Green Supplier Evaluation PDF

This article was downloaded by: [University of Tennessee, Knoxville]
On: 24 April 2014, At: 04:53

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Production

Research
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tprs20
Environmental principles applicable

to green supplier evaluation by using
multi-objective decision analysis
a a b
Louis Y.Y. Lu , C.H. Wu & T.-C. Kuo
a
Graduate School of Management , Yuan Ze University , Taiwan,
Republic of China
b
Department of Industrial Engineering and Management , Ming
Hsin University of Science and Technology , Taiwan, Republic of
China
Published online: 03 Dec 2010.
To cite this article: Louis Y.Y. Lu , C.H. Wu & T.-C. Kuo (2007) Environmental principles applicable
to green supplier evaluation by using multi-objective decision analysis, International Journal of
Production Research, 45:18-19, 4317-4331, DOI: 10.1080/00207540701472694
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207540701472694
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 04:53 24 April 2014
International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 45, Nos. 18–19, 15 September–1 October 2007, 4317–4331
Environmental principles applicable to green supplier evaluation by

using multi-objective decision analysis
LOUIS Y.Y. LUy, C.H. WU*y and T.-C. KUOz
yGraduate School of Management, Yuan Ze University, Taiwan, Republic of China

zDepartment of Industrial Engineering and Management, Ming Hsin University
of Science and Technology, Taiwan, Republic of China
(Revision received May 2007)
The recent shift from buying products to purchasing sets of services makes the
re-use of recovered materials, parts and products desirable. In response to
heightened governmental regulations and rising public awareness of the effect
of industrial production on the environment, many organizations are now
undertaking major initiatives to transform their supply chain processes.
In contrast with the reverse logistic models, the green supply chain (GSC) is a
broad concept that refers to a variety of methods by which companies work with
their suppliers to improve the environmental performance of their products or
manufacturing processes of the suppliers, customers or both. Two primary goals
of GSC include: (1) consistently meeting specified environmental performance
criteria among the participants in the supply chain, and promoting responsible
corporate environmental behaviour among all the players in the chain of products
and services, and (2) helping suppliers to recognize the importance of resolving
environmental issues and support them in installing their own improvement
initiatives. The emergence of GSC is one of the most significant environmental
developments in the past decade, offering the opportunity for companies to align
their supply chains in accordance with environmental and sustainability goals.
GSC provides information and technical assistance to small- and medium-sized
businesses that lack the resources of large companies, and can monitor and
measure progress to facilitate environmental enhancement. The number of
products produced entirely of recyclable materials will increase in the future, and
organizations will have to make supply chain decisions within the context of
growing environmental concerns and responsibilities. This study presents an
innovative method using simple and efficient procedures to evaluate the
effectiveness of projects supplying GSC concept. Specifically, a multi-objective
decision making process for GSC management (GSCM) is presented to help the
supply chain manager in measuring and evaluating suppliers’ performance based
on an analytical hierarchy process (AHP) decision-making method. In addition,
to reduce subjective bias in designing a weighting system, a fuzzy logic process is
used to modify the AHP.
Keywords: Environment supply chain management; Analytical hierarchy process;

Reverse logistics; Multi-objective decision making
*Corresponding author. Email: chw@must.edu.tw
International Journal of Production Research

ISSN 0020–7543 print/ISSN 1366–588X online ß 2007 Taylor & Francis
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/00207540701472694
4318 L. Y.Y. Lu et al.
1. Introduction
The most recent decade witnessed significant interest in both environmental

management and supply chain management (SCM) challenges. Lamming and
Hampson (1996) emphasized that parallels exist between environmental management
practices (such as life cycle analysis, waste management and product stewardship)
and SCM practices (such as vendor assessment, total quality management, lean
supply, and collaborative practices); that is, in addition to traditional performance
dimensions of cost, quality, delivery and technology. Supply chain (SC) managers
must also consider the impact of their decisions on the environment, known as
the environmental supply chain management (ESCM) or the green supply
chain management (GSCM) (Jacqueline et al. 1995, Zsidisin and Siferd 2001,
Boons 2002, Geoffrey et al. 2002, Sharratt and Choong 2002, Kumar and Malegeant
2006, Tsoulfas and Pappis 2006). In contrast to the reverse logistic models
(Hart 1997, Bettac et al. 1999, Linton 1999, Mulder et al. 1999, Nagel et al. 1999,
van Hoek 1999), GSCM is a broad term describing a variety of approaches through
which companies work with their suppliers to improve the environmental
performance of the products or manufacturing processes of suppliers and
customers. GSCM is not a chain of businesses with one-to-one, business-to-business
relationships, but instead it is a network of multiple business and collaborative
relationships for environmental betterment. It requires successful coordination,
integration and management across members (enterprises) in the supply chain that
includes raw material suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, users, and recyclers
(Geoffrey et al. 2002).
In response to increased governmental regulations of Packaging and Packaging
Waste (PPW 2004), Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE 2003),
Restriction of the use of certain Hazardous Substance in Electrical and Electronic
Equipment (RoHS 2003), Eco-Design Requirements for Energy Using Products
(EUP 2005), and rising public awareness of how industrial production affects the
environment, many organizations are initiating significant reforms of their entire
SC system. Brand companies such as Xerox and Interface have acknowledged
responsibility for their products in the end-of-life (EOL) phase and, therefore, have
established an environmental criteria hierarchy for designing and managing this
phase to enhance their residual value. IBM sets forth environmental criteria
for managing EOL products (i.e. places re-use and re-manufacturing ahead of
re-cycling), and includes EOL factors in their initial product design criteria.
Pitney Bows focused on managing existing waste rather than changing the quantity
and characteristics of waste through product redesign (Fishbein 2000). Sony initiated
Green Partner Activities in July 2001, requiring all of its suppliers to review and
strengthen their environmental management efforts (Sony 2003). In addition,
manufacturing enterprises are adopting various short- and long-term strategies to
implement environmentally friendly management practices that reduce the amount
of waste produced. This added risk creates an opportunity for environmentally
conscious supply chain management to affect both environmental and financial
performance (Handfield et al. 2005).
In Taiwan for instance, with the brand companies increasingly relying on their
supplier’s environmental performance (Narasimhan and Carter 1998), managers face
significant challenges of having to: comply with existing and up-and-coming
Environmental principles applicable to green supplier evaluation 4319
legislation, reduce costs, meet customer expectations/demands, introduce technolo-

gical innovations, remain competitive and maintain a good corporate image.
However, they found it is quite difficult to implement the green concept throughout
the entire supply chain. The reasons are summarized as follows:
1. Most companies, especially the small- and medium-sized companies (SMEs)
hesitate to implement environmental principle related strategies because they
cannot adequately determine the economic risks.
2. The high level managers in many SMEs are just beginning to emphasize the
environmental issues; however, they are short of human resources and
budgets to address environmental concerns.
3. In the past, supplier evaluation often involved applying a weighted scoring
system (Monczka et al. 1997). The manager usually used past historical data
to measure supplier performance. Unfortunately, the past historical data may
not have accurately reflected current reality since the environmental
regulations are getting tougher to meet (Handfield 2002).
4. The last reason is the most critical one. Each enterprise may have hundreds of
suppliers which need to be monitored and controlled. While supplier
evaluation and selection decisions are routine, very few companies have
developed an approach and methodology for incorporating environmental
issues into this decision.
Therefore, it needs a simple and efficient tool to help the manager make the
multi-criteria decision problem based on the life cycle management. This study
presents a method using an analytical hierarchy process (AHP) that involves simple
and efficient procedures, to measure a multi-objective project to help the manager to
evaluate their cooperating green suppliers. Furthermore, to reduce subjective bias in
designing a weighting system, a fuzzy logic process is used to modify the AHP.
2. Background
Earlier, Wu and Dunn (1995) indicated that every element in the corporate value
chain (Porter 1985) should be involved in minimizing the firm’s total environmental
impact from start to finish of the SC and also from the beginning to the end of the
product life cycle. Figure 1 shows the relationship between resource conversion and
pollutant generation. As resources are used to create desired utilities, pollutants are
implicitly produced as by-products during each step in the integrated SC process.
Sarkis (2003) summarized how operational life cycle and environmentally
conscious organizational practices. In his study, several environmental tools are
compared. Liu et al. (2002) noted that the design for recycling (DFR) process
focused on ‘closing the loop’ of materials and components after use by (re)using/
utilizing them for new products. Within the loops, among the various forms of
possible recycling approaches to re-use, service, re-manufacturing, re-cycling of
production scrap, re-cycle (separation), re-cycle (shred) and disposal activities.
Concerning the SC itself, four specific areas were discussed as potential closing the
loop candidates for:
1. Supplier selection and evaluation.
2. Surplus and scrap disposition.
Raw material Inbound Outbound

acquisition logistics Transformation Marketing After-sales
logistics
Purchasing, Consolidation Inventory Network design Service levels Retums handling

vendor selection Mode selection Management Inventory Channel decisions Parts management
vendor location Carrier selection Packaging decisions Service network
Materials handling Packaging
Warehousing Consolidation
Backhaul Mode selection
management Carrier selection
Warehousing
Backhaul
management
Figure 1. Adapted from Porter’s value chain (Wu and Dunn 1995).
3. Carrier selection and transportation of hazardous materials.

4. Product design, packaging and labelling.
Boons (2002) described six types of product chain management in terms of their
collective outcomes:
1. Material reduction.
2. Material substitution.
3. Material recycling.
4. Product substitution.
5. Product re-cycling.
6. Elimination.
Considering an example of material reduction, both supplier and producer of a
product may be integrated, as in the case of the production of glass milk bottles in
the Netherlands. Then, the material reduction involves coordination with suppliers
through internal decision-making within the firm. The GSCM function should
include the following steps:
1. Analysing the environmental impact of an existing supply chain system based
on life cycle analysis (LCA) tools such as eco-indicators.
2. Simultaneously minimizing the environmental impact and operating costs of a
supply chain system by using operations research techniques.
3. Generating a procurement decision for a SC system to reach an environ-
mental target at the lowest possible cost.
Handfield (2002) applied environmental criteria to evaluate suppliers by
using AHP. This study was only developed through using a Delphi group of
environmental experts. The purchasing manager or the supply chain manager was
not considered. Burke and Gaughran (2006) provided an intelligent environmental
management process for SMEs in manufacturing. In the above research, the use of
information technology in assisting SMEs manages their environmental impacts has
significant potential for providing a complete holistic environmental information
management system.
Based on this brief overview of greening of the supply chain, managers have
realized that a large and rising level of environmental risk is embedded in various
companies’ supply chains. Additionally, buyer–supplier relations play an increas-
ingly important role in addressing environmental issues. The third concern is that
firms should change their environmental performance methods in order to
incorporate environmental concerns of external sources. Therefore, a system analysis
is needed to integrate environmental management with the greening of the SC. SC
managers must consider the complete environmental impact of a product during its
entire life cycle, including raw material, manufacturing/assembly processes,
distribution, use and disposal. The environmental effects include material, energy,
air, water, and solid waste pollution.
3. Green supplier evaluation by using the multi-objective decision analysis
As mentioned above, the green supplier evaluation could be seen as a multi-objective

decision analysis challenge. To solve such a complex problem, the AHP method was
used. The advantage of AHP to the user includes its reliance on easily obtained
managerial judgment data, its ability to reconcile differences (inconsistencies) in
managerial judgments and perceptions, and the existence of easy-to-use commercial
software that implements the AHP (Calantone et al. 1999). The framework is
depicted as follows (figure 2).
1. Environmental impact analysis hierarchy structure (figure 2). This step
develops the hierarchy of the problem in terms of the overall goal, the
criteria to be used and the decision alternatives.
2. Environmental analysis evaluation. Select the proper design guidelines based
on environmental considerations.
3. Fuzzy multi-objective decision making. To prevent bias in the data, fuzzy logic
is used to evaluate design alternatives based on the AHP weighting factor.
3.1 Integration of AHP and fuzzy logic

The AHP method developed by Satty (1990) aggregates various facets of the decision
problem using a single optimization function known as the objective functions.
The goal of AHP is to select the alternative that results in the greatest value of the
objective function. Therefore, the green supplier selection is transformed to find the
greatest value of the objective function. Furthermore, to reduce the subjective bias
from the weighting system, a fuzzy logic process is used to modify the AHP. Since the
AHP is a fundamental method that is described in many research studies (Satty 1980,
1990). Here only the summarized steps of AHP are described:
1. To establish the hierarchy structure.
2. To construct a pair-wise comparison matrix.
3. To calculate the priority vector.
4. To calculate the maximum Eigen value.
5. To examine the consistency.
6. To arrange the evaluation criteria and their weights.
Current Companies NGO

environmental environmental environmental
regulations policies guidelines
NGO: non governmental

organization
To construct the AHP

structure based on the
life cycle management
Weighting factor
determination
Weighting factor revised Fuzzy

by using fuzzy logic method
To conduct supplier
evaluation
Figure 2. The framework of green supplier evaluation.
After the AHP method is finished, the SC manager then performs a simple
comparison evaluation by seeking a decision function, D, that simultaneously
satisfies all of the environmental criteria. Therefore, they need to combine the
weighting goals into an overall decision function to reduce subjective bias. Based
on the AHP, the preferences are attached to each goal to quantify the designer’s
feelings about the effect that each goal should have on the chosen alternative.
Define a universe of m alternatives, A ¼ {a1, a2, . . . am} and a set of n objectives,
O ¼ {O1, O2, . . . , On}. Let the parameter bi be contained on the set of weighting
preference, W ¼ {b1, b2, . . . , bm}. Then the function is represented as the interaction
of n-tuples, denoted as a decision measure, M(Oi, bi), involving aims and preferences.
D ¼ MðO1 , b1 Þ \ MðO2 , b2 Þ \ \ MðOn , bn Þ ð1Þ

The most important problem in equation (1) is to determine which operation
should relate to each goal Oi, and its importance bi, that preserves the linear ordering
required of the preference set, and at the same time relates the two quantities in a
logical way where negation is also accommodated. A particular alternative, a, can be
replaced with a classical implication of the form,
MðOi ðaÞ, bi Þ ¼ bi ! Oi ðaÞ ¼ Ci ðaÞ ð2Þ
where
Ci ðaÞ ¼ bi [ Oi ðaÞ
hence

Ci ðaÞ ¼ max bi ðaÞ, Oi ðaÞ
Equation (2) indicates a unique relationship between a preference and its

associated goal. As the ith goal becomes more important in the final decision, bi
rises, causing bi to fall, which in turn causes Ci(a) to fall, thereby increasing the
likelihood that C1(a) ¼ Oi(a), where Oi(a) denotes the value of the decision function
D(a), denoting alternative a.
Therefore, a reasonable decision model for the alternative a is the joint
intersection of n decision measures, denoting as D(a).
DðaÞ ¼ MðO1 ðaÞ, b1 Þ \ MðO2 ðaÞ, b2 Þ \ \ MðOn ðaÞ, bn Þ
\
n
¼ Mðbi [ Oi ðaÞÞ ð3Þ
i¼1
The optimum design, D*, is the alternative a that maximizes D(a) based on the
calculation using equation (3).
3.2 Environmental criteria applicable to the supply chain

In order to develop a rational framework from many different types of
environmental criteria, a group of supply chain managers from Common
Wealth, a leading magazine in Taiwan, surveyed 500 companies. These criteria
were designed to encourage exploration by the supply chain manager of
potential environmental impacts during the life cycle stages of a product.
The life cycle stages, life cycle management, of a product include the time
from the extraction of resources needed to make the product to its disposal,
in the pre-manufacturing, manufacturing, packaging, use/maintenance and
end-of-life stages. In addition, the related environmental concern questions
provide manufacturers with some related ideas and options for resolving
the concerns.
SC managers could minimize the products’ environmental impact based on the
following criteria. All the questions are a relative measure of the attributes of the
product under consideration. It complements the economic, customer-value,
manufacturability and other parameters that may also be evaluated. There are
many research studies which have investigated the design for environmental criteria.
The following are case environmental criteria, questions and observations to be used
for evaluation purposes.
1. Pre-manufacturing. Parts and raw materials are procured for use in

manufacturing products. For instance,
(i) What percentage of product or component suppliers has an environmental
management system (EMS) in existence?
(ii) What percentage of product or component suppliers has incorporated
formal energy conservation practices?
(iii) What percentage of product or component suppliers has regularly
published a company environmental report?
2. Manufacturing. All stages of the production processes within the company,
from the time the raw materials enter the facility until the product is ready for
packaging. Manufacturing includes chemical or thermal processing, assembly

and finishing. As an example, some measures might include:
(i) Is the highest possible amount of recycled material used in the product?
(ii) Are hazardous materials avoided or minimized?
(iii) Is the amount of material used minimized, etc?
3. Packaging and distribution. The material is packaged for both transport and
purchase, routed through the appropriate distribution and transport system
and delivered to the consumer. For this stage, the key questions could be
as follows:
(i) Have re-usable transport packaging options been studied for distribution
between company facilities?
(ii) Are the packaging materials clearly marked or easily identified by
material type?
(iii) Is the packaging free from bromated flame retardants, which may produce
hazardous emissions if incinerated at low temperatures?
4. Use and maintenance. The time from when the customer receives the product
until the customer is ready to dispose of the product. Criteria for this stage
may be:
(i) Is the product or component easily disassembled for upgrade, repair
or re-use?
(ii) Are parts readily available for the repair of this product or
component?
(iii) If plastics are used, are they clearly marked by resin type?
5. End of life. Due to the hazardous material content, waste electric and
electronic equipment may cause environment problems during the waste
management phase if it is not properly pre-treated. Metrics for this stage
could include:
(i) Do removable fasteners such as snaps, darts and screws have the same
head type, and are adhesive or welds avoided for joining parts to make
disassembly, repair, re-use or re-cycling easy?
(ii) Are the materials easily re-used or commonly re-cycled?
(iii) Is the release of ozone-depleting substances and global warming gases
avoided upon disposal of this product or component?
4. Case study
From the discussion above, it follows that the SC manager should evaluate how well
each alternative satisfies each environmental criterion, and to combine the objectives
into an overall decision function. Managers can evaluate their suppliers by using the
fundamentals of the AHP method along with a fuzzy logic analysis process.
According to the EUP (2005) directive, the significant way to evaluate the
environmental impacts is by applying a life cycle design, LCD, (raw materials
production, manufacturing, use, and recovery/reutilization) in the greening SC.
For, each phase the general measurements, the environmental impact analysis of
materials, energy use, solid residue, liquid residue and gaseous residue are evaluated
for each stage. Figure 3 shows the system architecture of the proposed methodology.
The input to the system should be the information concerning the environmental
impact of the product. The multi-objective decision-making process, based on the
pre-manufacturing, product manufacture, distribution/packaging, use, maintenance
and end of life, could generate a greener project.
The SC manager in SMEs frequently wishes to combine the weighting aims into
an overall decision function, to determine the sensitivity of the optimum solutions to
the preference rating. The SC manager evaluated three projects to verify the validity
of the model. The pair-wise comparison matrix of the AHP was constructed and
calculated according to the five environmental criteria as depicted in table 1.
Since different companies will have different weighting factors for the
environmental criteria. A survey form was designed. Table 1 shows the results of
pair-wise comparison by using the AHP process.
Moreover, the weighting factor for each life cycle stage in the AHP method was
calculated in tables A1–A5 of the Appendix. Furthermore, the weighting factor was
Green supply chain

management
Environmental Gaseous
Materials Energy use Solid residue Liquid residue
criteria residue
Supply chain Premanufacturing Product Distribution, Product use,

End of life
stages manufacture packaging maintenance
Supplier 1 Supplier 2 Supplier 3
Figure 3. The green supply chain hierarchy.

Table 1. The pair-wise comparison of environmental criteria.
Energy Solid Liquid Gaseous

Materials using residues residues residues Weighting
Materials 1 3 2 2 3 0.352255
Energy using 0.33333 1 0.33333 0.2 0.5 0.072003
Solid residues 0.5 3 1 0.5 2 0.185511
Liquid residues 0.5 5 2 1 2 0.272178
Gaseous residues 0.33333 2 0.5 0.5 1 0.118053
¼ 5.151229, CI ¼ 0.037807, CR ¼ 0.03375650.1.
obtained and arranged in table 2, which shows the relative weights with respect to the
five criteria.
The weighting factor of five environmental criteria based on the five supply chain
stages were summed and recalculated as shown in table 3.
The SC manager sets up the problem as follows:
A ¼ fa1 , a2 , a3 g
O ¼ fPre-manufacturing, Manufacturing, Distribution, Use=Maintenance,
End-of-lifeg
W ¼ fb1 , b2 , b3 , b4 , b5 g ! ½0, 1
The GSC manager studied three possible decision scenarios for pre-
manufacturing, product manufacture, distribution/package, use/maintenance, and
end-of-life. The results are shown in table 4; and it can be used to help the GSC
designer to choose the desired design alternative to achieve the minimum
environmental impact.
To consider the weighting factor, furthermore, the problem is converted into
a multi-attribute decision making problem. The membership functions for the
alternatives are then calculated according to equations (1)–(3). The GSC
managers combine the weighting goals into an overall decision function to
calculate the sensitivity of the optimum solutions to the preference rating as
follows:
\
n
Dða1 Þ ¼ Mðbi [ Oi ðaÞÞ
i¼1
¼ ð0:2180 _ 0:35Þ ^ ð0:5330 _ 0:55Þ ^ ð0:037 _ 0:65Þ ^ ð0:086 _ 0:7Þ ^ ð0:127 _ 0:6Þ
¼ 0:35
Dða2 Þ ¼ ð0:2180 _ 0:55Þ ^ ð0:5330 _ 0:5Þ ^ ð0:037 _ 0:7Þ ^ ð0:086 _ 0:5Þ ^ ð0:127 _ 0:7Þ
¼ 0:533
Dða3 Þ ¼ ð0:2180 _ 0:5Þ ^ ð0:5330 _ 0:8Þ ^ ð0:037 _ 0:6Þ ^ ð0:086 _ 0:7Þ ^ ð0:127 _ 0:5Þ
¼ 0:5
Table 2. The pair-wise comparison of value chain activities.

Materials using residues residues residues
0.352254902 0.072002801 0.185511204 0.272177871 0.118053221

Pre-manufacturing 0.252632118 0.173730047 0.173730047 0.213762356 0.218489608
Manufacturing 0.536868132 0.558959564 0.558959564 0.523010432 0.487985102
Distribution 0.03566601 0.038954677 0.038954677 0.033200288 0.044223274
Use and 0.104620692 0.082135546 0.082135546 0.073807666 0.07132794
maintenance
End of life 0.070213 0.14622 0.14622 0.156219 0.177974
Table 3. The normalized weighting factor for each criteria based on the environmental
aspects.

Materials use residues residues residues Sum
0.352 0.072 0.186 0.272 0.118

Pre-manufacturing 0.089 0.013 0.032 0.058 0.026 0.218
Manufacturing 0.189 0.040 0.104 0.142 0.058 0.533
Distribution 0.013 0.003 0.007 0.009 0.005 0.037
Use and 0.037 0.006 0.015 0.020 0.008 0.086
maintenance
End of life 0.025 0.011 0.027 0.043 0.021 0.127
Table 4. The results of fuzzy calculation.
Weighting a1 a2 a3
Pre-manufacturing 0.218 0.35 0.55 0.5

Manufacturing 0.533 0.55 0.50 0.8
Distribution/package 0.037 0.65 0.70 0.6
Use and 0.086 0.70 0.50 0.7
maintenance
End-of-life 0.127 0.60 0.70 0.5
Therefore, the optimal design alternative, D*, is a3, since it maximizes the
objective function as shown in the following:

D ¼ max Dða1 Þ, Dða2 Þ, Dða3 Þ
¼ maxf0:35, 0:533, 0:5g ¼ 0:533
5. Conclusion
At the beginning of the 21st century, environmental considerations have become a

critical element in the design of products. This study presents an efficient GSC
approach to enable managers to evaluate various projects and establish an
environmentally benign product design. The hierarchical structure of the
environmentally conscious design indices was built by AHP. The multi-objective

decision making model was used to select the best project in the green supply chain.
The advantages of this method are as follows.
. The model is intuitive, and captures the expertise of experienced SC
designers.
. The method can be easily computerized, enabling it to serve as a decision-
making tool to assist SC managers in designing environmentally benign
products.
. The scheme can be generalized to handle a variety of environmental
situations efficiently.
It is important to note that it is very difficult to make a decision for

different suppliers when considering all the environmental criteria, since there
are just too many factors which need to be considered. Avoiding this short-
coming, rank reversal of AHP (Belton and Gear 1984, Dyer 1990a), the above
issues are listed to assist in making comparisons. The paired comparisons
depend upon the specific alternatives (Dyer 1990b). Additionally, the
alternatives are evaluated on the same metric. Of course, the number of
products produced entirely of recyclable materials will increase in the future,
and organizations will need to make all supply chain decisions within the
context of growing environmental issues, concerns and challenges. In the future,
further exploration and investigation is needed to determine efficacy of the
integrated AHP and fuzzy logic application.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the National Science Council of the
Republic of China, Taiwan for partially supporting this research under Contract
No. NSC 91-2213-E-159-014.
Appendix
Table A1. The pairwise comparison of value chain activities in

the material screening.
Use and End of

Materials Pre-manufacturing Manufacturing Distribution maintenance life Weighting

Manufacturing 5.00 1.00 9.00 5.00 7.00 0.536868
Distribution 0.11 0.11 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.035666
Use and 0.33 0.20 3.00 1.00 2.00 0.104621
maintenance
End of life 0.20 0.14 3.00 0.50 1.00 0.070213
¼ 5.293591, CI ¼ 0.073398, C ¼ 0.06553450.1.

Table A2. The pair-wise comparison of value chain activities in the energy using.
Energy Use and End of

using Pre-manufacturing Manufacturing Distribution maintenance life Weighting

Manufacturing 7.00 1.00 9.00 5.00 5.00 0.558960
Distribution 0.14 0.11 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.038955
Use and 0.33 0.20 3.00 1.00 0.33 0.082136
maintenance
End of life 1.00 0.20 3.00 3.00 1.00 0.146220
¼ 5.353856, C ¼ 0.088464, CR ¼ 0.07898650.1.

Table A3. The pair-wise comparison of value chain activities on the solid residues.
Use and End of

Solid residues Pre-manufacturing Manufacturing Distribution maintenance life Weighting

Manufacturing 5.00 1.00 9.00 5.00 5.00 0.523010
Distribution 0.11 0.11 1.00 0.33 0.20 0.033200
Use and 0.20 0.20 3.00 1.00 0.33 0.073808
maintenance
End of life 1.00 0.20 5.00 3.00 1.00 0.156219
¼ 5.36729, CI ¼ 0.091823, CR ¼ 0.08198450.1.
Table A4. The pair-wise comparison of value chain activities on the liquid residues.
Use and End of

Liquid residues Pre-manufacturing Manufacturing Distribution maintenance life Weighting

Manufacturing 3.00 1.00 7.00 5.00 3.00 0.427710
Distribution 0.14 0.14 1.00 0.33 0.14 0.035864
Use and 0.14 0.20 3.00 1.00 0.33 0.071156
maintenance
End of life 0.33 0.33 7.00 3.00 1.00 0.166833
¼ 5.35577, CI ¼ 0.088942, CR ¼ 0.07941350.1.
Table A5. The pair-wise comparison of value chain activities on the gaseous residues.
Use and End of

Gaseous residues Pre-manufacturing Manufacturing Distribution maintenance life Weighting

Manufacturing 3.00 1.00 7.00 9.00 3.00 0.487985
Distribution 0.20 0.14 1.00 0.33 0.14 0.044223
Use and 0.20 0.11 3.00 1.00 0.33 0.071328
maintenance
End of life 0.33 0.33 7.00 3.00 1.00 0.177974
¼ 5.431582, CI ¼ 0.107895, CR ¼ 0.09650.1.

References
Belton, V. and Gear, T., On the short-coming of Satty’s method of analytic hierarchies.
Omega, 1984, 11(3), 228–230.
Bettac, E., Maas, K., Beullens, P. and Bopp, R., RELOOP: reverse logistics chain
optimization in multi-user trading environment, in Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, IEEE, Danvers, Massachusetts, USA,
1999, pp. 42–47.
Bloemhof-Ruwarrd, J.M., van Beek, P., Hordijk, L. and Van Wassenhove, L.N., Interactions
between operational research and environmental management. Euro. J. Oper. Res.,
1995, 85, 229–243.
Boons, F., Greening products: a frame for product chain management. J. Cleaner Prod., 2002,
10, 495–505.
Burke, S. and Gaughran, W.F., Intelligent environmental management for SMEs in

manufacturing. Robot. & Comput-Integ. Manuf., 2006, 22, 566–575.
Calantone, R.J., Di Benedetto, C.A. and Schmidt, J.B., Using the analytic hierarchy process in
new product screening. J. Prod. Innov. Manage., 1999, 16(1), 65–76.
Dyer, J.S., Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process. Manage. Sci., 1990a, 36(3), 249–258.
Dyer, F.S., A clarification of remarks on the analytic hierarchy process. Manage. Sci., 1990b,
36(3), 274–275.
EUP, Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2005
establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-using
products and amending Council Directive 92/42/EEC and Directives 96/57/EC and
2000/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Fishbein, B.K., McGarry, L.S. and Dillon, P.S., Leasing: A Step Toward Producer
Responsibility, 2000 (Inform Inc.: New York).
Geoffrey, J.L.F., Hagelaar, J.G. and van der Vorst, A.J., Environmental supply chain
management: using life cycle assessment to structure supply chains. Int. Food &
Agribusi. Manage. Rev., 2002, 4, 399–412.
Handfield, R., Sroufe, R. and Walton, S., Integrating environmental management and supply
chain strategies. Business Strat. Environ., 2005, 14, 1–19.
Handfield, R., Walton, S.V., Sroufe, R. and Melnyk, S.A., Applying environmental criteria to
supplier assessment: a study in the application of the analytical hierarchy process. Euro.
J. Oper. Res., 2002, 141, 70–87.
Hart, S.L., Beyond greening: Strategies of a sustainable world. Harv. Business Rev., 1997,
75(1), 66–76.
Kopicki, R., Berg, M.J., Legg, L., Dasappa, V. and Maggioni, C., Reuse and
Recycling—Reverse Logistics Opportunities, 1993 (Council of Logistics Management:
Oak Brook, IL).
Kumar, S. and Malegeant, P., Strategic alliance in a closed-loop supply chain, a case of
manufacturer and eco-non-profit organization. Technovation, 2006, 26, 1127–1135.
Lamming, R. and Hampson, J., The environment as a supply chain management issue. British
J. Manage., 1996, 7, 45–62.
Linton, J.D., Electronic products at their end-of-life: options and obstacles. J. Electron.
Manuf., 1999, 9(1), 29–40.
Liu, Z.F., Liu, X.P., Wang, S.W. and Liu, G.F., Recycling strategy and a recyclability
assessment model based on an artificial neural network. J. Mater. Proc. Tech., 2002,
129, 500–506.
Mulder, L., Scheidt, L. and Schneider, A, Collecting electronic waste in Europe: a sony view,
in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment,
IEEE, Massachusetts, 1999.
Nagel, C., Nilsson, J. and Boks, C., Europe end-of-life systems for electrical and
electronic equipment, in Proceedings of EcoDesign Conference, IEEE, Tokyo,
February, 1999.
Narasimhan, R. and Carter, J., Research Monograph. Case Studies. Center for Advanced
Environmental Supply Chain Management, Tempe, AZ, 1998.
Porter, M.E., Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, 1985
(The Free Press: New York, NY).
PPW, Directive 2004/12/EC (amending Directive 94/62/EC) of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 11 February 2004.
Rice, F., Who scores best on the environment? Fortune, 26 July 1993, 59–60.
ROHS, Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January
2003 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and
electronic equipment.
Sarkis, J., Supply chain management and environmental consciousness. Technovation, 1995,
15(2), 79–97.
Sarkis, J., A strategic decision framework for green supply chain management. J. Cleaner
Prod., 2003, 11, 397–409.
Satty, T.L., The Analytical Hierarchy Process, 1980 (McGraw Hill: New York, NY).
Satty, T.L., The Analytical Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation,
1990 (RWS Publications: Pittsburgh).
Sharratt, P.N. and Choong, P.M., A life-cycle framework to analyze business risk in process
industry projects. J. Clearer Prod., 2002, 10, 479–493.
Sony, Sony Green Partner Activities, Developments in the Green Partner Environmental
Quality Approval Program, Sony Corporation Procurement Center, 1 February 2005.
Tsoulfas, G.T. and Pappis, C.P., Environmental principles applicable to supply chain design
and operation. J. Cleaner Prod., 2006, 14, 1593–1602.
Van Hoek, R., From reversed logistics to green supply chains. Int. J. Supp. Chain Manage.,
1999, 4(3), 129–135.
McDonough, W., Braungart, M., Anastas, P.T. and Zimmerman, J.B., Applying the
principles of green engineering to cradle-to-cradle design. Environ. Sci. and Tech., 2003,
37(23), 434A–441A.
WEEE, Directive 2002/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January
2003 on waste electrical and electronic equipment.
Woods, J.A. and Marien, E.J., The Supply Chain Yearbook, 2001 (McGraw-Hill: New York).
Wu, H.J. and Dunn, S., Environmentally responsible logistics systems. Int. J. Physics Distrib.
& Logist. Manage., 1995, 25(2), 20–38.
Zsidisin, G.A. and Siferd, S.P., Environmental purchasing: A framework for theory
development. Euro. J. Purch. and Supp. Manage., 2001, 7(1), 61–73.

Green Supplier Evaluation PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Green Supplier Evaluation PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Green Supplier Evaluation PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [University of Tennessee, Knoxville]

On: 24 April 2014, At: 04:53

International Journal of Production

Environmental principles applicable

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207540701472694

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Environmental principles applicable to green supplier evaluation by

LOUIS Y.Y. LUy, C.H. WU*y and T.-C. KUOz

yGraduate School of Management, Yuan Ze University, Taiwan, Republic of China

(Revision received May 2007)

Keywords: Environment supply chain management; Analytical hierarchy process;

*Corresponding author. Email: chw@must.edu.tw

International Journal of Production Research

The most recent decade witnessed significant interest in both environmental

legislation, reduce costs, meet customer expectations/demands, introduce technolo-

Raw material Inbound Outbound

Purchasing, Consolidation Inventory Network design Service levels Retums handling

3. Carrier selection and transportation of hazardous materials.

3. Green supplier evaluation by using the multi-objective decision analysis

As mentioned above, the green supplier evaluation could be seen as a multi-objective

3.1 Integration of AHP and fuzzy logic

Current Companies NGO

NGO: non governmental

To construct the AHP

Weighting factor revised Fuzzy

Figure 2. The framework of green supplier evaluation.

D ¼ MðO1 , b1 Þ \ MðO2 , b2 Þ \ \ MðOn , bn Þ ð1Þ

Equation (2) indicates a unique relationship between a preference and its

3.2 Environmental criteria applicable to the supply chain

1. Pre-manufacturing. Parts and raw materials are procured for use in

packaging. Manufacturing includes chemical or thermal processing, assembly

Green supply chain

Supply chain Premanufacturing Product Distribution, Product use,

Supplier 1 Supplier 2 Supplier 3

Figure 3. The green supply chain hierarchy.

Table 1. The pair-wise comparison of environmental criteria.

Energy Solid Liquid Gaseous

Table 2. The pair-wise comparison of value chain activities.

Energy Solid Liquid Gaseous

0.352254902 0.072002801 0.185511204 0.272177871 0.118053221

Energy Solid Liquid Gaseous

0.352 0.072 0.186 0.272 0.118

Table 4. The results of fuzzy calculation.

Pre-manufacturing 0.218 0.35 0.55 0.5

At the beginning of the 21st century, environmental considerations have become a

environmentally conscious design indices was built by AHP. The multi-objective

It is important to note that it is very difficult to make a decision for

Table A1. The pairwise comparison of value chain activities in

Use and End of

Pre-manufacturing 1.00 0.20 9.00 3.00 5.00 0.252632

¼ 5.293591, CI ¼ 0.073398, C ¼ 0.06553450.1.

Energy Use and End of

Pre-manufacturing 1.00 0.14 7.00 3.00 1.00 0.173730

¼ 5.353856, C ¼ 0.088464, CR ¼ 0.07898650.1.

Use and End of

Pre-manufacturing 1.00 0.20 9.00 5.00 1.00 0.213762

¼ 5.36729, CI ¼ 0.091823, CR ¼ 0.08198450.1.

Use and End of