This paper has been modified from the original to correct the pagination.

No other material has been changed.

Journal of Testing and Evaluation, Vol. 41, No. 3, 2013

Available online at www.astm.org
doi:10.1520/JTE20120104

Chun-Yueh Lin1 and Yih-Chearng Shiue2

An Application of AHP and Sensitivity Analysis

for Measuring the Best Strategy of Reverse
Logistics: A Case Study of Photovoltaic Industry
Chain

REFERENCE: Lin, Chun-Yueh and Shiue, Yih-Chearng, “An Application of AHP and Sensitivity Analysis for Measuring the Best Strategy
of Reverse Logistics: A Case Study of Photovoltaic Industry Chain,” Journal of Testing and Evaluation, Vol. 41, No. 3, 2013, pp. 1–12,
doi:10.1520/JTE20120104. ISSN 0090-3973.
ABSTRACT: This work presents an evaluation model that adopts several important criteria based on benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks
(BOCR) perspective, enabling the collecting strategy of reverse logistics (RL) of the Taiwan photovoltaic industry (TPI) supply chain is the most
appropriate. Major criteria weights are analyzed using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and sensitivity analysis. Analysis results indicate that
the proposed evaluation model enables the collecting strategy of RL in the TPI supply chain more objectively by allowing them to deploy
effectively. Importantly, the proposed model can provide the TPI accreditation strategy in RL a reference material, making it highly applicable for
academia and commercial purposes.
KEYWORDS: reverse logistics, analytical hierarchy process (AHP), sensitivity analysis, benefits, opportunities, costs and risks (BOCR),
supply chain, collecting strategy

Introduction
The photovoltaic (PV) solar energy industry is one of the most
booming and cleanest resource industries in the world; the main
advantage of PV industry is its accessibility of clean and environ-
mentally friendly electricity without consuming fossil fuel [1,2]. It
does not deplete natural resources, does not cause CO2 or other
gaseous emission into air or generates liquid or solid waste prod-
ucts [2]. Concerning sustainable development, the main direct or
indirectly derived advantages of solar energy are the following
[2–5]: (1) No emissions of greenhouse (mainly CO2, NOx) or
toxic gasses (SO2, particulates); (2) reclamation of degraded land;
(3) reduction of transmission lines from electricity grids; (4)
improvement of quality of water resources; (5) increase of re-
gional/national energy independence; (6) diversification and secu-
rity of energy supply; and (7) acceleration of rural electrification
in developing countries. Consequently, according to literatures of
advantage in PV industry can understand that is important and
improve the environmental concern industry in world. Many
countries are active development, enhance and installation of the
Manuscript received April 7, 2012; accepted for publication November 26,
2012; published online March 27, 2013.
1
Dept. of Business Administration, National Central Univ., 300 Jhongda
Rd., Jhongli City, Taoyuan County 32001, Taiwan, People’s Republic of
China (Corresponding author), e-mail: ljy898@gmail.com
2
Dept. of Information Management, National Central Univ., 300 Jhongda
Rd., Jhongli City, Taoyuan County 32001, Taiwan, People’s Republic of
China, e-mail: ncuycs@gmail.com
PV electricity [2] (see Table 1); they also forecasted the quantity
of PV installation in 2020 and 2030 come to 70 000 MW and
140 000 MW. PV electricity is a high-complexity business. The
supply chain of PV industry includes some processes: (1) raw sili-
con material, (2) wafers/ingots, (3) PV cells, (4) PV modules, and
(5) PV system. The upstream is step 1 and step 2, midstream is step
3, and downstream is step 4 and step 5, as shown in Fig. 1 [1, 6–8].
EPIA (2011) indicate the numbers of companies in PV supply chain
are fewer and fewer from downstream to upstream (Table 2). Simi-
larly, there are more and more customers from upstream to down-
stream in the PV supply chain. From Table 1, in 2020, the
installations of a PV system come to 70 000 MW and in 2030
come to 140 000 MW. Pavlović et al. [9] showed that, to install a
fixed 1-MW PV solar plant, it is necessary to provide about
20 000 m2 of space [9]. Thus, the PV plant occupies a large
amount of land. Nowadays, more and more countries have been
paying attention to global warming; greenhouse effects, and envi-
ronmental issues. Environmental responsibility plays a significant
role in the agendas of every corporation [10]. In this situation, the
government regulations have forced corporations to take environ-
mental concerns into their supply chain operations [11,12], and
some countries have passed strict environmental legislation rais-
ing awareness regarding waste in electrical and electronic equip-
ment (WEEE), restriction of the use of certain hazardous
substances (RoHS) and eco-design requirements for energy-using
products (EUP), etc. Therefore, supply chain networks combine
the green concepts as they become more and more important in
every company. Nativi and Lee [13] indicate that green supply

Copyright
Copyright
C 2013 by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
V by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Apr 20 17:19:18 EDT 2020
386
Downloaded/printed by
Universidad Del Valle (Universidad Del Valle) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
387 JOURNAL OF TESTING AND EVALUATION
TABLE 1—Development and installation of solar photovoltaic electricity in
various countries.
Year USA (MW) Europe (MW) Japan (MW) Worldwide (MW)
2000 140 150 250 1000
2010 3000 3000 5000 14 000
2020 15 000 15 000 30 000 70 000
2030 25 000 30 000 72 000 140 000
Note: Source [2].
chain management (GSCM) can provide environmental benefits
to business [13]. In 2007, Srivastava proposed that green supply
chain management (GSCM) have three categories: (1) importance
of GSCM, (2) green design, and (3) green operations; they also
point out the key challenges of GSCM is in green operations.
Green operations include three groups: (1) green manufacturing
and remanufacturing, (2) reverse logistics and network design,
and (3) waste management, etc. (Fig. 2) [14]. The purpose of this
study is to focus on the group of reverse logistics. In reverse logis-
tics, it has been established that there are three fundamental stages
of procedures: (1) collecting, (2) sort-test/inspection, and (3) proc-
essing, as shown in Fig. 3 [15,16]. Therefore, we can see combin-
ing the forward/reverse logistics in the PV industry in Fig. 4.
Authors have also discussed the problem of collecting procedure
in RL is important and complex [17–19]. Therefore, the more
detailed purpose of this study focuses on evaluation of collecting
strategy in TPI supply chain.
The main processes of the RL can be divided into the collect-
ing, sort-test/inspection, and processing. This study focuses on the
collecting process that evaluates optimal strategies for upstream,
midstream and downstream in TPI supply chain as shown in
Fig. 4. The collecting strategy includes four categories that out-
sourcing (OUT), in-house (IH), purchasing from government organi-
zations (PGO), and joint collecting in business (JCB). Nevertheless,
the evaluation of optimal solutions is a multi-criteria problem, and
the ideal model requires suitable criteria and strict screening [20]. In
past researches, there were few literatures on the collecting process
that used a multi-criteria decision-making concept to evaluate the
optimal strategy of PV industry supply chain in RL process.
We employ the AHP to evaluate and weigh the synthesis utility
values of criteria and the sub-criteria and to rank different strat-
egies of RL in TPI supply chain according to their respective opti-
mal priorities. Then, a sensitivity analysis is applied to determine
how changing the weight of each criterion will impact the rank-
ings of the various strategies. Thus, the AHP-based decision-mak-
FIG. 1—Supply chain of PV industry. Source: [1,6–8].
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Apr 20 17:19:18 EDT 2020
Downloaded/printed by
Universidad Del Valle (Universidad Del Valle) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
TABLE 2—Number of companies’ worldwide in PV value chain in 2009.
Silicon Wafer/ingotsCells Modules/system
Number of companies: 75 208 239 988
Production capacity: 130 000 tonnes 15 000 MW 18 000 MW 19 000 MW
Effective production: 90 000 tonnes 10 000 MW 9000 MW 7000 MW
Note: Source [38].
ing method may provide TPI decision-makers or administrators
with a valuable reference for evaluating the optimal strategy of
RL. More importantly, the proposed model can assist TPI supply
chain manufacturers in assessing the optimal RL strategy for TPI;
and thus it is valuable in both academic and commercial settings.
Research Method
This study adopts the BOCR model and AHP method. BOCR
introduced by Saaty and Ozdemir in Mathematical and Computer
Modelling [21] and Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engi-
neering [22], which measure strategies in four dimensions
[21,22]. Saaty proposed the AHP method in 1980 that can solve
the complex decision problem into a hierarchy [23], and it is
applied in several research programs. These include Tong et al.
[24], who developed an AHP model to solve the problem of
water-conservation and waste-reduction in the textile-printing
industry [24]. Chiang et al. [25] used the AHP method to solve
the problem of green manufacturers in Taiwan and Japan [25].
Vinodh et al. [26] applied AHP to evaluate sustainable business
practices in India [26].
BOCR Model
The BOCR model created by Saaty and Ozdemir [21] in 2003
suggests four ways to get the overall ranking of the alternatives:
additive, probabilistic additive, subtractive, and multiplicative in
BOCR [21,22]. Saaty [22] presented a model to synthesize the pri-
orities of alternatives by combining the priorities of alternatives
under B, O, C, and R using two formulas, multiplicative and addi-
tive subtraction. Therefore, the main of BOCR model includes
four perspectives to measure the various areas; for example,
Erdogmus et al. [27] presented an ANP with BOCR model to
select renewal transaction processing systems for enhanced effi-
ciency and operation quality. Erdogmus et al. [28] evaluated alter-
native fuels for residential heating in Turkey by a similar model as
in Erdogmus et al. [27], and considered the political, economical,
social, and environmental issues. Saaty and Shang [29] proposed
a framework to reshape the group decision-making process so that
several related issues were considered simultaneously by the
group. They used the benefits, costs, and risks to evaluate alterna-
tives by considering the intensity of preference of each decision-
maker for the issues encountered. Ustun and Demirtas [30]
proposed a BOCR model to select the supplier. Lee et al. [31]
combined the BOCR with AHP to help select a suitable wind
farm project. Lee [32] presented a BOCR framework for supplier
selection in TFT-LCD manufacturer. Saaty and Ozdemir [21] pre-
sented the BOCR theory, which conceived four perspectives that

FIG. 2—Classification based on GSCM. Source: [14].
are benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks. The BOCR has been
applied in various areas such as strategy and selection [30–32],
evaluation [27], and decision [33].
Benefits—The perspective of the benefits in this study is
when TPI supply chain operates collecting in RL activity can
improve the environmental benefits and value that include tangible
profits and intangible advantages.
Benefits indicators that the TPI supply chain regularly reviews
include: competitive advantage (COA), corporate image (COI),
reducing production cost by using recycled materials (RPRM),
economic/financial benefits (EFB), and energy saving (ES).
FIG. 3—Reverse logistics procedures. Source: [15,16].
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Apr 20 17:19:18 EDT 2020
Downloaded/printed by
Universidad Del Valle (Universidad Del Valle) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
LIN AND SHIUE ON AHPAND SENSITIVITYANALYSIS 388
Opportunities—The perspective of the opportunities in this
study is the moment to fulfill environmental concerns in govern-
mental, environmental, and human perception.
Opportunities indicators that the TPI supply chain operates col-
lecting in RL considered the following possible measurements:
government policy (GP), environmental consciousness (EC), and
quality of life (QL).
Costs—The perspective of costs in this study is when TPI
supply chain operates the collecting in RL activity must consider
about relative costs.
In devising the costs perspective, the TPI supply chain operates
collecting in RL activity considered the following possible
FIG. 4—Evaluation the collecting strategy of RL in TPI supply chain.
389 JOURNAL OF TESTING AND EVALUATION

measurements: transportation cost (TRC), equipment and building

cost (EBC), labor cost (LAC), maintenance cost (MAC), opportu-
nity cost (OPC), social responsibility (SOR), and recycle educa-
tion and promotion cost (REPC).

Risks—The perspective of risks in this study is encountered

with the risks when TPI supply chain operates collecting in RL ac-
tivity that combined the balance scorecard (BSC) [34] concept in
risks dimension. In devising the risks perspective, the TPI supply
chain operates collecting in RL activity considered the following
possible measurements: customer risk (CUR), financial risk (FIR),
internal business process risk (IBPR), learning and innovation risk
(LIR), and legislation/political risk (LPR).

Collecting Strategy—The collecting strategy in this study

was reviewed from literatures and proposed four feasible cleaning
strategies.
In devising the alternatives, the TPI supply chain operates col-
lecting in RL activity considered the following possible measure-
ments cleaning technologies: outsourcing (OS) [35], in-house (IH) FIG. 5—Research model to evaluate collecting strategy of RL in TPI supply
[36], purchasing from government organizations (PFGO) [37], chain.
and joint recycling in business (JRIB) [38].
C1 C2    C n
2 3
C1 w 1 =w1 w1 =w2    w1 =wn
Determine the Weight of Criteria by Using Analytic C2 6
6 2 1 w2 =w2   
w =w w2 =wn 7
7
A ¼ .. 6 . .. .. .. 7 (2)
Hierarchy Process . 4 .. . . . 5
Cn wn =w1 wn =w2    wn =wn
Saaty [23] proposed AHP model to solve the complexity decision
problem. As a decision-making method that decomposes a com-
plex multicriteria decision problem into a hierarchy. AHP incor- TABLE 3—Reference of criteria, sub-criteria, and strategies.
porates the evaluations of all decision-makers into a final Strategy
decision, without having to elicit their utility functions on subjec- Criteria Sub-criteria References alternatives References
tive and objective criteria, by pair wise comparisons of the alterna-
Benefits COA [40–43], Outsourcing [35]
tives [23]. The AHP calculation procedure is as follows:
COI [44–48] In-house [36]
Establishment of pair wise comparison matrix A. Let C1, C2,.,
RPRM [41] Purchasing from [37]
Cn denote the set of elements, whereas aij represents a quantified
government
judgment on a pair of elements Ci, Cj. The relative importance of organization
two elements is rated using a scale with the values 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9, EFB [11,46,49–52] Joint recycling [38]
where 1 refers to “equally important,” 3 denotes “slightly more in business
important,” 5 equals “strongly more important,” 7 represents ES [41,53,54]
“demonstrably more important,” and 9 denotes “absolutely more Opportunities GP [11,55,56]
important.” This yields an n-by-n matrix A as follows: EC
C1 C2  Cn QL
Costs TRC [36,57–65]
2 3 EBC [62]
C1 1 a12  a1n
  C2 6 6 1=a 12 1  a2n 7
7
LAC [62,66]
A ¼ aij ¼ .. 6 . .. .. .. 7 (1) MAC [67,68]
. 4 . . . . . 5 OPC [66,69]
Cn 1=a1n 1=a2n  1 SOR [15,40,60,70,71–73]
REPC
where aij ¼ 1 and aij ¼ 1/aij, i, j ¼ 1, 2,., n. In matrix A, the prob-
Risks CUR [48,74–79]
lem becomes one of assigning to the n elements C1, C2,., Cn a set
FIR [80–82]
of numerical weights W1, W2,., Wn that reflect the recorded judg-
IBPR [41,75,81,83,84]
ments. If A is a consistency matrix, the relation between weights
LIR [83,85–87]
Wi and judgments aij are simply given by Wi/Wj ¼ aij (for i, j ¼ 1,
LPR [36,48,52,56,76,78 88,89]
2,., n) and

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Apr 20 17:19:18 EDT 2020
Downloaded/printed by
Universidad Del Valle (Universidad Del Valle) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 LIN AND SHIUE ON AHPAND SENSITIVITYANALYSIS 390

Saaty [23] suggested that the largest Eigenvalue k max would be accepted; otherwise, a new comparison matrix is solicited until
X n
Wj CR  0.1.
kmax ¼ aij (3)
j¼1
Wi
Procedure for Evaluating the Strategy of RL in
If A is a consistency matrix, Eigenvector X can be calculated by
TPI Supply Chain
ðA  kmax IÞx ¼ 0 (4)
An evaluation model is constructed based on BOCR/BSC model
Saaty proposed utilizing consistency index (CI) and consistency to assess the optimal strategy. This model for evaluating the opti-
ratio (CR) to verify the consistency of the comparison matrix. CI mal strategy comprises the following steps:
and RI are defined as follows:
CI ¼ðkmax  nÞ=ðn  1Þ (5) Procedure 1. Establish a Framework of Hierarchy
CR ¼ CI=RI (6) and Define the Evaluative Criteria
where RI represents the average CI over numerous random entries Based on the BOCR/BSC model, a general consensus among
of same order reciprocal matrices. If CR  0.1, the estimate is experts can be reached to establish a model. The ultimate goal of

TABLE 4—Definition of criteria and sub-criteria.

Criteria Definition Sub-criteria Definition

Benefits When TPI supply chain operates collecting
in RL activity can improve the environmental
benefits and value that include tangible prof-
its and intangible advantages.
RPRM
Opportunities The moment to fulfill environmental con-
cerns in governmental, environmental and
human perception.
Costs When TPI supply chain operates the collect-
ing in RL activity must consider about rela-
tive costs.
REPC
Risks When TPI supply chain operates collecting
in RL activity.
COA TPI supply chain implements the RL activity that can improve the
company advantage.
COI TPI supply chain implements the RL activity that can improve the
positive image and goodwill.
TPI supply chain implements the RL activity that can strip down
from used products to raw materials, and then reduce production
costs.
EFB TPI supply chain implements RL activity that can improve the eco-
nomical and financial benefits.
ES TPI supply chain implements RL activity that can achieve energy-
saving effect.
GP There are few competitors in solving and coordinating with the gov-
ernment’s environmental policy.
EC More and more high environmental consciousness; however, there
are only few competitors in implementing green activities
proactively.
QL The demand of the product quality, environmental safety, and
health are high in humans; however, there are only few competitors
in conforming to consumer’s need.
TRC The transportation costs are collecting cost from consumers to used
products centers in RL activity.
EBC In building the used products centers, equipment, and building costs
are necessary.
LAC The input of labors cost is in collecting process of RL activity.
MAC The maintenance costs of EBC are in RL activity.
OPC The opportunity costs are in implementing RL activity.
SOR The social responsibility is in implementing RL activity.
Corporations have to improve the RL value in supply chain mem-
bers, the relative costs of education, and promotion in this supply
chain.
CUR Incentives of customer’s recycle are not clear and induce the effi-
ciency of recycle not good.
FIR The added value and profits in RL activity are not clear.
IBPR RL activity is a new process; therefore, it possibly affects traditional
service processes.
LIR Supply chain members have no respect for environmental con-
sciousness and inconsistency.
LPR The environmental standards are not integrated and the relationship
of politics is not stable.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Apr 20 17:19:18 EDT 2020
Downloaded/printed by
Universidad Del Valle (Universidad Del Valle) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
391 JOURNAL OF TESTING AND EVALUATION

TABLE 5—Evaluation optimal collecting strategy of RL in TPI supply chain TABLE 8—Upstream of collecting strategy in TPI supply chain Eigenvectors
aggregate pair-wise comparison matrix and Eigenvectors for level 2. (weights) for levels 2–4.

Benefits Opportunities Costs Risks Eigenvectors (weights) Alternatives (weights)

Benefits 1.000 1.617 1.002 1.853 0.319 Criteria Weights Sub-criteria Global priority OS IH PFGO JRIB
Opportunities 0.618 1.000 0.644 0.581 0.169
Goal Benefits 0.319 COA 0.074 0.218 0.323 0.155 0.304
Costs 0.998 1.553 1.000 1.460 0.295
COI 0.045 0.245 0.364 0.129 0.262
Risks 0.540 1.721 0.685 1.000 0.218
RPRM 0.085 0.207 0.342 0.166 0.285
Note: CI ¼ 0.015. EFB 0.082 0.188 0.383 0.184 0.246
ES 0.033 0.219 0.322 0.148 0.311
Opportunities 0.169 GP 0.074 0.215 0.337 0.155 0.293
TABLE 6—Benefits aggregate pair-wise comparison matrix and Eigenvectors EC 0.053 0.178 0.379 0.143 0.300
for level 3.
QL 0.042 0.210 0.342 0.168 0.280
COA COI RPRM EFB ES Eigenvectors (weights) Costs 0.295 TRC 0.064 0.209 0.379 0.160 0.252
EBC 0.051 0.223 0.328 0.205 0.245
COA 1.000 1.643 0.885 0.535 2.300 0.233
LAC 0.057 0.222 0.374 0.172 0.231
COI 0.609 1.000 0.533 0.415 1.667 0.140
MAC 0.042 0.187 0.371 0.173 0.269
RPRM 1.130 1.875 1.000 1.111 2.506 0.266
OPC 0.038 0.217 0.345 0.201 0.237
EFB 1.087 2.411 0.900 1.000 2.007 0.257
SOR 0.020 0.199 0.388 0.165 0.247
ES 0.435 0.599 0.399 0.498 1.000 0.104
REPC 0.022 0.222 0.330 0.152 0.296
Note: CI ¼ 0.013. Risks 0.218 CUR 0.050 0.213 0.368 0.195 0.224
FIR 0.052 0.238 0.339 0.157 0.266
IBPR 0.033 0.190 0.321 0.204 0.285
LIR 0.029 0.251 0.302 0.168 0.279
LPR 0.054 0.214 0.327 0.212 0.247

TABLE 7—Benefit aggregate pair-wise comparison matrix and Eigenvectors Result Synthesis value 0.213 0.348 0.171 0.269
for level 4. Rank 3 1 4 2

OS IH PFGO JRIB Eigenvectors (weights)

TABLE 9—Midstream of collecting strategy in TPI supply chain Eigenvectors
COA OS 1.000 0.706 1.873 0.501 0.218 (weights) for levels 2–4.
IH 1.417 1.000 2.114 1.179 0.323
Alternatives (weights)
PFGO 0.534 0.473 1.000 0.678 0.155
JRIB 1.997 0.848 1.474 1.000 0.304 Criteria Weights Sub-criteria Global priority OS IH PFGO JRIB

Note: CI ¼ 0.026 Goal Benefits 0.275 COA 0.054 0.374 0.219 0.136 0.271
COI OS 1.000 0.742 1.750 0.923 0.245 COI 0.047 0.374 0.224 0.121 0.280
IH 1.348 1.000 3.385 1.269 0.364 RPRM 0.072 0.384 0.186 0.151 0.279
PFGO 0.571 0.295 1.000 0.539 0.129 EFB 0.063 0.402 0.198 0.188 0.212
JRIB 1.083 0.788 1.857 1.000 0.262 ES 0.039 0.276 0.249 0.227 0.249
Opportunities 0.192 GP 0.093 0.304 0.232 0.196 0.268
Note: CI ¼ 0.005
EC 0.056 0.306 0.229 0.207 0.257
RPRM OS 1.000 0.613 1.167 0.789 0.207
QL 0.042 0.426 0.159 0.104 0.311
IH 1.632 1.000 1.765 1.429 0.342
Costs 0.292 TRC 0.032 0.320 0.221 0.197 0.262
PFGO 0.857 0.567 1.000 0.472 0.166
EBC 0.050 0.349 0.223 0.182 0.246
JRIB 1.267 0.699 2.118 1.000 0.285
LAC 0.073 0.452 0.169 0.130 0.248
Note: CI ¼ 0.009 MAC 0.039 0.440 0.194 0.143 0.223
EFB OS 1.000 0.595 1.150 0.554 0.188 OPC 0.062 0.417 0.191 0.125 0.267
IH 1.682 1.000 1.850 2.112 0.383 SOR 0.021 0.400 0.200 0.120 0.280
PFGO 0.870 0.540 1.000 0.786 0.184 REPC 0.016 0.398 0.161 0.108 0.333
JRIB 1.806 0.473 1.273 1.000 0.246 Risks 0.242 CUR 0.050 0.333 0.214 0.179 0.274
FIR 0.057 0.387 0.175 0.166 0.272
Note: CI ¼ 0.022
IBPR 0.040 0.351 0.207 0.162 0.279
ES OS 1.000 0.622 1.304 0.889 0.219
LIR 0.029 0.362 0.236 0.124 0.279
IH 1.609 1.000 1.783 1.185 0.322
LPR 0.065 0.413 0.207 0.132 0.248
PFGO 0.767 0.561 1.000 0.339 0.148
JRIB 1.125 0.844 2.947 1.000 0.311 Result Synthesis value 0.367 0.208 0.162 0.263
Note: CI ¼ 0.021 Rank 1 3 4 2

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Apr 20 17:19:18 EDT 2020
Downloaded/printed by
Universidad Del Valle (Universidad Del Valle) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 LIN AND SHIUE ON AHPAND SENSITIVITYANALYSIS 392

TABLE 10—Downstream of collecting strategy in TPI supply chain Eigenvectors

(weights) for levels 2–4.

Alternatives (weights)

Global
Criteria Weights Sub-criteria priority OS IH PFGO JRIB

Goal Benefits 0.306 COA 0.065 0.430 0.194 0.092 0.284

COI 0.050 0.405 0.234 0.097 0.264
RPRM 0.092 0.470 0.191 0.063 0.276
EFB 0.072 0.575 0.160 0.113 0.151
ES 0.027 0.376 0.194 0.140 0.290
Opportunities 0.175 GP 0.072 0.424 0.235 0.071 0.271
EC 0.060 0.406 0.169 0.079 0.347
QL 0.043 0.396 0.216 0.108 0.279
Costs 0.279 TRC 0.016 0.447 0.184 0.127 0.241
EBC 0.060 0.562 0.134 0.099 0.205
LAC 0.064 0.462 0.178 0.070 0.290
MAC 0.031 0.339 0.252 0.118 0.291
OPC 0.066 0.373 0.234 0.050 0.343
SOR 0.023 0.337 0.238 0.158 0.267
REPC 0.018 0.343 0.224 0.154 0.279
Risks 0.240 CUR 0.048 0.353 0.235 0.147 0.265
FIR 0.055 0.398 0.220 0.080 0.302
IBPR 0.042 0.477 0.208 0.081 0.234
LIR 0.029 0.416 0.204 0.092 0.288
LPR 0.065 0.423 0.182 0.115 0.280

Result Synthesis value 0.425 0.204 0.095 0.276

Rank 1 3 4 2

evaluating the optimal strategy of RL in TPI supply chain can be

achieved, follow by four-evaluation criterion, twenty sub-criteria
and finally the four strategies. The criteria, sub-criteria and strat-
egies are shown in Fig. 5 and the reference in Table 3.
The evaluation criteria, sub-criteria, and alternatives used to
evaluate the optimal collecting strategy of RL in TPI supply chain
are defined as shown in Table 4.
Procedure 2. Determine Eigenvectors
The pairwise comparisons of levels 2–4 are determined for 20
individuals matching the above characteristics with each respond-
ent making a pairwise comparison of the decision elements and
assigning them relative scores.
The relative scores provided by experts are aggregated with the
geometric mean method. Table 5 lists the aggregate pairwise com-
parison matrix for the level 2, whereas the levels 3 and 4 are given
in Tables 6 and 7.
Procedure 3. Test the Consistency
The results of the consistency test and the CR of the comparison
matrix from experts are all <0.1, indicating “consistency.” Fur-
thermore, the CR of the aggregate matrix is also <0.1, also indi-
cating “consistency.”
FIG. 6—Weights graph of strategy in upstream, midstream, and downstream.
Procedure 4. Ranking the Optimal Collecting
Strategy of RL in TPI Supply Chain
The composite priority of optimal strategy of TPI supply chain is
shown in Tables 8–10.
According to Tables 8–10, the optimal collecting strategy of
TPI supply chain of each of four technologies, also get the relative
weights; determine the accomplishments with which each technol-
ogy is evaluated. Global priorities of collecting strategy in
upstream of TPI supply chain are OS (0.213), IH (0.348), PFGO
(0.171), and JRIB (0.269). The rank of upstream collecting strat-
egy is IH>JRIB>OS>PFGO (see Table 7). In midstream, the
global priorities of collecting strategy in midstream of TPI supply
chain are OS (0.367), IH (0.208), PFGO (0.162), and JRIB
(0.263). The rank of midstream collecting strategy is OS>J-
RIB>IH>PFGO (see Table 8). Downstream, the global priorities
of collecting strategy in downstream of TPI supply chain are OS
(0.425), IH (0.204), PFGO (0.095), and JRIB (0.276). The rank of
downstream collecting strategy is OS>JRIB>IH>PFGO (see Ta-
ble 9). Obviously, the optimal collecting strategy in upstream is

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Apr 20 17:19:18 EDT 2020
Downloaded/printed by
Universidad Del Valle (Universidad Del Valle) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
393 JOURNAL OF TESTING AND EVALUATION

FIG. 7—Results of upstream is performed when B, O, C, and R is increased by 30%.

FIG. 8—Results of midstream is performed when B, O, C, and R is increased by 30%.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Apr 20 17:19:18 EDT 2020
Downloaded/printed by
Universidad Del Valle (Universidad Del Valle) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

FIG. 9—Results of downstream is performed when B, O, C, and R is increased by 30%.
“in-house,” the best of collecting strategy in midstream and down-
stream is “outsourcing”.
Procedure 5. Sensitivity Analysis
Sensitivity analysis is necessary because changing the importance
of criteria requires various levels of benefits, opportunities, costs
and risks with respect to evaluating the synthesis value of optimal
strategy of RL in TPI supply chain. The synthesis value of the
optimal strategy weights are varied by using Expert Choice 2000,
second Edition Software. The weight graphs indicate how the
optimal strategy is performed when in scenario for all parameters
in upstream, midstream and downstream (Fig. 6). Sensitivity of
the results of upstream, midstream and downstream is performed
when B, O, C, and R is increased by 30% as shown in Figs. 7–9.
Focusing on the upstream of results, we noticed the four crite-
ria are not change the rank of optimal strategy when B, O, C, and
R are increased by 30%. Thus, the optimal strategy of RL in TPI
upstream is “in-house” (Fig. 7).
Focusing on the midstream of results, we noticed the four crite-
ria are not change the rank of optimal strategy when B, O, C, and
R are increased by 30%. Therefore, the optimal strategy of RL in
TPI midstream is “outsourcing” (Fig. 8).
Focusing on the downstream of results, we noticed the four cri-
teria are not change the rank of optimal strategy when B, O, C,
and R are increased by 30%. Nevertheless, the optimal strategy of
RL in TPI downstream is “outsourcing” (Fig. 9).
Hence, the results of sensitivity analysis are stable in upstream,
midstream, and downstream. Obviously, the critical criteria are ei-
ther benefits or costs. Because of the raw materials of TPI
upstream are valuable. When manufacturers are implementing RL
activity, they can strip of the collecting of used products and then
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Apr 20 17:19:18 EDT 2020
Downloaded/printed by
Universidad Del Valle (Universidad Del Valle) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
LIN AND SHIUE ON AHPAND SENSITIVITYANALYSIS 394
reuse, recovery, and resell the raw materials and gain more and
more profits, such as glasses, metals, and silicon, etc. In mid-
stream and downstream, because operations in these manufac-
turers are focused on assembly or combine the component into
PV product from PV cells to PV modules and PV systems, the
added value of used products are not enough to cover the collect-
ing costs in the recycling process. Generally, the used products in
midstream and downstream usually define the used products as
waste, then sell the waste to professional production companies
and finally gained profits from professional production
companies.
Conclusion
This study proposes the use of a multi-criteria technique, namely,
AHP and sensitivity analysis. AHP can combine quantitative and
qualitative factors to handle different groups of actors, and to
combine the opinions of many experts. Sensitivity analysis is
incorporated to show how changes in criteria weightings of each
criterion may affect the ranking of optimal strategy of RL in the
TPI supply chain. In this study, we applied the MCDM to con-
struct a framework, and gained the weights based on AHP for
optimal strategy of RL. We show how a combination of the AHP
and sensitivity analysis will affect rankings of optimal strategy.
Evidently, the optimal strategy in upstream is “IH,” the optimal
strategy in midstream is “OS,” and the optimal strategy in down-
stream is “OS.”
In this research paper, exploring a workable model for
decision-makers to evaluate the optimal strategy of RL in TPI
supply chains is an extremely complex issue, and often relies on
subjective assessment of decision-makers. In particular, decision-
395 JOURNAL OF TESTING AND EVALUATION
makers or administrators often lack objective decision-making
procedures and clearly defined evaluation criteria. Thus, we rec-
ommend that decision-makers or administrators in the TPI supply
chain manufacturers consider using this model to identify the opti-
mal strategy of RL.
References
[1] Chen, H. H. and Pang, C., “Organizational Forms for Knowl-
edge Management in Photovoltaic Solar Energy Industry,”
Knowl.-Based Syst., Vol. 23, 2010, pp. 924–933.
[2] Solangi, K. H., Islam, M. R., Saidur, R., Rahim, N. A., and
Fayaz, H., “A Review on Global Solar Energy Policy,”
Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., Vol. 15, 2011, pp. 2149–2163.
[3] Saidur, R., Islam, M. R., Rahim, N. A., and Solangi, K. H.,
“A Review on Global Wind Energy Policy,” Renew. Sust.
Energ. Rev., Vol. 14, No. 7, 2010, pp. 1744–1766.
[4] Wang, Q. and Qiu, H. N., “Situation and Outlook of Solar
Energy Utilization in Tibet, China,” Renew. Sust. Energ.
Rev., Vol. 13, No. 8, 2009, pp. 2181–2186.
[5] Tsoutsos, T., Frantzeskaki, N., and Gekas, V.,
“Environmental Impacts from the Solar Energy Tech-
nologies,” Energ. Policy, Vol. 33, No. 3, 2005, pp. 289–296.
[6] Ranjan, S., Balaji, S., Panella, R. A., and Ydstie, B. E.,
“Silicon Solar Cell Production,” Comput. Chem. Eng., Vol.
35, 2011, pp. 1439–1453.
[7] Tour, A., Glachant, M., and Meniere, Y., “Innovation and
International Technology Transfer: The Case of the Chinese
Photovoltaic Industry,” Energ. Policy, Vol. 39, 2011, pp.
761–770.
[8] Frantzis, L., Graham, S., Katofsky, R., and Sawyer, H., Pho-
tovoltaics Business Models, National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, Burlington, VT, 2008.
[9] Pavlović, T., Milosavljević, D., Radonjić, I., Pantić, L., and
Radivojević, A., “Application of Solar Cells Made of Differ-
ent Materials in 1 MW PV Solar Plants in BANJA LUKA,”
Contemp. Mater., Vol. II-2, 2011, pp. 155–163.
[10] Cai, S., De Souza, R., Goh, M., Li, W., Lu, Q., and Sundara-
kani, B., “The Adoption of Green Supply Chain Strategy: An
Institutional Perspective,” IEEE International Conference on
Management of Innovation and Technology, NJ, 2008, pp.
1044–1049.
[11] Zhu, Q. and Sarkis, J., “An Inter-Sectoral Comparison of
Green Supply Chain Management in China: Drivers and
Practices,” J. Clean Prod., Vol. 14, No. 5, 2006, pp. 472–486.
[12] Lee, S., “Drivers for the Participation of Small and Medium-
Sized Suppliers in Green Supply Chain Initiatives,” Supply
Chain Manag.: Int. J., Vol. 13, No. 3, 2008, pp. 185–198.
[13] Nativi, J. J. and Lee, S., “Impact of RFID Information-
Sharing Strategies on a Decentralized Supply Chain With
Reverse Logistics Operations,” Int. J. Prod. Econ., Vol. 136,
No. 2, 2011, pp. 366–377.
[14] Srivastava, S. K., “Green Supply—Chain Management: A
State-of-the-Art Literature Review,” Int. J. Manag. Rev.,
Vol. 9, No. 1, 2007, pp. 53–80.
[15] Pokharel, S. and Mutha, A., “Perspectives in Reverse Logistics:
A Review,” Res., Conserv. Recyc., Vol. 53, 2009, pp. 175–182.
[16] Barker, T. J. and Zabinsky, Z. B., “Reverse Logistics Net-
work Design: A Conceptual Framework for Decision
Making,” Int. J. Sust. Eng., Vol. 1, No. 4, 2008, pp.
250–260.
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Apr 20 17:19:18 EDT 2020
Downloaded/printed by
Universidad Del Valle (Universidad Del Valle) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
[17] Biehl, M., Prater, M., and Realff, M. J., “Assessing Perform-
ance and Uncertainty in Developing Carpet Reverse Logistics
Systems,” Comput. Oper. Res., Vol. 34, 2007, pp. 443–463.
[18] Ko, H. and Evans, G., “A Genetic Algorithm-Based Heuris-
tic for the Dynamic Integrated Forward/Reverse Logistics
Network for 3PLs,” Comput. Oper. Res., Vol. 34, 2007, pp.
346–366.
[19] Serrato, M., Ryan, S., and Gaytan, J., “A Markov Decision
Model to Evaluate Outsourcing in Reverse Logistics,” Int. J.
Prod. Res., Vol. 45, 2007, pp. 4289–4315.
[20] Wu, C. R., Chang, C. W., and Lin, H. L., “An Organizational
Performance Measurement Model Based on AHP Sensitivity
Analysis,” Int. J. Bus. Perform. Manag., Vol. 9, No. 1, 2007,
pp. 77–91.
[21] Saaty, T. L. and Ozdemir, M., “Negative Priorities in the
Analytic Hierarchy Process,” Math. Comput. Modell., Vol.
37, 2003, pp. 1063–1075.
[22] Saaty, T. L., “Fundamentals of the Analytic Network Process
Multiple Networks With Benefits, Opportunities, Costs and
Risks,” J. Syst. Sci. Syst. Eng., Vol. 13, No. 3, 2004, pp.
348–379.
[23] Saaty, T. L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw Hill,
New York, 1980.
[24] Tong, O., Shao, S., Zhang, Y., Chen, Y., Liu, S. L., and
Zhang, S. S., “An AHP-Based Water-Conservation and
Waste-Reduction Indicator System for Cleaner Production of
Textile-Printing Industry in China and Technique Integra-
tion,” Clean Technol. Environ. Policy (to be published).
[25] Chiang, S. Y., Wei, C. C., Chiang, T. H., and Chen, W.L.,
“How Can Electronics Industries Become Green Manufac-
turers in Taiwan and Japan,” Clean Technol. Environ. Policy,
Vol. 13, No. 1, 2011, pp. 37–47.
[26] Vinodh, S., Prasanna, M., and Manoj, S., “Application of
Analytical Network Process for the Evaluation of Sustainable
Business Practices in an Indian Relays Manufacturing
Organization,” Clean Technol. Environ. Policy, Vol. 14, No.
2, 2012, pp. 309–317.
[27] Erdogmus, S., Kapanoglu, M., and Koc, E., “Evaluating
High-Tech Alternatives by Using Analytic Network Process
With BOCR and Multifactors,” Eval. Prog. Plan., Vol. 28,
2005, pp. 391–399.
[28] Erdogmus, S., Aras, H., and Koc, E., “Evaluation of Alterna-
tive Fuels for Residential Heating in Turkey Using Analytic
Network Process (ANP) With Group Decision-Making,”
Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., Vol. 10, 2006, pp. 269–279.
[29] Saaty, T. L. and Shang, J. S., “Group Decision-Making:
Head-Count versus Intensity of Preference,” Socio-Econ.
Plan. Sci., Vol. 41, 2007, pp. 22–37.
[30] Ustun, O. and Demirtas, E. A., “An Integrated Multi-
Objective Decision-Making Process for Multi-Period Lot-
Sizing With Supplier Selection,” OMEGA, Vol. 36, 2008,
pp. 509–521.
[31] Lee, A. H. I., Chen, H. H., and Kang, H. Y., “Multi-Criteria
Decision Making on Strategic Selection of Wind Farms,”
Renew. Energ., Vol. 34, 2009, pp. 120–126.
[32] Lee, A. H. I., “A Fuzzy Supplier Selection Model With Con-
sideration of Benefits, Opportunities, Costs and Risks,”
Expert Syst. Appl., Vol. 36, 2009, pp. 2879–2893.
[33] Demirtas, E. A. and Ustun, O., “Analytic Network Process
and Multi-Period Goal Programming Integration in Purchas-
ing Decisions,” Comput. Indust. Eng., Vol. 56, No. 2, 2009,
pp. 677–690.

[34] Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P., The Balanced Scorecard,
HBS Press, Boston, MA, 1996.
[35] Azadi, M. and Saen, R. F., “A New Chance-Constrained Data
Envelopment Analysis for Selecting Third-Party Reverse Lo-
gistics Providers in the Existence of Dual-Role Factors,”
Expert Syst. Appl., Vol. 38, 2011, pp. 12231–12236.
[36] Celebi, D., Bayraktar, D., and Bingol, L., “Analytical Net-
work Process for Logistics Management: A Case Study in a
Small Electronic Appliances Manufacturer,” Comput. Indust.
Eng., Vol. 58, 2010, pp. 432–441.
[37] Wojanowski, R., Verter, V., and Tamer B., “Retail-Collec-
tion Network Design Under Deposit-Refund,” Comput.
Oper. Res., Vol. 34, 2007, pp. 324–345.
[38] Canning, L., “Rethinking Market Connections: Mobile
Phone Recovery, Reuse and Recycling in the UK,” J. Bus.
Indust. Market., Vol. 21, No. 5, 2006, pp. 320–329.
[39] EPIA (The European Photovoltaic Industry Association).
2011, “Solar Generation 6,” EPIA, Belgium, http://www.
epia.org/index.php?eID¼tx_nawsecuredl&u¼0&file¼fileadmin/
EPIA_docs/documents/Solar_Generation_6__2011_Full_
report_Final.pdf&t¼1332919376&hash¼0a069b0c700117e9
d1d3e454c355df6e (Last accessed 19 March 2012).
[40] Defee, C. C., Esper, T., and Mollenkopf, D., “Leveraging
Closed-Loop Orientation and Leadership for Environmental
Sustainability,” Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J., Vol. 14, No.
2, 2009, pp. 87–98.
[41] Tam, V. W. Y., “Comparing the Implementation of
Concrete Recycling in the Australian and Japanese Con-
struction Industries,” J. Clean. Prod., Vol. 17, 2009, pp.
688–702.
[42] Guide, V. D. R., Jr. and Van Wassenhove, L. N., “The Evo-
lution of Closed-Loop Supply Chain Research,” Oper. Res.,
Vol. 57, No. 1, 2009, pp. 10–18.
[43] Chen, Y. S., Lai, S. B., and Wen, C. T., “The Influence
of Green Innovation Performance on Corporate Advantage
in Taiwan,” J. Bus. Ethics, Vol. 67, No. 4, 2006, pp.
331–339.
[44] Fernando, M., “Corporate Social Responsibility in the Wake of
the Asian Tsunami: Effect of Time on the Genuineness of CSR
Initiatives,” Eur. Manag. J., Vol. 28, No. 1, 2010, pp. 68–79.
[45] Hong, P., Kwon, H., and Roh, J. J., “Implementation of Stra-
tegic Green Orientation in Supply Chain: An Empirical
Study of Manufacturing Firms,” Eur. J. Innov. Manag., Vol.
12, No. 4, 2009, pp. 512–532.
[46] Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., and Lai, K., “Confirmation of a Measure-
ment Model for Green Supply Chain Management Practices
Implementation,” Int. J. Prod. Econ., Vol. 111, No. 2, 2008,
pp. 261–273.
[47] Barraclough, S. and Morrow, M., “A Grim Contradiction:
The Practice and Consequences of Corporate Social Respon-
sibility by British American Tobacco in Malaysia,” Soc. Sci.
Med., Vol. 66, No. 8, 2008, pp. 1784–1796.
[48] Carter, C. R. and Ellram, L. M., “Reverse Logistics: A
Review of Literature and Framework for Future Inves-
tigation,” J. Bus. Logist., Vol. 19, No. 1, 1998, pp. 85–102.
[49] Chakrabarti, S., Majumder, A., and Chakrabarti, S., “Public-
Community Participation in Household Waste Management
in India: An Operational Approach,” Habitat Int., Vol. 33,
No. 1, 2009, pp. 125–130.
[50] Zia, H. and Devadas, V., “Municipal Solid Waste Manage-
ment in Kanpur, India: Obstacles and Prospects,” Manag.
Environ. Qual.: Int. J., Vol. 18, No. 1, 2007, pp. 89–108.
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Apr 20 17:19:18 EDT 2020
Downloaded/printed by
Universidad Del Valle (Universidad Del Valle) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
LIN AND SHIUE ON AHPAND SENSITIVITYANALYSIS 396
[51] Moczygemba, E. and Smaka-Kincl, V., “69 Per Cent Recy-
cling Rate for Waste Management in Graz, Austria,” Manag.
Environ. Qual.: Int. J., Vol. 18, No. 2, 2007, pp. 126–136.
[52] Tan, A. and Kumar, A., “A Decision-Making Model for
Reverse Logistics in the Computer Industry,” Int. J. Logist.
Manag., Vol. 17, No. 3, 2006, pp. 331–354.
[53] Nasiri, F. and Huang, G., “A Fuzzy Decision Aid Model for
Environmental Performance Assessment in Waste Recycling,”
Environ. Modell. Softw., Vol. 23, 2008, pp. 677–689.
[54] Carter, T. and Keeler, A., “Life-Cycle Cost-Benefit Analysis
of Extensive Vegetated Roof Systems,” J. Environ. Manag.,
Vol. 87, 2008, pp. 350–363.
[55] Gupta, S. and Palsule-Desai, O. D., “Sustainable Supply
Chain Management: Review and Research Opportunities,”
IIMB Manag. Rev., Vol. 23, No. 4, 2011, pp. 234–245.
[56] Walker, H., Sisto, L. D., and McBain, D., “Drivers and Bar-
riers to Environmental Supply Chain Management Practices:
Lessons from Public and Private Sectors,” J. Purchas. Supply
Manag., Vol. 14, 2008, pp. 69–85.
[57] Lu, Y., Lu, J., and Jia, H., “Study on the Environmental
Cost-sharing Method for Reverse Logistics in Household
Appliances,” Energ. Proc., Vol. 5, 2011, pp. 186–190.
[58] Kuo, T. C., “The Construction of a Collaborative-Design
Platform to Support Waste Electrical and Electronic Equip-
ment Recycling,” Robot. Comput.-Integr. Manuf., Vol. 26,
2010, pp. 100–108.
[59] Lombrano, A., “Cost Efficiency in the Management of Solid
Urban Waste,” Res., Conserv. Recyc., Vol. 53, 2009, pp.
601–611.
[60] Mutha, A. and Pokharel, S., “Strategic Network Design for
Reverse Logistics and Remanufacturing Using New and Old
Product Modules,” Comput. Indust. Eng., Vol. 56, 2009, pp.
334–346.
[61] Pati, R. K., Vrat, P., and Kumar, P., “A Goal Programming
Model for Paper Recycling System,” Omega, Vol. 36, 2008,
pp. 405–417.
[62] Shih, L. H., Chang, Y. S., and Lin, Y.T., “Intelligent Evalua-
tion Approach for Electronic Product Recycling via Case-
Based Reasoning,” Adv. Eng. Inform., Vol. 20, 2006, pp.
137–145.
[63] Ardente, F., Beccali, G., and Cellura, M., “Eco-Sustainable
Energy and Environmental Strategies in Design for Recy-
cling: The Software ENDLESS£,” Ecol. Modell., Vol. 163,
2003, pp. 101–118.
[64] Tibben-Lembke, R. and Rogers, D. S., “Differences Between
Forward and Reverse Logistics,” Supply Chain Manag.: Int.
J., Vol. 7, No. 5, 2002, pp. 271–282.
[65] Ferrer, G. and Whybark, C. D., “From Garbage to Goods:
Successful Remanufacturing Systems and Skills,” Bus.
Horiz., Vol. 43, No. 5, 2000, pp. 55–64.
[66] Bohm, R. A., Folz, D. H., Kinnaman, T. C., and Podolsky,
M. J., “The Costs Municipal Waste and Recycling Pro-
grams,” Res., Conserv. Recyc., Vol. 54, 2010, pp. 864–871.
[67] Rajkumar, K., Muthukumar, M., and Sivakumar, R., “Novel
Approach for the Treatment and Recycle of Wastewater from
Soya Edible Oil Refinery Industry—An Economic
Perspective,” Res., Conserv. Recyc., Vol. 54, 2010, pp.
752–758.
[68] Kim, J., Hwang, Y., and Park, K., “An Assessment of the
Recycling Potential of Materials Based on Environmental
and Economic Factors; Case Study in South Korea,” J.
Clean. Prod., Vol. 17, 2009, pp. 1264–1271.
397 JOURNAL OF TESTING AND EVALUATION
[69] Berglund, C., “The Assessment of Households’ Recycling
Costs: The Role of Personal Motives,” Ecol. Econ., Vol. 56,
2006, pp. 560–569.
[70] Kannan, G., Sasikumar, P., and Devika, K., “A Genetic
Algorithm Approach for Solving a Closed Loop Supply
Chain Model: A Case of Battery Recycling,” Appl. Math.
Modell., Vol. 34, No. 3, 2010, pp. 655–670.
[71] Chan, F. T. S. and Chan, H. K., “A Survey on Reverse Lo-
gistics System of Mobil Phone Industry in Hong Kong,”
Manag. Decis., Vol. 46, No. 5, 2008, pp. 702–708.
[72] Bansal, P. and Roth, K., “Why Companies Go Green: A
Model of Ecological Responsiveness,” Acad. Manag. J.,
Vol. 43, No. 4, 2000, pp. 717–736.
[73] Environment, Health and Safety (EH&S), “Waste Minimiza-
tion Program Manual,” Iowa State University Research
Foundation, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 1994.
[74] Kapetanopoulou, P. and Tagaras, G., “Drivers and Obstacles
of Product Recovery Activities in the Greek Industry,” Int. J.
Oper. Prod. Manag., Vol. 31, No. 2, 2010, pp. 148–166.
[75] Alvarez-Gil, M. J., Berrone, P., Husillos, F. J., and Lado, N.,
“Reverse Logistics, Stakeholders’ Influence, Organizational
Slack, and Managers’ Posture,” J. Bus. Res., Vol. 60, No. 5,
2007, pp. 463–473.
[76] Dowlatshahi, S., “A Strategic Framework for the Design and
Implementation of Remanufacturing Operations in Reverse
Logistics,” Int. J. Prod. Res., Vol. 43, No. 16, 2005, pp.
3455–3480.
[77] Carter, C. R. and Dresner, M., “Purchasing’s Role in Envi-
ronmental Management: Cross Functional Development of
Grounded Theory,” Supply Chain Manag., Vol. 37, No. 3,
2001, pp. 12–26.
[78] Dowlatshahi, S., “Developing a Theory of Reverse Logisti-
cs,” Interfaces, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2000, pp. 143–155.
[79] Bowen, F., “Environmental Visibility: A Trigger for Organi-
zational Response?,” Bus. Strat. Environ., Vol. 9, 2000, pp.
92–107.
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Apr 20 17:19:18 EDT 2020
Downloaded/printed by
Universidad Del Valle (Universidad Del Valle) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
[80] Tudor, T. L., Bannister, S., Butler, S., White, P., Jones, K.,
Woolridge, A. C., Bates, M. P., and Phillips, P. S., “Can Cor-
porate Social Responsibility and Environmental Citizenship
Be Employed in the Effective Management of Waste?: Case
Studies from the National Health Service (NHS) in England
and Wales,” Res., Conserv. Recyc., Vol. 52, No. 5, 2008, pp.
764–774.
[81] Ravi, V. and Shankar, R., “Analysis of Interactions Among
the Barriers of Reverse Logistics,” Technol. Forecast. Soc.
Change, Vol. 72, No. 8, 2005, pp. 1011–1029.
[82] Ahmed, S. A. and Ali, M., “Partnerships for Solid Waste
Management in Developing Countries: Linking Theories to
Realities,” Habitat Int., Vol. 28, No. 3, 2004, pp. 468–479.
[83] Rogers, D. S. and Tibben-Lembke, R., “An Examination of
Reverse Logistics Practices,” J. Bus. Logist., Vol. 22, No. 2,
2001, pp. 129–148.
[84] Florida, R., Atlas, M., and Cline, M., “What Makes Compa-
nies Green? Organizational and Geographic Factors in the
Adoption of Environmental Practices,” Econ. Geogr., Vol.
77, No. 3, 2001, pp. 209–244.
[85] Hicks, B. J., (2007) “Lean Information Management: Under-
standing and Eliminating Waste,” Int. J. Inf. Manag., Vol.
27, No. 4, pp. 233–249.
[86] Tonglet, M., Phillips, P. S., and Bates, M.P., (2004)
“Determining the Drivers for Householder Proenvironmental
Behaviour: Waste Minimisation Compared to Recycling,”
Res., Conserv. Recyc., Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 27–48.
[87] Williams, R. H., “Toward Zero Emissions from Coal in
China,” Energ. Sust. Dev., Vol. 5, No. 4, 2001, pp. 39–65.
[88] Ostlin, J., Sundin, E., and Bjorkman, M., “Importance of Closed-
Loop Supply Chain Relationships for Product Remanufacturing,”
Int. J. Prod. Econ., Vol. 115, No. 2, 2008, pp. 336–348.
[89] Papadopouslos, A. M. and Giama, E., “Environmental Per-
formance Evaluation of Thermal Insulation Materials and Its
Impact on the Building,” Build. Environ., Vol. 42, 2007, pp.
2178–2187.