See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277905446

Prioritizing the Responses to Manage Risks in

Green Supply Chain: an Indian Plastic
Manufacturer Perspective

Article · June 2015

DOI: 10.1016/j.spc.2015.05.002

CITATIONS READS

7 151

3 authors:

Sachin Kumar Mangla Pradeep Kumar

Graphic Era University Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee
26 PUBLICATIONS 204 CITATIONS 339 PUBLICATIONS 3,044 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mukesh KUMAR Barua

Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee
27 PUBLICATIONS 124 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Sachin Kumar Mangla

Retrieved on: 24 August 2016
 S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N 1 (2015) 67–86

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Production and Consumption

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/spc

Prioritizing the responses to manage risks in green

supply chain: An Indian plastic manufacturer
perspective

Sachin K. Mangla a,∗ , Pradeep Kumar a , Mukesh Kumar Barua b

a Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India
b Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India

A B S T R A C T

Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM) has become a very useful initiative for industries to improve their
environmental capabilities in terms of, reducing resources consumption and ensuring sustainable production
in business. However, the effectiveness of Green Supply Chain (GSC) is comparatively low, as there has been a
substantial amount of risk involved in managing GSC efficiently. In this contribution, therefore, we aim to identify
and prioritize/rank the responses of risks in a GSC context. It would be useful for industries to focus on highly
ranked responses and formulate strategies to practice them in accordance with their priority for managing the
consequences of risks in GSC. The present research seeks to propose a model by using the fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy
Process (AHP) and fuzzy Technique for Order Performance by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) methods to
prioritize the responses in GSC to manage its risks under the fuzzy environment. The fuzzy AHP is useful in
deciding the importance weights of the related GSC risks. While, by using the fuzzy TOPSIS, the priority/ranking
of the responses in a successful accomplishment of green initiatives is determined. To illustrate the effectiveness
of the proposed model, the GSCM real-world case of an Indian poly-plastic manufacturing company is presented.
The model proposed would offer a scientific analytic means to the managers/business professionals/practitioners
for systematic implementation of the responses of risks relevant to adoption and effective implementation of green
initiatives in business. A sensitivity analysis test has also been performed that monitors the robustness of the
proposed network model.

Keywords: Sustainable production; Green supply chain management; Resources consumption; Risk responses; Fuzzy
AHP; Fuzzy TOPSIS

c 2015 The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
⃝

1. Introductory background than eighty tons of natural resources, including minerals

Supply Chain Management (SCM) has been observed as one
of the key success areas to improve the effectiveness of busi-
ness. In recent years, a significant need of natural and non-
renewable resources has been identified all over the world
across industries in their supply chain scenario (Mangla et al.,
2012; Muduli et al., 2013). Having said that, it requires more
per person yearly globally—really a matter of great concern
among nations (ICMM report, 2012). In this sense, it has been
stated that the adoption and implementation of green in sup-
ply chain, i.e., green supply chain (GSC) helps industries to
conserve resources, which in turn enhances their ecological
and economic performances (EPA, 2000; Srivastava, 2007; Zhu
et al., 2008b; Paulraj, 2009; Hu and Hsu, 2010; Sundarakani

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 9416824761.

E-mail addresses: sachinmangl@gmail.com (S.K. Mangla), kumarfme@iitr.ernet.in (P. Kumar), baruafdm@iitr.ac.in (M.K. Barua).
Received 19 March 2015; Received in revised form 11 May 2015; Accepted 20 May 2015; Published online 28 May 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2015.05.002
2352-5509/⃝c 2015 The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
68 S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N
et al., 2010; Madaan and Mangla, 2015). GSC not only in-
corporates the ecological thinking in the business, but also
ensures the sustainable development of industries (Beamon,
1999; Jung, 2011; Muduli and Barve, 2013; Mangla et al., 2014b;
Luthra et al., 2014a,b). In this line of getting maximum com-
petitive and sustainable advantages, many other industries
have either initiated or thinking to initiate the green trend
in their business activities (Zhang et al., 2009; Mohanty and
Prakash, 2013).
However, the successful adoption of the green initia-
tives/trends/different GSC business activities (From here on-
wards the word initiatives is used throughout the paper.) is
not so easy at industrial perspective (Ma et al., 2012). Differ-
ent production and business activities in GSC engages sev-
eral different types of risks (Mangla et al., 2014c). These risks
and their sources can create problems in smooth functioning
of GSC, and reduce the efficiency of a structure GSC (Wang
et al., 2012). Therefore, it is important to manage and reduce
the convolution of risks in GSC. Hence, to help industries, it
is needed to concentrate on devolving some appropriate re-
sponses and concrete strategies helpful in effective adoption
and implementation of GSCM.
1.1. Motivation and need for this research
Adding of ‘green’ initiatives in the supply chain includes
dealing with interactions between supply chain management
and the environment (Sarkis, 2003). However, still, it is not
easy to the point of view of industries to adopt the green
initiatives in their supply chain planning (Mathiyazhagan
et al., 2013; Govindan et al., 2014a). There is an incomplete
understanding of what is responsible for green adoption to
fail in the supply chain (Mangla et al., 2014c). It is due
to the reason as the initiatives of green at various aspects
of business involve several complexities (Ma et al., 2012).
Due to which, there arises different risks and risk factors
in implementing different GSC initiatives in business, which
would certainly affect the overall performance (Dan-Li et al.,
2011; Wang et al., 2012). Therefore, for effectively managing
the different business processes and activities linked to GSC,
the risks associated with the green supply chain necessarily
need to be known, and understood (Ma et al., 2012). The risks
in GSC context can be recognized through literature resource
and from the expert’s inputs. Moreover, it should be noted
that different industries may face different GSC risks and
problems for greening their respective supply chain (Mangla
et al., 2015). The same risk may not be equally important
to the individual industry with regards to its priorities,
capabilities, resource, etc. Considering this, Mangla et al.
(2015) analyzed the risks for an effective understanding and
successful management of implementation of different GSC
initiatives with the help of a case example of multiple plastic
manufacturing industries in Indian perspective. This study
has identified and prioritized the common risks, as agreed
upon by all the industries, in the implementation aspects of
GSC initiatives using fuzzy AHP technique. Besides, it has also
been mentioned in their study that in order to manage and
reduce the consequences of the risks in GSC, the appropriate
response measures need to be proposed in future research by
using technique for order performance by similarity to ideal
solution (TOPSIS). Further, literature also reveals that the area
of risk analysis and management in the context of GSC is
comparatively uncharted (Ma et al., 2012; Mangla et al., 2014c,
2015). Hence, it is considered as an evident gap of research in
1 (2015) 67–86
GSC dimension. Thereby, in order to improve the performance
of adoption and implementation of green in the supply chain,
a set of reasonable and viable response measures need to be
proposed and prioritized or ranked to manage the GSC risks
in a systematic way.
1.2. Research objectives
This paper aims in achieving two objectives, mentioned as:
(1) to propose and or identify the responses to manage the
risks associated with the GSC; (2) to prioritize the responses
to diminish the effect of the risks in managing the GSC
efficiently.
In this research, an effort has been made to prioritize the
responses to manage the risks and their implementation in
GSC. The prioritization of the responses of the risks in GSC
is a multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) problem. How-
ever, due to the presence of fuzziness and unclearness in the
data, there exist difficulties in prioritizing the responses of
risks. To ease the process and for removing the inherent am-
biguity, it is proposed to use the theory of fuzzy sets (Zadeh,
1965) for the above purpose. The present research proposes to
utilize the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and fuzzy
TOPSIS methods to prioritize the responses of risks in GSC.
The fuzzy AHP method (Saaty, 1980) determines the impor-
tance weights of the related GSC risks. While, the fuzzy TOP-
SIS method (Hwang and Yoon, 1981) was used to analyze
the identified appropriate responses of the risks to obtain
their performance rating by using triangular fuzzy number
(TFN). To demonstrate the real-life application of the pro-
posed model, the GSCM case example of an Indian poly-
plastic manufacturing company is discussed. The chosen case
example company seeks to know, understand, and prioritize
the responses of the risks in effective GSCM adoption and im-
plementation.
The rest of this paper is structured in a manner: Section 2,
explores the literature relevant to this study. The details on
the proposed research methods are given (Section 3). The
description of the proposed model is illustrated in Section 4.
The real-life application of the proposed model is shown in
Section 5. The results of the study and sensitivity analysis
of the proposed model are discussed in Section 6. Section 7,
covers the research conclusions, limitations, and scope for
next work.
2. Literature review
This section presents the literature on the GSC and GSCM,
the risks in GSC, and the multi criteria decision analysis
techniques used in GSC and GSCM.
2.1. Exploring recent in the context of GSC and GSCM
It has been recognized that literature is growing on the GSCM
and Sustainability over the past two decades as mentioned in
a study conducted by Fahimnia et al. (0000). This study under-
took 884 research articles related to GSCM, published during
a period of 21 years, from 1992 to December 31, 2013. Their
work presented a progression of the influential GSC and sus-
tainability research articles and further aimed to contribute to
the subject via mapping the relationships amongst the higher
impact contributions. In line with this, Min and Kim (2012)
presented an extensive review of literature on GSCM and
 S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N
illustrated that GSCM cuts across various boundaries, i.e., in-
dustrial activities, integrating purchasing, procuring, produc-
ing, and delivery processes from a supply chain context.
GSCM has been described as an idea to incorporate eco-
friendly measures at every definite operation of a supply
chain network design, such as, green procurement and pur-
chasing of material, green manufacturing strategies and tech-
niques, distribution networks, green marketing, etc. (Green
et al., 1996, 2000; Hervani et al., 2005; Sarkis, 2006; Vachon,
2007; Sarkis et al., 2011; Luthra et al., 2011).
There are various definitions given by different re-
searchers, managers and practitioners in their ways, for
instance, Godfrey (1998, p. 244)) mentioned GSCM as the prac-
tice of improving environmental performance in the supply
chain. Zsidisin and Siferd (2001) described GSCM as the set of
SCM policies held, actions taken and relationships shaped in
response to issues related to the natural environment with re-
gard to the design, acquisition, production, distribution, use,
re-use and disposal of the firm’s goods and services. In addi-
tion, according to Zhu et al. (2008a), GSCM ranges from green
purchasing to integrated life-cycle management SC flowing
from supplier, through to manufacturer, customer, and clos-
ing the loop with reverse logistics. Nonetheless, for the pur-
pose of this research work, GSCM is defined as incorporating
environmental thinking into SCM, including product design,
material sourcing and selection, manufacturing practices, de-
livery of the final products to consumers, and end-of-life
management of the product after its intended life (Srivas-
tava, 2007). Besides, considering the various perspectives of
GSCM, different scholars and professionals in their studies
have addressed and developed various frameworks through
GSCM practices, including developing of sustainable devel-
opment framework, ecological efficiency framework, environ-
mental performance framework, etc. (Van Hoek and Erasmus,
2000; Beamon, 2005; Linton et al., 2007; Zhu et al., 2008a). The
prime subject to discuss in GSCM analysis is the ‘environ-
ment’.
Rao and Holt (2005), in their work expressed that GSCM is
an important organizational plan, which acts as a significant
player in encouraging efficiency and synergy between allies.
In line with this, GSCM has been expressed as a strategic
approach that seeks to, address environmental measures of
an organizational supply chain (Vachon and Klassen, 2006;
Albino et al., 2009; Parmigiani et al., 2011). GSCM has also
been linked to human resource management to achieve
organizational sustainability and truly sustainable supply
chains (Jabbour and de Sousa Jabbour, 2015).
In one other related study, Mangla et al. (2013) treated
GSC as a concept of handling the issues related to returning
and recovering the value of products while closing its loop.
It has been stated that GSC is different from traditional
supply chains in terms of closed loop operation nature
(i.e. repair, remanufacturing, recycling, reuse), of ecological
concerns on operations, and of ecological–economic benefits
focus (Porter and van der Linde, 1995; Beamon, 1999; Hervani
et al., 2005; Orsato, 2006; Zhu et al., 2008a,b). Additionally, a
wide acceptability of GSCM has been recorded in literature
for improving the ecological–economic performances and
business sustainability all across the globe among industries
(Kumar et al., 2012; Muduli and Barve, 2013; Mangla et al.,
2014a; Govindan et al., 2014b; Luthra et al., 2015b). It gives
a logical reason and support behind the need of GSCM
implementation in any business organization (Diabat and
Govindan, 2011; Xu et al., 2013; Zhu et al., 2013; Mangla et al.,
2014a; Mathiyazhagan et al., 2014; Madaan and Mangla, 2015).
1 (2015) 67–86 69
2.2. Exploring the risks for a GSC perspective
From an operational and supply chain perspective, the risk
has been described as variance from expected outcomes and
negative events in disruptions to supply chain (Hora and
Klassen, 2013). It can reduce the effectiveness and efficiency
of activities (Gurnani et al., 2012) and processes along a sup-
ply chain (Sodhi et al., 2012). And, for the point of view of
business organizations, SCM can be understood as a manage-
rial approach that accounts for the movement of materials/
resources/goods throughout the product life-cycle (right from
the supplying of the raw materials to till the product reaches
to final customers) (Chopra and Meindl, 2007). In contrast to
this, GSCM has been stated as the inclusion of the environ-
mental aspect into conventional SCM (Ahi and Searcy, 2013).
In case of GSC, risk can be understood as an occurrence
of unforeseen events those might affect the green mate-
rial movement, and even disrupt the proposed flow of eco-
friendly materials and finished green products from their
point of origin to the point of consumption (Mangla et al.,
2015). A few of them may include supplier failures, raw mate-
rial supply disruptions, scarcity of skilled labor, management
policy failures, information irregularity, technology risks,
market risks, etc. (Ma et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2012; Mangla
et al., 2015). The consequences of risks could be delay in deliv-
eries, damage of goods, financial problems, business loss, etc.
In order to adopt GSCM practices effectively and efficiently,
literature has pointed several risks and risk factors associated
with the initiation and adoption of different green initiatives
in business. Being as a reference to this, Dan-Li et al. (2011)
analyzed the influencing risks and risk factors from an orga-
nizational GSC perspective. In another study, Hu et al. (2009)
offered a quantitative based-approach to analyze the risks
connected to green components in accordance with European
Union standards for lowering the ecological impacts. Further-
more, several risk sources, like, internal or external surround-
ings and issues like demand, supply, information technology,
process, knowledge flow, social and natural environment,
were identified and analyzed to project some measures for
their management in GSC (Yang and Li, 2010). Qianlei (2012)
listed several risks in green products agricultural GSC based
on systematic analysis, and emphasized on the management
of these risks for improving GSC effectiveness. Wang et al.
(2012) developed a risk assessment model useful in decision
analysis of aggregative risk when applying different green ini-
tiatives in the case of a fashion industry supply chain. Mangla
et al. (2015), analyzed the risks involved in implementing the
green initiatives from Indian plastic industries viewpoints.
In one other relevant study, Mangla et al. (2014c) suggested
a SAP–LAP (Situation Actor Process–Learning Action Perfor-
mance) and IRP (Interactive Ranking Process) based model
to propose strategies to mitigate the risks in the context
of GSC.
2.3. Multi criteria decision analysis techniques used in
GSC and GSCM
Various researchers have utilized different multi-criteria
decision analysis techniques for analyzing the different
issues in the GSC scenario. A brief review of various multi-
criteria decision analysis techniques used in GSC and GSCM
is presented in Table 1.
70 S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N 1 (2015) 67–86

Table 1 – A review of various multi criteria decision analysis techniques used in GSC and GSCM.

S. N. Researcher (Year) Modeling techniques used Issues addressed Industry covered,

Country
1 Tuzkaya et al. (2009) Fuzzy Analytical Network Environmental performance White goods manufacturer,
Process (ANP) and Fuzzy evaluation of suppliers Turkey
Preference Ranking
Organization METHod for
Enrichment Evaluations
(PROMETHEE)
2 Bai and Sarkis (2010a) Rough set theory Green supplier development –
and evaluation

3 Bai and Sarkis (2010b) Rough set and grey system Integrating sustainability into –
theory supplier selection

4 Bai and Sarkis (2011) Rough set and grey system Evaluating supplier –
theory development programs

5 Sawadogo and Anciaux (2011) ELimination and Choice Model the Intermodal –
Expressing the REality transportation performance
(ELECTRE) within the green supply chain

6 Büyüközkan and Çifçi (2012b) Fuzzy DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP
and fuzzy TOPSIS
7 Lin (2013) Decision Making Trial and
Evaluation Laboratory
(DEMATEL)
8 Luthra et al. (2013) AHP
Evaluate the green suppliers
Carbon management model of
supplier selection in GSCM
Ranking of strategies to
implement GSCM practices
Ford Otosan, Turkey
Electronics case company,
Taiwan
Manufacturing industry,
India

9 Wang and Chan (2013) Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS Assessing improvement areas Multinational clothing
when implementing GSC company, UK
initiatives

10 Govindan et al. (2014a) AHP Barrier analysis for GSCM Manufacturing industries,
India
11 Govindan et al. (2014b) DEMATEL, ANP and Evaluation of green Rubber manufacturing
PROMETHEE manufacturing practices company, India

12 Mirhedayatian et al. (2014) Data Envelopment Analysis Evaluates the GSCM practices Soft drink companies, Iran
(DEA)
13 Rostamzadeh et al. (2015) Fuzzy VIKOR Evaluates the GSCM Laptop manufacturer case
implementation practices company, Malaysia

14 Wu et al. (2015) Fuzzy DEMATEL Explores decisive factors in Automobile manufacturing

GSC practices under industry, Vietnam
uncertainty

15 Mangla et al. (2015) Fuzzy AHP Analyzes risks in GSC Plastic manufacturing
dimension industry, India

3. Research methods difficult at the non-expert participant viewpoint (Harputlugil

This section presents the description of the methods to
achieve the objectives of present research. The fuzzy AHP
method helps in computing the importance weights of the
related GSC risks, and the fuzzy TOPSIS technique is utilized
to analyze appropriate responses of risks and to obtain their
performance rating. Regarding some other MCDM methods
like ELECTRE (ELimination and Choice Expressing the REal-
ity), ANP (Analytical Network Process), and a limited recog-
nition for their applicability have been acknowledged by the
scientific group of people (Harputlugil et al., 2011). Compared
to ANP, the AHP method is a linear evaluation type and sim-
pler method. Furthermore, in case of ANP, it needs to de-
velop several pair-wise evaluation matrices, which could be
et al., 2011). At the same time, the methodology of AHP en-
ables the managers to analyze the complicated system (Saaty,
1980). In recent years, rough sets theory has also been applied
successfully in analyzing decision making problems (Bai and
Sarkis, 2010a, 2011). However, it has few limitations in terms
of, a relatively new emerging technique, reaching at a num-
ber of rules, which may or may not be significant (Bai and
Sarkis, 2010a,b). To deal this, the variation of approaches is
constantly growing, and other decision analysis techniques
may be used for resolving the issue (Bai and Sarkis, 2010a).
Due to these merits, the AHP method has been greatly ac-
cepted and widely used as a decision-making method for
analyzing different systems, such as, Engineering/Design, Ed-
ucation, Supply chain management, etc. (Vaidya and Kumar,
 S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N 1 (2015) 67–86 71

Additionally, µA (x) represents its membership function that

operates over a scale of real numbers, usually ranged to the
interval [0, 1].
For any triangular fuzzy number (a, b, c) its membership
function is shown in Fig. 1, and it can be expressed mathe-
matically as given in Eq. (1), where a ≤ b ≤ c.
Moreover, (a, b, c) represents the lower, mean and upper
boundary of the TFN. If, O1 = (a, b, c) and O2 = (p, q, r), are two
triangular fuzzy numbers. These two TFNs can be equal if and
only if a = p, b = q, c = r. Further, the algebraic operations for
these two TFNs are given as follows:
Fig. 1 – Membership function for the triangular fuzzy
O1 + O2 = a, b, c + p, q, r = (a + p, b + q, c + r)
   
number.
Source: modified Zimmerman (1996). O1 − O2 = (a, b, c) − (p, q, r) = (a − p, b − q, c − r)
O1 × O2 = a, b, c × (p, q, r) = (a × p, b × q, c × r)
 

2006; Chang et al., 2007; Zayed et al., 2008; Qureshi et al., 2009; O1 ÷ O2 = (a, b, c) ÷ (p, q, r) = (a ÷ p, b ÷ q, c ÷ r)
Wadhwa et al., 2009; Govindan et al., 2014b).    
−O1 = − a, b, c = −c, −b, −a
The TOPSIS methodology is used because of the reasons
(Wang and Chang, 2007) mentioned as: (1) the computational 0, x ≤ a, 
 

 
process is simple; (2) it is an easily understandable and ·

 

 
x − a

 

rational method; (3) the concept in TOPSIS, enables the , x ∈ [a, b] ,
 


b−a
 
detection of the best alternative for all criteria depicted in µA (x) = . (1)
computational procedure; (4) the inclusion of importance
 x−c 
, ,
 

 x ∈ [b, c] 

b−c
 
weights into computation practice. In addition, fuzzy

 


 

 
TOPSIS has reduced the computational time and eliminates x > c,
 
0,
several computational steps to be performed in AHP–fuzzy
Furthermore, the distance between the two TFNs can be
AHP methodology (Dağdeviren et al., 2009). The complete
calculated as given below:
AHP–fuzzy AHP are logical to apply to the situation where
there are a less number of criteria and alternatives, available

1  2  2 
d(O1 O2 ) = a − p + b − q + (c − r)2 . (2)
to a system. Otherwise, the number of pair wise evaluation 3
matrices will be higher than a reasonably threshold. For
instance, if there are x criteria for which importance weights
3.2. Fuzzy AHP
have to be determined and y alternatives, in that case, there
are x × y × (y − 1)/2 pair wise evaluation comparisons need
In 1970s, Thomas L. Saaty has introduced the methodology of
to be formed in accordance with the procedure of complete
AHP for solving the problems in multi-criteria decision sys-
AHP–fuzzy AHP methodology (Shipley et al., 1991). Thus, to
tem. In methodology of AHP, ‘analytic’ implies that a par-
avoid the large number of pair wise evaluation comparisons,
ticular problem is initially broken down into its constitutive
the methodology of fuzzy TOPSIS is utilized to prioritize or
elements and ‘hierarchy’ means that a hierarchical structure
rank alternatives. Besides, the fuzzy set theory concept helps
of the constitutive elements built according to the goal of the
in removing the inherent imprecision and ambiguity in the
study (Saaty, 1980; Qureshi et al., 2009). This method is ben-
process (Zadeh, 1965). However, the details of the research
eficial in evaluating the system in finding the priority of con-
methods are given in the subsequent sub-sections.
cern of criteria and sub-criteria associated with that system
(Zayed et al., 2008; Sarminento and Thomas, 2010; Govindan
3.1. Use of fuzzy set theory et al., 2014a; Al-Hawari et al., 2014; Galvez et al., 2015).
However, human judgment based factors always have un-
In this globalization era, the organizations are facing several certainty and ambiguity. In such situation, the methodology
complexities in decision-making due to lack of exactness in of AHP has limited acceptance (Mangla et al., 2015). To over-
the data. Human involvement in evaluating multi-criteria de- come this issue, it is proposed to incorporate the concepts of
cision problems typically includes qualitative judgments. The fuzzy set theory with the AHP method (Bhatti et al., 2010).
human judgments are generally expressed in linguistic state- Fuzzy AHP has been recognized as a well-accepted technique
ments instead of crisp value. In this sense, fuzzy method- to adequately handle the inherent uncertainty and human
ology is logically helpful in providing clear information for subjectivity involved in the decision-making practice (Chang
analyzing the problem under such unclear surroundings et al., 2007; Hu et al., 2009; Kaya and Kahraman, 2010; Choud-
(Zadeh, 1965). hary and Shankar, 2012; Büyüközkan and Cifci, 2012a; Wang
Fuzzy logic helps in capturing the human linguistic judg- et al., 2012; Jakhar and Barua, 2013; Luthra et al., 2015b). In the
ments and provides assistance in converting these linguistic present work, it is proposed to utilize the fuzzy AHP method-
statements into crisp values using fuzzy numbers (Susilawati ology that determines the importance weights of listed risks.
et al., 2015). The current research uses triangular fuzzy num- The various computational steps involved in employing the
ber (TFN), and it is mostly preferred for practical applications fuzzy AHP methodology (Wang et al., 2007; Chang et al., 2007;
(Zimmerman, 1996; Chang et al., 2007). Mangla et al., 2015) are described as below:
In the theory of fuzzy set, if a group of object is de- Step 1: Designing the scale of relative importance to
scribed by X, and x with values (x1 , x2 , x3 , . . . , xn ) represents construct the pair wise comparison/evaluation matrix: The
the generic element of X, then the fuzzy set for this object set TFNs, are used to improve the classical nine-point scaling
can be represented as {(x, µA (x))|x ∈ X} (Zimmerman, 1996). design. In order to deal with the vagueness and unclearness
72 S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N 1 (2015) 67–86

Table 2 – Fuzzy linguistic scale used for determining the

pair wise evaluation matrix.
Source: Wang et al. (2007).

Linguistic variables Fuzzy score

Approximately equal 1/2, 1, 2
Approximately x times more important x − 1, x, x + 1
Approximately x times less important 1/x + 1, 1/x, 1/x − 1
Between y and z times more important y, (y + z)/2, z
Between y and z times less important 1/z, 2/(y + z), 1/y

Note: The value of x ranges from 2, 3, . . . , 9, whereas the values of y

Fig. 2 – Representation of intersection between O1 and O2 .
and z can be 1, 2, . . . , 9, and y < z.
Source: modified Chan et al. (2008).

involved in human based linguistic assessments, the five Moreover, the degree of possibility for ‘k’ convex fuzzy num-
fuzzy score are defined as shown in Table 2. bers Oi i = 1, 2, . . . , k is calculated as:
 

Step 2: Develop the fuzzy evaluation matrix: The human

V O ≥ O1 , O2 , . . . , Ok
 
judgment linguistics assessments transformed into a fuzzy
= V O ≥ O1 and O ≥ O2 and . . . and O ≥ Ok
     
evaluation matrix through TFN. A positive fuzzy evaluation
= min V O ≥ Oi , i = 1, 2, 3, . . . , k.
 
matrix (A) is calculated by taking the average of the pair (8)
wise comparisons from decision group, which is illustrated ′
   
  Furthermore, by assuming, z Ci = min V Si ≥ Sk , for k =
as A = yij ,
n×m 1, 2, . . . , , n; k ̸= i the weight vector is given as:
where, yij represents the fuzzy entries in the constructed  T
W′ = z′ C1 , C2 , C3 , . . . , Ci
      
;
fuzzy positive matrix, i.e., (aij , bij , cij ), and in this relation
positive fuzzy numbers satisfy the following property: where Ci (i = 1, 2, . . . , n) are the elements.

1 1 1 After normalizing, the normalized fuzzy weight vectors

aij = , bij = , cij = , where,
aj bj cj for the system are given as below, While, ‘W’ is a non-fuzzy
i i i
i and j = 1, 2, . . . , z, i.e., no. of criteria. number.
T
W = z′ C1 , C2 , C3 , . . . , (Cn ) .
      
(9)
Step 3: Determination of importance weights: it needs to
aggregate fuzzy numbers into crisp values. This crisp value
enables the decision makers to find out the weights of 3.3. Fuzzy TOPSIS
considered criteria that help in determining their relative
importance. In this regard, this study has used Chang’s Extent Hwang and Yoon (1981) have initially proposed the method-
Analysis method. This method has been widely accepted ology of TOPSIS. According to their study, TOPSIS is a
to calculate fuzzy aggregate importance weights for the multi-criteria analysis method that enables experts to know
fuzzy input pair-wise evaluation matrix (Viswanadham and responses from a set of alternatives. The reason behind this is
Samvedi, 2013; Mangla et al., 2015). The details of essential explained as that the best alternative would have the farthest
calculations of extent analysis method as described by Chang distance from the negative ideal response (NIS) and the small-
(1992) are given as: est from the positive ideal response (PIS) (Kuo et al., 2007; Sun,
If extent analysis values for the ith object are represented 2010). The negative ideal response is a response that maxi-
p mizes the cost criteria and minimizes the benefit criteria. On
by O1g , O2g , O3g , . . . , Og , then, their corresponding fuzzy syn-
i i i i
thetic extent would be represented as below in Eq. (3). the other hand, the positive ideal response is a response that
minimizes the cost criteria and maximizes the benefit crite-
 
o n 
o ria.
 j  j
Si = Og ×  Og  . (3) Different researchers have successfully used the TOP-
i i
j=1 i=1 j=1 SIS method to analyze different multi criteria problems
In addition, for considering the minimum and maximum val- (Büyüközkan et al., 2008; Dağdeviren et al., 2009; Amiri, 2010;
ues for fuzzy number, the degree of possibility for two fuzzy Aydogan, 2012).
numbers is represented as below: Despite of this, the methodology of TOPSIS has been
criticized widely for its inability to deal the subjectivity and
V(O1 ≥ O2 ) = sup min µo1 (x) , µo2 y ;
   
vagueness associated with the assessment of human beings
x, y ∈ R, and x ≥ y. (4) (Dağdeviren et al., 2009; Afshar et al., 2011). In real-life
situations, it is very difficult to measure human judgments in
Noted that, if, x ≥ y and fo1 (x) = fo2 y = 1, then V(O1 ≥ O2 ) =
 
crisp values. In view of this, linguistic values could be better
1. Since O1 and O2 are two convex fuzzy numbers, then, it option to use. Fuzzy concepts can be helpful to measure
satisfies the properties mentioned as below: linguistic values. Therefore, fuzzy concepts have been
integrated into the TOPSIS method (Choudhary and Shankar,
V(O1 ≥ O2 ) = 1 if o1 ≥ o2 ; (5)
2012). The fuzzy TOPSIS technique is an appropriate method
V(O1 ≥ O2 ) = hgt O1 ∩ O2 = fo1 (m)
 
(6) to analyze multi criteria problems under fuzzy surroundings
while, m represents the ordinate of the highest intersection (Dağdeviren et al., 2009; Viswanadham and Samvedi, 2013;
Patil and Kant, 2014; Taylan et al., 2014; Prakash and Barua,
point M between µo1 and µo2 (see Fig. 2), and further, M is
2015). Various computational steps considered in employing
given as:
the fuzzy TOPSIS method can be outlined (Kuo et al., 2007;
V(O1 ≥ O2 ) = hgt O1 ∩ O2 = (a − r) / q − r − b − a .
     
(7) Büyüközkan et al., 2008; Sun, 2010) as below:
 S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N 1 (2015) 67–86 73

Table 3 – Linguistic scale used for responses rating. Step 4: Derive the weighted normalized matrix: The weighted
Source: Modified Wang et al. (2007) through expert’s normalized matrix ṽ for criteria should be calculated by
opinion. multiplying the importance weights (wj ) of decision criteria
with the entries of the normalized fuzzy decision matrix r̃ij...
Linguistic variables Fuzzy score
Important 1/2, 1, 2 Ṽ = [ṽij ]mxn where ṽij = r̃ij · wj . (13)
Approximately x times more important x − 1, x, x + 1
Step 5: Compute the fuzzy positive ideal response (FPIS, A∗ )
Approximately x times less important 1/x + 1, 1/x, 1/x − 1
and the fuzzy negative ideal response (FNIS, A− ) using the
Between y and z times more important y, (y + z)/2, z
Between y and z times less important 1/z, 2/(y + z), 1/y
expressions as given below:
Note: The value of x ranges from 2, 3, . . . , 9, whereas the values of y A∗ = (ṽ∗1 , ṽ∗2 , . . . , ṽ∗n ) (14)
and z can be 1, 2, . . . , 9, and y < z.
A− = (ṽ−
1
, ṽ−
2
, . . . , ṽ−
n) (15)
Where, ṽj = (0, 0, 0) and ṽ−
∗
j
= (1, 1, 1); j = 1, 2, . . . , n.
Step 1: Determine the importance weights of the evaluation
criteria: the methodology of fuzzy AHP is used in this research Step 6: Computation of distance of each alternative from FPIS
to determine the importance weights of the evaluation and FNIS: The distance (d+
i
, d−
i
) of each weighted alternative
criteria, which are denoted by wj (j = 1, 2, . . . , n). from the FPIS and FNIS should be calculated using the
equations given below:
Step 2: Select the linguistic preferences for the alterna-
n
tive with regards to criteria and derive the fuzzy perfor-
d+

i
= dv(ṽij , ṽ∗j ) (16)
mance/decision matrix: The problem can be expressed as:
j=1
if, m denotes a set of possible alternatives represented A =
n
(A1 , A2 , . . . , Am ) and C denotes a set of possible criteria repre- d− =

dv(ṽij , ṽ− ). (17)
i j
sented C = (C1 , C2 , . . . , Cn ) for which these alternatives have j=1
to be evaluated. Further, if there are K decision makers, then
Step 7: Determination of closeness coefficient of each
the evaluation rating of each expert Dk (k = 1, 2, . . . , K) for
alternative: The value of closeness coefficient denotes the
each alternative Ai (i = 1, 2, . . . , m) with regards to criteria
distance of alternative from the FPIS and the FNIS. The
Cj (j = 1, 2, . . . , n) are represented by Rk = xijk (i = 1, 2, . . . , m;
closeness coefficient (Di ) of each alternative to be computed,
j = 1, 2, . . . , n; k = 1, 2, . . . , K) with membership function rep-
as follows:
resented by µR̃k(x). The scale utilized for rating of responses
is shown in Table 3. d−
i
Di = . (18)
The fuzzy performance matrix for the alternatives (F̃) to be −
(di + d+
i
)
developed by using Eq. (10), and is represented as follows:
Step 8: Ranking of the alternatives: Using the values of
closeness coefficient, the different alternatives considered in
A1 x̃11 x̃12 ··· ··· x̃1n
  the system have been ranked. Highest value is ranked first,
A2 x̃21 x̃22 ··· ··· x̃2n
and thereafter, it follows a decreasing order.
 ··· ··· ··· ··· ··· 
F̃ = . (10)
 

 ··· ··· ··· ··· ··· 
Am x̃m1 x̃m2 ··· ··· x̃mn
4. The proposed model
However, the perception toward implementation of response
measures of risks in GSC context varies in accordance with The proposed model for prioritizing the response of risks in
the individual experience, intuition and or knowledge of the effective adoption and implementation of green initiatives
experts. In view of this, this research has used the method in the supply chain, based on the fuzzy AHP and fuzzy
of average value to find the aggregate value of the fuzzy TOPSIS methods, consists of three stages as described in the
performance score (i.e., aggregated fuzzy decision matrix) xij following sub-sections:
for k experts in concern to the same evaluation criteria, given
as, x̃kij = 1/k(x̃kij + x̃kij + x̃kij + · · · x̃kij ). Where, x̃kij is the performance 4.1. Stage 1: Identification of the responses to manage the
rating of alternative Ai , in reference to criteria Cj performed risks for effective implementation of the green initiatives in
supply chain
by kth decision maker or expert, and x̃kij = (ãkij , b̃kij , c̃kij ).
Step 3: Derive the normalized fuzzy performance matrix: In the first stage, a decision-making team consists of experts
In order to convert the scale of different criteria into a com- having expertise in various managerial functions within the
parative and comparable unit of measurements, the raw data industry, such as purchasing, planning, quality, production,
should be normalized. The normalized fuzzy performance finance, inspection, and environmental management was
matrix R̃ is represented as following: formed. The decision making team will be helpful in
R̃ = rij , where i = 1, 2, . . . , m; j = 1, 2, . . . , n. Further, rij identifying and finalizing the responses to manage the risks
m×n
is given by: for effective implementation of the green initiatives in the
  supply chain. Prior to this, the risks associated with the GSC
aij bij cij
rij = , , and c∗j = max cij were needed to be selected. At the same time, the alternatives
c∗j c∗j c∗j (responses) of the risks in GSC also need to be finalized
(benefit effective criteria) (11) through an extensive review of literature and inputs received
 ∗ ∗ ∗ from the experts. Next, a decision hierarchy to be constructed
aj aj aj
rij = , , and a∗j = min aij that consists of four levels, given as the goal of research at
cij bij aij Level 1; the main criteria at Level 2; the sub-criteria at Level 3;
(cost effective criteria). (12) the alternatives represented at Level 4.
74 S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N
4.2. Stage 2: Calculate the importance weights of criteria
and sub-criteria
The importance weights of the criteria and sub-criteria of
the risks in GSC were calculated by using the methodology
of fuzzy AHP. For this, the pair wise evaluation matrix of
expert’s judgment was constructed. In this regard, a linguistic
scale was provided to the experts (see Table 2 mentioned in
Section 3.2). Using this scale, the final pair-wise evaluation
matrix has been constructed. Based on this matrix, the
weights of the risks were calculated.
4.3. Stage 3: Evaluation of the responses (alternatives) of
risks in adoption and effective implementation of the green
initiatives in the supply chain
Priority or ranking of the responses of risks to manage the
GSC effectively was determined using fuzzy TOPSIS method.
For determining the rating of responses of risks, a linguistic
scale was utilized, (for linguistic scale see Table 3 mentioned
in Section 3.3). Priority of the response was determined on the
basis of the values of closeness coefficient (Di ). The Di values
were calculated with the help of fuzzy TOPSIS method. The
schematic illustration of the proposed model for prioritizing
the responses of risks in GSC is shown in Fig. 3.
5. An illustrative application example
The proposed network model is applied to a real world prob-
lem. Asia has been the world’s largest plastics consumer for
several years, accounting for almost 30% of global consump-
tion (Global Plastics Industry, 2013). Following China, India
accounts second significant fastest growing consumers, and
offers huge opportunities of business by incorporating en-
vironmental consideration with recycling and reusing oper-
ations. All India Plastics Manufacturers Association (AIPMA)
report estimates that Plastics is one of the major contributors
to India’s GDP and the consumption of plastic will increase
to almost 2–3 times a year in 2020 from the existing 8 million
tons a year in India (Plastic News, 2013). Considering the busi-
ness opportunities in this sector, a GSCM case example of a
poly-plastic manufacturing company located in the northern
region of India has been identified in this research.
The case company was established in year 1967 with a
vision to emerge a niche power in the plastic manufactur-
ing industrial sector. At present, the company has an annual
turnover in the range of 50–60 Million (INR). It has a good rep-
utation in both the domestic and global market. Currently, the
company is TS-16949/ an ISO-14001 certified. There are more
than 450 employees in the firm. The company produces a
wide variety of products including Automotive Plastic molded
components, Wheel Rims & Wheel Covers, Emblems (Elec-
troplated, Painted & Hot stamped), Door Handle, Decorative
Body side molding, etc. During the manufacturing of plastic
based automotive products, minerals like carbon and hydro-
gen are used as the raw material. The global trend and com-
petitions in the plastic sector proposes a great pressure to
consider green influence in the supply chain planning pro-
cess. It not only offer enough prospects for sustainable oper-
ations, such as reuse and recycling of plastic based products,
but also significantly reduces the consumption of resources,
energy (Plastic Europe, 2009). Considering this, the company
in question is greatly conscious in improving its ecological
performance, and wants to develop a sustainable business
culture. Therefore, company managers are implementing
green considerations at various stages of business.
1 (2015) 67–86
However, the company managers were facing several risks
and problems in GSCM network design. Thereby, the case
company has shown desire to list the risks associated with
the implementation of different green initiatives in the sup-
ply chain to improve its effectiveness. Besides, the managers
of the case company also seek to identify and select appro-
priate and viable responses to manage and reduce the con-
sequences of the risks in a successful accomplishment of
different business activities in GSC. Under these consider-
ations, implementation of appropriate mitigation response
measures to deal with GSC risks assumes great importance
for the company in this perspective.
An application of the proposed model is described through
three stages given in the earlier section (Section 4), and with
regards to the company in question is illustrated as follows:
5.1. Identification of the responses to manage the risks for
effective adoption and implementation of the green initiatives
in supply chain
A decision making team of ten experts is formed which con-
sists of five senior managers, two environmental representa-
tives and three senior professionals of supply chain members.
All experts are capable of decision-making and are actively in-
volved in supply chain planning and operations management
activities since last seven years.
Mangla et al. (2015), proposed a risk analysis framework for
effective understanding of implementation of the green ini-
tiatives from a supply chain perspective. Based on this study,
we selected the six main criteria and twenty-five risks (sub-
criteria) associated with the GSC as shown in Appendix A.
These risk criteria and sub-criteria have also been validated
for an agreement through an interactive discussion with the
professionals of decision-making team.
In order to manage these risks, 17 responses were identi-
fied (see Table 4). These responses were selected through liter-
ature and inputs received from the professionals of the same
decision-making team.
In that way, twenty-five risks and seventeen responses, to
manage these risks, were decided, and a decision hierarchy
was constructed to address the problem as shown in Fig. 4. It
consists of four levels — Prioritizing responses of the risks in
effective adoption and implementation of green in the supply
chain (the goal of research) at Level 1; Risks (the main criteria
used in this research) at Level 2; Risks (sub-criteria used in
this research) at Level 3; Responses (proposed alternatives)
represented at Level 4.
After the approval of the constructed decision hierarchy by
the professionals of decision-making team, the importance
weights of the criteria recognized in this study was
determined as given in the next section.
5.2. Compute the importance weights of criteria and sub-
criteria
Based on the work presented in the study of Mangla et al.
(2015), the pair-wise evaluation matrices for the main criteria
and sub-criteria were formed. The TFN based pair-wise
weight evaluation matrix for the main criteria is given in
Table 5.
The importance weights for each recognized main criteria
and sub criteria were calculated using expert’s inputs through
Chang’s Extent Analysis method. It has been calculated by
 S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N 1 (2015) 67–86 75

Table 4 – Defining the responses of risks in adoption and effective implementation of the green initiatives in the supply
chain.
Source: Combined result of the studies of Green et al. (1996, 2000), Roarty (1997), Lippmann (1999), Beamon (1999), Hillary
(2000), Hall (2001), Sarkis (2003), Sarkis (2006), Hervani et al. (2005), Zhu et al. (2005, 2008a,b), Adler (2006), Zhu and
Sarkis (2006), Orsato (2006), Walker et al. (2008), Marsillac (2008), Hsu and Hu (2008), Mudgal et al. (2009), Holt and
Ghobadian (2009), AlKhidir and Zailani (2009), Hu and Hsu (2010), Yang and Li (2010), Diabat and Govindan (2011), Toke
et al. (2012), Wang et al. (2012), Meacham et al. (2013), Muduli and Barve (2013), Muduli et al. (2013), Mangla et al.
(2014a,c, 2015), and inputs of the professionals of the decision-making team.

Responses Description
Establishment of motivational programs for The initiation of motivational programs will be quite useful in building the supplier’s
supplier to built their commitment about green commitment in adopting of the green trends in the organizational supply chain
(R1)

Use of information technology in tracking the Information system can be effective in tracking the returning of products by use of bar
returning of products to foster the product code, EDI, RFID, etc., and thereby GSC product recovery performance will improve
recovery (R2)

Adoption of product take-back responsibilities Product take-back obligations influences the collection procedure and improves the
(R3) product recovery process in GSC

Provision of well-defined and environmental
supportive governmental policies and directions
(R4)
Improved forecasting (R5)
Multiple supplier policy (R6)
Incorporation of environmental practices in
company policies and mission at strategically (R7)
Establish an efficient information network system
for effective green information sharing among
partners and across the hierarchy (R8)
Establishment of well-defined and environmental supportive governmental directions
would be significant for industries. Efficient legislative directions and governmental
policies in terms of providing some incentives and subsidies and or exempting the tax
on green product may be helpful in solving the various uncertain issues related to
adoption of GSC initiatives
Accurate forecast through improved forecasting method and techniques are significant
to stabilize the demand risk in GSC in business
Policy of multiple supplier helps in resolving the supplier risks and certainly improves
the economic–ecological gains in GSC at industrial perspective
In a strategic view, it is significant to include environmental concepts in company
policies and mission for achieving better GSC performances from the industrial
standpoint
An efficient interactive information network will reduce the risks of information
asymmetry between supply chain partners and members across the hierarchy. It will be
crucial in implementing an effective GSCM thought in business

Training and education of employee to increase The understanding and knowledge of green operations and method among employees
their competency regarding green (R9) is important to increase the success rate of GSC

Flexibility in design to process and operational The strategy of flexibility in design at process and operational level is significant in
level (R10) managing the GSC operations and will be useful in improving the overall performance

Awareness and education of the customers about Ecological consciousness of consumers is one of the significant factors for
green (R11) organizations to increase the GSC effectiveness

To develop and upgrade on technology being used Managers should have sound knowledge and understanding of the applicability of new
in the specific sectors for implementation of green technology in various sectors for effective implementation of green in the supply chain
(R12)

Establishing a well designed reverse logistics Reverse logistics has been recognized as a significant operation in GSC perspective in
system (R13) recovering the resources via closing the forward supply loop

Conduct seminar and some programs to educate Conducting seminar and education program can be significant in updating the
supply chain partners and members about green knowledge of supply chain members and partners, and it would be helpful in
(R14) enhancing the GSC success rate

Commitment of top management and support of The commitment of top management and support at managerial level, (i.e. at lower and
lower and middle level managers (R15) middle level) is important in adopting efficient green trends in the supply chain

Building organizational-supplier environmental
collaboration and partnerships (R16)
Establishment of financial resources, capabilities
and contingency plans (R17)
Building of environmental collaboration and partnerships among organization and
supplier is useful in enhancing the ecological performance of suppliers and certainly
would reduce the disruptions at the supplier end in GSC
Establishment of financial resources, capabilities and contingency plans are very
important from the industrial point of view in adoption and implementation of efficient
GSC initiatives/practices
76 S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N 1 (2015) 67–86

Fig. 3 – Schematic illustration of the proposed model for prioritizing the responses of risks in GSC.

1 1 1
 
using Eqs. (3)–(9) as mentioned in Section 3.2. The associated S6 = (2.9100, 5.2300, 8.0600) × , ,
68.1400 51.5200 37.4200
Si values can be computed through Eq. (3), as follows:
= (0.0427, 0.1015, 0.2154).
S1 = (7.3300, 10.0000, 13.0000)

1 1 1
 Using Eqs. (3)–(7), the degree of possibility for two fuzzy
× , , numbers is given as,
68.1400 51.5200 37.4200
= (0.1076, 0.1941, 0.3474) (0.0831 − 0.3474)
V(S1 ≥ S2 ) = =1
1 1 1 (0.1941 − 0.3474) − (0.1436 − 0.0831)
 
S2 = (5.6600, 7.4000, 9.5000) × , ,
68.1400 51.5200 37.4200 V(S1 ≥ S3 ) = 1
= (0.0831, 0.1436, 0.2539)
V(S1 ≥ S4 ) = 1
1 1 1
 
S3 = (4.9100, 6.1900, 7.8300) × , , V(S1 ≥ S5 ) = 1
68.1400 51.5200 37.4200
= (0.0721, 0.1201, 0.2092) V(S1 ≥ S6 ) = 1
1 1 1
 
S4 = (6.2500, 8.7900, 11.3900) × , , (0.1076 − 0.2539)
68.1400 51.5200 37.4200 V(S2 ≥ S1 ) = = 0.7434
(0.1436 − 0.2539) − (0.1941 − 0.1076)
= (0.0917, 0.1706, 0.3044) (0.0721 − 0.2539)

1 1 1
 V(S2 ≥ S3 ) = =1
S5 = (3.7000, 4.4100, 5.3600) × , , (0.1436 − 0.2539) − (0.1201 − 0.0721)
68.1400 51.5200 37.4200 (0.0917 − 0.2539)
= (0.0543, 0.0856, 0.1432) V(S2 ≥ S4 ) = = 0.8579
(0.1436 − 0.2539) − (0.1706 − 0.0917)
 S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N 1 (2015) 67–86 77

Fig. 4 – Decision hierarchy for prioritizing the responses of risks in GSC.

Source: Literature survey and inputs of the professionals of decision-making team.

Table 5 – Triangular fuzzy number based pair-wise evaluation matrix for GSC risk criteria.
Source: Mangla et al. (2015).

O S PR F D GO
O (1,1,1) (1,2,3) (3,7/2,4) (1/3,1/2,1) (2,3,4) (1/3,1/2,1)
S (0.33,0.50,1) (1,1,1) (1,2,3) (3,7/2,4) (1/3,2/7,1/4) (1/3,1/2,1)
PR (0.25,0.29,0.33) (0.33,0.50,1) (1,1,1) (1/3,2/7,1/4) (3,4,5) (2,5/2,3)
F (1,2,3.03) (0.25,0.29,2) (2,2.50,3.03) (1,1,1) (2,3,4) (2,3,4)
D (0.25,0.33,0.50) (2,2.50,3.03) (0.20,0.25,0.33) (0.25,0.33,0.5) (1,1,1) (1,2,3)
GO (1,2,3.03) (1,2,3.03) (0.33,0.40,0.50) (0.25,0.33,0.5) (0.33,0.5,1) (1,1,1)
78 S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N 1 (2015) 67–86

(0.0543 − 0.2539)
V(S2 ≥ S5 ) = =1 5.3. Evaluation of the responses of risks in adoption and
(0.1436 − 0.2539) − (0.0856 − 0.0543)
effective implementation of the green initiatives in the supply
(0.1778 − 0.2539)
V(S2 ≥ S6 ) = =1 chain
(0.1436 − 0.2539) − (0.1015 − 0.1778)
V(S3 ≥ S1 ) = 0.5786
In this stage, the experts in the decision team were asked
V(S3 ≥ S2 ) = 0.8429 to make a fuzzy performance matrix based on linguistic
V(S3 ≥ S5 ) = 0.6994 variables illustrated in Table 3 (for Table 3 see Section 3.3).
V(S3 ≥ S6 ) = 1 In this fuzzy performance matrix, the identified responses
were compared with regards to each of the identified risk.
V(S3 ≥ S6 ) = 1
The linguistic expressions were replaced with TFN and the
V(S4 ≥ S1 ) = 0.8933 fuzzy performance matrix was constructed. In this way, the
V(S4 ≥ S2 ) = 1 fuzzy performance matrix of each expert was constructed.
V(S4 ≥ S3 ) = 1 The fuzzy performance matrix given by Expert 1 is given in
Table 6.
V(S4 ≥ S5 ) = 1
Then, by taking an average of the fuzzy evaluation
V(S4 ≥ S6 ) = 1
matrices of the experts, an aggregate fuzzy performance
V(S5 ≥ S1 ) = 0.2470 matrix was derived as shown in Table 7.
V(S5 ≥ S2 ) = 0.5089 Next to this, a fuzzy normalized performance matrix was
formed as illustrated in Table 8. As already mentioned, several
V(S5 ≥ S3 ) = 0.6733
risks criterion in GSC has been listed, and it is proposed to
V(S5 ≥ S4 ) = 0.3773
manage or minimize these risks. Therefore, it can be stated
V(S5 ≥ S6 ) = 0.8634 that all the risks are cost effective criteria. Hence, a fuzzy
V(S6 ≥ S1 ) = 0.5379 normalized performance matrix was formed using Eq. (12).
For instance, the normalized fuzzy performance matrix with
V(S6 ≥ S2 ) = 0.7586
regards to response R1 and risk O1 is given as,
V(S6 ≥ S3 ) = 0.8851
0.33 0.33 0.33
 
V(S6 ≥ S4 ) = 0.6416 rij = , , , = (0.165, 0.275, 0.471)
2 1.2 0.7
V(S6 ≥ S5 ) = 1. (by taking cost effective criteria).

Then, by using Eq. (8), we obtain: These calculations were repeated for the remaining risks for
response R1.
z′ C1 = min V S1 ≥ S2, S3, S4, S5, S6
   
Then, a fuzzy weighted performance matrix was con-
= min(1, 1, 1, 1, 1) = 1 structed by multiplying the importance weights of criteria
z′ C2 = min V S2 ≥ S1, S2, S3, S4, S5 computed by fuzzy AHP with the elements of the fuzzy nor-
   

malized performance matrix, and is shown in Table 9. For in-

= min(0.7434, 1, 0.8579, 1, 1) = 0.7434
stance, the fuzzy weighted performance entry with regards to
z′ C3 = min V S3 ≥ S1, S2, S4, S5, S6
   
response R1 and risk O1 based on Eq. (13) is given as,
= min(0.5786, 0.8429, 0.6994, 1, 1) = 0.5786
Ṽ = 0.0399 × (0.165, 0.275, 0.471) = (0.006, 0.010, 0.018).
z′ C4 = min V S4 ≥ S1, S2, S3, S5, S6
   

= min(0.8933, 1, 1, 1, 1) = 0.8933 These calculations were repeated for the remaining risks for
response R1.
z′ C5 = min V S5 ≥ S1, S2, S3, S4, S6
   
In this research work, all the risks are cost effective
= min(0.2470, 0.5089, 0.6733, 0.3773, 0.8634) = 0.2470 criteria. Therefore, the fuzzy positive ideal response (FPIS, A∗ )
z′ C6 = min V S6 ≥ S1, S2, , S3, S4, S5 and the fuzzy negative ideal response (FNIS, A− ) are given as
   

= min(0.7434, 1, 0.8579, 1, 1) = 0.7434. ṽ∗j = (0, 0, 0), ṽ−

j
= (1, 1, 1) respectively for each of these risk
criteria. The distance (d+ i
, d−
i
), of each of the alternative were
These calculated minimum weight vectors were further calculated from these FPIS and FNIS by using Eqs. (16)–(17).
operated to obtain the normalized value and weight vector by As an example, the distances d(A1 , A∗ ) and d(A1 , A− ) with
using Eqs. (9)–(10). As a result, the weight vectors for the main regards to response R1 and risk O1 from FPIS and FNIS were
risks (i.e., 0.2507, 0.1863, 0.1449, 0.2236, 0.0607 and 0.1338) calculated, as follows:
were established. In the same way, the importance weights 
1
for sub risks have been computed. The calculated importance d(A1 , A∗ ) = [(0 − 0.006)2 + (0 − 0.010)2 + (0 − 0.018)2 ]
3
weights of the criteria of risk and sub risks are given in 
1
Appendix A. The order of priority of main risks and sub risks, +··· + [(0 − 0.001)2 + (0 − 0.001)2 + (0 − 0.002)2 ]
3
based on their respective global importance weights, has also
= 0.2966 (19)
been determined. The global importance weights for the sub 
1
risks were calculated by multiplying their relative importance d(A1 , A− ) = [(1 − 0.006)2 + (1 − 0.010)2 + (1 − 0.018)2 ]
3
weights with importance weights of their respective main 
1
risks. +··· + [(1 − 0.001)2 + (1 − 0.001)2 + (1 − 0.002)2 ]
3
After the approval of calculated weights of criteria and
= 24.7299. (20)
sub-criteria by decision-making team, the ranking of the
responses of risks recognized in this study are determined in These calculations were repeated for the remaining risks
the next sub-section. for response R1. Further, based on distances d(A1 , A∗ ) and
 S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N 1 (2015) 67–86 79

Table 6 – Fuzzy performance matrix for the responses of risks in GSC (given by Expert 1).
Source: fuzzy-TOPSIS analysis.

O1 O2 O3 ... ... GO4 GO5 GO6

R1 (1/2,1,2) (1,2,3) (1/3,1/2,1) ... ... (1,3/2,2) (1/2,2/3,1) (1,2,3)
R2 (3,7/2,4) (2,5/2,3) (2,3,4) ... ... (3,7/2,4) (2,5/2,3) (1/2,1,2)
R3 (1,2,3) (1/2,1,2) (1/2,2/3,1) ... ... (2,5/2,3) (1/2,1,2) (1,2,3)
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
R15 (3,4,5) (2,3,4) (2,5/2,3) ... ... (3,4,5) (3,4,5) (2,5/2,3)
R16 (1,2,3) (1,2,3) (1/2,1,2) ... ... (2,3,4) (2,5/2,3) (2,3,4)
R17 (1/2,1,2) (1,2,3) (2,3,4) ... ... (2,3,4) (3,4,5) (4,5,6)

Table 7 – Aggregate fuzzy performance matrix for the responses of risks in GSC.
Source: fuzzy-TOPSIS analysis.

O1 O2 O3 ... ... GO4 GO5 GO6

R1 (0.7,1.2,2) (1,2,3.4) (0.5,0.5,1.2) ... ... (1,1.78,2) (1/2,0.66,0.9) (0.89,1.9,3)
R2 (2.78,3.5,3.91) (2,2.91,3) (1.9,3,3.82) ... ... (3.1,3.5,4.2) (2.1,2.71,3.5) (0.5,1.1,2)
R3 (1.1,2,3.2) (0.5,1.2,2) (0.45,0.66,1.64) ... ... (2.12,2.5,3.56) (0.5,1.1,2.89) (1.1,2,3.5)
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
R15 (2.67,4,5.34) (1.9,3,4.21) (2,2.5,3.1) ... ... (3.2,4,5.45) (2.6,4,5.67) (2.1,2.5,3.4)
R16 (0.92,2.1,3.2) (1,2.21,3) (0.6,1,1.95) ... ... (1.9,3,4.4) (2,2.7,3.23) (1.9,3,4.50)
R17 (0.45,1,2.12) (1.12,1.93,3) (2.1,3.41,4.3) ... ... (2.2,3,4.56) (2.8,4.3,5.5) (4.4,5,6.32)

Table 8 – Normalized fuzzy performance matrix for the responses of risks in GSC.
Source: fuzzy-TOPSIS analysis.

O1 O2 O3 ... ... GO4 GO5 GO6

R1 (0.165,0.275,0.471) (0.097,0.165,0.33) (0.275,0.66,0.66) ... ... (0.165,0.185,0.33) (0.367,0.22,0.66) (0.11,0.173,0.370)
R2 (0.109,0.122,0.154) (0.143,0.147,0.215) (0.112,0.143,0.226) ... ... (0.102,0.12,0.138) (0.122,0.158,0.204) (0.215,0.390,0.86)
R3 (0.078,0.125,0.227) (0.125,0.208,0.5) (0.155,0.373,0.555) ... ... (0.070,0.1,0.117) (0.086,0.227,0.5) (0.071,0.125,0.227)
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
R15 (0.046,0.062,0.093) (0.059,0.083,0.131) (0.080,0.1,0.125) ... ... (0.045,0.062,0.078) (0.044,0.062,0.096) (0.073,0.1,0.119)
R16 (0.103,0.157,0.358) (0.11,0.149,0.33) (0.169,0.33,0.55) ... ... (0.075,0.11,0.173) (0.102,0.122,0.165) (0.073,0.11,0.173)
R17 (0.094,0.2,0.444) (0.066,0.101,0.178) (0.046,0.05,0.095) ... ... (0.043,0.066,0.091) (0.036,0.046,0.071) (0.0316,0.04,0.045)

Table 9 – Weighted normalized fuzzy performance matrix for the responses of risks in GSC.
Source: fuzzy-TOPSIS analysis.

O1 O2 O3 ... ... GO4 GO5 GO6

R1 (0.006,0.010,0.018) (0.007,0.013,0.026) (0.013,0.032,0.032) ... ... (0.004,0.005,0.009) (0.003,0.002,0.007) (0.001,0.001,0.002)
R2 (0.004,0.004,0.006) (0.011,0.011,0.017) (0.0055,0.007,0.011) ... ... (0.003,0.003,0.004) (0.001,0.001,0.002) (0.001,0.002,0.006)
R3 (0.003,0.004,0.009) (0.009,0.016,0.039) (0.007,0.018,0.027) ... ... (0.002,0.002,0.003) (0.001,0.002,0.005) (0.001,0.001,0.001)
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
R15 (0.001,0.002,0.003) (0.004,0.006,0.010) (0.003,0.004,0.006) ... ... (0.001,0.001,0.001) (0.001,0.001,0.001) (0.001,0.001,0.001)
R16 (0.004,0.006,0.014) (0.008,0.011,0.02) (0.008,0.016,0.026) ... ... (0.002,0.003,0.005) (0.001,0.001,0.001) (0.001,0.001,0.001)
R17 (0.003,0.007,0.017) (0.005,0.008,0.0142) (0.002,0.002,0.004) ... ... (0.001,0.001,0.002) (0.001,0.001,0.001) (0.001,0.001,0.001)

d(A1 , A− ), the closeness coefficient of R1 was computed using
Eq. (18), and is given as:
24.7299
D1 = = 0.9881.
(0.2966 + 24.7299)
In the same way, distances d(A1 , A∗ ) and d(A1 , A− ) were cal-
culated for each of the response, and the corresponding close-
ness coefficient (Di ) was computed. To develop and upgrade
on technology being used in the specific sectors for imple-
mentation of green (R12) response obtains the highest Di
value of equal to 0.9952. While, Use of information technol-
ogy in tracking the returning of products to foster the product
recovery (R2) response obtains the lowest highest Di value of
equal to 0.98607. Finally, using Di values, the ranking for the
risk responses or alternatives was made as shown in Table 10.
6. Discussion of the results
It is difficult to declare, which responses are more signifi-
cant to manage the risks in adopting effective green initia-
tives in the supply chain scenario. However, the prioritizing
of these responses by utilizing fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS
methods could be more effective to the point of view of in-
dustries in this situation. In the present work, an integrated
fuzzy AHP–TOPSIS approach has been extended to an Indian
case company to improve its effectiveness in adoption and
implementation of the green initiatives in the supply chain.
For this, a set of appropriate and feasible responses are pro-
posed to the case company to manage and reduce the conse-
quences of the risks in GSC.
80 S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N 1 (2015) 67–86

Table 10 – Summary of closeness coefficient (Di ) and Therefore, in this research, the total twenty-one experiments
final ranking of the responses. have been performed; details are given in Table 11.
Source: fuzzy-TOPSIS analysis. In the first 20 experiments, the importance weights of each
risk was set as a higher one by one, while the weights of
Responses d+
i
di Di Ranking other risks are set to low and assigned at equivalent impor-
R1 0.2966 24.7299 0.9881 16 tance or equal values (for details see Table 11). According to
R2 0.3487 24.6816 0.9861 17 the findings of sensitivity analysis test, the weight of the risk
R3 0.2760 24.7540 0.9890 15 O1 is taken as 0.6 and the weights of the remaining 24 risks
R4 0.2669 24.7577 0.9893 13
(experiment-1) are given as equal importance, thus assigned
R5 0.2653 24.7619 0.9894 12
equal importance weights for them, i.e. 0.01667. In experi-
R6 0.2483 24.7761 0.9901 8
R7 0.1742 24.8394 0.9930 4 ment number 21, all the risks are treated as equally impor-
R8 0.2463 24.7759 0.9902 7 tant, and so, they are assigned as equal weights, i.e. 0.04.
R9 0.2734 24.7504 0.9891 14 The changes in the importance weights of the risk (criteria)
R10 0.1308 24.8797 0.9948 3 may reflect changes in both the closeness coefficient and
R11 0.2531 24.7711 0.9899 10 the final ranking of the responses of risks in efficient GSCM
R12 0.1200 24.8887 0.9952 1
adoption. In sensitivity analysis, out of 21 experiments,
R13 0.2601 24.7640 0.9896 11
response (R12) has obtained the highest value of closeness
R14 0.2520 24.7732 0.9899 9
R15 0.1302 24.8813 0.9948 2 coefficient in 10 experiments (in experiments number 1–3,
R16 0.2140 24.8069 0.9914 6 6, 8, 10–12, 16–17). While, response (R15) has received the
R17 0.2040 24.8222 0.9918 5 highest score in 7 experiments (i.e. in experiments number
5, 7, 9, 13, 19–21). Concerning to the other 4 experiments,
According to the findings of this research, twenty-five response (R10) acquired the highest score and thus obtained
risks and seventeen responses were recognized through lit- the first rank among other responses. According to sensitivity
erature resource and in consultation with experts. The im- analysis, in the majority of experiments (approximately 50%
portance weights of the risks were identified using the fuzzy of times), response (R12) has obtained the highest rank
AHP method. These weights were used to give priority to re- among all risk responses. Hence, it can be concluded that
sponses of the risks in GSC by using the fuzzy TOPSIS method. the proposed network model is robust, and the ranking of
The fuzzy TOPSIS based preference order of responses of the responses of risks relevant to effective adoption and
risk in GSC is illustrated in Table 10. According to the val- implementation of GSCM is relatively stable to the change in
ues of Di , the priority of concern of the responses of the risks the weights of the risks as shown in Fig. 5.
in GSC are given as, R12-R15-R10-R7-R17-R16-R8-R6-R14-R11-
R13-R5-R4-R9-R3-R1-R2. To develop and upgrade on technol-
ogy being used in the specific sectors for implementation of 7. Conclusions, limitations, and future scope
green (R12) obtains the highest rank. Thus, managers of the of research
Indian case company should consider this response at prior-
ity in effective implementation of GSCM. The commitment of Due to customer pressure, scarcity of natural resources, and
top management and support of lower and middle level man- governmental policies, industries are pushing to adopt green
agers (R15) comes next to R12 in priority in adopting an effi- initiatives in the supply chain planning process. However, the
cient GSCM thought. Further, Flexibility in design to process effectiveness of GSC is relatively low as different risks and
and operational level (R10) and Incorporation of environmen- risk factors are associated with the GSCM adoption. It calls
tal practices in company policies and mission at strategically for the need to manage these risks by providing the necessary
(R7) occupies the third and fourth place of priority, and so on response measures. However, in real world situations, it is
up to Use of information technology in tracking the returning very difficult for industries to implement all the response
of products to foster the product recovery (R2), which obtains measures simultaneously because of various constraints and
the last rank. curbs. Hence, prioritizing the responses may prove to be
Furthermore, to increase the managerial utility of this re- beneficial to have a systematic implementation of these
search, the research findings were discussed with the deci- responses in managing the GSC effectively. By implementing
sion making team with an objective to have further insights to appropriate response measures, industries would become
implement the responses of risks relevant to effective GSCM more capable in managing GSC risk and reducing pessimistic
adoption and implementation, which in turn will improve consequences.
the GSC effectiveness. Therefore, case company managers are In this research, an effort has been made to suggest a
suggested that they should formulate the proposed responses structural model to prioritize responses of the risks in GSC
in accordance with their priority and implement them in a dimension. The proposed approach helps managers in over-
systematic way as defined through the rank assigned in this coming the problem of human subjectivity and an inher-
study. ent uncertainty in the GSC risk management process. The
methodology of fuzzy AHP is helpful in deciding the impor-
6.1. Evaluation of sensitivity analysis results tance weights of the related GSC risks, and the fuzzy TOPSIS
technique is utilized to determine the responses’ priority. The
To check the robustness of the proposed model, it is suggested weights obtained from the fuzzy AHP method are used as in-
to conduct the sensitivity analysis test (Patil and Kant, put in the fuzzy TOPSIS technique, and the identified appro-
2014). In sensitivity analysis (for this a computer based priate responses of risks are ranked to obtain the priorities in
program is prepared by means of Microsoft Excel), the ranking terms of their implementation.
of the responses of risks were monitored with regards to The real-world applicability of the proposed network
the changes in the importance weights of identified risks. model has been illustrated through an Indian poly-plastic
Table 11 – Summary of results of sensitivity analysis test.
Source: Sensitivity analysis.

Description of the experiments R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 R16 R17
Exp 1: WO1=0.60, WO2–WGO6=0.01667 0.9707 0.9651 0.9709 0.9653 0.9666 0.9673 0.9648 0.9660 0.9672 0.9684 0.9652 0.9732 0.9663 0.9679 0.9676 0.9703 0.9719
Exp 2: WO2=0.60, WO1, WO3–WGO6=0.01667 0.9717 0.9668 0.9720 0.9681 0.9685 0.9686 0.9673 0.9685 0.9702 0.9712 0.9668 0.9730 0.9681 0.9699 0.9694 0.9704 0.9713
Exp 3: WO3=0.60, WO1–WO2, WO4–WGO6=0.01667 0.9722 0.9728 0.9742 0.9724 0.9734 0.9732 0.9732 0.9733 0.9730 0.9725 0.9722 0.9738 0.9736 0.9735 0.9712 0.9737 0.9703
Exp 4: WO4= 0.60, WO1–WO3, WS1–WGO6=0.01667 0.9699 0.9706 0.9699 0.9712 0.9697 0.9680 0.9685 0.9703 0.9672 0.9734 0.9680 0.9689 0.9696 0.9675 0.9694 0.9704 0.9678
Exp 5: WS1=0.60, WO1–WF3, WS2–WGO6=0.01667 0.9721 0.9701 0.9709 0.9683 0.9676 0.9692 0.9707 0.9716 0.9703 0.9681 0.9702 0.9680 0.9700 0.9665 0.9733 0.9689 0.9731
Exp 6: WS2=0.60, WO1–WS1, WS3–WGO6=0.01667 0.9720 0.9704 0.9689 0.9718 0.9713 0.9681 0.9678 0.9697 0.9701 0.9693 0.9686 0.9728 0.9683 0.9689 0.9677 0.9675 0.9665
Exp 7: WS3=0.60, WO1–WS2, WS4–WGO6=0.01667 0.9718 0.9693 0.9686 0.9706 0.9699 0.9720 0.9719 0.9723 0.9717 0.9673 0.9726 0.9676 0.9725 0.9686 0.9736 0.9692 0.9732
Exp 8: WS4=0.60, WO1–WS3, WPR1–WGO6=0.01667 0.9695 0.9727 0.9692 0.9681 0.9724 0.9720 0.9706 0.9710 0.9725 0.9692 0.9681 0.9734 0.9683 0.9671 0.9706 0.9682 0.9727
Exp 9: WPR1=0.60, WO1–WS4, WPR2–WGO6=0.01667 0.9682 0.9722 0.9726 0.9671 0.9669 0.9678 0.9661 0.9687 0.9698 0.9723 0.9692 0.9693 0.9687 0.9683 0.9735 0.9702 0.9720
Exp 10: WPR2=0.60, WO1–WPR1, WPR3–WGO6=0.01667 0.9687 0.9705 0.9712 0.9713 0.9697 0.9700 0.9685 0.9700 0.9716 0.9707 0.9664 0.9728 0.9666 0.9672 0.9683 0.9701 0.9713
Exp 11: WPR3=0.60, WO1–WPR2, WPR4–WGO6=0.01667 0.9726 0.9682 0.9726 0.9698 0.9686 0.9679 0.9666 0.9681 0.9693 0.9680 0.9694 0.9732 0.9699 0.9687 0.9678 0.9728 0.9729
Exp 12: WPR4=0.60, WO1–WPR3, WGO1–WGO6=0.01667 0.9691 0.9704 0.9712 0.9686 0.9696 0.9684 0.9681 0.9684 0.9702 0.9685 0.9679 0.9726 0.9684 0.9677 0.9669 0.9700 0.9713
Exp 13: WF1=0.60, WO1–WO4, WF2–WGO6=0.01667 0.9725 0.9688 0.9712 0.9696 0.9678 0.9715 0.9709 0.9709 0.9683 0.9680 0.9689 0.9700 0.9712 0.9680 0.9730 0.9720 0.9723
S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N

Exp 14: WF2=0.60, WO1–WF1, WF3–WGO6=0.01667 0.9712 0.9730 0.9707 0.9692 0.9665 0.9716 0.9690 0.9678 0.9684 0.9731 0.9710 0.9672 0.9703 0.9683 0.9689 0.9705 0.9727
Exp 15: WF3=0.60, WO1–WF2, WS1–WGO6=0.01667 0.9701 0.9726 0.9739 0.9724 0.9726 0.9710 0.9690 0.9685 0.9704 0.9736 0.9717 0.9711 0.9728 0.9716 0.9703 0.9730 0.9728
Exp 16: WD1=0.60, WO1–PR4, WD2–WGO6=0.01667 0.9691 0.9697 0.9733 0.9680 0.9680 0.9676 0.9676 0.9692 0.9699 0.9726 0.9686 0.9735 0.9683 0.9687 0.9701 0.9688 0.9733
Exp 17: WD2=0.60, WO1–D1, WD3–WGO6=0.01667 0.9713 0.9722 0.9692 0.9699 0.9686 0.9674 0.9688 0.9669 0.9723 0.9685 0.9686 0.9730 0.9730 0.9698 0.9699 0.9716 0.9724
Exp 18: WD3=0.60, WO1–WD2, WD4–WGO6=0.01667 0.9724 0.9711 0.9706 0.9697 0.9711 0.9710 0.9721 0.9711 0.9698 0.9726 0.9717 0.9670 0.9728 0.9689 0.9670 0.9695 0.9710
Exp 19; WD4=0.60, WO1–D3, WGO1–WGO6=0.01667 0.9681 0.9724 0.9710 0.9670 0.9699 0.9691 0.9708 0.9706 0.9705 0.9695 0.9727 0.9701 0.9694 0.9690 0.9736 0.9702 0.9690
Exp 20: WGO1=0.60, WO1–D44, WGO1–WGO6=0.01667 0.9669 0.9682 0.9697 0.9700 0.9668 0.9692 0.9695 0.9701 0.9676 0.9701 0.9715 0.9681 0.9694 0.9686 0.9734 0.9703 0.9691
1 (2015) 67–86

Exp 21: WO1–WGO6=0.04 0.9971 0.9970 0.9971 0.9969 0.9969 0.9970 0.9969 0.9969 0.9970 0.9969 0.9970 0.9969 0.9970 0.9969 0.9972 0.9970 0.9971
81
 82

Table A.1 – Listing and final ranking of main criteria and sub-criteria of risks in GSC based on Mangla et al. (2015).

Risk criteria Importance Rank Sub risks Relative Relative Global Global
weights weights rank weights rank
Operational risks (O) 0.2507 1 Machine, equipment or facility failure (O1) 0.1595 4 0.03999 11
Design risks O2 0.3177 2 0.07965 3
Scarcity of skilled labor O3 0.1956 3 0.04904 8
Green technology level O4 0.3272 1 0.08203 2
Supply risks (S) 0.1863 3 Procurement costs risks S1 0.1944 4 0.03622 13
Key supplier failures S2 0.2454 3 0.04572 10
Supplier quality issues S3 0.2528 2 0.04710 9
Green raw-material supply disruptions S4 0.3054 1 0.05690 6
Product recovery risks (PR) 0.1449 4 Inventory and capacity design risks at reprocessing centers 0.1724 3 0.02498 17
PR1
Gate keeping design failures PR2 0.1683 4 0.02439 18
Reverse logistics design risks PR3 0.2399 2 0.03476 14
Take-back obligations risks PR4 0.4184 1 0.06063 5
Financial risks (F) 0.2236 2 Sourcing of funds F1 0.3390 2 0.07580 4
Inflation and currency exchange rates F2 0.2478 3 0.05541 7
Financial restrictions F3 0.4122 1 0.09217 1
Demand risks (D) 0.0607 6 Bullwhip effect risks D1 0.2504 2 0.01520 21
Market dynamics D2 0.1206 4 0.00732 25
S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N

Key customer failures D3 0.2385 3 0.01448 22

Competing risks D4 0.3915 1 0.02376 19
Governmental and Organizational related risks 0.1338 5 Management policy failures GO1 0.2718 1 0.03637 12
(GO)
Government policy risks GO2 0.2067 3 0.02766 16
Information asymmetry risk across GSC members in hierarchy 0.1633 4 0.02185 20
1 (2015) 67–86

GO3
Lack in enterprise strategic goals GO4 0.2212 2 0.02956 15
Legal risks GO5 0.0798 5 0.01067 23
Partnership risks GO6 0.0572 6 0.00765 24
 S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N
Fig. 5 – Score of closeness coefficient through sensitivity analysis.
Source: Sensitivity analysis.
manufacturing company GSCM case. Based on literature re-
source and inputs from the professionals of decision-making
team, seventeen responses of risks relevant to the implemen-
tation of GSC initiatives are finalized. The selected responses
are prioritized based on their respective rank using integrated
fuzzy AHP–TOPSIS approach.
The findings of this study illustrate that to develop and
upgrade on technology being used in the specific sectors
for implementation of green, response (R12) obtains the
highest priority. Meaning that, it is the highest rank response
to manage risk and its consequences in effective GSCM
adoption and implementation. Thus, managers should focus
this response at priority in managing the risks in GSC.
It is believed that the current work would help the man-
agers of the Indian case company in managing GSC efficiently.
The findings of this research will not only assist the case
company in managing the risks and risk factors relevant to
an effective implementation of GSCM, but also enable in en-
hancing the ecological–economic gains. In the end, sensitiv-
ity analysis examines the robustness of the proposed network
model.
This research has some limitations as well. A fuzzy
AHP–TOPSIS integrated decision framework has been de-
veloped with twenty-five risks and seventeen responses to
manage the risks in the context of GSC. More responses to
manage these risks have not been recognized. For the per-
spective of future analysis, the interdependence and strength
of relationships between or among recognized responses of
the risks can be explored by using other multi-criteria, anal-
ysis methods like Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM), De-
cision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) etc.
Further, the projected fuzzy based AHP—TOPSIS methodology
might be extended to various sectors of industry, for exam-
ple, the automobile, power, service, that seeks to determine
the performance ratings of the responses of the risks in im-
plementing an effective GSCM concept. However, the expert’s
judgment may vary with industry type and its priorities.
1 (2015) 67–86 83
Acknowledgments
We wish to thank Prof. Adisa Azapagic, (Editor-in-chief,
Sustainable Production and Consumption) and anonymous
reviewers, for your constructive suggestions. We thank you
and your reviewers for suggesting us directions for improving
the paper. We are also thankful to The Ministry of Human
Resource Development (MHRD), India for the financial and
technical support. We also acknowledge the support to the
research facilities provided by the Department of Mechanical
and Industrial Engineering, in Indian Institute of Technology
Roorkee, India.
Appendix
Table A.1.
References
Adler J., 2006. Going Green, Newsweek, online at
www.msnbc.msn.com, July 17; pp. 42-52.
Afshar, A., Marino, M.A., Saadatpour, M., Afshar, A., 2011.
Fuzzy TOPSIS multicriteria decision analysis applied to karun
reservoirs system. Water Resour. Manage. 25 (2), 545–563.
Ahi, P., Searcy, C., 2013. A comparative literature analysis
of definitions for green and sustainable supply chain
management. J. Cleaner Prod. 52 (1), 329–341.
Albino, V., Balice, A., Dangelico, R.M., 2009. Environmental
strategies and green product development: An overview on
sustainability-driven companies. Bus. Strategy Environ. 18 (2),
83–96.
Al-Hawari, T., Mumani, A., Momani, A., 2014. Application of the
Analytic Network Process to facility layout selection. J. Manuf.
Syst. 33 (4), 488–497.
AlKhidir, T., Zailani, S., 2009. Going green in supply chain towards
environmental sustainability. Global J. Environ. Res. 3 (3),
246–251.
Amiri, M.P., 2010. Project selection for oil-fields development by
using the AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods. Expert Syst. Appl. 7
(9), 6218–6224.
84 S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N
Aydogan, E., 2012. Performance measurement model for Turkish
aviation firms using the rough-AHP and TOPSIS methods
under fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications
38 (4), 3992–3998.
Bai, C., Sarkis, J., 2010a. Green supplier development: analytical
evaluation using rough set theory. J. Cleaner Prod. 18 (12),
1200–1210.
Bai, C., Sarkis, J., 2010b. Integrating sustainability into supplier
selection with grey system and rough set methodologies. Int.
J. Prod. Econ. 124 (1), 252–264.
Bai, C., Sarkis, J., 2011. Evaluating supplier development programs
with a grey based rough set methodology. Expert Systems with
Applications 38 (11), 13505–13517.
Beamon, B.M., 1999. Designing the green supply chain. Logist. Inf.
Manage. 12 (4), 332–342.
Beamon, B.M., 2005. Environmental and sustainability ethics in
supply chain management. Sci. Eng. Ethics 11, 221–234.
Bhatti, R.S., Kumar, P., Kumar, D., 2010. A Fuzzy AHP model
for 3PL Selection in Lead Logistics Provider Scenarios.
In: Chapter 18 of Enterprise Information Systems and
Implementing IT Infrastructures: Challenges and Issues. IGI
Global Publications, Hershey, Pennsylvania, USA, (ISBN: 978-1-
61520-625-4).
Büyüközkan, G., Cifci, G., 2012a. A combined fuzzy AHP and fuzzy
TOPSIS based strategic analysis of electronic service quality in
healthcare industry. Expert Systems with Applications 39 (3),
2341–2354.
Büyüközkan, G., Çifçi, G., 2012b. A novel hybrid MCDM approach
based on fuzzy DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS to
evaluate green suppliers. Expert Systems with Applications 39
(3), 3000–3011.
Büyüközkan, G., Feyzioğlu, O., Nebol, E., 2008. Selection of the
strategic alliance partner in logistics value chain. Int. J. Prod.
Econ. 113 (1), 148–158.
Chang, D.Y., 1992. Extent analysis and synthetic decision. Optim.
Tech. Appl. 1 (1), 352–355.
Chang, Y.H, Chung, H.Y., Wang, S.Y., 2007. A survey and
optimization-based evaluation of development strategies for
the air cargo industry. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 106, 550–562.
Chopra, S., Meindl, P., 2007. Supply chain management.
In: Strategy, planning & operation, Gabler. pp. 265–275.
Choudhary, D., Shankar, R., 2012. An STEEP-fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS
framework for evaluation and selection of thermal power
plant location: A case study from India. Energy 42 (1), 510–521.
Dağdeviren, M., Yavuz, S., Kılınç, N., 2009. Weapon selection
using the AHP and TOPSIS methods under fuzzy environment.
Expert Systems with Applications 36 (4), 8143–8151.
Dan-Li D., Ju Q., Hong-Yan Z., Risk assessment study of
manufacturing green supply chain based on grey theory. In:
International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis
Response and Management (ISCRAM), Harbin, Heilongjiang,
2011, pp. 234–240, ISBN: 978-1-4577-0369-0.
Diabat, A., Govindan, K., 2011. An analysis of the drivers affecting
the implementation of green supply chain management.
Resour. Conserv. Recycling 55, 659–667.
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. The
Lean and Green Supply Chain. A practical Guide for Materials
Managers and Supply Chain Managers to Reduce Costs
and Improve Environmental Performance. Washington, DC;
pp. 12–13.
Fahimnia B., Sarkis J., Davarzani H., Green supply chain
management: A review and bibliometric analysis, Int. J. Prod.
Econ., Online at: (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.01.003).
Galvez, D., Rakotondranaivo, A., Morel, L., Camargo, M., Fick,
M., 2015. Reverse logistics network design for a biogas
plant: An approach based on MILP optimization and
Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP). J. Manuf. Syst. Online at:
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2014.12.005).
Global Plastics Industry. 2013. Published on Business Vibes
http://www.businessvibes.com.
Godfrey, R., 1998. Ethical purchasing: Developing the supply chain
beyond the environment. In: Russel, T. (Ed.), Greener Pur-
chasing: Opportunities and Innovations. Greenleaf Publishing,
Sheffield, England, pp. 244–251.
1 (2015) 67–86
Govindan, K., Mathiyazhagan, K., Kannan, D., Noorulhaq, A.,
2014a. Barriers Analysis for Green Supply Chain Management
Implementation in Indian Industries Using Analytic Hierarchy
Process. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 147(B), 555–568.
Govindan, K., Kannan, D., Shankar, M., 2014b. Evaluation of
green manufacturing practices using a hybrid MCDM model
combining DANP with PROMETHEE. Int. J. Prod. Res. ahead-of-
print:1-28.
Green, K., Morton, B., New, S., 1996. Purchasing and environ-
mental management: interactions, policies and opportunities.
Business Strategy and the Environment 5 (3), 188–197.
Green, K., Morton, B., New, S., 2000. Greening organizations.
Organ. Environ. 13 (2), 206–228.
Gurnani, H., Mehrotra, A., Ray, S., 2012. Supply Chain Disruptions:
Theory and Practice of Managing Risk. Springer, London
Dordrecht Heidelberg, New York.
Hall, J., 2001. Environmental supply chain innovation. Greener
Manag. Int. 35, 105–119.
Harputlugil, T., Prins, M., Gultekin, T., Topcu, I., 2011. Concep-
tual Framework for Potential Implementations of Multi Cri-
teria Decision Making (MCDM) Methods for Design Quality
Assessment. In: Management and Innovation for a Sustain-
able Built Environment. The Netherlands, Amsterdam, ISBN:
9789052693958.
Hervani, A.A., Helms, M.M., Sarkis, J., 2005. Performance measure-
ment for green supply chain management. Benchmarking 12
(4), 330–353.
Hillary, R. (Ed.), 2000. Small and Medium Sized Enterprises and
the Environment, Business Imperatives. Greenleaf Publishing,
Sheffield, pp. 11–22.
Holt, D., Ghobadian, A., 2009. An empirical study of green supply
chain management practices amongst UK manufacturers.
J. Manuf. Technol. Manage. 20 (7), 933–956.
Hora, M., Klassen, R.D., 2013. Learning from others’misfortune:
factors influencing knowledge acquisition to reduce opera-
tional risk. J. Oper. Manage. 31, 52–61.
Hsu, C.W., Hu, A.H., 2008. Green supply chain management in the
electronic industry. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 5 (2), 205–216.
Hu, A.H., Hsu, C.W., 2010. Critical factors for implementing green
supply chain management practice: an empirical study of
electrical and electronics industries in Taiwan. Manage. Res.
Rev. 33 (6), 586–608.
Hu, A.H., Hsu, C.W., Kuo, T.C., Wu, W.C., 2009. Risk evaluation of
green components to hazardous substance using FMEA and
FAHP. Expert Systems with Applications 36 (3), 7142–7147.
Hwang, C.L., Yoon, K., 1981. Multiple Attributes Decision Making
Methods and Applications. Springer, Berlin.
International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) report, 2012
assessed at http://www.icmm.com/.
Jabbour C.J.C., de Sousa Jabbour A.B.L., 2015. Green human
resource management and green supply chain management:
Linking two emerging agendas. J. Clear Prod.; Online at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.034.
Jakhar, S.K., Barua, M.K., 2013. An integrated model of supply
chain performance evaluation and decision-making using
structural equation modelling and fuzzy AHP. Prod. Plan.
Control 1–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2013.782616.
Jung, 2011. A bibliometric analysis on green supply chain
management: a pre-liminary result. In: Commerce and
Enterprise Computing, IEEE 13th Conference. pp. 418–420.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CEC.2011.68.
Kaya, T., Kahraman, C., 2010. Multi criteria renewable energy
planning using an integrated fuzzy VIKOR & AHP methodol-
ogy: The case of Istanbul. Energy 35 (6), 2127–2517.
Kumar, S., Teichman, S., Timpernagel, T., 2012. A green supply
chain is a requirement for profitability. International Journal
of Production Research 50 (5), 1278–1296.
Kuo, M.S., Tzeng, G.H., Huang, W.C., 2007. Group decision making
based on concepts of ideal and anti-ideal points in fuzzy
environment. Math. Comput. Model. 45 (3/4), 324–339.
Lin, R.J., 2013. Using fuzzy DEMATEL to evaluate the green supply
chain management practices. J. Cleaner Production 40, 32–39.
Linton, J.D., Klassen, R., Jayaraman, V., 2007. Sustainable supply
chains: an introduction. J. Oper. Manage. 25 (1), 1075–1082.
 S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N
Lippmann, S., 1999. Supply chain environmental management:
elements of success. Corporate Environ. Strategy 6 (2),
175–182.
Luthra, S., Garg, D., Haleem, A., 2013. Identifying and ranking
of strategies to implement green supply chain management
in Indian manufacturing industry using Analytical Hierarchy
Process. J. Ind. Eng. Manage. 6 (4), 930–962.
Luthra, S., Garg, D., Haleem, A., 2014. Critical success factors of
green supply chain management for achieving sustainability
in Indian automobile industry. Prod. Plan. Control ahead of
print: 1–24.
Luthra S., Garg D., Haleem A., 2015a. An analysis of inter-
actions among critical success factors to implement green
supply chain management towards sustainability: An Indian
perspective. Resour. Policy Online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.resourpol.2014.12.006.
Luthra, S., Kumar, V., Kumar, S., Haleem, A., 2011. Barriers to
implement green supply chain management in automobile
industry using interpretive structural modeling technique an
Indian perspective. J. Ind. Eng. Manage. 4 (2), 231–257.
Luthra, S., Mangla, S.K., Kharb, R.K., 2015b. Sustainable
assessment in energy planning and management in Indian
perspective. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 47, 58–73.
Ma, R.M., Yao, L., Huang, R., 2012. The green supply chain
management risk analysis. Adv. Mater. Res. 573–574, 734–739.
Madaan, J., Mangla, S., 2015. Decision Modeling Approach for Eco-
Driven Flexible Green Supply Chain. In: Systemic Flexibility
and Business Agility. Springer India, pp. 343–364.
Mangla, S., Madaan, J., Chan, F.T.S., 2012. Analysis of performance
focused variables for multi-objective decision modeling
approach of flexible product recovery systems. Global J.
Flexible Syst. Manage. 13 (2), 77–86.
Mangla, S., Madaan, J., Sarma, P.R.S., Gupta, M.P., 2014a. Multi-
objective decision modelling using interpretive structural
modelling for green supply chains. Int. J. Logist. Syst. Manage.
17 (2), 125–142.
Mangla, S.K., Kumar, P., Barua, M.K., 2014b. Flexible decision
approach for analysing performance of sustainable supply
chains under risks/uncertainty. Global J. Flexible Syst. Manag.
15 (2), 113–130.
Mangla, S.K., Kumar, P., Barua, M.K., 2014c. A flexible decision
framework for building risk mitigation strategies in green
supply chain using SAP-LAP and IRP Approaches. Global J.
Flexible Syst. Manag. 15 (3), 203–218.
Mangla S.K., Kumar P., Barua M.K., 2015. Risk analysis in
green supply chain using fuzzy AHP approach: a case
study. Recycling Resources and Conservation. Online at:
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.01.001).
Marsillac, E.L., 2008. Environmental impacts on reverse logistics
and green supply chains: similarities and integration. Int. J.
Logist. Syst. Manage. 4 (4), 411–422.
Mathiyazhagan, K., Govindan, K., Noorul Haq, A., Geng, Y., 2013.
An ISM approach for the barrier analysis in implementing
green supply chain management. J. Cleaner Prod. 47, 283–297.
Mathiyazhagan, K., Govindan, K., Noorul Haq, A., Geng, Y.,
2014. Pressure analysis for green supply chain management
implementation in Indian industries using analytic hierarchy
process. Int. J. prod. Res. 52 (1), 188–202.
Meacham, J., Toms, L., Green Jr., K.W., Bhadauria, V.S., 2013.
Impact of information sharing and green information
systems. Manage. Res. Rev. 36 (5), 478–494.
Min, H., Kim, I., 2012. Green supply chain research: past, present,
and future. Logist. Res. 4 (1/2), 39–47.
Mirhedayatian, S.M., Azadi, M., Saen, R.F., 2014. A novel network
data envelopment analysis model for evaluating green supply
chain management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 147, 544–554.
Mohanty, R.P., Prakash, A., 2013. Green supply chain management
practices in India: an empirical study. Prod. Plan. Control 1–16.
Online at: (http://dx.doi:10.1080/09537287.2013.832822).
Mudgal, R.K., Shankar, R., Talib, P., Raj, T., 2009. Greening the
supply chain practices: an Indian perspective of enablers’
relationships. Int. J. Adv. Oper. Manage. 1 (2), 151–176.
1 (2015) 67–86 85
Muduli, K., Barve, A., 2013. Sustainable development practices in
mining sector: a GSCM approach. Int. J. Environ. Sustain. Dev.
12 (2), 222–243.
Muduli, K., Govindan, K., Barve, A., Kannan, D., Geng, Y., 2013.
Role of behavioural factors in green supply chain management
implementation in Indian mining industries. Resour. Conserv.
Recycling 76, 50–60.
Orsato, R., 2006. Competitive environmental strategies: when
does it pay to be green?. California Manage. Rev. 48 (2),
127–143.
Prakash, C., Barua, M.K., 2015. Integration of AHP-TOPSIS method
for prioritizing the solutions of reverse logistics adoption to
overcome its barriers under fuzzy environment. J. Manuf. Syst.
Online at: (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2015.03.001).
Parmigiani, A., Klassen, R.D., Russo, M.V., 2011. Efficiency meets
accountability: Performance implications of supply chain
configuration, control, and capabilities. J. Oper. Manage. 29 (3),
212–223.
Patil, S.K., Kant, R., 2014. A fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for
ranking the solutions of Knowledge Management adoption in
Supply Chain to overcome its barriers. Expert Syst. Appl. 41 (2),
679–693.
Paulraj, A., 2009. Environmental motivations: a classification
scheme and its impact on environmental strategies and
practices. Bus. Strategy Environ. 18 (7), 453–468.
Plastic Europe, 2009. The Compelling facts about plastics 2009,
an analysis of European plastics production, demand and
recovery for 2008. Plastic Europe, www.plasticseurope.org.
Plastic News. 2013. SAY YES TO PLASTIC; May issue 66(5), 1–66.
Porter, M.E., van der Linde, C., 1995. Green and competitive:
ending the stalemate. Harv. Bus. Rev. 73, 20–34.
Qianlei, L., 2012. The study on the risk management of agri-
cultural products green supply chain based on systematic
analysis. In: Business Computing and Global Informatiza-
tion (BCGIN), IEEE 2nd International Conference, Shanghai.
pp. 250–253, ISBN: 978-1-4673-4469-2.
Qureshi, M.N., Kumar, P., Kumar, D., 2009. Selection of 3PL service
providers: a combined approach of AHP and graph theory. Int.
J. Serv. Technol. Manage. 12 (1), 35–60.
Rao, P., Holt, D., 2005. Do green supply chains lead to
competitiveness and economic performance? Int. J. Oper.
Prod. Manage. 25 (9), 898–916.
Roarty, M., 1997. Greening business in a market economy. Eur.
Bus. Rev. 97 (5), 244–254.
Rostamzadeh, R., Govindan, K., Esmaeili, A., Sabaghi, M., 2015.
Application of fuzzy VIKOR for evaluation of green supply
chain management practices. Ecol. Indic. 49, 188–203.
Saaty, T.L., 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill,
New York.
Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q., Lai, K., 2011. An organizational theoretic review
of green supply chain management literature. Int. J. Prod.
Econ. 130 (1), 1–15.
Sarkis, J., 2003. A strategic decision framework for green supply
chain management. J. Cleaner Production 11 (4), 397–409.
Sarkis, J., 2006. Greening the Supply Chain. Springer, Berlin.
Sarminento, R., Thomas, A., 2010. Identifying improvement areas
when implementing green initiatives using a multitier AHP
approach. Benchmarking 17 (3), 452–463.
Sawadogo, M., Anciaux, D., 2011. Intermodal transportation
within the green supply chain: an approach based on ELECTRE
method. Int. J. Bus. Perform. Supply Chain Model. 3 (1), 43–65.
Shipley, M.F., Korvin, D.K., Obit, R., 1991. A decision making
model for multiattribute problems incorporating uncertainty
and bias measures. Comput. Oper. Res. 18, 335–342.
Sodhi, M.S., Son, B.G., Tang, C., 2012. Researchers’ perspectives
on supply chain risk management. Prod. Oper. Manage. 21 (1),
1–13.
86 S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N
Srivastava, S.K., 2007. Green supply-chain management: a state-
of-the-art literature review. Int. J. Manage. Rev. 9 (1), 53–80.
Sun, C.C., 2010. A performance evaluation model by integrating
fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods. Expert Systems with
Applications 37 (12), 7745–7754.
Sundarakani, B., De Souza, R., Goh, M., Wagner, S.M., Manikan-
dan, S., 2010. Modelling carbon footprints across the supply
chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 128 (1), 43–50.
Susilawati, A., Tan, J., Bell, D., Sarwar, M., 2015. Fuzzy logic based
method to measure degree of lean activity in manufacturing
industry. J. Manuf. Syst. 34, 1–11.
Taylan, O., Bafail, A.O., Abdulaal, R.M., Kabli, M.R., 2014.
Construction projects selection and risk assessment by fuzzy
AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methodologies. Appl. Soft Comput. 17,
105–116.
Toke, L.K., Gupta, R.C., Dandekar, M., 2012. An empirical study of
green supply chain management in Indian perspective. Int. J.
Appl. Sci. Eng. Res. 1 (2), 372–383.
Tuzkaya, G., Ozgen, A., Ozgen, D., Tuzkaya, U.R., 2009. Environ-
mental performance evaluation of suppliers: A hybrid fuzzy
multi-criteria decision approach. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 6
(3), 477–490.
Vachon, S., Klassen, R.D., 2006. Extending green practices across
the supply chain: the impact of upstream and downstream
integration. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage. 26 (5), 795–821.
Vachon, S., 2007. Green supply chain practices and the selection
of environmental technologies. International Journal of
production Research 45 (18/19), 4357–4379.
Vaidya, O.S., Kumar, S., 2006. Analytic hierarchy process: an
overview of applications. European J. Oper. Res. 169 (1), 1–29.
Van Hoek,, Erasmus, R.I., 2000. From reversed logistics to green
supply chains. Logist. Solut. 2, 28–33.
Viswanadham, N., Samvedi, A., 2013. Supplier selection based on
supply chain ecosystem, performance and risk criteria. Inter-
national Journal of Production Research 51 (21), 6484–6498.
Wadhwa, S., Madaan, J., Chan, F.T.S., 2009. Flexible decision
modeling of reverse logistics system: A value adding MCDM
approach for alternative selection. Robot. Comput.-Integr.
Manuf. 25 (2), 460–469.
Walker, H., Di Sisto, L., McBain, D., 2008. Drivers and barriers to
environmental supply chain management practices: Lessons
from the public and private sectors. J. Purch. Supply Manage.
14 (1), 69–85.
Wang, L., Chu, J., Wu, J., 2007. Selection of optimum maintenance
strategies based on a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Int. J.
Prod. Econ. 107, 151–163.
Wang, T.C., Chang, T.H., 2007. Application of TOPSIS in evaluating
initial training aircraft under a fuzzy environment. Expert
Systems with Applications 33 (4), 870–880.
1 (2015) 67–86
Wang, X., Chan, H.K., Yee, R.W.Y., Diaz-Rainey, I., 2012. A two-
stage fuzzy-AHP model for risk assessment of implementing
green initiatives in the fashion supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ.
135 (2), 595–606.
Wang, X., Chan, H.K., 2013. A hierarchical fuzzy TOPSIS approach
to assess improvement areas when implementing green
supply chain initiatives. International Journal of Production
Research 51 (10), 3117–3130.
Wu, K.J., Liao, C.J., Tseng, M.L., Chiu, A.S., 2015. Exploring decisive
factors in green supply chain practices under uncertainty. Int.
J. Prod. Econ. 159, 147–157.
Xu, L., Mathiyazhagan, K., Govindan, K., Noorul Haq, A., Ra-
machandrand, N.V., Ashokkumar, A., 2013. Multiple compar-
ative studies of Green Supply Chain Management: Pressures
analysis. Resour., Conserv. Recycling 78, 26–35.
Yang, Z.K., Li, J., 2010. Assessment of Green Supply Chain Risk
Based on Circular Economy. In: Industrial Engineering and
Engineering Management (IE&EM), IEEE 17th International
Conference, Xiamen. pp. 1276–1280. ISBN: 978-1-4244-6483-8.
Zadeh, L.A., 1965. Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8, 338–352.
Zayed, T., Amer, M., Pan, J., 2008. Assessing risk and uncertainty
inherent in Chinese highway projects using AHP. Int. J. Project
Manage. 26 (4), 408–419.
Zhang, B., Bi, J., Liu, B., 2009. Drivers and barriers to engage
enterprises in environmental management initiatives in
Suzhou Industrial Park, China. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 3 (2),
210–220.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Geng, Y., 2005. Green supply chain management
in China: pressures, practices and performance. Int. J. Oper.
Prod. Manage. 25 (3), 449–468.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Lai, K.H., 2008b. Confirmation of a
measurement model for green supply chain manage-
ment practices implementation. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 111 (2),
261–273.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Lai, K.H., 2008a. Green supply chain
management implications for closing the loop. Transp. Res. E
44 (1), 1–18.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Lai, K.H., 2013. Institutional-based antecedents
and performance outcomes of internal and external green
supply chain management practices. J. Purch. Supply Manage.
19 (2), 106–117.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., 2006. An inter-sectoral comparison of green
supply chain management in China: drivers and practices.
J. Cleaner Prod. 14 (5), 472–486.
Zimmerman, H.J., 1996. Fuzzy Sets Theory and its Applications.
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.
Zsidisin, G.A., Siferd, S.P., 2001. Environmental purchasing: a
framework for theory development. Eur. J. Purch. & Supplying
Manage. 7, 61–73.