Traditional food supply chains are often centralised and global in nature. Moreover they require a large amount of resource which is an issue in a time with increasing need for more sustainable food supply chains. A solution is to use localised food supply chains, an option theorised to be more sustainable, yet not proven. Therefore, this paper compares the two systems to investigate which one is more environmentally friendly, cost efficient and resilient to disruption risks. This comparison between the two types of supply chains, is performed using MILP models for an ice cream supply chain for the whole of England over the period of a year. The results obtained from the models show that the localised model performs best environmentally and economically, whilst the traditional, centralised supply chain performs best for resilience.
Traditional food supply chains are often centralised and global in nature, entailing substantial resource consumption. However, in the face of growing demand for sustainability, this strategy faces significant challenges. Adoption of localised supply chains is deemed a more sustainable option, yet its efficacy requires verification. Supply chain analytics methodologies provide invaluable tools to guide decisions regarding inventory management, demand forecasting and distribution optimisation. These solutions not only enhance facilitate operational efficiency, but also pave the way for cost reduction, further aligning with sustainability objectives. This research introduces a novel decision-making approach anchored in mixed integer linear programming (MILP) and neighbourhood flow models defined in cellular automata to compare the environmental benefits and vulnerability to disruption of these two chain configurations. Additionally, a comprehensive cost analysis is integrated to assess the economic feasibility of incorporating layout changes that enhance supply chain sustainability. The proposed framework is applied on an ice cream supply chain across England over a one-year timeframe. The findings indicate the superiority of the localised configuration in terms of economic benefits, leading to savings exceeding £ 1 million, alongside important reductions in environmental impact. However, in terms of resilience, the traditional configuration remains superior in three out of the four examined scenarios.