Supplier selection using fuzzy AHP and fuzzy multi-objective linear

programming for developing low carbon supply chain

Krishnendu Shaw
a,
, Ravi Shankar
a
, Surendra S. Yadav
a
, Lakshman S. Thakur
b
a
Department of Management Studies, Viswakarma Building, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi 110016, India
b
Operations and Information Management Department, School of Business, University of Connecticut, 2100 Hillside Road, Storrs, CT 06269-1041, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o
Keywords:
Supplier selection
Fuzzy multi-objective linear programming
Fuzzy AHP
Carbon emission
Green house gas
Textile supply chain
a b s t r a c t
Environmental sustainability of a supply chain depends on the purchasing strategy of the supply chain
members. Most of the earlier models have focused on cost, quality, lead time, etc. issues but not given
enough importance to carbon emission for supplier evaluation. Recently, there is a growing pressure
on supply chain members for reducing the carbon emission of their supply chain. This study presents
an integrated approach for selecting the appropriate supplier in the supply chain, addressing the carbon
emission issue, using fuzzy-AHP and fuzzy multi-objective linear programming. Fuzzy AHP (FAHP) is
applied rst for analyzing the weights of the multiple factors. The considered factors are cost, quality
rejection percentage, late delivery percentage, green house gas emission and demand. These weights
of the multiple factors are used in fuzzy multi-objective linear programming for supplier selection and
quota allocation. An illustration with a data set from a realistic situation is presented to demonstrate
the effectiveness of the proposed model. The proposed approach can handle realistic situation when there
is information vagueness related to inputs.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Supplier selection plays an important role to make a supply
chain green (Rao, 2002). A positive relation between green supplier
selection and green supply chain implementation has been ob-
served in a study of Seuring and Mller (2008). Many researchers
have addressed supplier selection issue in the green supply chain
fromthe perspectives of environmental sustainability (Bai & Sarkis,
2010; Enarsson, 1998; Handeld, Walton, Sroufe, & Melnyk, 2002;
Humphreys, Wong, & Chen, 2003a; Humphreys, McIvor, & Chan,
2003b; Hsu & Hu, 2009; Lee, Kang, Hsu, & Hung, 2009a; Noci,
1997; Rao, 2005; Walton, Handeld, & Melnyk, 1998). However,
very few studies have addressed the carbon emission and the
related issues for supplier evaluation. Recently, Lash and Welling-
ton (2007) have discussed the impacts of climate change over the
business operations. They suggested that companies have to
handle climate change risk properly for gaining the competitive
advantage. Some leading companies have already started working
to develop next generation carbon emissions management for their
supply chain to survive in the business.
An interesting survey conducted by a consulting company (Tru-
cost, 2009) showed that only 19 percent of the total green house
gas (GHG) emission in the supply chain is generated from direct
operational activities of the company and rest of the 81 percent
emission is generated from other indirect activities such as, emis-
sion from rst tier supplier, electricity supplier and emission from
other supply chain members. In this scenario, supplier selection
plays an important role to minimize carbon emission in supply
chain. According to a survey report CDP (2010), more than half of
the participants said that in the future they would cease business
with the suppliers, if they do not manage their carbon emissions.
Due to increase consciousness about climate change, companies
are imposing pressure on their suppliers to manage their GHG
emissions as one of the conditions for doing business with them.
Supplier propensity to minimize green house gas emission is
becoming one of the criteria for supplier selection (CDP, 2010).
Therefore, suppliers need to make a thorough assessment of their
current capabilities in terms of carbon emission management
and set appropriate targets for further reduction of their emissions.
WalMart in US can be taken as an example of a global supply
chain which has been trying to achieve environmental sustainabil-
ity. Its aim is to become a world leader in environmental sustain-
ability. To achieve this, it has suggested the suppliers to reduce
their energy consumption for processing of products (WalMart,
2010). Suppliers who measure and publish their own emission
are strategically more preferable than others because they help
the buyers to manage their carbon emission. However, only a little
number of supply chain members has extensive knowledge about
0957-4174/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.01.149

Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 9999841552; fax: +91 11 26862620.

E-mail addresses: shawkrishnendu@gmail.com, krishnendushaw@dms.iitd.ac.in
(K. Shaw).
Expert Systems with Applications 39 (2012) 81828192
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Expert Systems with Applications
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ eswa
the low-carbon material procurement for their supply chain. This
paper deals with the low-carbon material procurement and carbon
management for supplier selection. The relevant literature on
green supplier selection is discussed below.
Noci (1997) proposed a green vendor rating framework for the
assessment of suppliers environmental performance. Green com-
petence, green image, life cycle cost, and environmental efciency
were the important considerations for supplier evaluation.
Humphreys et al. (2003b) developed a knowledge-based system
to evaluate suppliers environmental performance. Cost, manage-
ment competencies, green image, green design, environmental
management system, and environmental competencies were con-
sidered as the evaluation factors in the model. Lu, Wu, and Kuo
(2007) proposed an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and fuzzy
logic based model for Green supplier evaluation. Further, analytic
network process (ANP) based framework was suggested by Hsu
and Hu (2009) to construct an assessment framework of the
supplier for Taiwanese Electronics Company. Five criteria such as
procurement management, R& D management, process manage-
ment, incoming quality control, and management system were
considered in the model. Lee et al. (2009a) suggested an integrated
model to select green suppliers for high-tech industry considering
six factors. The considered factors were quality, technology capa-
bility, pollution control, environmental management, green prod-
uct, and green competencies.
Bai and Sarkis (2010) developed a green supplier evaluation
model considering economic, environmental, and social issues.
Rough set theory was used to deal with the information vagueness.
Kuo, Wang, and Tien (2010) developed a green supplier selection
model applying articial neural network (ANN) and two multi-
attribute decision analysis (MADA) methods that consists of data
envelopment analysis (DEA) and analytic network process (ANP).
Awasthi, Chauhan, and Goyal (2010) developed a fuzzy multi-crite-
ria model for evaluating environmental performance of suppliers.
Fuzzy TOPSIS was applied in this model. Buyukozkan and Cifci
(2011) proposed fuzzy multi-criteria decision framework for sus-
tainable supplier selection considering incomplete information.
Fuzzy analytic network process within the multi-person deci-
sion-making scheme under incomplete preference relations was
used in their model.
Earlier studies have limited focus on the carbon management is-
sue for supplier evaluation. Earlier studies have mostly focused on
multi-criteria decision making approaches such as AHP, fuzzy AHP,
fuzzy ANP, TOPSIS, Rough set theory etc. for supplier evaluation.
These types of the models are less robust because quantication
of order quantity to a particular supplier is not possible. To solve
this drawback a hybrid model using fuzzy AHP, fuzzy linear pro-
gramming is proposed for selection of supplier. In fewof these stud-
ies, product carbon footprint is taken as one of the criteria of
supplier selection. Product carbon footprint can be measured by
using Publicly Available Specication (PAS) 2050 (2008) standard
developed by British Standard Institution. The buyer can x certain
amount of carbon emission cap, which acts as a constraint in the
decision model. The present article is organized as follows. Section 2
explores the literature related to supplier selection methodologies.
Section 3 discusses the fuzzy set theory. In Section 4, multi-objec-
tive mathematical model is shown. Section 5 represents case study,
related results and discussions. Section 6 presents the conclusions.
2. Supplier selection problem
Business environment is continuously changing due to diversi-
cation of customer demands. This diversication of demand leads
to increase in operating cost and followed by the decrease in prot.
Therefore, purchasing decision froma particular supplier is a crucial
strategic decision to ensure protability and long term survival of
the company. Most of the companies are trying to reduce their
operating costs while satisfying customer needs by increasing their
core competencies and outsourcing other functions (Lee, 2009). A
careful assessment is needed to select right supplier who can main-
tain a continuous replacement of product in proper time. Most of
the times supplier strength and weakness are varied, which leads
to complex decision making of supplier selection. Many researches
in supplier selection area used mathematical programming.
Ghodsypour and OBrien (1998) solved a supplier selection prob-
lemusinga hybridapproachinvolvingAHPandlinear programming.
A mixed integer non-linear programming model considering multi-
ple sourcing opportunities was solved by Ghodsypour and OBrien
(2001). Total cost of logistics withbudget constraint, quality, service,
etc. were considered in their model. Karpak, Kumcu, and Kasuganti
(1999) proposed a goal programming model that minimized costs
and maximized delivery reliability and quality for supplier selection
and quota allocation.
Gao and Tang (2003) formulated a multi-objective linear pro-
gramming model to purchase raw materials for a large-scale steel
plant in China. Kumar, Vrat, and Shankar (2004) developed a fuzzy
goal programming approach for vendor selection considering the
effect of information uncertainty in the decision making. Similar
type of problem was solved by Amid, Ghodsypour, and OBrien
(2006). They used fuzzy multi objective linear programming to
determine the order quantity from many suppliers by considering
the criteria of lowest cost and highest quality. Hong, Park, Jang, and
Rho (2005) proposed a mathematical model for supplier selection
considering the change in suppliers supply capabilities and
customers needs over a period of time. This model optimized the
revenue and customer needs simultaneously.
There are numerous studies, which applied the dual methodol-
ogies for supplier selection.
Weber, Current, and Desai (2000) formulated a combined multi
objective programming (MOP) and the DEA based framework for
supplier selection. They applied MOP to calculate the order quan-
tity and used DEA for suppliers efciency evaluation. Further, Cebi
and Bayraktar (2003) solved a supplier order allocation problem
considering the quantitative as well as qualitative criteria. Wang,
Huang, and Dismukes (2004) applied AHP method to choose a
strategy from agile/lean supply chain. Further, they used pre-emp-
tive goal programming (PGP) to obtain the optimal order quantity
from the suppliers.
Chan and Kumar (2007) developed a fuzzy extended analytic
hierarchy process (FEAHP) model for global supplier selection. Fur-
ther, Kumar, Shankar, and Yadav (2008) solved a supplier selection
problem using AHP and fuzzy linear programming. Ku, Chang, and
Ho (2010) and Lee, Kang, Hsu, and Hung (2009b) used fuzzy AHP
and fuzzy goal for supplier selection. In their model, fuzzy AHP
was applied rst to calculate the weights of the criteria. The crite-
rias weights were subsequently used in fuzzy goal programming
to select the supplier. Amin, Razmi, and Zhang (2011) developed
a supplier selection model using fuzzy SWOT analysis and fuzzy
linear programming. Ycel and Gneri (2010) proposed a weighted
additive fuzzy programming approach for supplier selection. They
used TOPSIS and fuzzy linear programming in their framework.
3. Fuzzy set theory
Decision making is very difcult for vague and uncertain envi-
ronment. This vagueness and uncertainty can be handled by using
fuzzy set theory, which was proposed by Zadeh (1965). Fuzziness
and vagueness are normal characteristics of a decision making
problem. This fuzziness and vagueness can be managed by increas-
ing robustness of the model (Yu, 2002). If we do not consider the
K. Shaw et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 39 (2012) 81828192 8183
fuzziness during the decision making process then the results
evolved from the model may mislead the decision maker. Fuzzy
theory is very useful to solve such practical problems.
Many times decision makers provide an uncertain answer
rather than a precise value. Therefore, it is very difcult to quantify
this qualitative value (Lee, Kang, & Wang, 2005). In AHP, the crisp
value is taken for the pair-wise comparison but this method is not
appropriate for real life decision making problem where fuzziness
is present. To solve this problem, a degree of uncertainty is to be
considered in the decision model (Lee, 2009; Yu, 2002). Incorpora-
tion of the fuzzy theory in AHP is more appropriate and more effec-
tive than conventional AHP. In fuzzy AHP, the concept of fuzzy set
theory is used, and calculation is done as per normal AHP method
for selecting the alternatives (Bozbura, Beskese, & Kahraman,
2007). There are many areas where fuzzy AHP has been applied
for decision making; and many researchers have developed differ-
ent methodologies for calculating the fuzziness (Boender, DeGraan,
& Lootsma, 1989; Buckley, 1985; Chen, 1996; Chang, 1996; Csutora
& Buckley, 2001; Laarhoeven & Pedrycz, 1983; Lee et al., 2005; Lee,
2009). There are many different methods available for ranking of
the fuzzy number but every method has its own advantage and
disadvantage (Klir & Yan, 1995).
Lee and Li (1988) proposed intuition ranking method that calcu-
lates the ranks of triangular fuzzy numbers by drawing their mem-
bership function curve. Adamo (1980), Yagar (1978) proposed
/-cut method and centroid method respectively to rank the fuzzy
numbers. The extent analysis method proposed by Chang (1996) is
applied here because the computation is much easier than other
fuzzy AHP processes and it takes little time to calculate. Another
advantage of this method is that it can overcome the deciencies
of conventional AHP process. This fuzzy AHP not only handles
the uncertainty imposed by the decision maker during decision
making process, but it also provides the robustness and exibility
during the decision making (Chan & Kumar, 2007). Triangular fuz-
zy number is used to calculate the priority of different decision var-
iable by pair-wise comparison, and the extent analysis is used to
calculate the synthetic value from pair-wise comparison. A brief
introduction of the fuzzy set theory is given below. Triangular
fuzzy number is used extensively for most of the fuzzy applica-
tions. A triangular fuzzy number M
^
is shown in Fig. 1. A fuzzy num-
ber can be represented by (a, b, c) and the membership function can
be dened as follows (1) (Cheng, 1999; Lee et al., 2005; Lee, 2009).
l
M
^x
xa
ba
a 6 x 6 b
cx
cb
b 6 x 6 c
0 Otherwise
_

_
1
with 1 < a 6 b 6 c 6 1.
The strongest grade of membership is the parameter b that is,
f
M
(b) = 1 while a and c are the lower and upper bounds. Two trian-
gular fuzzy number M
1
m

1
; m
1
; m

1
_ _
and M
2
m

2
; m
2
; m

2
_ _
shown in
Fig. 2 is compared by Lee et al. (2009a).
when m

1
Pm

2
; m
1
Pm
2
; m

1
Pm

2
2
The degree of the possibility is dened as (3):
VM1 PM2 1 3
Otherwise, the ordinate of the highest intersection point is calcu-
lated as (Chang, 1996; Lee, 2009; Zhu, Jing, & Chang, 1999)
VM2 PM1 hgtM1 \ M1 ld
m

1
m

2
m
2
m

2
_ _
m
1
m

1
_ _
4
The value of the fuzzy synthetic extent can be calculated as follows
(5)(11) (Chang, 1996; Lee, 2009; Zhu et al., 1999).
F
i

m
j1
M
j
g
i

n
i1

m
j1
M
j
g
i
_ _
1
; i 1; 2; . . . ; n 5

m
j1
M
j
g
i

m
j1
m

ij
;

m
j1
m
ij
;

m
j1
m

ij
_ _
; j 1; 2; . . . ; m 6

n
i1

m
j1
M
j
g
i
_ _
1

n
i1

m
j1
M

ij
;
1

n
i1

m
j1
M
ij
;
1

n
i1

m
j1
M

ij
_ _
7
A convex fuzzy number can be dened as,
VF PF
1
; F
2
; . . . ; F
k
minVF PF
i
; i 1; 2; . . . ; k 8
dF
i
minVF
i
PF
k
W
0
i
k 1; 2; . . . ; n and k i 9
Based on the above procedure, the weights, W
0
i
of factors are
W
0
W
0
1
; W
0
2
; . . . ; W
0
n
_ _
T
10
After normalization, the priority weights are as follows
W W
1
; W
2
; . . . ; W
n

T
11
4. Supplier selection model
The following sets of assumptions, index set, decision variable
and parameters are considered for formulating the multi-objective
supplier selection model.
(i) Only one type of product is purchased from one supplier.
(ii) This model does not consider quantity discounts.
(iii) No shortage of the item is allowed for any of the suppliers.
(iv) It is assumed that lead time is constant. Fig. 1. Triangular fuzzy number.
Fig. 2. Two triangular fuzzy numbers M
1
and M
2
(Lee, 2009).
8184 K. Shaw et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 39 (2012) 81828192
Index
i index for suppliers, for all i = 1, 2, . . . , n.
j index for objectives, for all j = 1, 2, . . . , J.
k index for constraints, for all k = 1, 2, . . . , K.
Decision variable
x
i
order quantity given to the supplier i.
Parameters
D aggregate demand of the item over a xed planning period.
n number of suppliers competing for selection.
P
i
price of unit item of the ordered quantity x
i
to the supplier i.
Q
i
percentage of the rejected units delivered by the supplier i.
L
i
percentage of the late delivered units by the supplier i.
G
i
green house gas emission (GHGE) for product supplied by
supplier i.
U
i
upper limit of the quantity available for the supplier i.
B
i
budget constraint allocated to supplier i.
C
cap
total carbon emission cap for sourcing of material.
Model
A typical linear model for supplier selection problem can be for-
mulated as follows (Amid et al., 2006; Kumar, Vrat, & Shankar,
2006):
Minimise Z
1

n
i1
P
i
x
i
12
Minimise Z
1

n
i1
Q
i
x
i
13
Minimise Z
3

n
i1
L
i
x
i
14
Minimise Z
4

n
i1
G
i
x
i
15
Subject to;

n
i1
x
i
D 16
x
i
6 U
i
17

n
i1
G
i
x
i
6 C
cap
18
P
i
x
i
6 B
i
19
x
i
P0 and integer 20
Objective function (12) minimizes the total cost of ordering.
Objective function (13) minimizes the rejection due to the qual-
ity problem.
Objective function (14) minimizes the late delivered items of
the suppliers.
Objective function (15) minimizes the total green house gas
emissions for procurement.
Constraint (16) shows the total aggregate demand of the item.
Constraint (17) ensures the maximum available capacities of
the suppliers.
Constraint (18) puts restrictions on carbon footprint for
sourcing.
Constraint (19) puts restrictions on the budget amount allo-
cated to the suppliers for supplying the items.
Constraint (20) ensures all the variables greater than zero and
integer.
In real life problem of supplier selection, there are many factors,
which are not known properly, create vagueness in the decision
environment. This vagueness cannot be interpreted by the deter-
ministic problem. Therefore, the deterministic models are not suit-
able for real life problems (Kumar et al., 2006). Fuzzy technique is
applied here to deal with the problem. In this method, it is desired
to maximize the overall aspiration level rather than strictly satisfy-
ing the constraints (Kumar et al., 2006).
Zimmermann (1978) developed a multi objective fuzzy linear
programming, which can handle linguistics issues properly in
decision making. Fuzzy decision is classied into two categories,
symmetric and asymmetric fuzzy decision-making. In symmetrical
fuzzy decision same weights are considered for objectives and con-
straints, but in case of asymmetric fuzzy decision-making, the
weights are different for objectives and constraints (Sakawa,
1993; Zimmermann, 1978). Multi-objective programming consid-
ering the fuzzy goals and fuzzy constraints can be transformed into
crisp linear programming formulation (Zimmermann, 1978). We
have adopted the weighted additive model proposed by Tiwari,
Dharmahr, and Rao (1987) for computing the supplier selection
problem because in the real situation all the objective functions
and constraints have different weights. The weights have been cal-
culated by using fuzzy AHP extent method proposed by Chang
(1996).
4.1. Fuzzy linear programming
Fuzzy linear programming was proposed by Zimmermann
(1978). Fuzzy linear programming consists of fuzzy goals, and fuz-
zy constraints can be reformulated in such a way that it can be
solved like a normal linear programming problem.
Conventional LP problem proposed by Zimmermann (1978) is
given below (21)(23).
Minimise Z Cx 21
Subject to
Ax 6 b 22
x P0 23
After fuzzication the equation can be represented like this (24)
(26),

Cx - Z 24

Ax - b 25
x P0 26
The symbol - in the constraint set denotes essentially smaller than
or equal to and allows one reach some aspiration level where C

and

A represent the fuzzy values.

4.2. Membership function
Fuzzy set was proposed by Bellman and Zadeh (1970). The fuzzy
set A in X is dened as (27):
A fx; l
A
x=x 2 Xg 27
where l
A
(x): x ?[0, 1] is called the membership function of A and
l
A
(x) is the degree of membership to which x belongs to A. The fuz-
zy set A is thus uniquely determined by its membership function
l
A
(x) and the range of membership function is a subset of the
non-negative real numbers whose value is nite and usually nds
a place in the interval [0, 1].
A linear membership function has been considered in this mod-
el for all fuzzy parameters. A linear membership function has char-
acteristics of continuously increasing or decreasing value over the
range of the parameter. It is dened by the lower and upper values
of the acceptability for that parameter.
A fuzzy objective Z

2 X is a fuzzy subset of X characterized by its

membership function l
A
(x): x ?[0, 1]. The linear membership
function for the fuzzy objectives is given as:
K. Shaw et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 39 (2012) 81828192 8185
l
Zj
x
1 if Z
j
x 6 Z
min
j
Z
max
j
Z
j
x
Z
max
j
Z
min
j

if Z
min
j
6 Z
j
x 6 Z
max
j
0 if Z
j
x PZ
max
j
_

_
where j 1; 2; . . . ; J:
28
In (28) Z
min
j
is min
j
Z
j
(x

) and Z
max
j
is max
j
Z
j
(x

) and x

is the optimum
solution.
A fuzzy constraint C

2 X is a fuzzy subset of X characterized by

its membership function l
C
(x): x ?[0, 1]. The linear membership
function for the fuzzy constraints is given by (29):
l
C
k
x
1 if g
k
x 6 b
k
;
1 fg
k
x b
k
g=d
k
if b
k
6 g
k
x 6 b
k
d
k
;
0 if b
k
d
k
6 g
k
x
_

_
29
for all fuzzy parameters k = 1, 2, . . . , K. The interpretation of d
k
is the
tolerance interval.
4.3. Solution of the formulation
A fuzzy solution is the intersection of all the fuzzy sets repre-
senting either fuzzy objectives or fuzzy constraints (Bellman & Za-
deh, 1970). The membership function of the fuzzy solution is
represented by (30).
l
S
x l
Z
x \ l
C
x minl
Z
x; l
C
x 30
In the Eq. (30) l
Z
(x), l
C
(x) and l
S
(x) represent the membership
functions of objectives, constraints and solutions, respectively.
The fuzzy solution of the supplier selection model for the J fuzzy
multiple objectives and K constraints may be represented as (31),
l
S
x

J
j1
l
Z
x
_ _
\

K
k1
l
C
x
_ _
min min
j1;2;...;J
l
Z
j
x; min
k1;2;...;K
l
C
k
x
_ _
31
Highest degree of the membership value is the optimum solution of
the supplier selection problem (32).
l
s
x

max
x2S
l
S
x max
x2x
min min
j1;2;...;J
l
Z
j
x; min
k1;2;...;K
l
C
k
x
_ _
32
4.4. Crisp formulation of the supplier selection model
A fuzzy programming model consists of J objectives and K con-
straints are transformed into the following crisp formulation.
Crisp formulation can be represented by (33) and (38) (Kumar
et al., 2006),
Maximise k 33
Subjected to;
k Z
max
j
Z
min
j
_ _
Z
j
x 6 Z
max
j
for all j; j 1; 2; . . . ; J 34
kd
x
g
k
x 6 b
k
d
k
for all k; k 1; 2; . . . ; K 35
Ax 6 b for all the deterministic constant; 36
x P0 and integer 37
0 6 k 6 1 38
According to the Zimmermann (1978) the optimum lower bound
Z
min
j
_ _
and upper bound Z
max
j
can be calculated by solving the same
objective function two times like minimization and maximization
respectively.
The lower bound of the optimal values Z
min
j
_ _
is obtained by
solving the supplier selection problem as a linear programming
problem (39)(42).
Minimise Z
j
x for all j; j 1; 2; . . . ; J 39
Subjected to
g
k
x 6 b
k
d
k
for all k; k 1; 2; . . . ; K 40
Ax 6 b for all the deterministic constant 41
x P0 and integer 42
The upper bound of the optimal values Z
max
j
_ _
is obtained by solving
a similar supplier selection problem as a linear programming prob-
lem (43)(46).
Maximise Z
j
x for all j; j 1; 2; . . . ; J 43
Subjected to
g
k
x 6 b
k
d
k
for all k; k 1; 2; . . . ; K 44
Ax 6 b for all the deterministic constant 45
x P0 and integer: 46
According to Zimmermann (1978), the weight of the objective func-
tions and constraints are same in the crisp formulation of the sup-
plier selection problem. However, for a real life supplier selection
problem, all objective functions cannot be given same weights. By
using same weights, the value of important objective function is
decreased. As a result, an optimal solution for supplier selection
may not be obtained for that case. To avoid this problem, we are
adopting the weighted additive model. The weighted additive mod-
el is widely used in multi objective optimization problems. Linear
weighted utility function is obtained by multiplying each member-
ship function of fuzzy goals by their corresponding weights and
then adding the results together.
The weighted additive model proposed by Tiwari et al. (1987) is
l
D
x

J
j1
w
j
l
z
j
x

K
k1
b
k
l
g
k
x 47

J
j1
w
j

K
k1
b
k
1; w
j
; b
k
P0 48
In (47) and (48), w
j
and b
k
are the weights coefcients that present
the relative importance among the fuzzy goals and fuzzy
constraints.
The following crisp single objective programming (49)(55) is
equivalent to the above fuzzy model.
Maximise

J
j1
w
j
k
j

K
k1
b
k
c
k
49
Subject to;
k
j
6 l
z
j
x; j 1; 2; . . . ; J 50
c
k
6 l
g
k
x; k 1; 2; . . . ; K 51
g
p
x 6 b
p;
p 1; . . . ; M 52
k
j
; c
k
2 0; 1; j 1; 2; . . . ; J and k 1; 2; . . . ; K 53

J
j1
w
j

K
k1
b
k
1; w
j
; b
k
P0 54
x
i
P0; i 1; 2; . . . ; n 55
4.5. Application of fuzzy linear programming for supplier selection
The fuzzy linear programming for supplier selection is proposed
below. In this mathematical model, we are considering cost,
rejection percentage, late delivery percentages, green house gas
emission per product and demand are fuzzy information. After
fuzzication, we can represent the equations as follows (56)(64)
(Kumar et al., 2006):
8186 K. Shaw et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 39 (2012) 81828192

n
i1
P
i
x
i
-

Z
1
56

n
i1
Q
i
x
i
-

Z
2
57

n
i1
L
i
x
i
-

Z
3
58

n
i1
G
i
x
i
-

Z
4
59

n
i1
x
i
D 60
x
i
6 U
i
61

n
i1
G
i
x
i
6 C
cap
62
P
i
x
i
6 B
i
63
x
i
P0 and integer 64
4.5.1. Computational procedure
In this study, a combined approach of fuzzy-AHP and fuzzy
multi-objective linear programming is used to solve the problem.
Fuzzy-AHP is used to determine the relative weights of supplier
selection criteria. These weights are multiplied with each member-
ship function of fuzzy linear programming to formulate the crisp
equation. By using fuzzy-AHP, we can calculate the relative
weights of each membership function of fuzzy goals in the
different strategic environment (Ku et al., 2010).
The solution steps to solve this model are given below.
Step 1: Identication of supplier selection criteria is done rst.
Step 2: Questionnaire is developed for pair wise comparison of
factors. Experts in the elds of supply chain and operations
management were asked to ll the nine-point-scale ques-
tionnaire. The consistency property of each experts com-
parison results has to be checked rst. If there is any
inconsistency, the questionnaire is to be lled again and
the whole process is to be repeated until the consistency
requirement is met.
Step 3: Fuzzy importance weight of the criteria is calculated using
the response of the experts. A triangular fuzzy number D

is
obtained by combining the experts opinions (Lee, 2009).

D h

; h; h

where
h

s
t1
l
t
_ _
1=s
; 8t 1; 2; . . . ; s:
h

s
t1
m
t
_ _
1=s
; 8t 1; 2; . . . ; s:
h

s
t1
u
t
_ _
1=s
; 8t 1; 2; . . . ; s:
and (l
t
, m
t
, u
t
) is the importance weights from expert t.
Step 4: Crisp relative importance weight (priority vectors) for fac-
tors is calculated using the extent analysis method (EAM)
proposed by Chang (1996). By using, Eqs. (2)(11), the
weights of the factors are calculated.
Step 5: Supplier selection objective functions are formulated.
These objective functions are cost minimization, rejection
minimization, late delivery minimizations and green-
house gas emission minimization.
Step 6: The rst objective is selected and solved. After solving the
rst objective, we obtained the lower bound optimal value
of rst objective.
Step 7: The process is repeated for the remaining objectives one
by one. The lower bound and upper bound for each of
the objectives are calculated using the same set of
constraints.
Step 8: The crisp formulation is done using the weighted additive
model proposed by Tiwari et al. (1987). The weights of the
factors which are calculated earlier by EAM are used to
formulate the crisp formulation.
Step 9: The crisp formulation of the fuzzy optimization problem is
solved and result is obtained.
5. A case illustration
The effectiveness of the model is discussed through a case con-
ducted for an Indian based garment manufacturing company
(ABC). The company is fully export oriented and fullls demand
of American and European customers. It produces a variety of gar-
ments such as Jeans, T-Shirt, formal shirting, suiting and ladies
garments, etc. The company procures nished fabric from different
suppliers and transformed it into garments in Delhi based plant in
India. Subsequently nished and packed garments are exported to
American and European markets.
The company operates in pull based system and procurement
of raw material starts after placement of order by buyers. Most
of the foreign buyers prefer to buy green and environmental sus-
tainable products. To fulll the demand of the customers, the
management of ABC Company has decided to incorporate envi-
ronmental criteria into their suppliers evaluation process. Man-
agement has wanted to improve the environmental efciency
and cost effectiveness of the purchasing process. The manage-
ment has realized that a loyal supplier manufacturer relationship
is needed to minimize the carbon footprint of sourcing. The rela-
tionship should be such that suppliers would share the informa-
tion with manufacturer regarding the carbon footprint of their
manufactured product. Management has formed a special com-
mittee that consists of managers from different departments
such as purchasing, production, marketing, quality control, re-
search and development. The aim of the committee is to nd
out the best supplier.
The committee has decided to take four criteria such as cost,
quality rejection, percentage of late delivered item and green
house gas emission per product for supplier selection. After decid-
ing the factor the committee has chosen four potential suppliers
for sourcing of the material. After deciding the selection criteria,
a brain-storming session was conducted in the presence of pur-
chasing and operations managers to prioritize these criteria by
using the FAHP method. The membership functions of triangular
fuzzy numbers are given in Table 1 (Lee, 2009). The fuzzy pair wise
comparisons among the criteria are shown in Table 2.
Table 1
Characteristic function of the fuzzy numbers.
Fuzzy number Characteristic (membership) function
~
1
(1, 1, 2)
~x (x 1, x, x + 1) for x = 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
~
9
(8, 9, 9)
1=
~
1
(2
1
, 1
1
, 1
1
)
1=~x ((x + 1)
1
, x
1
, (x 1)
1
) for x = 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
1=
~
9
(9
1
, 9
1
, 8
1
)
K. Shaw et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 39 (2012) 81828192 8187

n
i1

m
j1
M
j
g
i
1; 1; 1 1; 1:15; 2:16 1; 1; 1
19:36; 25:17; 37:33

n
i1

m
j1
M
j
g
i
_ _
1

1
37:33
;
1
25:17
;
1
19:36
_ _
0:0267; 0:0397; 0:0516

m
j1
M
j
g
1
1; 1; 1 1; 1:15; 2:16 1; 1:74; 2:76
5; 6:53; 10:62

m
j1
M
j
g
2
4:46; 5:39; 8:55

m
j1
M
j
g
3
3:43; 4:75; 6;

m
j1
M
j
g
4
3:93; 4:9; 7:16;

m
j1
M
j
g
5
2:54; 3:6; 5
F
1

m
j1
M
j
g
1

n
i1

m
j1
M
j
g
i
_ _
1
5; 6:53; 10:62
0:0267; 0:0397; 0:0516 0:14; 0:31; 0:56
F
2
4:46; 5:39; 8:550:0267; 0:0397; 0:0516
0:10; 0:26; 0:48
F
3
3:43; 4:75; 6 0:0267; 0:0397; 0:0516
0:05; 0:10; 0:23
F
4
3:93; 4:9; 7:16 0:0267; 0:0397; 0:0516
0:07; 0:18; 0:34
F
5
2:54; 3:6; 5 0:0267; 0:0397; 0:0516 0:05; 0:09; 0:16
VF
1
PF
2
1; VF
1
PF
3
1;
VF
1
PF
4
1; VF
1
PF
5
1
VF
2
PF
1
0:8716; VF
2
PF
3
1;
VF
2
PF
4
1; VF
2
PF
5
1
VF
3
PF
1
0:7135; VF
3
PF
2
0:8824;
VF
3
PF
4
0:9715;
VF
3
PF
5
1; VF
4
PF
1
0:7847;
VF
4
PF
2
0:9280; VF
4
PF
3
1
VF
4
PF
5
1; VF
5
PF
1
0:5170; VF
5
PF
2
0:6634;
VF
5
PF
3
0:7850; VF
5
PF
4
0:7479
The weight vectors are calculated as follows.
dF
1
MinVF
1
PF
2
; F
3
; F
4
; F
5

Min1; 1; 1; 1 1
dF
2
MinVF
2
PF
1
; F
3
; F
4
; F
5
Min0:8716; 1; 1; 1
0:8716
dF
3
MinVF
3
PF
1
; F
2
; F
4
; F
5
Min0:7135; 0:8824; 0:9715; 1
0:7135
dF
4
MinVF
4
PF
1
; F
2
; F
3
; F
5
Min0:7847; 0:9280; 1; 1
0:7847
dF
5
MinVF
5
PF
1
; F
2
; F
3
; F
4

Min0:5170; 0:6634; 0:7850; 0:7479 0:5170

W
0
dF
1
; dF
2
; dF
3
; dF
4
; dF
5

T
1; 0:8716; 0:7135; 0:7847; 0:5170
T
0:257; 0:224; 0:184; 0:202; 0:133
From the above fuzzy-AHP analysis, it is observed that cost has the
highest weight for supplier selection. The weights of quality, GHG
emission, lead time and demand come after that. The management
of ABC Company expressed that the quality and lead time are
important factors for supplier selection. They also commented that
green house gas emission per product is given importance for sup-
plier selection because these would help the company to minimize
their carbon footprint.
5.1. Fuzzy linear programming
In this supplier selection model, we considered four suppliers.
The purchasing criteria such as cost, quality rejection, late delivery
and green house gas emission per product are considered in this
model. Capacity constraint, budget constraint and total purchasing
carbon cap (C
cap
) are considered as constraints in this model. These
constraints are deterministic in nature. We have considered de-
mand as a fuzzy variable. The demand is predicted to be about
20,000, and it is assumed that it can vary from 19,950 to 20100.
The C
cap
value is taken 30,000 in this model. Supplier quantitative
information is given in Table 3.
Numerical example of multi objective linear programming is gi-
ven below. Objective Z
1
minimizes the total purchasing cost of the
material. Objective Z
2
minimizes the rejection due to quality prob-
lem of the product. Objective Z
3
minimizes the number of late
delivered item. Objective Z
4
minimizes the total carbon footprint
of the purchased item.
Z
1
6x
1
7x
2
4x
3
3x
4
Z
2
0:05x
1
0:03x
2
0:02x
3
0:04x
4
Z
3
0:03x
1
0:02x
2
0:08x
3
0:04x
4
Z
4
1:3x
1
1:5x
2
1:2x
3
1:6x
4
Subject to;
x
1
x
2
x
3
x
4
20; 000
x
1
6 6000
x
2
6 14; 500
x
3
6 7000
x
4
6 4000
1:3x
1
1:5x
2
1:2x
3
1:6x
4
6 30; 000
6x
1
6 24; 000
7x
2
6 70; 000
4x
3
6 60; 000
3x
4
6 10; 000
x
1
P0; x
2
P0; x
3
P0; x
4
P0
x
1
; x
2
; x
3
; x
4
are integer
According to computational procedure discussed earlier, the objec-
tive function Z
1
is minimized using the set of constraints for getting
the lower-bound of the objective function. The same objective func-
tion (Z
1
) is again maximized using the same set of constraints for
getting the upper-bound of the objective function. This procedure
Table 2
Fuzzy pair wise comparisons among the criteria.
Cost Quality Lead time GHGE Demand
Cost (1, 1, 1) (1, 1.15, 2.16) (1, 1.32, 2.35) (1, 1.32, 2.35) (1, 1.74, 2.76)
Quality (0.46, 0.87, 1) (1, 1, 1) (1, 12) (1, 1, 2) (1, 1.52,
2.55)
Lead
time
(0.43, 0.75, 1) (0.5, 1, 1) (1, 1, 1) (0.5, 1, 1) (1, 1, 2)
GHGE (0.43, 0.75, 1) (0.5, 1, 1) (1, 1, 2) (1, 1, 1) (1, 1.15, 2.16)
Demand (0.36, 0.57, 1) (0.39, 0.66, 1) (0.33, 0.5, 1) (0.46, 0.87, 1) (1, 1, 1)
8188 K. Shaw et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 39 (2012) 81828192
is repeated for rest three objective functions (Z
2
, Z
3
and Z
4
) for get-
ting the lower and upper bound of these objective functions. The
minimum and maximum value of cost, quality rejection, late deliv-
ery and GHGE are presented in Table 4.
The crisp formulation of the supplier selection problem is for-
mulated using the weighted additive model proposed by Tiwari
et al. (1987) (49)(55). The weights calculated by fuzzy-AHP are
used for crisp formulation of the supplier selection problem. In
the crisp formulation, the additive value of membership functions
of the objectives and the constraints is maximized. In crisp formu-
lation, rst four terms are the membership functions of the objec-
tive functions (Z
1
, Z
2
, Z
3
and Z
4
) and the fth term (c
1
) is the
membership function of the demand constraint.
Approach 1: hybrid approach
Crisp formulation for supplier selection problem
Maximise 0:257 k
1
0:224 k
2
0:184 k
3
0:202 k
4
0:133 c
1
Subject to;
k
1
6
118; 000 6x
1
7x
2
4x
3
3x
4

16333:3
k
2
6
686 0:05x
1
0:03x
2
0:02x
3
0:04x
4

126:6667
k
3
6
926 0:03x
1
0:02x
2
0:08x
3
0:04x
4

260
k
4
6
28; 733 1:3x
1
1:5x
2
1:2x
3
1:6x
4

1633:33
c
1
6
20; 100 x
1
x
2
x
3
x
4

100
c
1
6
x
1
x
2
x
3
x
4
19; 950
50
x
1
6 6000
x
2
6 14; 500
x
3
6 7000
x
4
6 4000
1:3x
1
1:5x
2
1:2x
3
1:6x
4
6 30; 000
6x
1
6 24; 000
7x
2
6 70; 000
4x
3
6 60; 000
3x
4
6 10; 000
x
1
P0; x
2
P0; x
3
P0; x
4
P0 and
x
1
; x
2
; x
3
and x
4
integer:
Linear programming based software LINGO (Ver. 11) has been used
to solve this problem. The optimal solution for the above formula-
tion is obtained as follows.
Objective value is k = 0.6336, and the value of k
1
= 0.755,
k
2
= 0.9684, k
3
= 0.1513, k
4
= 0.3059, k
5
= 1, and the value of x
1
= 0,
x
2
= 9667, x
3
= 7000, x
4
= 3333.
Z
1
105; 668; Z
2
563; Z
3
887; Z
4
28; 233
Supplier selection problem is again solved by Zimmermann (1978)
approach. In Zimmermann approach the weights of the all member-
ship functions is considered same. In this approach k is considered
the overall membership function for all the objective functions
(Z
1
, Z
2
, Z
3
and Z
4
) and the constraints. The overall membership func-
tion (k) is maximized in this case.
Approach 2: Zimmermann approach
Maximise k
Subject to;
k 6
118; 000 6x
1
7x
2
4x
3
3x
4

16333:3
k 6
686 0:05x
1
0:03x
2
0:02x
3
0:04x
4

126:6667
k 6
926 0:03x
1
0:02x
2
0:08x
3
0:04x
4

260
k 6
28; 733 1:3x
1
1:5x
2
1:2x
3
1:6x
4

1633:33
k 6
20; 100 x
1
x
2
x
3
x
4

100
k 6
x
1
x
2
x
3
x
4
19; 950
50
x
1
6 6000
x
2
6 14; 500
x
3
6 7000
x
4
6 4000
1:3x
1
1:5x
2
1:2x
3
1:6x
4
6 30; 000
6x
1
6 24; 000
7x
2
6 70; 000
4x
3
6 60; 000
3x
4
6 10; 000
x
1
P0; x
2
P0; x
3
P0; x
4
P0;
and x
1
; x
2
; x
3
; x
4
integer
We get k = 0.4586 and x
1
= 2922, x
2
= 9088, x
3
= 5469, x
4
= 2494.
Z
1
110; 506; Z
2
628; Z
3
806; Z
4
27; 981
The solutions are summarized in Table 5. It is observed that for a
range of demand between 19,950 and 20,100, the optimized cost,
net rejection, late delivered item and GHGE is $105,668, 563 unit,
887 unit, and 28,233 kg respectively. When this problem is solved
using Zimmermann approach, the optimized cost, net rejection, late
delivered item and GHGE is $110,506, 628 unit, 806 unit and
27,983 kg respectively. In our proposed approach, the quota alloca-
tion to Supplier 1 is zero. However, in case of Zimmermann ap-
proach 14.6 percent quota is allocated to Supplier 1. Table 6
shows that the quota allocation to Suppliers calculated by two dif-
ferent methods. It is observed that the quota allocation to Supplier 1
Table 5
Comparison between Hybrid and Zimmermann approach.
SN Objective function Hybrid approach Zimmermann approach
1 Z
1
105,668 110,506
2 Z
2
563 628
3 Z
3
887 806
4 Z
4
28,233 27,983
Table 3
Suppliers quantitative information.
Supplier P
i
($) Q
i
(Percentage)
L
i
(Percentage)
GHGE
(kg)
U
i
B
i
($)
1 6 0.05 0.03 1.3 6000 24,000
2 7 0.03 0.02 1.5 14,500 70,000
3 4 0.02 0.08 1.2 7000 60,000
4 3 0.04 0.04 1.6 4000 10,000
Table 4
The data set for membership function calculation.
Serial number Objective function l = 1 l = 0
1 Z
1
101666.7 118,000
2 Z
2
560 686.6667
3 Z
3
666.6667 926.6667
4 Z
4
27,100 28733.33
K. Shaw et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 39 (2012) 81828192 8189
varies signicantly for two methods. Supplier 1 has lost its entire
quota because the product cost of Supplier 1 is higher than the
other suppliers. The quality supplied by Supplier 1 is much more
inferior to other suppliers. In our proposed approach, more stress
is given on cost, quality and carbon footprint for selecting the sup-
plier but in Zimmermann approach all variables are given same
weights. Thats why we observed the different quota allocation to
the suppliers for these two approaches. 35 percent quota is allo-
cated to Supplier 3 when the calculation is done using hybrid ap-
proach, and 27.4 percent quota is allocated to supplier 3 when it
is solved by Zimmermann approach. Supplier 3 has received the
maximum order as compared to the supplying capacity of the sup-
pliers. The maximum order is due to its lower cost product, lowest
quality rejection and lower GHGE. Late delivery is given lower
weight in this model that enhances the order quantity to Supplier
3. Supplier 4 is allocated 16.4 percent quota in spite of the lowest
cost of product among the suppliers. The lower quota allocation is
due to highest carbon footprint of supplied products. The remaining
quota is fullled by Supplier 2. It is observed that 48.3 percent quo-
ta has been allocated to supplier 2. It has the highest quota alloca-
tion than other suppliers. The highest quota allocation is due to the
lower quality rejection percentage and highest supplying capacity.
Supplier 3 is ranked the best on the basis of low cost, lowest quality
rejection and lower GHGE. However, the supplier does not have the
sufcient capacity to supply.
Table 6
Suppliers quota allocation.
Supplier U
i
Solution using
hybrid approach
Quota allocation
percentage for Hybrid
Solution using
Zimmermann approach
Quota allocation percentage
for Zimmermann
1 6000 0 0 2922 14.6
2 14,500 9667 48.3 9088 45.5
3 7000 7000 35 5469 27.4
4 4000 3333 16.7 2494 12.5
Fig. 3. Variation of achievement of cost goal (k
1
) and quality goal (k
2
) with respect to overall goal (k).
Fig. 4. Variation of achievement of lead time goal (k
3
) and GHGE goal (k
4
) with respect to overall goal (k).
Fig. 5. Variation of achievement of demand fulllment (c
1
) goal with respect to
overall goal (k).
8190 K. Shaw et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 39 (2012) 81828192
Variability of the individual goal achievement of hybrid model
is checked by xing the value of objective function. Fig. 3 shows
the individual variability of achievement of cost goal (k
1
) and qual-
ity goal (k
2
) with respect to total achieved goal (k). Fig. 4 shows the
uctuation of lead time goal (k
3
) and GHGE goal (k
4
) with respect
to the overall achieved goal (k). Fig. 5 shows the variability of
demand fulllment goal (c
1
) with respect to the overall achieved
goal (k). Fig. 6 shows the quota allocations to the suppliers. It is
observed that quota allocation to different suppliers is different
for different (k) values.
As the degree of the achievement of these fuzzy goals changes,
the quota allocation to the suppliers also changes. It is observed
that quota allocation to Supplier 1 is not changing, when k value
is changing from 0 to 0.52, after that it drops to 0 and then again,
comes back to the value 4000. For k value ranging from 0.54 to
0.62, there is no change in supplier quota allocation to Supplier
1. After k value of 0.62 the quota allocation to Supplier 1 is de-
creased to 0. Quota allocation to Supplier 4 is zero up to k value
0.46, and then the allocated quota is increased and stabilized up
to k value 0.6336. For k value 0.56 the quota allocation to Supplier
4 is zero. Supplier 2 and Supplier 3 follow the mixed trend, and
their quota allocations are changing according to the value of k.
For k value 0.6336 the quota allocation to Supplier 2 is 9667 and
for the same k value quota allocation to Supplier 3 is 7000.
In our proposed approach, the degree of achievement of late
delivered item goal (k
3
) is obtained as 0.1513. This achievement le-
vel may not be sufcient to satisfy decision makers objective of
lesser late delivered items. In the realistic situation, one cannot ar-
gue that a poor performance of one criterion can be balanced with
a good performance of other criteria. To solve this problem, the
presented model is again reformulated by including an additional
condition such that the achievement level of membership func-
tions should not be less than an allowed value (Amid et al.,
2006). The a-cut approach is used for reformulation of the prob-
lem. The a-cut approach ensures that the degree of achievement
of any goal is more than the specied value of a. The weighted
additive model is to be reformulated by incorporating new
constraints, k
j
Pa and c
k
Pa and a 2 [a

, a
+
] to other system con-
straints (Amid et al., 2006). In this approach, an appropriate value
of a is to be chosen to avoid the infeasible solutions (Chen, 1985).
After discussing this issue with decision makers, we have reformu-
lated the model considering the following constraints k
1
> 0.5; k
2
> 0.5; k
3
> 0.4; k
4
> 0.4 and c
1
= 1. After solving the equation, we
obtained the maximum achievable goal which is k = 0.5432. The
individual achievable goals are k
1
= 0.5002; k
2
= 0. 5684; k
3
= 0.4;
k
4
= 0.4 and c
1
= 1. The nal solution is obtained as: x
1
= 2264;
x
2
= 9316; x
3
= 5774 and x
4
= 2646. The optimized cost is
$109,830, rejection due to quality problem is 614, late delivered
item is 822 and carbon emission is 28,079 kg.
6. Conclusions
By nature, supplier selection process is a complicated task. The
protability and customer satisfaction are directly proportional to
the effectiveness of supplier selection. Therefore, supplier selection
is a crucial strategic decision for long term survival of the rm. In
the present supplier selection model, a combined approach of fuz-
zy-AHP and fuzzy multi-objective linear programming are used.
This formulation integrates carbon emission in the objective func-
tion, and carbon emission cap (C
cap
) of sourcing as a constraint
while selecting a supplier. In this model fuzzy AHP is used rst
to calculate the weights of the criteria and then fuzzy linear pro-
gramming is used to nd out the optimum solution of the problem.
Vagueness and imprecision can be effectively handled in this mod-
el. The proposed model is very useful to solve the practical prob-
lem. In the practical situation, all objective functions do not
possess same weights therefore; the weights of the objective func-
tions can be changed according to the requirement of the manager.
The individual priority can be easily calculated by using the fuzzy-
AHP method. The proposed method is a very useful decision-mak-
ing tool for mitigating environmental challenges. A case study has
been used to demonstrate the implication of fuzzy-AHP and fuzzy
linear programming for supplier selection problem.
References
Adamo, J. M. (1980). Fuzzy decision trees. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 4(3), 207219.
Amid, A., Ghodsypour, S. H., & OBrien, C. (2006). Fuzzy multi-objective linear model
for supplier selection in a supply chain. International Journal of Production
Economics, 104(2), 394407.
Amin, S. H., Razmi, J., & Zhang, G. (2011). Supplier selection and order allocation
based on fuzzy SWOT analysis and fuzzy linear programming. Expert Systems
with Applications, 38(1), 334342.
Awasthi, A., Chauhan, S. S., & Goyal, S. K. (2010). A fuzzy multi criteria approach for
evaluating environmental performance of suppliers. International Journal of
Production Economics, 126(2), 370378.
Bai, C., & Sarkis, J. (2010). Green supplier development: Analytical evaluation using
rough set theory. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(12), 12001210.
Bellman, R. E., & Zadeh, L. A. (1970). Decision making in a fuzzy environment.
Management Science, 17(4), 141164.
Boender, C. G. E., DeGraan, J. G., & Lootsma, F. A. (1989). Multiple-criteria decision
analysis with fuzzy pairwise comparisons. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 29(2),
133143.
Bozbura, F. T., Beskese, A., & Kahraman, C. (2007). Prioritization of human capital
measurement indicators using fuzzy AHP. Expert Systems with Applications,
32(4), 11101112.
Fig. 6. Variation of supplier quota allocation with respect to overall goal (k).
K. Shaw et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 39 (2012) 81828192 8191
Buckley, J. J. (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17(3),
233247.
Buyukozkan, G., & Cifci, G. (2011). A novel fuzzy multi-criteria decision framework
for sustainable supplier selection with incomplete information. Computers in
Industry, 62(2), 164174.
Carbon Disclosure Project. 2010. Supply Chain Report 2010. Available from
<www.cdproject.net/CDPResults/CDP-Supply-Chain-Report_2010.pdf>.
Cebi, F., & Bayraktar, D. (2003). An integrated approach for supplier selection.
Logistics Information Management, 16(6), 395400.
Chang, D. Y. (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP.
European Journal of Operational Research, 95(3), 649655.
Chan, F. T. S., & Kumar, N. (2007). Global supplier development considering risk
factors using fuzzy extended AHP based approach. Omega, 35(4), 417431.
Chen, S. H. (1985). Ranking fuzzy numbers with maximizing set and minimizing set.
Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17, 113129.
Chen, S. M. (1996). Evaluating weapon systems using fuzzy arithmetic operations.
Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 77(3), 265276.
Cheng, C. H. (1999). Evaluating weapon systems using ranking fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy
Sets and Systems, 107(1), 2535.
Csutora, R., & Buckley, J. J. (2001). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis: The lambdamax
method. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 120(2), 181195.
Enarsson, L. (1998). Evaluation of suppliers: How to consider the environment.
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 28(1),
517.
Gao, Z., & Tang, L. (2003). A multi-objective model for purchasing of bulk raw
materials of a large-scale integrated steel plant. International Journal of
Production Economics, 83(3), 325334.
Ghodsypour, S. H., & OBrien, C. (1998). A decision support system for supplier
selection using an integrated analytic hierarchy process and linear
programming. International Journal of Production Economics, 5657(1), 199212.
Ghodsypour, S. H., & OBrien, C. (2001). The total cost of logistics in supplier
selection, under conditions of multiple sourcing, multiple criteria and capacity
constraint. International Journal of Production Economics, 73(1), 1527.
Handeld, R., Walton, S., Sroufe, R., & Melnyk, S. (2002). Applying environmental
criteria to supplier assessment: A study in the application of the analytical
hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 141(1), 7087.
Hong, G. H., Park, S. C., Jang, D. S., & Rho, H. M. (2005). An effective supplier selection
method for constructing a competitive supply-relationship. Expert Systems with
Applications, 28(4), 629639.
Hsu, C. W., & Hu, A. H. (2009). Applying hazardous substance management to
supplier selection using analytic network process. Journal of Cleaner Production,
17(2), 255264.
Humphreys, P. K., McIvor, R., & Chan, F. T. S. (2003b). Using case based reasoning to
evaluate supplier environmental management performance. Expert Systems
with Applications, 25(2), 141153.
Humphreys, P. K., Wong, Y. K., & Chen, F. T. S. (2003a). Integrating environmental
criteria into the supplier selection process. Journal of Materials Processing
Technology, 138(13), 349356.
Karpak, B., Kumcu, E., & Kasuganti, R. (1999). An application of visual interactive
goal programming: a case in vendor selection decisions. Journal of Multi-Criteria
Decision Analysis, 8(2), 93105.
Klir, G. I., & Yan, B. (1995). Fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic theory and applications. London:
Prentice Hall International.
Ku, C. Y., Chang, C. T., & Ho, H. P. (2010). Global supplier selection using fuzzy
analytic hierarchy process and fuzzy goal programming. Quality and Quantity,
44(4), 623640.
Kumar, P., Shankar, R., & Yadav, S. S. (2008). An integrated approach of analytic
hierarchy process and Fuzzy linear programming for supplier selection.
International Journal of Operational Research, 3(6), 614631.
Kumar, M., Vrat, P., & Shankar, R. (2004). A fuzzy goal programming approach for
vendor selection problem in a supply chain. Computers and Industrial
Engineering, 46(1), 6985.
Kumar, M., Vrat, P., & Shankar, R. (2006). A fuzzy programming approach for vendor
selection problem in a supply chain. International Journal of Production
Economics, 101(2), 273285.
Kuo, R. J., Wang, Y. C., & Tien, F. C. (2010). Integration of articial neural network
and MADA methods for green supplier selection. Journal of Cleaner Production,
18(12), 11611170.
Laarhoeven, P. J. M., & Pedrycz, W. (1983). A fuzzy extension of Saatys priority
theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 11(13), 229241.
Lash, J., & Wellington, F. (2007). Competitive advantage on a warming planet.
Harvard Business Review (3), 111.
Lee, A. H. I. (2009). A fuzzy supplier selection model with the consideration of
benets opportunities, costs and risks. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(2),
28792893.
Lee, H. I., Kang, H. Y., Hsu, C. F., & Hung, H. C. (2009a). A green supplier selection
model for high-tech industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(4),
79177927.
Lee, H. I., Kang, H. Y., Hsu, C. F., & Hung, H. C. (2009b). Fuzzy multiple goal
programming applied to TFT-LCD supplier selection by downstream
manufacturers. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(3), 63186325.
Lee, A. H. I., Kang, H. Y., & Wang, W. P. (2005). Analysis of priority mix planning for
semiconductor fabrication under uncertainty. International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 28(34), 351361.
Lee, E. S., & Li, R. L. (1988). Comparison of fuzzy numbers based on the probability
measure of fuzzy events. Computers and Mathematics with Applications, 15(10),
887896.
Lu, Y. Y., Wu, C. H., & Kuo, T. C. (2007). Environmental principles applicable to green
supplier evaluation by using multi-objective decision analysis. International
Journal of Production Research, 45(1819), 43174331.
Noci, G. (1997). Designing Green vendor rating systems for the assessment of a
suppliers environmental performance. European Journal of Purchasing and
Supply Management, 3(2), 103114.
Publicly Available Specication, PAS 2050. (2008). Available from:
<www.bsigroup.com/Standards-and-Publications/How-we-can-help-you/
Professional-Standards-Service/PAS-2050>.
Rao, P. (2002). Greening the supply chain a new initiative in south East Asia.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22(6), 632655.
Rao, P. (2005). The greening of suppliers in the South East Asian context. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 13(9), 935945.
Sakawa, M. (1993). Fuzzy Sets and Interactive Multi Objective Optimization. New York:
Plenum Press.
Seuring, S., & Mller, M. (2008). Core issues in sustainable supply chain
management a delphi study. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17(8),
455466.
Tiwari, R. N., Dharmahr, S., & Rao, J. R. (1987). Fuzzy goal programming-an additive
model. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 24(1), 2734.
Trucost. (2009). Carbon emissions measuring the risks, Available from:
<www.nsf.org/business/sustainability/SUS_NSF_Trucost_Report.pdf>.
Wal-Mart. (2010). Global Sustainability Report, Available from: <http://
cdn.walmartstores.com/sites/sustainabilityreport/2010/
WMT2010GlobalSustainabilityReport.pdf>, downloaded on 23 October
2010.
Walton, S. V., Handeld, R. B., & Melnyk, S. A. (1998). The green supply chain:
Integrating suppliers into environmental management processes. International
Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, 34(2), 211.
Wang, G., Huang, S. H., & Dismukes, J. P. (2004). Product-driven supply chain
selection using integrated multi-criteria decision-making methodology.
International Journal of Production Economics, 91(1), 115.
Weber, C. A., Current, J. R., & Desai, A. (2000). An optimization approach to
determining the number of vendors to employ. Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, 5(2), 9098.
Yagar, R. R. (1978). On a general class of fuzzy connective. Fuzzy Sets and Systems,
4(3), 235242.
Yu, C. S. (2002). A GP-AHP method for solving group decision-making fuzzy AHP
problems. Computers and Operations Research, 29(14), 19692001.
Ycel, A., & Gneri, A. F. (2010). A weighted additive fuzzy programming approach
for multi-criteria supplier selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(5),
62816286.
Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8, 338353.
Zhu, K. J., Jing, Y., & Chang, D. Y. (1999). A discussion on extent analysis method and
applications of fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 116(2),
450456.
Zimmermann, H. J. (1978). Fuzzy programming and linear programming with
several objective functions. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1(1), 4555.
8192 K. Shaw et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 39 (2012) 81828192