Sachin Paper 1 - Ijlra - GSCM

International Journal of Logistics Research and
Applications
A Leading Journal of Supply Chain Management
ISSN: 1367-5567 (Print) 1469-848X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjol20
A combined approach using AHP and DEMATEL

for evaluating success factors in implementation
of green supply chain management in Indian
manufacturing industries
Sumeet Gandhi, Sachin Kumar Mangla, Pradeep Kumar & Dinesh Kumar
To cite this article: Sumeet Gandhi, Sachin Kumar Mangla, Pradeep Kumar & Dinesh Kumar
(2016): A combined approach using AHP and DEMATEL for evaluating success factors in
implementation of green supply chain management in Indian manufacturing industries,
International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2016.1164126
Published online: 07 Apr 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjol20
Download by: [Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee] Date: 07 April 2016, At: 02:23
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS: RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2016.1164126
A combined approach using AHP and DEMATEL for evaluating

success factors in implementation of green supply chain
management in Indian manufacturing industries
Sumeet Gandhia, Sachin Kumar Manglaa,b, Pradeep Kumara and Dinesh Kumara
a
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India; bDepartment
of Mechanical Engineering, Graphic Era University, Dehradun, India
Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee] at 02:23 07 April 2016
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The present work aims to evaluate the success factors (SFs) associated with Received 10 August 2014
the implementation of green supply chain management (GSCM) from the Accepted 5 March 2016
Indian manufacturing industry perspective. Initially, 24 SFs relevant to
KEYWORDS
GSCM adoption and implementation were identified from the literature GSCM implementation
and inputs received from relevant experts. Subsequently, a structural success factors; AHP;
model was proposed by means of combining the Analytical Hierarchy DEMATEL; supply chain
Process (AHP) and the Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory management; sustainable
(DEMATEL) approach to evaluate these SFs at the tactical, operational production; Indian
and strategic levels in GSCM adoption. The AHP method helps in manufacturing industries
determining the relative importance/priorities of the SFs to GSCM
adoption. In addition, the DEMATEL method captures the interactive
relationships among the SFs, and analyses them on the basis of causal
effect mapping. The model proposed can help industrial managers/
practitioners to formulate short-term as well as long-term flexible
decision strategies in efficiently managing a green supply chain.
1. Introduction
In this competitive world, exploitation of natural resources is increasing day by day. One of the
primary underlying reasons is the rapid increase in industrialisation. In order to lower the gap
between demand and supply, industries are using natural resources as the source of their raw
material at a much faster pace in order to carry out that business activities. Therefore, it becomes
important for industries to develop and implement eco-friendly means to conserve resources and
to achieve sustainable production in their respective business (Rao 2002; Mangla, Madaan, and
Chan 2013; Luthra, Garg, and Haleem 2014). In addition, various international regulating legislative
norms such as RoHS (Restrictions of the use of Hazardous Substances) and WEEE (Waste Electrical
and Electronic Equipment) directives have forced industries to stretch their environmental practices
to their suppliers and customers and to adopt Environmental Management Systems as part of their
regular business practices (Sarkis 2003, 2006; Hsu and Hu 2008; Zhu, Sarkis, and Lai 2008; Mangla,
Madaan, and Chan 2012). Supply Chain Management (SCM) is an important function for an organ-
isation, and plays a vital part in improving its competitive position (Zhu, Sarkis, and Geng 2005). It
starts from the raw material till the end product is delivered to the final customer (Chopra, Meindl,
and Kalra 2010, 2). Based on this information, SCM is a very promising dimension where environ-
mentally friendly practices may be inculcated at various levels of business (Beamon 1999; Srivastava
2007). The addition of green or eco-friendly practices into SCM results in green supply chain
CONTACT Sachin Kumar Mangla sachinmangl@gmail.com

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 S. GANDHI ET AL.
management (GSCM) (Jung 2011; Ahi and Searcy 2013). The GSCM concept has been acknowl-
edged as an important initiative in increasing ecological advantages and promoting organisational
sustainability (Zhu et al. 2011; Gunasekaran and Gallear 2012; Mangla, Kumar, and Barua 2014c).
There are, however, several different factors that can influence the adoption and implementation
of GSCM from the organisational point of view, such as the management role, globalisation, govern-
ment policies, customer attitudes, economic considerations and competition (Rao and Holt 2005;
Zhu, Sarkis, and Lai 2008; Diabat and Govindan 2011; Toke, Gupta, and Dandekar 2012; Mangla,
Kumar, and Barua 2014a). These factors are very important and may play a significant role in
GSCM adoption (Luthra, Garg, and Haleem 2015). Therefore, the need arises to accurately recognise
and evaluate the success factors (SFs) in greening the supply chain. It will help industries in analysing
the appropriate strategies for the management of the green supply chain (GSC), resulting in
improvements in their ecological and economic performances.
1.1. Objectives of the research

The objective of this study is to evaluate the SFs relevant to the initiation and implementation of
GSCM on the tactical, operational and strategic levels in a business. Nonetheless, there can be differ-
ent views in different industries when adopting green initiatives (Zhu and Sarkis 2006). Thus, to
accomplish the aforementioned objective, initially, the various SFs associated with implementation
of GSCM have been identified. To identify the most commonly accepted SFs related to GSCM adop-
tion, various industries operating in the western region of India (Maharashtra) were investigated.
Later, an evaluation procedure has been proposed to prioritise and to study the interrelationships
among the identified commonly accepted SFs through the input from industrial experts. The present
research work uses a combined approach based on the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and the
Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) method. The AHP method (Saaty
1980) establishes the relative concern in the SFs in GSCM adoption. On the other hand, the use
of the DEMATEL method (Gabus and Fontela 1972) helps in generating the interdependence
between the GSCM implementation SFs by grouping them into cause and effect groups. The com-
bined AHP and DEMATEL-based approach can help managers to frame strategies in managing the
GSC efficiently.
The rest of this article is as follows: in Section 2, the literature pertinent to this work is examined.
The research problem is defined in Section 3. Details of the proposed research framework are given
in Section 4. Section 5 comprises the solution methodology adopted for this work. The application of
the proposed framework in the Indian manufacturing sector is shown in Section 6. The results and
managerial implications are discussed in Section 7. Section 8 contains the research conclusions,
limitations and scope for future work.
2. Literature review
This section includes the literature on GSCM, GSCM implementation factors, GSCM and use of
AHP and DEMATEL methods, and identifies the research gap for the present work.
2.1. GSCM
Due to the increased awareness and importance of this field, many researchers have published
articles related to GSCM initiatives (Beamon 1999, 2005; Sarkis 2003; Rao and Holt 2005; Srivastava
2007; Mathiyazhagan, Govindan, and Haq 2014; Mangla, Kumar, and Barua 2014b; Dubey et al.
2015). Green supply chains can be understood as the ‘integration of environmental considerations
into supply chain management, including product design, material sourcing and selection, manufac-
turing processes, delivery of the final product to the consumer, and the end-of-life management of
green products’ (Wee et al. 2011, 603). GSCM initiatives involve significant decisions which need to
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOGISTICS: RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS 3
be taken by industries for achieving economic, social and environmental goals (or sustainability)
(Gunasekaran and Gallear 2012). Zsidisin and Siferd (2001) and Diabat and Govindan (2011)
expressed GSCM as the set of SCM policies held, actions taken and relationships formed in response
to concerns related to the natural environment with regard to the design, acquisition, production,
distribution, use, reuse and disposal of the firm’s goods and services. GSCM practices have often
been adopted in highly visible organisations and companies within customer-focused industries
(Hall 2000). Hoejmose, Brammer, and Millington (2012) concluded that environmental perform-
ance is based on the position of the organisation in the supply chain, that is, the organisation is either
in the business-to-consumer (B2C) or the business-to-business (B2B) market, which in turn is influ-
enced by consumer pressure and organisational environmental efforts. Further, it has also been men-
tioned that implementing GSCM not only results in an improved organisational competitive
position, but is also crucial in having an enhanced ecological image (Yang, Hong, and Modi
2011). It well justifies the need for GSCM implementation in any organisation.
2.2. GSCM implementation factors

The increasing importance of environmental issues all over the globe has forced organisations to
implement green initiatives in a supply chain context (Zhu and Sarkis 2006; Zhu, Sarkis, and Lai
2007; Chuang and Yang 2014). In addition, several factors, such as customers’ increasing environ-
mental knowledge, globalisation and competitiveness, have also increased green initiatives among
organisations (Zhu, Sarkis, and Lai 2008; Mangla et al. 2014), and help organisations in enhancing
their capabilities on environmental issues (Zhu, Sarkis, and Lai 2012).
It has been stated that successful implementation of GSCM has a direct positive impact on cor-
porate performance, company profit, competitive gains, etc. (Zhu and Sarkis 2004). Green design
and manufacturing are positively linked with competitive advantage (Chan, He, and Wang 2012).
Walker, Sisto, and Mcbain (2008) listed the main factors of internal and external drivers related
to GSCM practices, including organisational factors (personal and ethical values of the officials
and decision-makers), customers, regulations, society and competitors. Cost benefits are one of
the major drivers for organisations to implement GSCM (Diabat and Govindan 2011).
With regard to the GSCM literature, different researchers and practitioners have identified var-
ious key factors related to the greening of supply chains. These include government regulations,
supplier participation, customer awareness, top management commitment, employees involve-
ment/training, green design, green procurement practices, green manufacturing, green transpor-
tation, reuse, reverse logistics, green disposal, corporate image and competitiveness (Mudgal
et al. 2009; Diabat and Govindan 2011; Dashore and Sohani 2013; Luthra, Garg, and Haleem
2014). Toke, Gupta, and Dandekar (2012) listed different critical factors with regard to the
implementation aspects of GSCM. These include green design considerations, government policies
and regulations, top management commitment, financial resources, reverse logistics, societal con-
sideration for environment and satisfaction of the customer. Mangla et al. (2014) evaluated differ-
ent enablers, namely financial benefits, supplier and stakeholder commitment, environmental
issues and customer redundancy, related to the implementation and initiation of green activities
in the supply chain. Besides, it has also been mentioned that the customer plays an influential role
in greening the supply chain (Muduli et al. 2013; Mangla, Kumar, and Barua 2014a). Wee and
Quazi (2005) discussed seven important environmental management variables or issues, namely
commitment of top management, supplier management, total involvement of employees and
their training, green products/process design, measurement and information management. Muduli
et al. (2013) explored the importance of human behavioural factors in terms of the employee, sup-
plier and management in implementing GSCM initiatives. Luthra, Garg , and Haleem (2015) pro-
posed a driving dependence model to evaluate the 25 GSCM implementation SFs to achieve
sustainability in the Indian automobile industry.
4 S. GANDHI ET AL.
2.3. GSCM and use of AHP and DEMATEL

AHP, a decision-making tool, is used to organise a complex problem into a hierarchical structure. It
uses a system of pair wise comparisons to recognise the importance of the decision factors in the
system (Saaty 1980). On the other hand, the DEMATEL approach helps the decision-maker to ident-
ify the interdependence between the factors (Wu 2008). It results in the categorisation of factors by
dividing them into cause and effect groups (Wu, Tseng, and Vy 2011). Therefore, a wide recognition
of the applicability of AHP and DEMATEL method is reported in the literature (Vaidya and Kumar
2006; Sasamal and Ramanjaneyulu 2008; Tzeng and Huang 2011; Falatoonitoosi, Leman, and Sor-
ooshian 2013; Hsu et al. 2013; Gandhi et al. 2015). The contribution of various scholars and prac-
titioners in the GSCM context by making use of AHP and DEMATEL method is highlighted in
Table 1.
2.4. Research gaps

It has been acknowledged that the literature needs to demonstrate an accepted explanation of green
practices manifested in SCM (Mohanty and Prakash 2013). Further, as per the analysis carried out by
Min and Kim (2012) there are 519 articles available from January 1995 to December 2010 in the
research fields of GSCM. However, very little research has been done on GSCM initiatives in devel-
oping countries like India (Mitra and Dutta 2014). To deal with this, researchers are playing a very
crucial role in addressing the important factors in order to understand and evaluate the green con-
cepts in the supply chain scenario from an Indian perspective (Diabat and Govindan 2011; Luthra,
Garg, and Haleem 2015). In addition, some studies have been conducted that analyse the drivers/
critical SFs/variables related to GSCM implementation by taking the case of various Indian industrial
sectors, such as Mining, Automobile and Paper (Muduli et al. 2013; Luthra, Garg, and Haleem 2014;
Mangla et al. 2014). These studies indicate that the results obtained hold true for the sector under
study only. Therefore, the need arises to carry out the studies on the identification of GSCM
implementation-related SFs and their evaluation in the manufacturing sector as well (Mangla
et al. 2014; Luthra, Garg , and Haleem 2015). As a further step, it may be significantly important
for Indian industries to evaluate the various SFs for enhancing the ecological-economic performance
in greening of their supply chains (Toke, Gupta, and Dandekar 2012). Hence, it is noted that there is
a clear gap in research in the sphere of GSCM analysis in the Indian manufacturing sector.
Table 1. A summary on the use of AHP and DEMATEL in GSCM context.

S.
No. Authors AHP DEMATEL Contribution
1 Gandhi et al. (2015) √ Evaluated the SFs in GSCM implementation
2 Govindan et al. (2014) √ Analysed the barriers in GSCM implementation
3 Mathiyazhagan, Govindan, and √ Analysed the pressures in GSCM implementation
Haq (2014)
4 Mangla, Kumar, and Barua √ Examined the attributes for performance improvement in GSCs
(2014a)
5 Hsu et al. (2013) √ Developed a carbon management model of supplier selection in
GSCM
6 Luthra, Garg, and Haleem (2013) √ Ranked the strategies in GSCM implementation
7 Falatoonitoosi, Leman, and √ Evaluated the supplier selection criterion in GSCM
Sorooshian (2013)
8 Iirajpour et al. (2012) √ Identified and evaluated the most effective factors in green supplier
selection
9 Toke, Gupta, and Dandekar √ Analysed the critical SFs in GSCM implementation
(2012)
10 Rahman and Subramanian √ Analysed the factors for implementing end-of-life computer
(2012) recycling operations
11 Wu, Tseng, and Vy (2011) √ Evaluated the drivers of GSCM practices in uncertainty
12 Sarmiento and Thomas (2010) √ Identified and evaluated the improvement areas in implementing
green initiatives in a supply chain context
To fulfil the above-mentioned research gap, a two-phase methodology has been proposed and
employed in this study. Phase 1: Recognition of most common GSCM implementation SFs from pre-
vious studies and inputs received from experts. Phase 2: evaluation of SFs with the aim to prioritise
the GSCM implementation common SFs and to analyse the interactions among them for formulat-
ing short-term and long-term decision strategies in GSCM adoption by means of the combined
AHP–DEMATEL approach.
3. Defining the research problem

According to the Environmental Performance Index 2014 report, India is ranked at the 155th
position out of 178 countries, which uncovers the fact that the initiatives being devised for
the environmental improvement are significantly lacking in India. However, there has been
an improvement of 5.4% in the last year, and there are significant chances of improvement poss-
ible in the environmental sector. On the other hand, there is lack of competency and knowledge
in Indian industries in terms of adoption and sustainability of GSCM in their businesses (Gupta
and Palsule-Desai 2011). This is mainly due to the lack of awareness of GSCM among Indian
consumers (Das 2012). A reason behind this could be the unwillingness to pay for eco-friendly
quality products (Ishaswini and Datta 2011). Currently, Indian organisations have started incul-
cating environmental-friendly practices into the traditional supply chain because of the
increased pressure from the regulatory bodies, customers, competitiveness, etc. (Mathiyazhagan,
Govindan, and Haq 2014) (e.g. the goal of 20% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020 due to
pressure from developed countries). Subsequently, many researchers and practitioners are play-
ing their part by means of studies in the area of GSCM in the Indian industry context (for
details, refer Table 2).
From Table 2, it is clear that the combined AHP–DEMATEL technique in the field of GSCM has
not been used in the Indian industries. Therefore, the present research work is an effort to help the
Indian manufacturing industries by evaluating the factors in successful GSCM adoption and
implementation through the combined AHP–DEMATEL approach. The AHP method determines
the relative concerns of the SFs in GSCM adoption. On the other hand, the use of the DEMATEL
method helps in generating the interdependence between the GSCM implementation SFs by group-
ing them into cause and effect groups. Combining the AHP and DEMATEL methods assists Indian
manufacturers in two ways. First, by developing short-term strategies based on the relative impor-
tance of the GSCM implementation SFs identified through AHP method. Second, by developing
long-term strategies based on the causal relations among the GSCM implementation SFs identified
through the DEMATEL method.
4. Proposed research framework

Based on the critical analysis of the literature and the judgement of industrial experts, the SFs related
to implementation of GSCM have been identified. Out of these listed factors (main factors and sub-
factors), the experts selected SFs which were significant from the Indian industry perspective by
ranking them on a 0–5 Likert scale (‘0’ signifies no significance and ‘5’ signifies most significant).
The details for the data collection are given in Section 6.1. These factors are evaluated using a com-
bined approach based on AHP and DEMATEL methods through industrial experts’ inputs. The
AHP method helps to prioritise the factors based on their importance, while the DEMATEL method
helps to find the interactions among these factors to distinguish how one factor is linked to the other
factors. Finally, the study findings are discussed with managers to help them to frame operational,
tactical and strategic strategies helpful in the successful implementation of GSCM initiatives. The
proposed framework for this research work is illustrated in Figure 1.
6 S. GANDHI ET AL.
Table 2. GSCM studies: an Indian perspective.

S.
No. Authors Description Research methods Industries/sector
1 Mangla, Kumar, and Analysed the risks in GSC Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Plastic manufacturing
Barua (2015) Process (AHP) industries
2 Luthra, Garg , and Evaluated the GSCM SFs to achieve Interpretive Structural Automobile Industries
Haleem (2015) sustainability Modelling (ISM)
3 Govindan et al. (2014) Identified the 26 common barriers AHP Automobile Industries
in GSCM adoption
4 Mangla et al. (2014) Explored performance focused ISM Paper Mill industries
variables important in GSCM
implementation
5 Mathiyazhagan, Ranked the 36 pressures in GSCM AHP Manufacturing
Govindan, and Haq implementation industries
(2014)
6 Anand and Parthiban Evaluated the factors in GSCs Decision-Making Trial and Manufacturing
(2014) Evaluation Laboratory industries
(DEMATEL)
7 Malviya and Kant (2014) Predicted the success possibility in DEMATEL Automobile company
GSCM implementation
8 Kumar, Luthra, and Analysed the of critical SFs related Explanatory Factor Analysis Indian Industries
Haleem (2014) to customer involvement in GSCs (EFA)
9 Mangla, Madaan, and Recognised and analysed 14 ISM Paper Mill industries
Chan (2013) variables related to the product
recovery in GSCs
10 Mitra and Dutta (2014) Presented a comprehensive Exploratory factor analysis Manufacturing
analysis on GSCM practices (EFA) and Confirmatory Industries
Factor Analysis (CFA)
11 Mohanty and Prakash Analysed the practices in GSCM CFA) SME (manufacturing
(2013) implementation Industries)
12 Muduli et al. (2013) Examined different barriers in Graph theoretic approach Mining
GSCM implementation
13 Xu et al. (2013) Presented a relative study of the One-way single factor Analysis Power, chemical,
pressures in GSCM of Variance Electrical, Electronics,
implementation etc.
14 Toke, Gupta, and Prioritised and analysed the AHP Manufacturing
Dandekar (2012) important SFs in GSCM adoption Industries
15 Luthra et al. (2011) Evaluated 11 barriers related to ISM Automobile Industries
greening the supply chain
16 Diabat and Govindan Analysed the drivers affecting the ISM Aluminum company
(2011) implementation of GSCM
17 Mudgal et al. (2009) Identified and evaluated various ISM Manufacturing industry
enablers in GSCM
implementation
18 Srivastava (2007) Reviewed the literature on GSCM – –
5. Solution methodology
To accomplish the objectives of this research work, the combined AHP–DEMATEL approach is
used as the solution methodology. The AHP technique is capable of ranking factors in a systema-
tic and rational way according to their significance on the basis of expert opinion. It also enables
the analyser to evaluate the goodness of judgement with the Consistency Ratio (CR). Although
AHP is a powerful and flexible decision-making tool to prioritise a set of factors, it is not capable
of determining the causal relations among the factors, which may restrict the application of AHP
to short-term decision-making strategies (Najmi and Makui 2010). At the same time, the DEMA-
TEL method assists decision-makers to understand the interactions between factors by means of a
causal relationship diagram, and helps to formulate long-term strategies useful in reaching the
ultimate goal (Chou, Sun, and Yen 2012). The reasons for combining AHP–DEMATEL (Najmi
and Makui 2010) in this study include:
Figure 1. Proposed research framework.
. Many factors in decision-making environment are interdependent on one another.

. Some of the factors are subjective, therefore difficult to measure.
. This fusion of techniques provides a means for the numerical measuring of factors.
For the industrial point of view, the combined use of AHP and DEMATEL methods may help
managers to plan and manage for resources and contingencies well in advance, in terms of oper-
ational and strategic flexible decision strategies in GSCM adoption; other details regarding the pro-
posed research techniques are provided in the subsequent sub-sections.
5.1. AHP
AHP, originally proposed by Saaty (1980), is a very effective operations management technique to
handle the complexity in decision-making. The AHP facilitates decision-makers not only to simplify
an entangled problem, but can also represent it in the form of a hierarchical structure (Qureshi, Kumar,
and Kumar 2009; Sarmiento and Thomas 2010; Govindan et al. 2014). The AHP is easy to utilise and
allows decision-makers to quantify the level of consistency in evaluating decision problems (Ho 2008;
Luthra, Mangla, and Kharb 2015; Prakash and Barua 2015). Some other methods like ELECTRE and
8 S. GANDHI ET AL.
TOPSIS are also used to solve decision problems; however, a limited acceptance has been observed
among practitioners for these two methods (Harputlugil et al. 2011). As compared to the analytic net-
work process, the AHP has several benefits (Kumar et al. 2015), which are given as follows:
. AHP is a linear assessment type of method.

. The AHP requires the formation of less pairwise assessment matrices.
. The AHP involves a simpler review process to gather expert viewpoints to analyse the problem.
The AHP technique is summarised in several steps (Saaty 1980; Chang et al. 2007), given as
follows:
(1) Defining the goal: The aim is to evaluate the factors related to the implementation of GSCM.
Based on this, the factor and sub-factors are selected, which assists in constructing a hierarchical
structure. A critical analysis of the literature and expert inputs are imperative in this process.
(2) Developing the pairwise assessments: This step includes collection of data to form the pairwise
assessments among factors. A judgement matrix (represented as ‘A’) is formulated for comput-
ing the factors priorities. A1, A2, … , An are considered to be the set of stimuli. The computed
judgements on a pair of stimuli Ai, Aj are represented as follows:
A = [aij ] where i, j = 1, 2, . . . , n. (1)
To collect the data, a survey instrument is used by means of set of questionnaires. Based on
these data, the rating or pairwise assessments among the factors are attained using a nine-
point Saaty’s scale (for scale see Table 3). The used nine-point scale helps to quantify the values
of aij (elements of the pairwise assessment matrix) transformed from verbal judgements. The
values of aij are given by Equation (2) as follows:
aij . 0; a ji = 1/aij ; aii = 1 for all i. (2)
(3) Obtaining the eigenvalues and eigenvectors: The framed pairwise assessment matrices are deter-
mined in order to know the importance weights of the factors. Based on the attained importance
weights, the priority for the respective factor is obtained.
(4) Checking the consistency ratio: The consistency ratio (CR) is calculated to ensure the consist-
ency of the pairwise assessments. It is calculated using a mathematical expression given as,
CR = CI/RI,
(5) the consistency index (CI) = (λmax − n)/(n − 1), (λmax is the maximum average value) and the
value of random consistency index (RI) can be selected from Table 4 depending upon value
of (n).
To obtain a rational level of consistency, the value of CR should be less than 0.10; otherwise
the results obtained are considered as inconsistent (Madaan and Mangla 2015).
Table 3. Significance of scores in AHP.

Score Definition
1 Equal importance of both factors
3 Moderate importance of one factor over another
5 Strong importance of one factor over another
7 Very strong importance of one factor over another
9 Extreme importance of one factor over another
2, 4, 6, 8 Intermediate value between two adjacent judgements
Source: Saaty (1980).
Table 4. Random consistency index table.

Order of matrix (n) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Random index (RI) 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.89 1.11 1.25 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49
Source: Saaty (1980).
5.2. DEMATEL
The DEMATEL technique was developed by Battelle Memorial Institute of Geneva in its Science and
Human Affairs Program (Gabus and Fontela 1972). DEMATEL is a well-known technique in Japan
and is primarily used to analyse decision problems (Tzeng, Chiang, and Li 2007; Zhu et al. 2011). It
recognises the interactions between the factors by categorising them into cause and effect groups (Lin
2013). As compared to interpretive structural modelling (ISM), the approach of DEMATEL assists in
seizing the contextual relations between variables in the system and also recognises the strength of
their interactive relationships (Wu 2008; Mangla, Kumar, and Barua 2014a). The DEMATEL tech-
nique is summarised in several steps (Tzeng and Huang 2011), given as follows:
(1) Defining goal and evaluation factors: In the initial stage, a critical literature review is required to
search and collect related data. Expert opinion is significant here to achieve the desired objective.
The possible factors associated with the successful implementation of GSCM are listed as evalu-
ation factors based on the literature and inputs received from experts.
(2) Constructing the initial direct-relation matrix and average matrix (M ): This step includes the
formulation of the initial relation matrix. To obtain the direct influence between any two factors,
the experts were asked to rate the factor based on the scale given as, 0 – ‘No influence’; 1 – ‘Little
influence’; 2 – ‘High influence’; 3 – ‘Very high influence’. If ‘k’ is the number of respondents and
‘n’ is the number of factors with 1 ≤ k ≤ H, then for each respondent, (n × n) non-negative
matrices are established as Xk = [xkij]. The entry ‘xij’ signifies the degree to which the expert con-
ceives that factor i affects factor j. Using this, it is possible to construct X 1, X 2, X 3 … , XH
matrices given by H respondents, respectively (H represents the number of experts). To integrate
all opinions from H respondents, the average direct-relation matrix or average matrix M = [aij]
is constructed using Equation (3).
1 H
mij = xk . (3)
H K=1 ij
(3) Calculating the normalised direct-relation matrix (D): The average matrix (M ) is converted into
a normalised direct-relation matrix through Equation (4).
D = M ×S, (4)
1 1
Where S = min n , n .
max j=1 |mij | max i=1 |mij |
(4) Developing the total relation matrix (T ): The total relation matrix (T ) is developed by using
Equation (5).
T = D(I − D)−1 , (5)
Where ‘I’ represents the identity matrix.
After developing the total relation matrix, T = [tij]n × n, the summation of all the columns and
rows are determined. Let [ri]n × 1 and [cj]1 × n be the vectors representing the sum of the
columns and the sum of rows of the total relation matrix, respectively. ri summarises both
the indirect and direct effects imparted by factor ‘i’ to the other factors, whereas cj depicts
both the indirect and direct effects received by factor ‘j’ from the other factors. Sum (ri + cj)
known as ‘Prominence’ exhibits the total effects given and received by factor ‘i’. Besides, it
10 S. GANDHI ET AL.
also displays the degree of importance for factor ‘i’ in the entire system. On the other hand, the
difference (ri − cj) called ‘Relation’, displays the net effect through which factor ‘i’ influences the
system. If the value (ri − cj) is +ve, then, factor ‘i’ is in the net cause group, while factor ‘i’ will be
in the net receiver group if the value (ri − cj) is −ve (Tzeng, Chiang, and Li 2007).
(5) Computing the threshold value: The threshold value is computed in order to construct the cau-
sal digraph. It is calculated by taking the average of all the factors in the total relation matrix (T )
(Lee, Yen, and Tsai 2008). The overall value in matrix T reflects how one factor influences other
factors; hence the threshold value assists in distinguishing some important and unimportant
effects in the system. Only the values greater than the threshold value are highlighted and are
chosen for portraying in the form of causal relationship map, acquired by plotting the values
of (r + c, r − c) in the graph.
6. Application of the proposed framework

6.1. Collecting the data
The main source of collecting the data needed for this study was the manufacturing industries oper-
ational in the western region of India (Maharashtra). Totally, 115 manufacturing industries were tar-
geted for the data collection. The industries were contacted and several follow-ups were conducted
through emails, telephone calls, etc. Finally, 62 industries agreed to take part in the study and were
shortlisted. A questionnaire was designed for the purpose of data collection. In the process of data
collection, middle and senior-level managers with different managerial responsibilities, such as qual-
ity, purchasing, production, finance, marketing and the environmental, were selected. Such man-
agers form a major part of the decision-making body (Carter, Ellram, and Ready 1998; Bowen
et al. 2001). The selected experts were highly skilled professionals in their domain, having business
experience of more than 7 years. In the case of data collection, we tried to keep the questionnaire as
simple as possible to ease the process. In addition, the questionnaire developed was initially mailed to
some industrial experts to carry out the survey questionnaire validation by means of a pilot survey.
The answers from the respondents were examined carefully, and some questions were altered and
some questions were deleted. Finally, the expert responses were collected. After sorting out the
Table 5. Profile of the respondent industries.

S. No. Basic data of respondents Criteria Number of respondents
1 Type of industry Heavy engineering 16
Sugar industry 09
Paper industry 04
Iron and steel industry 04
Automobile industry 11
Total 44
2 Annual turnover (in Indian rupees) Less than or equal to 100 Crores 13
101–500 Crores 22
More than 500 Crores 09
Total 44
3 Nature of business Original Equipment Manufacturer 06
Supplier 38
Total 44
4 Average numbers of suppliers Less than or equal to 50 10
50–100 22
More than 100 12
Total 44
5 Environmental management system Yes 32
No 0
In progress 12
Total 44
Source: Company data records, annual reports and expert inputs.
responses received from the experts, 44 responses (which were completed in all aspects) were used
for the research purpose (for detailed profiles of the participated industries see Table 5). The
response rate was 38%, which is considered as acceptable (Malhotra and Grover 1998). A reliability
analysis was carried out by calculating the Cronbach’s alpha (α) to check the internal consistency of
the data collected, which come to 0.870, that is, a consistent value (Nunnally 1978). The data col-
lected were used in two phases, as follows:
6.1.1. Phase 1: identification and listing of the common GSCM implementation SFs
Identification of the common SFs in the implementation of GSCM was carried out in two stages. In
the first stage, an extensive review of the literature was conducted to list out the various SFs related to
the implementation of GSCM from the industrial viewpoint. In doing so, totally 26 GSCM
implementation SFs were listed. In the second stage of the study, a survey questionnaire was formu-
lated to gather expert judgements (mentioned in Section 6.1) to identify the common GSCM
implementation SFs in the context of Indian manufacturing industries. The industry experts were
asked to scale the factors on a five-point Likert scale (e.g. 1 = extremely insignificant, 2 = slightly
insignificant, 3 = neutral, 4 = slightly significant and 5 = extremely significant). Besides, the industrial
experts were also asked to add any other SF, which considered significant in the successful adoption
and implementation of GSCM. The replies received were analysed and the SFs with a comparative
low score were eliminated. In this manner, out of 26 SFs, 24 common SFs were finalised (see Table 6).
The two factors eliminated were Quality management system and Investment recovery (sale) of
excess inventories/materials. The finalised 24 common SFs were then categorised into five main fac-
tors. The basis of this categorisation was the meaning and similarities among the SFs. The five main
factors are named Government factors (GF), Global competition factors (GCF), Financial factors
(FF), Organisational factors (OF) and External factors (EF).
6.2. Phase 2: analysis of listed GSCM implementation common SFs by using combined
AHP–DEMATEL approach
In the second phase, the listed common GSCM implementation SFs were evaluated using the com-
bined AHP–DEMATEL approach. This can help in formulating various tactical, operational and
strategic decision strategies at different levels in GSCM adoption; other details are given in the sub-
sequent sub-sections.
6.2.1. AHP application: determining the relative importance of the GSCM implementation
common SFs
Based on the previously listed common GSCM implementation SFs, the AHP methodology is used to
prioritise them in accordance with their relative importance. The industrial experts were consulted,
and a structural decision hierarchy was formed, as shown in Figure 2. This consists of three levels,
that is, the goal of research (evaluating the common SFs in GSCM implementation) is shown at Level
1, criteria (main factors) are shown at Level 2 and sub-criteria (sub-factors) are shown at Level
3. Then, data need to be collected. For this, the expert judgements in terms of the importance rating
of each factor over the other factors by means of Saaty’s scale given in Table 3 were used.
Notably, the geometric mean method is among the most commonly used methods in the AHP to
aggregate the individual ratings of experts (the number of experts should be more than one) (Saaty
2008). Thus, in this work, the geometric mean of individual opinions is computed for determining
the ranks of the factors. In this way, the pairwise assessment matrix for the main factor can be ana-
lysed (see Table 7).
Further, the eigenvalues and eigenvectors are computed, and are given as maximum eigenvalue =
5.2612; Consistency index (CI) = 0.0653; Weights (eigenvector) = 0.1627, 0.3343, 0.0913, 0.3230,
0.0886. Then, the value of the consistency ratio (CR) is computed, which comes out as consistent
12 S. GANDHI ET AL.
Table 6. Common SFs related to implementation of GSCM.

S.
No. Common SFs Description Source
Government factors (GF)
1 Governmental regulations The central government and regional Diabat and Govindan (2011), Walker, Sisto,
and standards (GF1) government policies and schemes are pushing and Mcbain (2008), Zhu and Sarkis (2006)
industries for GSCM adoption and
implementation
2 Environmental Environmental management certification can Diabat and Govindan (2011), Rao and Holt
management help industries to initiate and encourage eco- (2005), Zhu, Sarkis, and Geng (2005)
certifications (GF2) friendly activities in the business
3 Export countries Industries may face difficulties while exporting Xu et al. (2013), Hsu and Hu (2008)
environmental norms their products to the nations have strict
(GF3) environmental norms that signify the need of
adopting green initiatives
4 Waste disposal norms Waste disposal norms help to check the Dashore and Sohani (2013), Toke, Gupta,
(GF4) hazardous waste disposed by the industries, and Dandekar (2012), Pulraj (2009)
and is an important step in adopting green
initiatives
Global competition factors (GCF)
5 Brand image building Adoption of the GSCM practices by an Luthra, Garg , and Haleem (2015), Mangla,
(GCF1) organisation can help in building the brand Kumar, and Barua (2014a, 2014b), Duber-
image in the market Smith (2005)
6 Competitiveness (GCF2) To deal with competition and competitors Mathiyazhagan, Govindan, and Haq (2014),
strategy in implementing the eco-friendly Mollenkopf, Stolze, and Tate (2009), Zhu,
practices, GSCM concepts are very important Sarkis, and Lai (2007)
7 Customer requirements Customer demand to buy eco-friendly products Vachon and Klassen (2006), Zhu, Sarkis,
(GCF3) is an important factor for an organisation to and Geng (2005), Rao and Holt (2005)
adopt GSCM practices
8 Globalisation (GCF4) Due to increased globalisation and Mollenkopf, Stolze, and Tate (2009),
modernisation, industries are facing the great Walker, Sisto, and Mcbain (2008)
need to adopt GSCM initiatives
9 Green product design Designing a green-focused product help in Mangla et al. (2014), Chan, He, and Wang
(GCF5) curbing the negative environmental impact of (2012), Diabat and Govindan (2011)
the business
10 Sustainability (GCF6) GSCM help in achieving ecological–economic Mangla, Madaan, and Chan (2013),
benefit, and thus ensure sustainability in Dashore and Sohani (2013)
business
Financial factors (FF)
11 Adoption of new Adopting new processes and technology in Mangla et al. (2014), Hsu and Hu (2008),
technology and organisation supply chain may produce Perron (2005)
processes (FF1) several benefits, such as reduced waste
generation, increased ecological-economic
performance, etc.
12 Financial incentives/ Finance incentives/implications in GSCM Luthra, Garg, and Haleem (2014), Mudgal
implications (FF2) implementation can result in long-term et al. (2009), Mollenkopf, Stolze, and Tate
benefits from a supply chain context (2009), Rao and Holt (2005)
13 Implementation of Reverse logistics is recognised as an important Mangla, Madaan, and Chan (2013), Holt
reverse logistics (FF3) part of GSC. Various reverse logistics practices, and Ghobadian (2009), Hervani, Helms,
such as recycling, reusing and refurbishing, and Sarkis (2005)
can help in reducing the consumption of
materials and resources
14 Technical expertise (FF4) Human technical expertise play a very important Mathiyazhagan, Govindan, and Haq (2014),
part in the implementation of GSCM in any Dashore and Sohani (2013), Zhu and
organisation Sarkis (2006)
15 Training of employees Training of employees and suppliers is very Mangla, Kumar, and Barua (2014a), Bowen
and suppliers (FF5) important in implementing and monitoring et al. (2001)
the GSCM adoption. Training may also
increase the competency level of employees
and suppliers, which requires resources, such
as finance
Organisational factors (OF)
16 Benchmarking (OF1) Benchmarking with the best practices followed Dashore and Sohani (2013), Rao and Holt
in class companies is important in designing (2005)
the road map in GSCM implementation
(Continued)
Table 6. Continued.
S.
No. Common SFs Description Source
17 Corporate goal (OF2) Steps towards GSCM implementation must be Xu et al. (2013), Green, Morton, and New
included and revised periodically in order to (1996)
fulfil the desired objective
18 Employees involvement Employee involvement is considered as very Muduli et al. (2013), Dashore and Sohani
(OF3) important in GCSM implementation from the (2013)
industrial viewpoint
19 Organisation’s values Values laid down by an organisation and their Mathiyazhagan, Govindan, and Haq (2014),
(OF4) ethical practices are the driving forces in Xu et al. (2013)
acceptance of GSCM implementation
20 Role of stakeholders (OF5) Stakeholders such as investors, employees and Luthra, Garg, and Haleem (2014), Green,
management are significant in decisions of Morton, and New (1996)
adopting green aspects in the business culture
21 Top management Effectiveness in GSCM implementation can be Mangla et al. (2014), Dashore and Sohani
commitment (OF6) achieved when top management is (2013), Zhu, Sarkis, and Lai (2007)
committed on its implementation
External factors (EF)
22 Information technology Information technology is a very important tool Diabat and Govindan (2011), Walker, Sisto,
(EF1) that bring the visibility in successful GSCM and Mcbain (2008), Zhu and Sarkis (2006)
adoption
23 Role of NGO and media The contribution of NGOs, and the media to Mollenkopf, Stolze, and Tate (2009),
(EF2) follow eco-friendly practices are important in Vachon and Klassen (2006)
GSCM adoption in the supply chain
24 Suppliers integration Collaboration, integration and partnership with Zhu, Sarkis, and Lai (2008)
(EF3) suppliers can drive the organisation supply
chain towards an efficient GSCM concept
Figure 2. AHP-based hierarchical structure for GSCM implementation common SF(s). Source: AHP analysis.
and equal to 0.0588 (CR = 0.0653/1.11). Finally, the importance weights of the main factors, which
result in the SFs ranking, are given in Table 8.
Next, the relative importance weights of the sub-factors and their ranking in greening the supply
chain are also attained (see Table 9). Besides, the global weights of the sub-factors are also calculated
by multiplying the relative importance weights of the sub-factors with their respective main factors
importance weights (see Table 9). The CR for all the sub-factors is also well below 0.10.
14 S. GANDHI ET AL.
Table 7. Pairwise assessment matrix for main factors.

GF GCF FF OF EF
GF 1 1/4 2 1/2 3
GCF 4 1 3 1 2
FF 1/2 1/3 1 1/3 1
OF 2 1 3 1 5
EF 1/3 1/2 1 1/5 1
Source: AHP analysis.
6.2.2. DEMATEL application: determining causal relations among the GSCM implementation
common SFs
To determine the interdependence between the listed common SFs relevant to the greening of
the supply chain, the DEMATEL method is used. It helps to evaluate the interrelationship
among the common SFs in terms of the causal effect map. To begin with the process, experts
from the respondent Indian manufacturing industries were asked to rate the SFs based on a
scale of 0–3. The main factors are evaluated initially. Taking the average of the responses of
the experts, the average matrix (M) is constructed (represented in Table 10) using Equation
(3). Then, based on Equation (4), the normalised initial direct-relation matrix (D) is formed, as
given in Table 11. Next, the total relation matrix (T ) is calculated by means of Equation (5) (rep-
resented in Table 12).
With regard to Table 12, values in the (r + c) column, that is, prominence, show the total effect of
each main factor on the whole system. Correspondingly, GCF acquire high influence compared to
other SFs. Similarly, values in the (r − c) column, that is, relation, divide the SFs into cause and effect
groups based on their values. Then, we calculate the threshold value of the main factors by using total
relation matrix (Table 12). It not only helps in making the structure distinct, but also assists in con-
structing a causal effect map (see Figure 3). The causal effect map helps to understand the structure
in terms of recognising the influence of one success factor over another and of filtering out insignif-
icant effects.
In the same way, the DEMATEL calculations are performed for sub-factors, as well. Tables 13–17
represent the total relation and direct–indirect influence matrices for sub-factors within the respect-
ive main factor. The causal effect maps for the sub-factors were also formed (refer Figures 4–8).
7. Results and discussions

This study represents an effort to improve the environment-economic performance in the context of
the organisational GSC. In this connection, the common SFs relevant to the greening of the supply
chain from the Indian manufacturing industry perspective are evaluated in the present work.
Further, the findings of this analysis were discussed with industrial experts to assist them in planning
decision strategies useful in the effective implementation of GSCM initiatives.
According to the findings of this study, the global competition main factor (GCF) holds the first
rank, and so, occupies the highest priority (see Table 9). In addition, it belongs to effect group factor
(see Figure 3), as the (r − c) score for this is equal to −0.50 (negative). Correspondingly, it has a sig-
nificant influence on the other main factors. Global competition is proving to be a crucial factor in
Table 8. Raking of main factors in GSCM implementation.

Main factors Relative importance weights Ranks
GCF 0.3344 1
OF 0.3230 2
GF 0.1627 3
FF 0.0913 4
EF 0.0886 5
Table 9. Ranking of sub-factors in GSCM implementation.

Main factors Sub-factors Relative importance weights Relative rank Global importance weights Global rank
GF GF1 0.4123 1 0.0671 6
GF2 0.1505 3 0.0245 16
GF3 0.3168 2 0.0515 7
GF4 0.1204 4 0.0196 19
GCF GCF1 0.2154 2 0.0720 5
GCF2 0.1235 5 0.0413 11
GCF3 0.3231 1 0.1080 1
GCF4 0.1277 4 0.0427 10
GCF5 0.0638 6 0.0213 17
GCF6 0.1471 3 0.0492 8
FF FF1 0.1248 4 0.0114 23
FF2 0.3640 1 0.0332 13
FF3 0.0879 5 0.0080 24
FF4 0.2030 3 0.0185 20

FF5 0.2207 2 0.0201 18
OF OF1 0.0518 6 0.0167 21
OF2 0.0913 5 0.0295 14
OF3 0.2478 2 0.0800 3
OF4 0.1047 4 0.0338 12
OF5 0.2392 3 0.0773 4
OF6 0.2657 1 0.0858 2
EF EF1 0.3325 2 0.0295 15
EF2 0.1396 3 0.0124 22
EF3 0.5280 1 0.0468 9
reducing the emissions and improving the environmental performance (Luthra et al. 2011; Mangla
et al. 2014). The six sub-factors linked to this main factor are GC1 to GC6. These sub-factors are
arranged according to their relative importance (ranking order), which is – Customer requirements
(GCF3) > Brand image building (GCF1) > Sustainability (GCF6) > Globalisation (GCF4) > Competi-
tiveness (GCF2) > Green product design (GCF5). Customer requirements (GC3) is highly ranked in
the global ranking column as well, and is proved to be the most important success factor for indus-
tries to implement the green initiatives in India (Mathiyazhagan, Govindan, and Haq 2014). Further,
according to the (r − c) values SFs GCF3, GCF4 and GCF5 belong to the cause group, while, GCF1,
GCF2 and GCF6 belong to the effect group (for details refer to Table 14). Therefore, there is a critical
need to focus on the cause group factors which can directly affect the other favourable factors.
The Organisational main factors (OF) acquires the second highest priority, and is considered as sig-
nificant in enhancing the performance of GSC. The study findings also indicate that it is placed in the
cause group (see Figure 3), suggesting its control effect in a successful implementation of GSCM in an
industrial context. Within this main factor, there are six sub-factors, namely OF1, OF2, OF3, OF4, OF5
and OF6. The importance order for them is – Top management commitment (OF6) > Employees
involvement (OF3) > Role of stakeholders (OF5) > Organisation’s values (OF4) > Corporate goal
(OF2) > Benchmarking (OF1). Top Management commitment (OF6), Employee involvement (OF3)
and the Role of Stakeholders (OF5) come out to be key SFs and play a significant role in the addition
of green components to the supply chain, as they are ranked at second, third and fourth positions
respectively, as per the global ranking (see Table 9). The SFs OF3, OF4, OF5 and OF6 found their
Table 10. Average direct-relation matrix (M) (Main factors).

GF GCF FF OF EF
GF 0 2.67 2.67 2.00 1.67
GCF 3.00 0 2.67 2.67 1.00
FF 1.33 2.33 0 2.67 2.33
OF 2.00 2.67 2.67 0 1.33
EF 2.00 1.00 1.67 1.33 0
Source: DEMATEL analysis.
16 S. GANDHI ET AL.
Table 11. Normalised direct-relation matrix (D) (Main factors).

GF GCF FF OF EF
GF 0 0.28 0.28 0.21 0.17
GCF 0.31 0 0.28 0.28 0.10
FF 0.14 0.24 0 0.28 0.24
OF 0.21 0.28 0.28 0 0.14
EF 0.21 0.10 0.17 0.17 0
Table 12. Total relation and direct–indirect influence matrix (Main factors).
Main factors GF GCF FF OF EF Sum = ri r+c r−c
GF 1.29 1.59 1.70 1.54 1.18 7.31 14.04 0.57
GCF 1.59 1.44 1.77 1.65 1.18 7.64 14.78 0.50
−0.78
FF 1.35 1.49 1.41 1.52 1.18 6.94 14.66

OF 1.43 1.56 1.67 1.34 1.13 7.13 14.26 0.00
EF 1.07 1.05 1.18 1.07 0.73 5.10 10.50 −0.30
Sum = cj 6.73 7.14 7.72 7.13 5.40 Threshold value = 1.36
Note: Italicised values represent the values of main-factors and sub-factors which are higher than the threshold value.
Figure 3. The causal digraph and relationship diagram (Main Factor Group). Source: DEMATEL analysis.
Table 13. Total relation and direct–indirect influence matrix (Government factors).
Government factors GF1 GF2 GF3 GF4 Sum = ri r+c r−c
GF1 0.54 1.00 0.65 1.13 3.31 5.57 1.06
GF2 0.56 0.53 0.50 0.89 2.48 5.50 −0.53
GF3 0.72 0.95 0.44 0.87 2.97 4.99 0.95
GF4 0.44 0.54 0.44 0.46 1.87 5.23 −1.48
Sum = cj 2.25 3.01 2.02 3.35 Threshold value = 0.67
places in the cause group (see Figure 7), which implies that they have significant influential impacts
over the other factors in the effect group, namely OF1 and OF2. Moreover, all these factors play a cru-
cial role within any organisation in developing a sustainable culture in the business (Green, Morton,
and New 1996; Walker, Sisto, and Mcbain 2008; Toke, Gupta, and Dandekar 2012).
With regard to the Government main factor (GF), it has the third rank in the list. It is placed at the
top among the cause group factors, as shown in Figure 3. This means that it is important and highly
influential among all other main factors. Governmental support and policies in implementing green
Table 14. Total relation and direct–indirect influence matrix (Global competition factors).
Global competition factors GCF1 GCF2 GCF3 GCF4 GCF5 GCF6 SUM = ri r+c r−c
GCF1 0.97 1.18 1.03 0.91 0.94 1.01 6.04 12.64 −0.55
GCF2 1.20 1.08 1.11 1.00 1.02 1.07 6.48 13.34 −0.39
GCF3 1.17 1.23 0.91 0.94 1.02 1.05 6.32 12.25 0.39
GCF4 1.18 1.26 1.09 0.84 1.04 1.07 6.48 11.81 1.14
GCF5 1.12 1.14 0.97 0.87 0.79 0.98 5.87 11.44 0.29
GCF6 0.96 0.98 0.81 0.78 0.77 0.71 5.00 10.89 −0.88
SUM = cj 6.59 6.87 5.93 5.34 5.58 5.88 Threshold value = 1.02
Table 15. Total relation and direct–indirect influence matrix (Financial factors).
Financial factors FF1 FF2 FF3 FF4 FF5 SUM = ri r+c r−c
FF1 2.29 2.45 2.26 2.16 2.23 11.39 23.72 −0.94
FF2 2.63 2.35 2.41 2.25 2.36 12.01 24.05 −0.03
FF3 2.46 2.43 2.10 2.16 2.23 11.37 22.70 0.04
FF4 2.39 2.34 2.23 1.92 2.15 11.03 21.74 0.33
FF5 2.56 2.47 2.33 2.21 2.10 11.67 22.75 0.60
SUM = cj 12.33 12.04 11.33 10.70 11.07 Threshold value = 2.30
Table 16. Total relation and direct–indirect influence matrix (Organisational factors).
Organisational factors OF1 OF2 OF3 OF4 OF5 OF6 SUM = ri r+c r−c
OF1 0.49 0.68 0.67 0.61 0.52 0.63 3.60 7.98 −0.77
OF2 0.74 0.69 0.82 0.81 0.70 0.83 4.59 9.50 −0.32
OF3 0.84 0.86 0.72 0.81 0.75 0.91 4.88 9.69 0.08
OF4 0.77 0.92 0.87 0.70 0.78 0.90 4.94 9.53 0.36
OF5 0.64 0.76 0.74 0.72 0.53 0.81 4.20 8.30 0.10
OF6 0.91 1.00 0.98 0.94 0.81 0.82 5.46 10.36 0.56
SUM = cj 4.38 4.91 4.80 4.59 4.10 4.90 Threshold value = 0.78
Table 17. Total relation and direct–indirect influence matrix (External factors).
External factors EF1 EF2 EF3 SUM = ri r+c r−c
EF1 0.44 0.42 0.96 1.82 3.51 0.14
EF2 0.63 0.28 0.93 1.84 2.92 0.77
EF3 0.62 0.37 0.50 1.50 3.90 −0.90
SUM = cj 1.69 1.07 2.40 Threshold value = 0.57
practices is significant from an industrial perspective (Massoud et al. 2010). Within this group, there
are four sub-factors, GF1 to GF4 which can be arranged according to their relative ranking as – Gov-
ernmental regulations and standards (GF1) > Export countries environmental norms (GF3) >
Environment management certifications (GF2) > Waste disposal norms (GF4). Government regu-
lations and standards (GF1) and Export Countries Environmental Norms (GF3) are ranked sixth
and seventh as per the global ranking (see Table 9). Various rules and policies formulated by the
government are pushing Indian industries to follow eco-friendly practices (Mathiyazhagan, Govin-
dan, and Haq 2014). Moreover, SFs GF1 and GF3 belong to the cause group, and have a significant
influence over the factors GF2 and GF4 that belong to the effect group.
The other two main factors, specifically, Financial Factors (FF) and External Factors (EF) are in
close proximity, as per the values of their importance weights (see Table 8). Both these factors are
18 S. GANDHI ET AL.
Figure 4. The causal digraph and relationship diagram (Government). Source: DEMATEL analysis.
Figure 5. The causal digraph and relationship diagram (Global Competition). Source: DEMATEL analysis.
Figure 6. The causal digraph and relationship diagram (Financial Factors). Source: DEMATEL analysis.
also of almost equal importance, and so need to be concentrated simultaneously. Moreover, both are
in the effect group, which means that these two factors are placed at the receiving end. In the finan-
cial main factor, Financial Incentives/Implications (FF2), Technical expertise (FF4), and Training of
Employees and Suppliers (FF5) are ranked high compared to Adoption of new technology and
Figure 7. The causal digraph and relationship diagram (Organisational Factors). Source: DEMATEL analysis.
Figure 8. The causal digraph and relationship diagram (External Factors). Source: DEMATEL analysis.
processes (FF1) and Implementation of reverse logistics (FF3). Besides, the factors FF3, FF4 and FF5
are placed in the cause group, while, FF1 and FF2 are in the effect group. Financial factors are very
important in adopting GSCM initiatives (Mudgal et al. 2009). Therefore, managers need to put direct
efforts in managing the financial concerns. Regarding External main factors, the factors are arranged
as – Suppliers integration (EF3) > Information technology (EF1) > Role of NGO and Media (EF2) as
per their relative ranking. Among these factors, EF1 and EF2 belong to the cause group, while EF3
belongs to the effect group.
7.1. Research managerial implications and insights

The present work reveals how the SFs assist in implementing GSCM initiatives in the Indian industrial
context and at the same time how these factors are prioritised and interrelated. The combined use of
AHP and DEMATEL techniques presents an analytical means for decision-makers by ranking the
SFs depending upon their importance, and by determining the interactions among them in terms of
how one factor is going to affect the other SFs and of its overall effect on the system. It is significant
to note that all the SFs have their own level of importance in the adoption of the GSC at various different
stages of implementation. Thus, managers should consider the SF in such a way that they do not over-
look the importance and causal effect of other SFs in the process of implementation of GSCM initiatives.
The highly prioritised SFs are useful in improving tactical or operational performance; while, on the
other hand, the SFs classified as cause and effect groups are useful in improving the strategic perform-
ance. Besides, strategic results can be achieved by continually improving the cause group factors. The
20 S. GANDHI ET AL.
AHP and DEMATEL-based model may facilitate management science professionals to know of the var-
ious SFs for improving GSCM implementation performance in India. Further, it will improvise not only
the GSC overall performance, but also suggest important measures for increasing customer satisfaction,
conserving minerals and natural resources, and reducing waste as well. The study outcomes will provide
managers with a roadmap to achieve sustainability in the Indian manufacturing sector.
8. Conclusions
GSCM is one of the most important strategic decisions to curb the non-environmental-friendly prac-
tices and to ensure sustainability in business. Nonetheless, a huge emphasis has been given to the
adoption of GSCM in developed nations. However, there is still a lot to do in developing nations,
such as India. Further, with the advancement in technology, it is becoming important for Indian
industries to implement GSCM initiatives to maximise economic gains and reduce environmental
impacts. Implementing GSCM initiatives is a challenging task and difficult to achieve, due to the
existence of many critical factors. A systematic way to deal with this problem, which is pursued
in this study, is to evaluate the SFs in the implementation of GSCM initiatives to improve the eco-
logical–economic performance of the business.
The purpose of this work is to propose a structural framework to evaluate the SFs in greening the
supply chain by framing tactical, operational and strategic flexible decision strategies by means of the
combined AHP–DEMATEL approach. The AHP method helps to rank the factors according to their
relative importance, but is incapable of finding the interdependence between them. In this situation,
DEMATEL method helps to establish interactive relationships among the factors by dividing them
into cause and effect group factors.
The suggested research framework is applied to Indian industries in the manufacturing sector
context. The industries under considerations are seeking to initiate or have already adopted the
idea of greening of the supply chain. After a detailed survey of the literature and inputs received
from the expert, totally 24 common GSCM implementation SFs were selected.
The research outcome reveals that the main factor Global Competition (GCF) is highly priori-
tised. Consequently, managers need to have a huge focus on this factor to increase the GSC effective-
ness. The relative importance order of the remaining main factors is given as: OF – GF – FF – EF.
Further, the GF, GCF and OF main factors fall in the cause group, while FF and EF main factors fall
in the effect group. The cause group factors have a tendency to directly affect the system. Thus, man-
agers should work on these group factors to improve the overall performance. On the other hand,
effect group factors play an important role in meeting the desired objectives (Tyagi, Kumar, and
Kumar 2015). The results in terms of relative importance and of interactive relationships for the
sub-factors are also determined in this work.
Finally, the study outcomes can help managers not only to prioritise the GSCM implementation
SFs, but also to obtain the interactive relationships among them. Hence, the work would help indus-
trial managers to develop strategies for efficiently managing the GSC in India.
8.1. Limitations of work and future scope

This research uses a combined AHP–DEMATEL approach, and identifies 24 SFs related to the
implementation of GSCM in India. The structural model proposed in this work has its own limit-
ations. For example, the model is highly dependent on the judgements of the experts. After having
a critical review of the literature, the experts’ recommendations were used to finalise the factors
associated with the successful GSCM adoption and implementation. However, great care was
taken in finalising and evaluating the GSCM implementation SFs, however still, some incorrectness
may exist due to human bias. In addition, the data collected and findings of this study are primarily
based on the manufacturing industries operating in the western region of India. It may limit the gen-
eralisability of findings with regard to industries of different regions, types, size, etc. Therefore, there
is scope for further research on identification of SFs in GSCM adoption and implementation in India.
Under this consideration, the large and different sample sets could be examined to identify and
evaluate the SFs related to implementation of GSCM, and the finding may be compared with the
present study findings. Future studies may also be conducted in the context of other developing
countries to compare the findings with this study. From the perspective of future studies, the total
interpretive structural modelling (Sushil 2012) may be developed for factors for successful
implementation of GSCM. Interpretive Ranking Process (IRP) methodology (Sushil 2009) may
also be extended to confirm the ranking of the SFs and to know the interpretive logic of the dom-
inance of one success factor over another for each pairwise comparison. The proposed combined
AHP–DEMATEL framework may be applied to other sectors of industry, for example, the construc-
tion, services that seek to analyse the GSCM implementation performance in business. However,
expert opinion will vary with the industry type and its priorities.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Dr Allan Woodburn (Co-Editor-in-Chief, International Journal of Logistics), associate
editors and anonymous reviewers, for their constructive suggestions. We thank you and your reviewers for suggesting
directions for improving the paper. The authors are also thankful to The Ministry of Human Resource Development
(MHRD), India for technical support. The authors also acknowledge supporting research facilities provided by the
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering in the Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India. The
second author also acknowledges the support of the research facilities provided by the Department of Mechanical
Engineering in the Graphic Era University, Dehradun, India.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
The authors are also thankful to The Ministry of Human Resource Development, India for financial support.
References
Ahi, P., and C. Searcy. 2013. “A Comparative Literature Analysis of Definitions for Green and Sustainable Supply
Chain Management.” Journal of Cleaner Production 52 (1): 329–341.
Anand, K. R., and P. Parthiban. 2014. “Evaluation of Green Supply Chain Factors Using DEMATEL.” Applied
Mechanics and Materials 592–594: 2619–2627.
Beamon, B. M. 1999. “Designing the Green Supply Chain.” Logistics Information Management 12 (4): 332–342.
Beamon, B. M. 2005. “Environmental and Sustainability Ethics in Supply Chain Management.” Science and
Engineering Ethics 11: 221–234.
Bowen, F. E., P. D. Cousins, R. C. Lamming, and A. C. Farukt. 2001. “The Role of Supply Management Capabilities in
Green Supply.” Production and Operations Management 10 (2): 174–189.
Carter, C. R., L. M. Ellram, and K. J. Ready. 1998. “Environmental Purchasing: Benchmarking Our German
Counterparts.” International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management 34 (3): 28–38.
Chan, H. K., H. He, and W. Y. C. Wang. 2012. “Green Marketing and Its Impact on Supply Chain Management in
Industrial Markets.” Industrial Marketing Management 41 (4): 557–562.
Chang, C. W., C. R. Wu, C. T. Lin, and H. C. Chen. 2007. “An Application of AHP and Sensitivity Analysis for
Selecting the Best Slicing Machine.” Computers & Industrial Engineering 52 (2): 296–307.
Chopra, S., P. Meindl, and D. V. Kalra. 2010. Supply Chain Management: Strategy, Planning and Operations. 4th ed.
New Delhi, India: Pearson, Prentice Hall.
Chou, Y. C., C. C. Sun, and H. Y. Yen. 2012. “Evaluating the Criteria for Human Resource for Science and Technology
(HRST) Based on an Integrated Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy DEMATEL Approach.” Applied Soft Computing 12 (1): 64–71.
Chuang, S. P., and C. L. Yang. 2014. “Key Success Factors When Implementing a Green-Manufacturing System.”
Production Planning & Control 25 (11): 923–937.
Das, P. 2012. “Sustainable Supply Chains: Eco-friendly Packaging and the Indian Challenges.” Accessed February 14,
2013. http://www.managementcanvas.iimindore.in/icanvas/index.php.
22 S. GANDHI ET AL.
Dashore, K., and N. Sohani. 2013. “Green Supply Chain Management – Barriers & Drivers: A Review.” International
Journal of Engineering Research & Technology 2 (4): 2021–2030.
Diabat, A., and K. Govindan. 2011. “An Analysis of the Drivers Affecting the Implementation of Green Supply Chain
Management.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55: 659–667.
Duber-Smith, D. 2005. “The Green Imperative.” Soap, Perfumery and Cosmetics 78 (8): 24–26.
Dubey, R., A. Gunasekaran, S. Singh, and T. Singh. 2015. “Building Theory of Sustainable Manufacturing Using Total
Interpretive Structural Modelling.” International Journal of Systems Science: Operations & Logistics 2 (4): 231–247.
Falatoonitoosi, E., Z. Leman, and S. Sorooshian. 2013. Modeling for Green Supply Chain Evaluation. Mathematical
Problems in Engineering, Article ID 201208, 9. doi:10.1155/2013/201208.
Gabus, A., and E. Fontela. 1972. World Problems an Invitation to Further Thought Within the Framework of
DEMATEL. Geneva, Switzerland: Battelle Geneva Research Centre.
Gandhi, S., S. K. Mangla, P. Kumar, and D. Kumar. 2015. “Evaluating Factors in Implementation of Successful Green
Supply Chain Management Using DEMATEL: A Case Study.” International Strategic Management Review.
Advance online publication. doi:10.1016/j.ism.2015.05.001.
Govindan, K., K. Mathiyazhagan, D. Kannan, and A. Noorulhaq. 2014. “Barriers Analysis for Green Supply Chain
Management Implementation in Indian Industries Using Analytic Hierarchy Process.” International Journal of
Production Economics 147 (Part B): 555–568.
Green, K., B. Morton, and S. New. 1996. “Purchasing and Environmental Management: Interactions, Policies and
Opportunities.” Business Strategy and the Environment 5: 188–197.
Gunasekaran, A., and D. Gallear. 2012. “Special Issue on Sustainable Development of Manufacturing and Services.”
International Journal of Production Economics 140 (1): 1–6.
Gupta, S., and O. D. Palsule-Desai. 2011. “Sustainable Supply Chain Management: Review and Research
Opportunities.” IIMB Management Review 23 (4): 234–245.
Hall, J. 2000. “Environmental Supply Chain Dynamics.” Journal of Cleaner Production 8 (6): 455–471.
Harputlugil, T., M. Prins, T. Gultekin, and I. Topcu. 2011. “Conceptual Framework for Potential Implementations of
Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Methods for Design Quality Assessment.” In Management and
Innovation for a Sustainable Built Environment, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, June 20–23, ISBN 9789052693958.
Hervani, A. A., M. M. Helms, and J. Sarkis. 2005. “Performance Measurement for Green Supply Chain Management.”
Benchmarking: An international journal 12 (4): 330–353.
Ho, W. 2008. “Integrated Analytic Hierarchy Process and Its Applications – A Literature Review.” European Journal of
Operational Research 186 (1): 211–228.
Hoejmose, S., S. Brammer, and A. Millington. 2012. “‘Green’ Supply Chain Management: The Role of Trust and Top
Management in B2B and B2C Markets.” Industrial Marketing Management 41 (4): 609–620.
Holt, D., and A. Ghobadian. 2009. “An Empirical Study of Green Supply Chain Management Practices Amongst UK
Manufacturers.” Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 20 (7): 933–956.
Hsu, C. W., and A. H. Hu. 2008. “Green Supply Chain Management in the Electronic Industry.” International Journal
of Science and Technology 5 (2): 205–216.
Hsu, C. W., T. C. Kuo, S. H. Chen, and A. H. Hu. 2013. “Using DEMATEL to Develop a Carbon Management Model of
Supplier Selection in Green Supply Chain Management.” Journal of Cleaner Production 56 (1): 164–172.
Iirajpour, A., M. Hajimirza, M. G. Alavi, and S. Kazemi. 2012. “Identification and Evaluation of the Most Effective
Factors in Green Supplier Selection Using DEMATEL Method.” Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research
2 (5): 4485–4493.
Ishaswini, and S. K. Datta. 2011. “Pro-environmental Concern Influencing Green Buying: A Study on Indian
Consumers.” International Journal of Business and Management 6 (6): 124–133.
Jung, J. J. 2011. “A Bibliometric Analysis on Green Supply Chain Management: A Preliminary Result.” Commerce and
Enterprise Computing, IEEE 13th Conference, 418–420. doi:10.1109/cec.2011.68.
Kumar, S., S. Luthra, and A. Haleem. 2014. “Critical Success Factors of Customer Involvement in Greening the Supply
Chain: An Empirical Study.” International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management 19 (3): 283–310.
Kumar, S., S. Luthra, A. Haleem, S. K. Mangla, and D. Garg. 2015. “Identification and Evaluation of Critical Factors to
Technology Transfer Using AHP Approach.” International Strategic Management Review 3 (1): 24–42.
Lee, Y. C., T. M. Yen, and C. H. Tsai. 2008. “Using Importance-Performance Analysis and Decision Making Trial and
Evaluation Laboratory to Enhance Order-Winner Criteria ∼ A Study of Computer Industry.” Information
Technology Journal 7 (3): 396–408.
Lin, R. J. 2013. “Using Fuzzy DEMATEL to Evaluate the Green Supply Chain Management Practices.” Journal of
Cleaner Production 40: 32–39.
Luthra, S., D. Garg, and A. Haleem. 2013. “Identifying and Ranking of Strategies to Implement Green Supply Chain
Management in Indian Manufacturing Industry Using Analytical Hierarchy Process.” Journal of Industrial
Engineering and Management 6 (4): 930–962.
Luthra, S., D. Garg, and A. Haleem. 2014. “Critical Success Factors of Green Supply Chain Management for Achieving
Sustainability in Indian Automobile Industry.” Production Planning & Control, 1–24. Advance online publication.
Luthra, S., D. Garg, and A. Haleem. 2015. “An Analysis of Interactions among Critical Success Factors to Implement Green
Supply Chain Management Towards Sustainability: An Indian Perspective.” Resources Policy 46 (Part 1): 37–50.
Luthra, S., V. Kumar, S. Kumar, and A. Haleem. 2011. “Barriers to Implement Green Supply Chain Management in
Automobile Industry Using Interpretive Structural Modeling Technique: An Indian Perspective.” Journal of
Industrial Engineering and Management 4 (2): 231–257.
Luthra, S., S. K. Mangla, and R. K. Kharb. 2015. “Sustainable Assessment in Energy Planning and Management in
Indian Perspective.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 47: 58–73.
Madaan, J., and S. Mangla. 2015. “Decision Modeling Approach for Eco-driven Flexible Green Supply Chain.” In
Systemic Flexibility and Business Agility edited by Sushil, and G. Chroust, 343–364. New York: Springer India.
Malhotra, M., and V. Grover. 1998. “An Assessment of Survey Research in POM: From Constructs to Theory.” Journal
of Operations Management 16 (4): 407–425.
Malviya, R. K., and R. Kant. 2014. “Identifying Critical Success Factors for Green Supply Chain Management
Implementation Using Fuzzy DEMATEL Method.” Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management
(IEEM), 2014 IEEE International Conference, Los Angeles, December 15–17.
Mangla, S., P. Kumar, and M. K. Barua. 2014a. “An Evaluation of Attribute for Improving the Green Supply
Chain Performance via DEMATEL Method.” International Journal of Mechanical Engineering & Robotics
Research 1 (1): 30–35.
Mangla, S., P. Kumar, and M. K. Barua. 2014b. “A Flexible Decision Framework for Building Risk Mitigation
Strategies in Green Supply Chain Using SAP-LAP And IRP Approaches.” Global Journal of Flexible Systems
Management 15 (3): 203–218.
Mangla, S., P. Kumar, and M. K. Barua. 2014c. “Flexible Decision Approach for Analysing Performance of Sustainable
Supply Chains under Risks/Uncertainty.” Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management 15 (2): 113–130.
Mangla, S., P. Kumar, and M. K. Barua. 2015. “Risk Analysis in Green Supply Chain Using Fuzzy AHP Approach: A
Case Study.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 104: 375–390.
Mangla, S., J. Madaan, and F. T. S. Chan. 2012. “Analysis of Performance Focused Variables for Multi-objective
Flexible Decision Modeling Approach of Product Recovery Systems.” Global Journal of Flexible Systems
Management 13 (2): 77–86.
Mangla, S., J. Madaan, and F. T. S. Chan. 2013. “Analysis of Flexible Decision Strategies for Sustainability-Focused
Green Product Recovery System.” International Journal of Production Research 51 (11): 3428–3442.
Mangla, S., J. Madaan, P. R. S. Sharma, and M. P. Gupta. 2014. “Multi-objective Decision Modelling Using Interpretive
Structural Modelling for Green Supply Chains.” International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management 17 (2):
125–142.
Massoud, M. A., A. A. Abdolmonim, M. Jurdi, and I. Nuwayhid. 2010. “The Challenges of Sustainable Access to Safe
Drinking Water in Rural Areas of Developing Countries: Case of Zawtar El-Charkieh, Southern Lebanon.” Journal
of Environmental Health 72 (10): 24–30.
Mathiyazhagan, K., K. Govindan, and A. N. Haq. 2014. “Pressure Analysis for Green Supply Chain Management
Implementation in Indian Industries Using Analytic Hierarchy Process.” International Journal of Production
Research 52 (1): 188–202.
Min, H., and I. Kim. 2012. “Green Supply Chain Research: Past, Present, and Future.” Logistics Research 4 (1/2): 39–47.
Mitra, S., and P. P. Dutta. 2014. “Adoption of Green Supply Chain Management Practices and Their Impact on
Performance: An Exploratory Study of Indian Manufacturing Firms.” International Journal of Production
Research 52 (7): 2085–2107.
Mohanty, R. P., and A. Prakash. 2013. “Green Supply Chain Management Practices in India: An Empirical Study.”
Production Planning & Control: The Management of Operations. doi:10.1080/09537287.2013.832822.
Mollenkopf, D., H. Stolze, and W. L. Tate. 2009. “Green, Lean, and Global Supply Chains.” International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 40 (1/2): 14–41.
Mudgal, R. K., R. Shankar, P. Talib, and T. Raj. 2009. “Greening the Supply Chain Practices: An Indian Perspective of
Enablers’ Relationships.” International Journal of Advanced Operations Management 1 (2/3): 151–176.
Muduli, K., K. Govindan, A. Barve, and Y. Geng. 2013. “Barriers to Green Supply Chain Management in Indian
Mining Industries: A Graph Theoretic Approach.” Journal of Cleaner Production 47: 335–344.
Najmi, A., and A. Makui. 2010. “Providing Hierarchical Approach for Measuring Supply Chain Performance Using
AHP and DEMATEL Methodologies.” International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations 1 (2): 199–212.
Nunnally, J. C. 1978. Psychometric Theory. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Perron, G. M. 2005. Barriers to Environmental Performance Improvements in Canadian SME’s. Nova Scotia, Canada:
Dalhousie University.
Prakash, C., and M. K. Barua. 2015. “Integration of AHP-TOPSIS Method for Prioritizing the Solutions of Reverse
Logistics Adoption to Overcome Its Barriers under Fuzzy Environment.” Journal of Manufacturing Systems.
doi:10.1016/j.jmsy.2015.03.001.
Pulraj, A. 2009. “Environmental Motivations: A Classification Scheme and Its Impact on Environmental Strategies and
Practices.” Business Strategy and the Environment 18 (7): 453–468.
24 S. GANDHI ET AL.
Qureshi, M. N., P. Kumar, and D. Kumar. 2009. “Selection of 3PL Service Providers: A Combined Approach of AHP
and Graph Theory.” International Journal of Services Technology and Management 12 (1): 35–60.
Rahman, S., and N. Subramanian. 2012. “Factors for Implementing End-of-Life Computer Recycling Operations in
Reverse Supply Chains.” International Journal of Production Economics 140 (1): 239–248.
Rao, P. 2002. “Greening the Supply Chain: A New Initiative in South East Asia.” International Journal of Operations &
Production Management 22 (6): 632–655.
Rao, P., and D. Holt. 2005. “Do Green Supply Chains Lead to Competitiveness and Economic Performance?”
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 25 (9): 898–916.
Saaty, T. L. 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: Mcgraw-Hill International.
Saaty, T. L. 2008. “Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process.” International Journal of Services Sciences 1
(1): 83–98.
Sarkis, J. 2003. “A Strategic Decision Framework for Green Supply Chain Management.” Journal of Cleaner Production
11 (4): 397–409.
Sarkis, J. 2006. Greening the Supply Chain. London: Springer.
Sarmiento, R., and A. Thomas. 2010. “Identifying Improvement Areas When Implementing Green Initiatives Using a
Multitier AHP Approach.” Benchmarking: An International Journal 17 (3): 452–463.
Sasamal, S., and K. Ramanjaneyulu. 2008. “Condition Evaluation of Existing Reinforced Concrete Bridges Using Fuzzy
Based Analytic Hierarchy Approach.” Expert Systems with Applications 35 (3): 1430–1443.
Srivastava, S. K. 2007. “Green Supply-Chain Management: A State-of-the-Art Literature Review.” International
Journal of Management Reviews 9 (1): 53–80.
Sushil. 2009. “Interpretive Ranking Process.” Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management 10 (4): 1–10.
Sushil. 2012. “Interpreting the Interpretive Structural Model.” Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management 13 (2): 87–106.
Toke, L. K., R. C. Gupta, and M. Dandekar. 2012. “An Empirical Study of Green Supply Chain Management in Indian
Perspective.” International Journal of Applied Sciences and Engineering Research 1 (2): 372–383.
Tyagi, M., P. Kumar, and D. Kumar. 2015. “Assessment of Critical Enablers for Flexible Supply Chain Performance
Measurement System Using Fuzzy DEMATEL Approach.” Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management 16
(2): 115–132.
Tzeng, G. H., C. H. Chiang, and C. W. Li. 2007. “Evaluating Intertwined Effects in E-Learning Programs: A Novel
Hybrid MCDM Model Based on Factor Analysis and DEMATEL.” Expert Systems with Applications 32: 1028–1044.
Tzeng, G. H., and J. J. Huang. 2011. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. New York: CRC Press.
Vachon, S., and R. D. Klassen. 2006. “Extending Green Practices Across the Supply Chain – The Impact of Upstream
and Downstream Integration.” International Journal of Operations & Production Management 26 (7): 795–821.
Vaidya, O. S., and S. Kumar. 2006. “Analytic Hierarchy Process: An Overview of Applications.” European Journal of
Operational Research 169 (1): 1–29.
Walker, H., L. D. Sisto, and D. Mcbain. 2008. “Drivers and Barriers to Environmental Supply Chain Management
Practices: Lessons from the Public and Private Sectors.” Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 14 (1): 69–85.
Wee, H. M., M. C. Lee, J. C. P. Yu, and C. E. Wang. 2011. “Optimal Replenishment Policy for a Deteriorating Green
Product: Life Cycle Costing Analysis.” International Journal of Production Economics 133 (2): 608–611.
Wee, Y. S., and H. A. Quazi. 2005. “Development and Validation of Critical Factors of Environmental Management.”
Industrial Management and Data Systems 105 (1): 96–114.
Wu, W. W. 2008. “Choosing Knowledge Management Strategies by Using a Combined ANP and DEMATEL
Approach.” Expert Systems with Applications 35: 828–835.
Wu, K. J., M. L. Tseng, and T. Vy. 2011. “Evaluation the Drivers of Green Supply Chain Management Practices in
Uncertainty.” Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 25 (1): 384–397.
Xu, L., K. Mathiyazhagan, K. Govindan, A. Noorulhaq, N. V. Ramachandran, and A. Ashokkumar. 2013. “Multiple
Comparative Studies of Green Supply Chain Management: Pressures Analysis.” Resources, Conservation and
Recycling 78: 26–35.
Yang, M. G., P. Hong, and S. B. Modi. 2011. “Impact of Lean Manufacturing and Environmental Management on
Business Performance: An Empirical Study of Manufacturing Firms.” International Journal of Production
Economics 129 (2): 251–261.
Zhu, Q., Y. Geng, J. Sarkis, and K. H. Lai. 2011. “Evaluating Green Supply Chain Management among Chinese
Manufacturers from the Ecological Modernization Perspective.” Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and
Transportation Review 47 (6): 808–821.
Zhu, Q., and J. Sarkis. 2004. “Relationships Between Operational Practices and Performance among Early Adopters of
Green Supply Chain Management Practices in Chinese Manufacturing Enterprises.” Journal of Operations
Management 22 (3): 265–289.
Zhu, Q., and J. Sarkis. 2006. “An Inter-sectoral Comparison of Green Supply Chain Management in China: Drivers and
Practices.” Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (5): 472–486.
Zhu, Q., J. Sarkis, and Y. Geng. 2005. “Green Supply Chain Management in China: Pressures, Practices and
Performance.” International Journal of Operations & Production Management 25 (5): 449–468.
Zhu, Q. H., J. Sarkis, and K. H. Lai. 2007. “Initiatives and Outcomes of Green Supply Chain Management
Implementation by Chinese Manufacturers.” Journal of Environmental Management 85 (1): 179–189.
Zhu, Q., J. Sarkis, and K. H. Lai. 2008. “Green Supply Chain Management Implications for ‘Closing the Loop’.”
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 44 (1): 1–18.
Zhu, Q., J. Sarkis, and K. H. Lai. 2012. “Examining the Effects of Green Supply Chain Management Practices and Their
Mediations on Performance Improvements.” International Journal of Production Research 50 (5): 1377–1394.
Zsidisin, G. A., and S. P. Siferd. 2001. “Environmental Purchasing: A Framework for Theory Development.” European
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 7 (1): 61–73.

Sachin Paper 1 - Ijlra - GSCM

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

Sachin Paper 1 - Ijlra - GSCM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Logistics Research and

ISSN: 1367-5567 (Print) 1469-848X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjol20

A combined approach using AHP and DEMATEL

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2016.1164126

Published online: 07 Apr 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

A combined approach using AHP and DEMATEL for evaluating

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

CONTACT Sachin Kumar Mangla sachinmangl@gmail.com

1.1. Objectives of the research

2.2. GSCM implementation factors

2.3. GSCM and use of AHP and DEMATEL

2.4. Research gaps

Table 1. A summary on the use of AHP and DEMATEL in GSCM context.

3. Deﬁning the research problem

4. Proposed research framework

Table 2. GSCM studies: an Indian perspective.

Figure 1. Proposed research framework.

. Many factors in decision-making environment are interdependent on one another.

. AHP is a linear assessment type of method.

A = [aij ] where i, j = 1, 2, . . . , n. (1)

aij . 0; a ji = 1/aij ; aii = 1 for all i. (2)

Table 3. Signiﬁcance of scores in AHP.

Table 4. Random consistency index table.

6. Application of the proposed framework

Table 5. Proﬁle of the respondent industries.

Table 6. Common SFs related to implementation of GSCM.

Table 7. Pairwise assessment matrix for main factors.

7. Results and discussions

Table 8. Raking of main factors in GSCM implementation.

Table 9. Ranking of sub-factors in GSCM implementation.

FF4 0.2030 3 0.0185 20

Table 10. Average direct-relation matrix (M) (Main factors).

Table 11. Normalised direct-relation matrix (D) (Main factors).

FF 1.35 1.49 1.41 1.52 1.18 6.94 14.66

7.1. Research managerial implications and insights

8.1. Limitations of work and future scope

You might also like