.2 %, whilethe share in India is only 6.7%(BP, 2021). Owning to its inherent benefits, national energy policy objectives of inclusive growth(NITI Aayog, 2017), and commitments made for arresting climate change in COP 21 Paris agreement, the Government of India(GOI), has set the target to increase the NG share in the primary energy mix from 6 % to 15 % by 2030 (MOPNG, 2020), with the dual objective to achieve economic growth and manage environmental concerns for ecological modernization (EM). The CGD is the most promising Indiansector, having a 22% share of total consumption, with an average daily consumption of 36.1 MMSCMD(PPAC, 2021b).This sector caters to the gas requirement of 85,05,907households, 33,709 commercial customers, 12,876 industrial customers,and 3,628 CNG stations(PPAC, 2021c). While the NG consumption in this sector has grown globally, the market in India is fast growing. The growth isdue to the recent authorization of 136 new Geographic Areas (GA) by PNGRB to establish the CGD network covering 41.74 % land area, 50.61 % population with the target to provide 423 lakh new PNG household connections, establish 8181 CNG stations and lay 1.74 lakh Inch-Km of steel pipeline (PNGRB, 2020). So the retail sectorcontribution is vital to achieving the GOI targets underpinning the commitments to provide affordable and clean energy access to its citizens for sustainable socio-economic development.However, the SC for NG retailing in India was the worst affected by the pandemic (PNGRB, 2020)due to demand volatility, hurdles in achieving predefined targets to provide new household connections, and establishing CNG stations.The literature provides names of different sectors for which the SCP with business as usual was studied (Balfaqih et al., 2016), except NG retailing.Considering the importance of NG for countries' socio-economic development and the absence of PMS for its retailing amid disruption recovery, the SC for the NG retail sector is the focus of this research.
Literature Review
The researcher conducted an analytical concept-centric,integrative literature review focusingon multidisciplinary concepts related to SCD, SCPM, DMAIC,EM theory, and sustainabilityto build a more profound knowledge to solve real-life problems for disruption recovery, socio-economic development, and environmental protection through synthesis.
Supply Chain Disruption in NG Retailing
COVID-19 adversely impacted SC’sglobally(Majumdar et al., 2020), causing a long-term crisis(Ivanov & Das, 2020). The SC for NG retailing in India is no exception.This SC is the Local Distribution Network (LDN) of interconnected underground pipelines, referred to as the City Gas Distribution (CGD) network(PNGRB, 2018). Itdelivers Piped NG (PNG) to domestic, industrial, commercial segment retail customers having daily NG requirementsup to 50,000 SCM and Compressed NG (CNG) to the transport segmentused as auto-fuel. The SCP and ratings of CGD companies gotadversely impacted(India, 2020), affecting working capital, procurement, gas sourcing, CNG operations(PNGRB, 2020). Material and labor shortage caused the construction activities for establishing the SC network for NG retailing to a standstill (Abdi, 2020). The retail segment experienced demand volatility during the nationwide lockdown, with a 58.29 % reduction in NG consumption in April 2020 (PNGRB, 2020). Upon easing restrictions with phase-wise upliftment of lockdown, the retail SC took eleven months to achieve pre-lockdown NG consumption levels. Therefore, a realistic SCPM during the post-disruption recovery period is vitalfor ensuring transition to a gas-based economy.
Supply Chain Performance Measurement Classification
SCP is a multi-perspective, multilevel concept (Gill, 2015) with quality, time, flexibility, cost(Neely et al., 1995)forming the basis for defining indicators to measure its performanceclassified as a model, approach, framework, and techniques (Jagan Mohan Reddy et al., 2019). The Balanced Score Card (BSC) (Kaplan & Norton, 1992) is an approach (Tiwari & Panicker, 2017)that measures both business and SCP (Brewer & Speh, 2000), integrating the customer, internal business, innovation, and learning, and financial perspective without focusing on the nature of the external environment and aspects related to environmental or social dimensions of sustainability. However, the approach enhances SC operations' response time, efficiency, and effectiveness (Bhagwat & Sharma, 2007). Another model, based on SC processes,an industry-standard, is the Supply Chain Operations Reference Model(SCOR) model (APICS, 2017), framed by the Supply Chain Council, having ten performance metrics within customer-facing and internal-facing measures.This model ignores exogenous factors that impact performance. The models are static (Persson & Araldi, 2009), reflect historical performance, and are silent regarding current performance. So far, none of these models applied to SC for NG retailing.
SCPM approach (Najmi et al., 2013)classified under perspective, process, and hierarchy,involves actions required to achieve performance. The BSC and SCOR models are perspective-based. The process-based approach emphasizes the SC process (Chan & Qi, 2003; A. Gunasekaran et al., 2001)to measure its performance during the operations stage to fulfill customer requirements in a responsive, effective and efficient manner without referringto the external environment. Resources, output, flexibility are the different measures in this approach (Beamon, 1999). Impactful financial and nonfinancial measures aligned to the SCM basic strategic, tactical, and operational processes are vital (A. Gunasekaran et al., 2001) to categorize strategic performance metrics at three hierarchy levels (A. Gunasekaran et al., 2004). Yeh et al., (2007) argued employing the six sigma technique with DMAIC; however, the approach does not consider the decision-making levels. The hierarchy-based approach first proposed by Askariazad & Wanous, (2009) using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), is a value model that concurrently evaluates the SCP at strategic, tactical, and operational levels to prioritize critical performance measures in SC’s. The process-based approach has been applied to measure SCP in isolation and not in combination without emphasizing exogenous environmental factors for performance measurement.
SCPM frameworks have been proposed as conceptual structure, set of ideas, skeleton structure without reference to the exogenous disruption. Several authors (Beamon, 1998; Melnyk et al., 2014; Neely et al., 1996; Shah & Singh, 2001) have extensively worked to enhance the scope of the framework connecting different SCM domains like SC strategy, SC operations,the relationship between the PMS and the environment to answer questions like what to measure, how to measure, data collection, and elimination of conflict in the measurement system.
Techniques (Coulin & Zowghi, 2005) provides tools to measure SCPM. The different techniques applied for SCPM are AHP, Data Envelopment Analysis(DEA), Delphi, Heuristic, Hybrid, Simulation (Najmi et al., 2013), Delphi/ Survey (Balfaqih et al., 2016), and Fuzzy set approach (Chan & Qi, 2003). However, the techniques are silent regarding SCPM under disruption. Gill, (2015), in their meta-analysis, suggests developing models and design strategies to manage change in the business environment without empathizing with the cause of change.
Thus, the literaturelacks evidence on the conceptual methodology to measure SCPM under disruption recovery, which the current research will fill.
Define–Measure–Analyse– Improve-Control(DMAIC) Cyclic Process
DMAIC (Yeh et al., 2007)is a five-stepsix sigma cyclic process applied standalone or in combination to compare the SCP (Dasgupta, 2003; P. Mishra & Sharma, 2014) by improving the process through standardization and root cause analysis of variation. Its repeated application discovers the best practice to move closer to a perfect process eliminating waste manifesting lean. Therefore, integrating DMAIC with the SCM process in the post-disruption uncertain environment will improve performance outcomes for sustainability through enhancing NG consumption.
Sustainability and Ecological Modernization
Sustainability (Keeble, 1988)having three pillars (Birla, 2021; Rai, 2015)is a multidimensional concept viewed from the economic, environmental, and social lens under the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) accounting approach (Liu et al., 2017) to quantify performance. Integrating its environmental dimension with SCM leads to a green SCM (Sarkis, 2012). The retail SC for NG is one such green SC with a low carbon footprint that provides its doorstep delivery to minimize the adverse environmental impact caused by excessive consumption of polluting fossil fuels like coal and oil while providing affordable access to NG, thereby meeting the social need for clean energy. The intervention relating to GA authorization to establish SC networks for NG retailing is also viewed through an EM theoretical lens (Glynn et al., 2017)to achieve the environmental goals set by the Government of India under the 2015 Paris Agreement for Climate Change while advancing economic growth under the SDGs.
Theoretical Model
Figure 1 illustrates the theoretical SCPM model as an outcome of the aboveliterature review.
Figure 1 Theoretical Model
Research Objective
Sustainability and EM via NG are at the top of the GOI's agenda. While access to NG is critical for rapid urbanization and sustainable socio-economic development for human well-being, the SC for the NG retail sector was the most severely affected by the pandemic disruption deaccelerating growth and development. Literature review reveals that previous studies have been silent on SCPM for NG retailing in a disruptive environment and that evidence on the integration of the three classified SCP approaches is also lacking. Therefore, the current research in the context of SCM for NG retailing during disruption recovery aims to:
Research Design
The researcher used an exploratory methodology to synthesize multidisciplinary concepts from the literature.The research methodology is in Figure2
Figure 2 Research Methodology
SC for NG Retailing
The SC for NG retailing is a low carbon SC that serves a dual purpose of material and service flowswith the following primary functions-
The CGD entityis responsible for building, owning, and operating the SC network. The SCM processes are:
The hierarchical decision-making levels in the retail SC involves the following:
The SC process with hierarchy decision level for evaluating SCP is shown in Figure3
Figure 3Retail SC process with hierarchy decision levels
Source: Authors Analysis
Results and Analysis
SCPM methodology for NG Retailing during disruption recovery
Coronavirus created uncertainty, making it difficult to conduct business as usual, requiring rethink decision-making to realign SCM processes suiting changes in exogenous environment and strategies at different levels. As a result, the SCPM methodology applies DMAIC to improve the reliability of the SCM process's outcome, thereby increasing the effectiveness of the strategies to reduce recovery time for uninterrupted operations and expansion of the SC network. This outcome requires management to review current strategies and devise new strategies for restoring performance to pre-pandemic levels or higher for sustainability. DMAIC structures SC functional processes. It helps explore new solutions at the planning stage and implement control to ensure that performance measurement directs decision-makers to revisit strategic, tactical, and operational decisions for higher financial performance. The emergent problem caused by disruption is defined (D) with the degree of required improvement, its impact is quantified for measurement (M), and the root cause is analyzed (A) to improve (I) SCM processes with the appropriate solution to control (C) the severity of the disruptive event. Quantification is done by comparing pre-and post-disruptive performance parameters, denoted by P0 and Pd. Figure 4 illustrates theprocess.
Figure 4 SCPM mechanism
Source: Authors Analysis
As the BSC emphasizes enhancing future financial performance, elements that excel CGD entity's financial performance, create shareholders and customer value, improve business processes, and enableemployees learning and growth forexcellence in internal performance are applied after each cycle of DMAIC for real-time performance measurement. This approach allows the CGD entitiesto speed-up network expansion to reduce recovery time, increase retail customer base while managing environmental issues with increasing NG consumption, and replacehigher polluting fossil fuels with NG.The TBL accounting quantifies socio-economic and environmental performance. The stepwise SCPM methodology is-
TBL accounting and EM
PNG and CNG offer distinct advantages (Gas, 2022; IGL, 2021a). CNG replaces higher polluting fuels like petrol and diesel in the transport segment (Ravindra et al., 2006); versatile PNG replaces polluting furnace oil, pet coke, and costlier liquid fuels in the industrial and commercial segments (IGL, 2022).TBL accounting quantifies the positive impact ofthe retail SC, as evident from the recent annual reports of a few CGD companies (ATG, 2021; IGL, 2021b)
Figure 5 depicts the Indian model for sustainability and EM for transitioning to a gas-based economy to simultaneously achieve socio-economic development, affordable clean energy access, and environmental protection.
Figure 5Indian model for Sustainability and EM for transition to a gas-based economy
Source: Authors Analysis
Conclusions, Limitations, and Research Directions
The retail sector took eleven months to recover because the CGD entities were unprepared for unexpected coronavirus disruption. The proposed SCPM methodology is action-oriented,withnine systematic stepssignifying completion to reduce recovery time for sustainability advancing EM.Its repeated application will enhance process reliability, reducing waste to make the SC more responsive and efficient to maneuver along the efficiency frontier curve(Shah Janat, 2019). TheSCPM methodology with a future outlook is an innovative, unique contribution to the SCM domain for the NG retail sector since no such methodology exists. Applying DAMIC with the SCM process improves SCP while BSC (Gill, 2015) and TBL accounting (Birla, 2021) provide management with a robust tool to enhance financial, socio-economic, and environmental performance concurrently. The model combining the three sustainability dimensions with EM represents the situation topromote transdisciplinary collaboration among the decision-makers in government, commercial organizations, academicians, researchers, and society on accelerating NG transition to achieve committed targets under the SDGs. The methodology will assist the CGD entities under the 11th CGD bidding round (PNGRB, 2022a, 2022b)to proactively manage disruption from new variants like Omicron while planning infrastructure investment (PTI, 2022), advancing EM through NG, applying the model. This research on the NG retail sectordomain being one of its kind, the scope only covers a systematic presentation of ideas at the conceptual level involving SCPM, disruption recovery, DMAIC, BSC, Sustainability,and EA. Empirical research will validate the methodology and model for its meaningful application. The research can be advanced by developing SC strategy model for disruption recovery with key performance indicators and corresponding metrics.
References
Abdi, B. (2020). Covid 19 impact: CGD firms concerned over Force Majeure, demand destruction and labour shortage. ET Energy World. https://energy.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/oil-and-gas/covid-19-impact-cgd-firms-concerned-over-force-majeure-demand-destruction-and-labour-shortage/75493053
Accenture. (2020). Supply Chain Disruption & How to Respond. Accenture. https://www.accenture.com/in-en/insights/consulting/coronavirus-supply-chain-disruption
APICS. (2017). APICS Supply Chain Operations Reference Model SCOR Version 12.0.
Arzu Akyuz, G., & Erman Erkan, T. (2010). Supply chain performance measurement: A literature review. International Journal of Production Research, 48(17), 5137–5155. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540903089536
Askariazad, M., & Wanous, M. (2009). A proposed value model for prioritising supply chain performance measures. International Journal of Business Performance and Supply Chain Modelling, 1(2–3), 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBPSCM.2009.030637
ATG. (2021). Sustainability. Adani Total Gas. https://www.adanigas.com/sustainability
Balfaqih, H., Nopiah, Z. M., Saibani, N., & Al-Nory, M. T. (2016). Review of supply chain performance measurement systems: 1998–2015. Computers in Industry, 82, 135–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2016.07.002
Barroso, A. P., Machado, V. H., Carvalho, H., & Machado, V. C. (2012). Quantifying the Supply Chain Resilience. In IntechOpen (p. 13). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2011.12.014
Beamon, B. M. (1998). Supply chain design and analysis: Models and methods. International Journal of Production Economics, 55(3), 281–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(98)00079-6
Beamon, B. M. (1999). Measuring supply chain performance in SMES. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 19(3), 275–292. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812836069_0029
Bhagwat, R., & Sharma, M. K. (2007). Performance measurement of supply chain management: A balanced scorecard approach. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 53(1), 43–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2007.04.001
Bhatt, M. R. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 on Humanitarian Actions in India. All India Disaster Mitigation Institute, India, 190, 1–28. southasiadisasters.net
Birla, M. (2021). Integration of Three Pillars of Sustainability : A Key Phenomenon for Development and Well-Being. Pacific Business Review International, 13(7), 1–2.
Bititci, U. S., Turner, T., & Begemann, C. (2000). Dynamics of performance measurement systems. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 20(6), 692–704. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570010321676
Bourne, M., Mills, J., Wilcox, M., Neely, A., & Platts, K. (2000). Designing, implementing and updating performance measurement systems. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 20(7), 754–771. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570010330739
Brewer, P. C., & Speh, T. W. (2000). Using Balanced Scorecard to Measure Supply Chain Performance. Journal of Business Logistics, 21(1), 75–93.
Chan, F. T. S., & Qi, H. J. (2003). An innovative performance measurement method for supply chain management. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 8(3), 209–223. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598540310484618
Christopher, M., & Peck, H. (2004). Building Resilience in Supply Chain. International Journal of Logistics Management, 15(2), 1–13.
Coulin, C., & Zowghi, D. (2005). Requirements Elicitation: A Survey of Techniques, Approaches. Engineering and Managing Software Requirements, 19–46.
Culp, S. (2021). In a world of risk , pace comes from preparation. In Accenture 2021 Global Risk Management Study.
Dara, S., Abdulqader, H., Al, Y., & Berrouk, A. S. (2020). Countrywide optimization of natural gas supply chain : From wells to consumers. Energy, 196, 117125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117125
Dasgupta, T. (2003). Using the six-sigma metric to measure and improve the performance of a supply chain. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 14(3), 355–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478336032000046652
Deloitte Global. (2020). Managing Supply Chain Risk and Disruption: COVID-19. https://www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/risk/cyber-strategic-risk/articles/covid-19-managing-supply-chain-risk-and-disruption.html
Demirbas, A. (2006). The importance of natural gas as a World fuel. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning and Policy, 1(4), 413–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567240500402586
Dixon, J., Nanni, A., & Vollmann, T. (1990). New Performance Challenge: Measuring Operations for World-Class Competition. Dow Jones-Irwin, Homewood, IL. https://sci-hub.do/https://okknf.smcebi.edu.pl/0b3fniv0gggh/06-cary-walsh/book-9781556233012-new-performance-challenge-measuring-operations-f.pdf
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S. J., Fosso Wamba, S., Roubaud, D., & Foropon, C. (2019). Empirical investigation of data analytics capability and organizational flexibility as complements to supply chain resilience. International Journal of Production Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1582820
Economides, M. J., & Wood, D. A. (2009). The state of natural gas. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 1(1–2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2009.03.005
Gallopín, G. C. (2006). Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 293–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.004
Garg, B. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 on Indian Economy. International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology, 8(6), 172–175. https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2020.6025
Gas, T. (2022). Switch to PNG for convenient fuel operations, reducing carbon footprint and augmenting your fuel savings. https://think-gas.com/industrial-png
Gill, G. (2015). Supply Chain Performance: A Meta Analytical Approach and its Future Prospects. Pacific Business Review International, 8(3), 103–112. http://www.pbr.co.in/September2015/14.pdf
Glynn, P., Cadman, T., & Maraseni, T. (2017). Ecological modernization: theory and the policy process. Business, Organized Labour and Climate Policy, 1997, 22–46. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786430120.00009
Gopal, P. R. C., & Thakkar, J. (2012). A review on supply chain performance measures and metrics: 2000-2011. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 61(5), 518–547. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410401211232957
Guersola, M., De Lima, E. P., & Steiner, M. T. A. (2018). Supply chain performance measurement: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management, 31(1), 109–131. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLSM.2018.094193
Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C., & McGaughey, R. E. (2004). A framework for supply chain performance measurement. International Journal of Production Economics, 87(3), 333–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2003.08.003
Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C., & Tirtiroglu, E. (2001). Performance measures and metrics in a supply chain environment. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 21(1/2), 71–87.
Gunasekaran, Angappa, & Kobu, B. (2007). Performance measures and metrics in logistics and supply chain management: A review of recent literature (1995-2004) for research and applications. International Journal of Production Research, 45(12), 2819–2840. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540600806513
IGL. (2021a). Benefits of CNG. https://www.iglonline.net/english/Default.aspx?option=article&type=single&id=23&mnuid=210&prvtyp=site
IGL. (2021b). IGL Annual Report 2020-21.
IGL. (2022). Commercial & Industrial Usage Benefits. https://www.iglonline.net/english/Default.aspx?option=article&type=single&id=29&mnuid=153&prvtyp=site
IMF. (2021). World Economic Outlook: Recovery During a Pandemic - Health Concerns, Supply Disruptions, and Price Pressures. In World Economic Outlook (Issue May). https://iiep.gwu.edu/2021/10/26/imf-world-economic-outlook-recovery-during-a-pandemic-health-concerns-supply-disruptions-and-price-pressures/
IMF. (2022). World Economic Outlook Briefing Transcript. IMF. https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2022/01/25/tr01252022-world-economic-outlook-briefing
India, C. (2020). Impact of Covid-19 on the ratings of CGD companies and OMCs. CGD India.
Ishwaran, M., King, W., Haigh, M., Lee, T., & Nie, S. (2017). Environmental and Social Value of Natural Gas. In Advances in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production (pp. 101–111). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59734-8_4
Ivanov, D., & Das, A. (2020). Coronavirus ( COVID-19 / SARS-CoV-2 ) and supply chain resilience : a research note. International Journal of Integrated Supply Management, 13(1), 90–102.
Jagan Mohan Reddy, K., Neelakanteswara Rao, A., & Krishnanand, L. (2019). A review on supply chain performance measurement systems. Procedia Manufacturing, 30, 40–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2019.02.007
Joshi, C. S. (2021). Changing Paradigm of Consumer Behaviour amid Covid-19. Pacific Business Review International, 13(12), 98–108.
Kadam, S., & Kar, S. K. (2019). Energy security & sustainability: role of natural gas in Indian context. Pdpu Journal of Energy and Management, 3(2), 37–49.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The Balanced Scorecard - Measures That Drive Performance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71. https://doi.org/00178012
Keeble, B. R. (1988). The Brundtland Report: “Our Common Future.” In Medicine and War (Vol. 4, Issue 1). https://doi.org/10.1080/07488008808408783
Kennerley, M., & Neely, A. (2002). A framework of the factors affecting the evolution of performance measurement systems. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 22(11), 1222–1245. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570210450293
Lin, L. C., & Li, T. S. (2010). An integrated framework for supply chain performance measurement using six-sigma metrics. Software Quality Journal, 18(3), 387–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-010-9099-2
Liu, W., Bai, E., Liu, L., & Wei, W. (2017). A framework of sustainable service supply chain management: A literature review and research agenda. Sustainability (Switzerland), 9(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/su9030421
Maestrini, V., Luzzini, D., Maccarrone, P., & Caniato, F. (2017). Supply chain performance measurement systems: A systematic review and research agenda. International Journal of Production Economics, 183(August 2015), 299–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.11.005
Maheshwari, M., & Goyal, S. (2020). Post COVID Revival Strategies for Indian Aviation Sector: An Empirical Study. Pacific Business Review International, 13(5), 24–31.
Majumdar, A., Shaw, M., & Sinha, S. K. (2020). COVID-19 debunks the myth of socially sustainable supply chain: A case of the clothing industry in South Asian countries. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 24, 150–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.07.001
Masys, A. J., Ray-Bennett, N., Shiroshita, H., & Jackson, P. (2014). High Impact/Low Frequency Extreme Events: Enabling Reflection and Resilience in a Hyper-connected World. Procedia Economics and Finance, 18(September), 772–779. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2212-5671(14)01001-6
Melnyk, S. A., Narasimhan, R., & DeCampos, H. A. (2014). Supply chain design: Issues, challenges, frameworks and solutions. In International Journal of Production Research (Vol. 52, Issue 7, pp. 1887–1896). https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2013.787175
Meyer, M. V, & V, G. (1994). The Performance Paradox. Research in Organizational Behavior, 16.
Mishra, D., Gunasekaran, A., Papadopoulos, T., & Dubey, R. (2018). Supply chain performance measures and metrics: a bibliometric study. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 25(3), 932–967. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-08-2017-0224
Mishra, P., & Sharma, R. K. (2014). Benchmarking SCM performance and empirical analysis: A case from paint industry. Logistics Research, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12159-014-0113-0
MOPNG. (2020). Shri Dharmendra Pradhan addresses USISPF-3rd annual leadership summit; Invites US companies to partner in Aatmanirbhar Bharat campaign. PIB. https://pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetailm.aspx?PRID=1650770
MOPNG. (2021). $ 60 billion investment coming in gas infrastructure. The Economic Times.
Najmi, A., Gholamian, M. R., & Makui, A. (2013). Supply chain performance models: A literature review on approaches, techniques, and criteria. Journal of Operations and Supply Chain Management, 6(2), 94–113. https://doi.org/10.12660/joscmv6n2p94-113
Neely, A., Gregory, M., & Platts, K. (1995). Performance measurement system design-A literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 15(4), 80–116. https://doi.org/10.2118/26175-ms
Neely, A., Gregory, M., & Platts, K. (2005). Performance measurement system design-A literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 25(12), 1228–1263. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570510633639
Neely, A., Mills, J., Platts, K., Gregory, M., & Richards, H. (1996). Performance measurement system design: Should process based approaches be adopted? International Journal of Production Economics, 46–47, 423–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(96)00080-1
NITI Aayog. (2017). Draft National Energy Policy. In Niti Aayog.
Persson, F., & Araldi, M. (2009). The development of a dynamic supply chain analysis tool-Integration of SCOR and discrete event simulation. International Journal of Production Economics, 121(2), 574–583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.12.064
Pettit, T. J., Croxton, K. L., & Fiksel, J. (2019). The Evolution of Resilience in Supply Chain Management: A Retrospective on Ensuring Supply Chain Resilience. Journal of Business Logistics, 40(1), 56–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12202
PNGRB. (2018). PNGRB (Authorizing Entities to Lay, Build, Operate or Expand City or Local Natural Gas Distribution Networks) Amendment Regulations,2018. PNGRB.
PNGRB. (2020). PNGRB Annual Report 2019-2020. In PNGRB. https://www.pngrb.gov.in/pdf/annualreports/eng2019-2020.pdf
PNGRB. (2022a). Press Release- LOI 11th CGD Bidding Round. PNGRB.
PNGRB. (2022b, December). PNGRB to hold virtual Road Show in India for 11th City Gas Distribution (CGD) Bidding Round. PNGRB. https://pngrb.gov.in/pdf/cgd/bid11/PressRelease03122021.pdf
PPAC. (2021a). Gas Price Ceiling for October 2021 to March 2022. PPAC, MoPNG. https://www.ppac.gov.in/WriteReadData/CMS/202109300548276874010GasPriceCeilingfortheperiod01stOct2021to31stMarch2022.pdf
PPAC, M. (2021b, November). Monthly Report on Natural Gas Production, Availability and Consumption. PPAC, MoPNG. https://www.ppac.gov.in/WriteReadData/Reports/202112280149323656467MonthlyGasReport-November2021WebV.pdf
PPAC, M. (2021c, December). PPAC’s Snapshot of India’s Oil & Gas data. PPAC,MoPNG. https://www.ppac.gov.in/WriteReadData/Reports/202201220933119577745SnapshotofIndiasOilandGasdataDecember2021.pdf
PTI. (2022). Adani Group To Invest Rs 20,000 Crore In City Gas Over Next 8 Years. Outlook. https://www.outlookindia.com/business/adani-group-to-invest-rs-20-000-crore-in-city-gas-over-next-8-years-news-51461
Queiroz, M. M., Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A., & Fosso Wamba, S. (2020). Impacts of epidemic outbreaks on supply chains: mapping a research agenda amid the COVID-19 pandemic through a structured literature review. Annals of Operations Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-020-03685-7
Rai, A. (2015). Sustainability Reporting- A Recent Trend and Future Prospects in India. Pacific Business Review International, 7(8), 10.
Rajak, S., Mathiyazhagan, K., Agarwal, V., Sivakumar, K., Kumar, V., & Appolloni, A. (2021). Issues and analysis of critical success factors for the sustainable initiatives in the supply chain during COVID-19 pandemic outbreak in India: A case study. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2021.101114
Ravindra, K., Wauters, E., Tyagi, S. K., Mor, S., & Van Grieken, R. (2006). Assessment of air quality after the implementation of compressed natural gas (CNG) as fuel in public transport in Delhi, India. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 115(1–3), 405–417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-006-7051-5
Sarkis, J. (2012). A boundaries and flows perspective of green supply chain management. Supply Chain Management, 17(2), 202–216. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598541211212924
Saveeta, D. (2020). Covid 19: Impact on Major Sectors of Indian Economy. Pacific Business Review International, 13(6), 108–111. https://doi.org/10.35291/2454-9150.2020.0265
Shah, J., & Singh, N. (2001). Benchmarking internal supply chain performance: Development of a framework. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 37(4), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2001.tb00091.x
Shah Janat. (2019). Supply Chain Management: Text and Cases, 2/e Janat Shah - Pearson Education, India. Pearson. https://pearsoned.co.in/web/books/9789332548206_Supply-Chain-Management_Janat-Shah.aspx
Sharma, A. (2020). Analyse Impact and Prediction of Trend of Covid-19 in India. Pacific Business Review International, 13(5), 14–23.
Sharma, S., Sharma, S., & Koranne, S. (2021). Urbanization & Covid-19 Pandemic : Causes , Consequences & Future Challenges. Pacific Business Review International, 13(January).
Shekarian, M., & Mellat Parast, M. (2020). An Integrative approach to supply chain disruption risk and resilience management: a literature review. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 0(0), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2020.1763935
Singh, J., & Singh, S. (2020). Performance Indicators and their Role in Supply Chain Performance Measurement ( SCPM ) for Manufacturing & OEM Companies . Pacific Business Review International, 13(6), 53–58.
Soni, P. (2021). Effects of COVID-19 lockdown phases in India: an atmospheric perspective. In Environment, Development and Sustainability (Vol. 23, Issue 8, pp. 12044–12055). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-01156-4
Spaargaren, G. (2000). Ecological modernization theory and domestic consumption. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 2(4), 323–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/714038564
Tiwari, P., & Panicker, S. (2017). Sustainability Balanced Scorecard as a Framework for Performance Measurement in Facility Management - A Literature Review. Pacific Business Review International, 10(1), 121–127.
WHO. (2022a). Enhancing response to Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant : Technical brief and priority actions for Member States (Issue January).
WHO. (2022b). WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard. WHO. https://covid19.who.int/
Wisner, J., & Fawcett, S. (1991). Linking firm strategy to operating decisions through performance measurement. Production and Inventory Management Journal, Third Quarter, 5–11.
Yeh, D. Y., Cheng, C. H., & Chi, M. L. (2007). A modified two-tuple FLC model for evaluating the performance of SCM: By the Six Sigma DMAIC process. Applied Soft Computing Journal, 7(3), 1027–1034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2006.06.008
