Evaluation and Selection of Sustainable Strategy For Green Supply Chain Management Implementation

Business Strategy and the Environment
Bus. Strat. Env. 2018

Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/bse.2016
Evaluation and Selection of Sustainable Strategy for

Green Supply Chain Management Implementation
Rakesh Kumar Malviya,1* Ravi Kant2 and Ashim Dutta Gupta3
1
Shri Vaishnav Institute of Technology and Science, Mechanical Engineering Department, Indore, Madhya
Pradesh, India
2
S. V. National Institute of Technology, Surat Mechanical Engineering, Surat, Gujarat, India
3
Gajra Differencial Gears Pvt. Ltd, Engineering, Dewas, Madhya Pradesh, India
ABSTRACT
The aim of this study is to explore the implementation of green supply chain management
(GSCM) strategies and to select the best GSCM strategy using fuzzy analytical network process
(ANP) methodology. The ANP helps in analyzing the interdependence and interrelations
among the various determinants and dimensions of GSCM strategy selection. Fuzzy set theory
is applied to avoid the vagueness and uncertainty in human preference judgement. This study
uses an empirical case study of an Indian automobile organization to validate the applicability
of the proposed model. The results show that the resource based strategy is in first position,
having the maximum impact on each determinant. The case organization should improve the
green management system with the assistance of a suitable GSCM strategy, i.e. the resource
based strategy. This study may help managers to make decisions, and to analyze and
standardize their environmental advantages dynamically. The robustness of the projected
model is checked by conducting a sensitivity analysis. Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons,
Ltd and ERP Environment
Received 2 May 2017; revised 3 September 2017; accepted 17 September 2017

Keywords: green supply chain management (GSCM); sustainability; strategy; fuzzy ANP; case study
Introduction
I
N RECENT YEARS ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY HAS BEEN ATTRACTING A HUGE AMOUNT OF ACADEMIC AND INDUSTRY ATTENTION
(Ansari and Kant, 2017; Jayaram and Avittathur, 2015; Carbone et al., 2012). The subject of supply chain (SC) as-
similation in universal supply chain management (SCM) has entailed substantial consideration between several
practitioners and academics (Meckenstock et al., 2015; Danese et al., 2013). With the progressively more promi-
nent topics such as economic globalization and environmental resources, subjects pertinent to green supply chain
management (GSCM) have attracted more attention from academics and market governors (El Saadany and Jaber,
2010; Zhu and Cote, 2004). GSCM is a modern management model concentrating on the coordinated
improvement of economic benefits and environmental impact (Zhang et al., 2014). The concept of the GSCM
*Correspondence to: Rakesh Kumar Malviya, Shri Vaishnav Institute of Technology and Science, Mechanical Engineering Department, Indore, Madhya
Pradesh, India.
E-mail: rakeshmalviya.2007@gmail.com
Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
R. K. Malviya et al.
initiative helps chain members to deal with environmental matters (Xing et al., 2016; Soler et al., 2010; Rao, 2007).
Greening different segments of the SC leads to an assimilated GSCM, increased competitiveness, and enhanced eco-
nomical and functional performance (Rao and Holt, 2005). Several studies have incorporated the efforts of manage-
ment, engineering, physical and social sciences to explore the matters relevant to GSCM (Sarkis, 2003). Numerous
manufactures have adjusted their manufacturing viewpoints and introduced environmental programs into their
organizations, because it will be advantageous to them as well as to the environment to examine their green business
(Chen et al., 2012). SC and environmental concerns within GSCM have evolved as a vital strategy for manufacturing
organizations and their SCs (Zhu et al., 2012; Curkovic and Sroufe, 2011). GSCM aims to adopt a life cycle method
(i.e. product design, material selection, manufacturing, and sales and recovery) to maximize overall environmental
profit (Singh and Acharya, 2014). This helps the organization to realize its ecological growth and development
(Shi et al., 2012). The concept of GSCM is not new, but there is no clear and perfect policy for GSCM implementation
in organizations (Malviya and Kant, 2017). To improve the performance of the GSCM implementation, a set of
reasonable and viable measures needs to be proposed and prioritized in a systematic way (Mangla et al., 2015). The
multifunctional groups within the organization have a role in making the strategic decisions which will be significant
for internal and external management of an organization. Reasonable and effective strategy can improve the perfor-
mance of GSCM operation (Vachon and Klassen, 2008). GSCM strategy implementation has a far-reaching and
multi-dimensional effect on performance (Azzone and Noci, 1998). Jayaram and Avittathur (2015) focused on the
embryonic frugality of India, and proposed a model that links environmental rules to customer activities and sustain-
ability strategies. Implementation of GSCM strategy is a principal plan that involves universal actions to encourage
the global sustainable development and to maximize the consumption of indigenous resources. Thus, it is imperative
to identify and investigate the circumstances under which GSCM strategies are best implemented (Maryam
Masoumi et al., 2015; El Korchi and Millet, 2014). The question then arises of what factors affect the selection and
implementation of GSCM strategies (Mutingi et al., 2014). In the context of achieving objectives, it is essential for
organizations to realize the inimitable requirements of each GSCM strategy. However, a more intricate and
organized examination permits well-organized implementation of GSCM strategies (Chen et al., 2012). Successful
identification of GSCM strategy and its implementation within organizations needs the support of top management,
because without their true support most plans will result in failure.
The objective of this study is to explore GSCM strategies and to select the best GSCM strategy so that it can
be implemented within the organization. To select the best GSCM strategy the decision maker needs to use
one of the multi-criterion decision-making (MCDM) approaches (Kirubakaran and Ilangkumaran, 2015;
Vinodh et al., 2011). The method for exploring the decision is based on the analytical network process (ANP) or
the systems-with-feedback approach (Sarkis, 2003). It was first introduced by Saaty (1996). It focuses on the
dependent and feedback relations among factors in the network (Chen et al., 2012). The ascendancy of effect
between alternatives, criteria and other precise factors is organized to give an impression of the actual decision-
making environment. Finally, a single network maintains group focus on internal relationships and influences
between main influential factors (Chen et al., 2012; Vinodh et al., 2011). The application of this tool supports
managerial decision making (Sarkis, 2003). Moreover, the vibrant features and complexity of this decision environ-
ment makes the ANP method a suitable tool for this particular study. The fuzzy concept is used to avoid uncertainty
and vagueness in human preference judgement (Malviya et al., 2016). Hence, the fuzzy ANP methodology is used
for this study.
This study is organized into six sections including the introduction. The following section briefly discusses the the-
oretical framework of GSCM. The next section presents a methodology, which includes fuzzy set theory, fuzzy ANP
and their various steps. The fourth section deals with an empirical case analysis of the applicability of the proposed
framework. The fifth section covers the results and discussion, followed by the conclusions in the last section.
Theoretical Framework
This study reviews GSCM enablers’ perspectives, states their definitions, and identifies determinants of GSCM
as green marketing, green design and development, green procurement, green manufacturing, and
Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 2018
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Malviya and Kant
environment management system to develop an acceptable analytical network. Then, it identifies the various
GSCM strategies, namely risk based, resource based, efficiency based, innovation based and closed loop based
strategies.
Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM)

The study of GSCM has been defined by several authors because of its various benefits, and it has arisen as an
important concept and effective management tool for top organizations (Zhu et al., 2008). GSCM necessitates iden-
tification of suitable measures to gain a comprehensive knowledge in the field (Laari et al., 2016). GSCM is simply
minimizing and preferably removing the negative effects of the SC on the environment (Andic et al., 2012). It is a
way for organizations to lower environmental impacts and increase ecological efficiency to achieve profit and market
share objectives (Buyukozkan and Cifci, 2012). It integrates environmental thinking into closed-loop SCM (Lau,
2011). GSCM not only incorporates environmental philosophy into the business, but also ensures the sustainable
growth of industries (Mangla et al., 2014; Muduli and Barve, 2013). The integration of environmental management
practices for the transformation of assets into serviceable products needs the right decision-making process
(Srivastava, 2008). Organizations started to integrate environmental issues into SCM to advance their environmen-
tal performance (Lee and Klassen, 2008). The ‘green’ in GSCM indicates the effect that the SC has on the
environment (Hervani et al., 2005). Therefore, GSCM can be defined as ‘the sum of green purchasing, green
manufacturing, green materials management, green distribution and marketing and green reverse logistics’ (Wee
and Quazi, 2005; Sheu et al., 2005; Handfield et al., 1997).
Sustainability
The important research on sustainability in SCs needs to be addressed by providing a concise description of
how sustainability issues in SCs appeared as a risk for major organizations (Hofmann et al., 2014).
Issues addressed can be grouped according to different criteria, based on whether they deal with SCM or with
sustainability management (Seuring and Muller, 2008). A risk adapted to sustainable SC pursues concrete
partnerships (Teuscher et al., 2006). The evaluation of sustainability involves talking about environment and ethical
or social problems, and is also related to green product design (Preuss, 2005; Davies and Crane, 2003; Baumann
et al., 2002). Sustainability particularly contributes to the use of environmental management systems and how
sustainability issues might be integrated into SCM (Darnall et al., 2008; Koplin et al., 2007). The triple bottom
line (TBL) perspective of sustainability differentiates social, environmental and economic performance
dimensions. According to this perspective sustainability can be achieved at the intersection of all three dimensions
(Parrish, 2008). Thus, organizations should endeavour to perform well on all three dimensions of the TBL
(Meckenstock et al., 2015). Sustainability is integrally uncertain and open to interpretation (Lazarus, 2008).
Successful management of sustainable SC practices is a holistic understanding between the environmental and
social impacts (Seuring and Muller, 2008). However, there is little consent about sustainability in SCs among the
managers (Giunipero et al., 2012). Therefore, sharing information on sustainability issues will lead to a more
sustainable SC within the organization (Meckenstock et al., 2015).
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

CSR is a form of corporate self-regulation integrated into the business model (Baughn and McIntosh, 2007). It
assesses and takes responsibility for organizations’ impact on environmental as well as social well-being
(Ali et al., 2017). Responsible organizations observe the environment – globalization, social demands, governance,
transparency etc. – for sustainable development. There are three main levels of CSR – social obligation, social
responsibility and social responsiveness (Babiak and Trendafilova, 2011). Babiak and Trendafilova (2011) framed
sustainable practices under the umbrella of CSR and also examine the causal drivers of environmental behaviour.
Margolis and Walsh (2003) explore a contextual influence that helps organizations to be socially responsible – focus-
ing specifically on corporate environmental responsibility. Montiel (2008) suggested that the activities addressing
environmental responsibility seem to show a collective environmental and social concern. In the present scenario,
the environmental consideration has attracted increasing interest in terms of the market approach toward CSR
DOI: 10.1002/bse
(Bird et al., 2007; Wahba, 2008). CSR and sustainable SCM have been a growing concern for organizations and
researchers over the past decade. Understanding the role of sustainable SCM within CSR is crucial because
organizations have progressively asserted their concern for corporate environmental and social responsibility.
Therefore research is needed to investigate the respective roles of social and environmental corporate responsibility
worldwide, at both the corporate and SC levels (Carbone et al., 2012).
Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM) Enabler Perspectives

The interdependence among various GSCM enablers’ perspectives introduced in this study is shown in Table 1.
These GSCM enablers’ perspectives are broadly classified as strategic, organizational, social–cultural, buyer–
supplier, legislation and technical enablers’ perspectives. To implement green and sustainable practices the role of
top management commitment is vital to organizations and SC partners (Foerstl et al., 2015; Thun and Muller,
2010). Hence the significance of top management philosophies, practices and support have been highlighted in
the literature (Abdulrahman et al., 2014; Bag and Anand, 2014). The role of strategic enablers provides an outline
for preventative decision making (a) to evaluate performance, (b) to appraise what might go wrong, (c) to identify fac-
tors to be considered and (d) to implement strategies (Mudgal et al., 2010). Organizational enablers inspire employee
participation and increase their responsiveness in innovation and risk taking (Muduli et al. 2013). The organizations
must consider social–cultural enablers to maximize the worth to society while minimize the undesirable effects.
Green organizational culture leads an organization to operate in an environmentally friendly mode (Harris and
Crane, 2002). It also represents a set of collective meanings and understandings about the organization to implement
GSCM (Lee et al., 2012; Sarkis, 2012). Effective communication between buyer and supplier with their chain associ-
ates provides strong, reliable and frequent assessment of environmental issues (Hu and Hsu, 2010; Lippmann,
1999). Buyer–supplier relationships help to develop and enhance coordination and collaboration between GSCM as-
sociates. In maintaining the organizational status and corporate image, environmental legislation, regulations and
ISO standards (9000 and 14000) have become essential components (Arimura et al., 2011). For the awareness of en-
vironmental subjects between suppliers, customers and staff, the organizational environmental policy is necessary
for GSCM implementation (Min and Kim, 2012; Darnall et al., 2008). Technological enablers integrate organiza-
tional structure and its sub-structures across the SC that are essential for successful GSCM implementation. Techni-
cal expertise is essential to accept a specified project with satisfactory quality (Kumar et al., 2012). A detailed
description of the sub-criteria of GSCM enablers’ perspectives is given in Table 1.
GSCM Determinants
The GSCM determinants (namely green marketing, green design and development, green procurement, green
manufacturing and green management system) used in the study are interdependent among each other to develop
an analytical network structure with the system. The green management system controls the corporation’s activity,
mostly concerned with the efforts of administration, its measures and involvement in the overall organization’s
environmental management (Sharma and Vredenburg, 1998). Cost savings and enhanced competitiveness can
be achieved by properly managing wastes in green marketing similarly to reverse logistics and waste exchange
(Rao, 2002). An environmentally conscious procurement initiative ensures that procured products or materials
meet environmental objectives such as lowering the sources of wastage, endorsing reuse, resource reduction and
changeover of materials (Green et al., 1996). Many of the organizations have faith that green design plays a major
role in cost reduction of the process because it is more efficient than traditional design procedures to reduce the
environmental burden (Johansson and Winroth, 2009). Green manufacturing emphasizes reducing parts, rational-
izing materials and reusing components, which helps make the products more efficient to build (Zhang et al.,
2004). Table 2 gives detailed information about GCSM determinants.
GSCM Strategies
The SC managers should adopt the proper GSCM strategies to improve the organizational performance by
implementing GSCM. The GSCM strategies adopted for this study are risk based, resource based, efficiency based,
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Malviya and Kant
GSCMEs Description References
A SP Strategic enablers
1 SP1 Top management Identifies and measures the commitment Dubey et al. (2015), Mangla et al. (2015),
commitment and support required at the top Govindan et al. (2015), Muduli et al.
(2013), Wu et al. (2012), Gavronski et al.
(2011), Hsu and Hu (2008), Zhu et al.
(2008), Wee and Quazi (2005), Bowen
et al. (2001), Lippmann (1999)
2 SP2 Strategic planning Calculated and structured planning is Xu et al. (2013), Zhu et al. (2012), Cheng
needed for improvement in the area of and Sheu (2012), Kumar et al. (2012),
GSCM Buyukozkan and Cifci (2012)
3 SP3 Willingness towards Organizations willing to invest in the Mangla et al. (2015), Hajmohammad et al.
investment GSCM implementation will enhance its (2012), Shi et al. (2012), Lau (2011), Chung
customer range and Wee (2011)
4 SP4 Benchmarking system It will help and support the selection, Colicchia et al. (2011), Lau (2011), Zhu et al.
planning and delivery of projects whose (2010), Sarmiento and Thomas (2010)
dimensions are measured in terms of
quality, time and cost
5 SP5 Performance measurement Will help in identifying the actual status of Shi et al. (2012), Dey and Cheffi (2012),
system the organization’s way of thinking Azevedo et al. (2011), Zhu et al. (2007),
towards GSCM adoption Hervani et al. (2005)
B OP Organizational enablers
6 OP1 Organizational structure Will help in managing the proper Muduli et al. (2013), Shi et al. (2012), Lee
organizational departmentalization and et al. (2012), Arimura et al. (2011), Lin and
its strategic and planned thinking Ho (2008), Darnall et al. (2008), Hervani
et al. (2005)
7 OP2 GSCM methodology For successful GSCM adoption the Kannan et al. (2013), Carbone and Moatti
methodological aspect plays a crucial role (2011)
8 OP3 Inter-departmental Cooperation among various departments Shi et al. (2012), Lee et al. (2012)
cooperation in the organization is essential for GSCM
implementation
9 OP4 Organizational capabilities Organization’s capability is needed to Gavronski et al. (2011), Darnall et al. (2008),
execute GSCM and use its benefits to Hervani et al. (2005)
increase profit
10 OP5 Green design To increase the environmental awareness Govindan et al. (2015), Wang et al. (2013),
redesign of products and processes is a Chung and Wee (2011), Diabat and
primary requirement Govindan (2011), Hsu and Hu (2008), Zhu
et al. (2007), Hu and Hsu (2006), Rao
(2002), Yuang and Kielkiewicz-Yuang (2001)
C SCP Social–cultural enablers
11 SCP1 Employee empowerment Motivating and enhancing employee Muduli et al. (2013), Hsu and Hu (2008),
and motivation participation, level and status will Zhu et al. (2008)
automatically help GSCM adoption
12 SCP2 Environmental education Boosts skill and permits the employees to Mangla et al. (2015), Zhu et al. (2012), Chen
and training perform new responsibilities for et al. (2012), Arimura et al. (2011), Menzel
environmental issues and aspects et al. (2010), Darnall et al. (2008),
Hervani et al. (2005), Sarkis (2003),
Yuang and Kielkiewicz-Yuang (2001),
Lippmann (1999)
13 SCP3 Green organizational culture Developing environmental practices and Mangla et al. (2015), Muduli et al. (2013),
helping organizations employee is key to Lee et al. (2012), Sarkis (2012), Lin and Ho
understanding GSCM (2008)
(continues)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
14 SCP4 Trustworthy teamwork A well-organized team helps in managing Muduli et al. (2013), Ofori (2000)
and developing GSCM adoption
15 SCP5 Employee involvement The organization must involve its Mollenkopf et al. (2010), Walker et al.
employees in environment related (2008), Rao (2002)
activities to execute proper decision
making for GSCM
16 SCP6 Skilled professionals Well-trained and skilled executives are Carbone and Moatti (2011), Lau (2011),
needed to implement an effective and Tseng (2011), Hu and Hsu (2010)
profit-making tool such as GSCM
17 SCP7 Ethical standards and The organization should maintain the Seuring (2013), Eltayeb et al. (2011)
corporate social ethical standards and corporate social
responsibility responsibilities essential for societal
acceptability
D BSP Buyer–supplier enablers
18 BSP1 Supplier commitment It is an essential part of the organization to Zhu et al. (2010), Simpson et al. (2007)
use its suppliers and other chain
partners effectively to implement GSCM
19 BSP2 Effective communication Organizations must develop a platform to Hu and Hsu (2010), Lippmann (1999)
platform within communicate to internal management
companies and with and their suppliers clearly, consistently
suppliers and frequently about environmental
issues
20 BSP3 Cooperation among Helps organizations willing to handle Dubey et al. (2015), Kumar et al. (2012),
suppliers environmental activities within the Large and Thomsen (2011)
GSCM
21 BSP4 Green purchasing Organizations must confirm that while Govindan et al. (2015), Zhu et al. (2012),
purchasing any material they must Chen et al. (2012), Wu et al. (2012), Shi
consider environmental objectives set by et al. (2012), Lau (2011), Eltayeb et al.
them (2011), Zhu et al. (2010), Zhu et al. (2008,
2007), Zhu and Sarkis (2006), Rao
(2002), Yuang and Kielkiewicz-Yuang
(2001)
E LP Legislation
22 LP1 Environmental policy Organizations should make clear policy Min and Kim (2012), Dey and Cheffi (2012),
about environmental issues and aspects Arimura et al. (2011), Darnall et al.
to enhance customer satisfaction (2008), Yuang and Kielkiewicz-Yuang
(2001), Lippmann (1999)
23 LP2 Government support policy The corporate image of an organization Arimura et al. (2011)
can be enhanced by following
government policy concerning the
environment
24 LP3 Enforcement Means that organizations should focus on Sheu and Chen (2012), Zhu et al. (2012),
executing the policies set by them about Arimura et al. (2011), Zhu et al. (2007),
the GSCM Zhu and Sarkis (2007)
25 LP4 Strict supervision For successful GSCM adoption strict Mishra et al. (2012), Mudgal et al. (2010)
observation is needed
26 LP5 Compliance statement Generates financial statement for some Hu and Hsu (2010), Yuang and Kielkiewicz-
period to check the profit/loss of the Yuang (2001)
organization
(continues)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Malviya and Kant
F TP Technical enablers
27 TP1 Information technology Helps to share information across Mangla et al. (2015), Kim and Rhee (2012),
infrastructure boundaries of time and space if it is Mollenkopf et al. (2010), Hervani et al.
properly used (2005), Yuang and Kielkiewicz-Yuang
(2001)
28 TP2 Technical expertise These are needed to undertake and Kumar et al. (2012)
implement GSCM effectively
29 TP3 Integration of system To enable continuous flow of information Yuang and Kielkiewicz-Yuang (2001),
integration of the system within the Lippmann (1999)
organization is essential
Table 1. Description of GSCM enablers’ perspectives
S. no Determinants Explanation References
1 Green marketing (GK) Refers to the use of ‘green’ in an environmental Ginsberg and Bloom (2004), Prakash
context during marketing and promoting (2002), Polonsky (1994)
products and services
2 Green design and Mainly focuses on increasing innovation Handfield et al. (2005), Karlsson and
development (GD) capabilities, which includes complying with Luttropp (2006), Bhat (1993)
design for disassembly, reuse and recycling
principles
3 Green procurement (GP) Means the organization should focus on being Hsu and Hu (2009), Min and Galle
environmentally conscious while purchasing (2001), Liu et al. (2012)
4 Green manufacturing (GM) Essential because the amount of energy and Zhang et al. (2004), Tan et al. (2002)
resource utilization, the green degree of
energy, the amount of hazardous waste and
the number of reuses of hazardous waste are
the four key factors controlled by green
manufacturing
5 Green management system Manages all the activities, including all of the Jabbour and Jabbour (2009), Gonzalez-
(GMS) product’s life cycle phases Torre et al. (2010)
Table 2. Determinants of GSCM strategies
innovation based and closed loop based strategies (Chen et al., 2012; Whitelock, 2012; Simpson and Samson, 2008).
These GSCM strategies affect several facets of SC operations, which have particular influences on procurement of
materials, product technology, new process technology, logistics activities, performance measurement systems and
process control (Mutingi, 2013; Chen et al., 2012; Simpson and Samson, 2008). The advantages of these strategies
are that (a) they offer eco-efficiency to the entire SC, (b) they will advance themselves to current organizational goals
of cost reduction and optimization, (c) they are able to offer competitive benefits in a fast changing environment and
(d) they perfectly integrate economic, operational and environmental performance (Maryam Masoumi et al., 2015;
Chiarini, 2014; Mutingi, 2013). Detailed information on these strategies is given in Table 3.
Methodology
This study utilizes fuzzy set theory and ANP methodology to explore and to select the best GSCM strategy. These are
discussed below.
DOI: 10.1002/bse
S. no Strategies Explanation References
1 Risk based strategy (RBS) Minimizes risk by conducting Chen et al. (2012), Simpson and
environmental awareness programs Samson (2008)
2 Resource based strategy (RB) Helps to effectively utilize the available Trowbridge (2006)
resources to enhance performance
3 Efficiency based strategy (EB) Allows for not only improved financial Chen et al. (2012), Simpson and
profits, but also waste reduction and Samson (2008)
effective resource use
4 Innovation based strategy (IB) Forces organizations to invest more Chen et al. (2012), Simpson and
resources and nurture innovative Samson (2008)
competences for green management
5 Closed loop strategy (CL) Links environmental performance to the Chen et al. (2012), Simpson and
entire SC Samson (2008)
Table 3. GSCM strategies
Fuzzy Set Theory

Fuzzy set theory was first proposed as a means of representing ambiguity by Zadeh (1965), and was subsequently
extended for general decision-making applications by Bellman and Zadeh (1970). Fuzzy numbers are a fuzzy subset
of real numbers, representing an expansion of the idea of the confidence interval (Dubis and Prade, 1978). If the
value assigned is 0, the element does not belong to the set, meaning it has no membership. If the value assigned
is 1, the element belongs completely to the set, meaning it has total membership. Finally, if the value lies within
the interval [0, 1], the element has a certain degree of membership, meaning it belongs partially to the fuzzy set
(Zadeh, 1965). Fuzzy set theory is suitable for dealing with the uncertainty and imprecision associated with infor-
mation concerning various parameters. Converting fuzzy psychological characteristics into explicit values is very
useful for processing the more varied thinking of people (Wu and Lee, 2007). Let the fuzzy number Ã be a fuzzy
set, with membership function μ∼A ðxÞ, comprising the following features.
(i) μ∼A ðxÞ is a continuous mapping from R to the interval of [0, 1].
(ii) μ∼A ðx Þ is a convex fuzzy subset and μ∼A ðxÞ is the normalization of a fuzzy subset, which means that there exists a
number x0 that makes μ∼A ðx Þ = 1.
If these numbers fulfill the above mentioned requirements then they are called fuzzy numbers. A triangular fuzzy
number (TFN) can be denoted by a triplet (l, m, r), where l ≤ m ≤ r. The parameters l, m and r indicate the smallest pos-
sible value, the most promising value and the largest possible value,
respectively,
that describes a fuzzy event. The char-
∼
acteristics and membership function of the TFN A ¼ μ ðx Þ ¼ l; m;ee e r are expressed by Equation 1 and Figure 1.
A
8
>
> 0; x ≤ l;
>
>
>
> xl
< l≤x≤m
μ A ðx Þ ¼ m l (1)
>
> rx
>
> m≤x≤r
>
:r m
>
0; x ≥ r:
Approximation of fuzzy operations provides fuzzy solutions with much smaller spread than trapezoidal member-
ship functions as proposed by Buckley (1985). A tilde character (˜) is placed above a symbol if the symbol represents
a fuzzy set. In order to take the imprecision of human qualitative assessments into consideration, the five TFNs are
defined with the corresponding membership function as shown in Figure 1 with descriptions in Table 4.
e have been used to represent subjective pairwise comparisons of major criteria and sub-
In this study, TFNs e1 to 9
criteria. This scaling process can then be translated into priority weights (scores) for comparison of alternatives.
Alternatively, by defining the interval of confidence level α, (Figure 2) a TFN is characterized as
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Malviya and Kant
Figure 1. Membership functions of TFNs
Intensity of importance Fuzzy number Definition Membership function
1 e1 equally important/preferred (1, 1, 3)

3 e3 moderately more important/preferred (1, 3, 5)
5 e5 strongly more important/preferred (3, 5, 7)
7 e7 very strongly more important/preferred (5, 7, 9)
9 e
9 extremely more important/preferred (7, 9, 11)
Table 4. Linguistic scale of relative importance used in pairwise comparison
1.0
µ f(x)
0.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Range
Figure 2. α-cut operations on TFNs
0<α≤1 (2)
e α ¼ ½lα ; r α ¼ ½ðm r Þ α þ l; ðr mÞ α þ r :

M (3)
Fuzzy Analytic Network Process

The analytic network process (ANP) is a simplification of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), by considering the
dependence among the elements of the hierarchy (Sarkis, 2003). To release the constraints of the hierarchical
DOI: 10.1002/bse
structure, Saaty (1996) proposed the ANP for extending the AHP (Huang, 2008; Sarkis, 2003). Many decision-
making problems cannot be structured hierarchically because they involve the interaction and dependence of
higher level elements in a hierarchy of lower level elements (Sharma and Garg, 2015; Vinodh et al., 2011; Karsak
et al., 2002). Therefore, the ANP is represented by a network, rather than a hierarchy (Maryam Masoumi et al.,
2015; Ayağ and Özdemir, 2006; Karsak et al., 2002; Sarkis, 2003). It provides a general framework to deal with
decisions without making assumptions about the independence of higher level elements from lower level ele-
ments and about the independence of the elements within a level (Meade and Presley, 2002). The comprehensive
importance vectors are obtained by raising the super-matrix into the limiting powers (Huang, 2008; Lee and Kim,
2000). It uses a specific network structure for determining dependence and feedback problems among the
criteria (Momoh and Zhu, 2003).
Use of the ANP has given the benefit of overcoming the problem of interdependence and feedback among
all features (Huang, 2008). The ANP has been widely applied to project selection (Lee and Kim, 2000;
Meade and Presley, 2002), strategic decisions (Karsak et al., 2002; Sarkis, 2003), supplier selection (Vinodh
et al., 2011; Lin, 2009; Chou and Chang, 2008), and optimal scheduling (Momoh and Zhu, 2003). It seems
that the problems of incomplete information or human subjective uncertainty have been ignored. Thus, it is
difficult even for experts to compute the accurate significance of each criterion (Huang, 2008). The fuzzy
concept is applied in this study to avoid uncertainty and vagueness in the human judgement preferences.
Hence, the fuzzy ANP is used to select the best strategy to implement GSCM. The procedure of the fuzzy
ANP method and important notations from Sharma and Garg (2015), Maryam Masoumi et al. (2015), Vinodh
et al. (2011), Lin (2009), Huang (2008), Chou and Chang (2008), Sarkis (2003) and Karsak et al. (2002) are
the following.
Step 1. Establish decision group.

Step 2. Develop the network hierarchical model and formulate the problem of the study.
Step 3. Define scale of relative importance used in the pairwise comparison matrix.
Step 4. Pairwise comparison of determinants.
(a) Construct fuzzy pairwise comparison matrix. The fuzzy pairwise comparison matrices are made by taking opinions of
decision makers so as to establish the relative importance of determinants in achieving the objectives (Jeenger and
Kant, 2013). By using TFNs, via pairwise comparison, the fuzzy judgment matrix A(a e ij) is constructed as given:
2 3
1 e
a12 e
a13 … e
a1ðn1Þ e
a1n
6 e e 7
6 a21 1 a23 … e
a2ðn1Þ e
a2n 7
6 7
6 ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ 7
∼ 6 7
A¼6 7 (4)
6 ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ 7
6 7
6e aðn 1Þn 7
4 aðn 1Þ1 e
aðn 1Þ2 e
aðn 1Þ3 … 1 e 5
e
an1 e
an2 e
an3 … e
anðn1Þ 1
where e aij = e1 ; e3 ; e5 ; e
aij = 1 if i is equal to j, and e e or e1 1, e3 1, e5 1, e
7; 9 7 1, 9
e 1 if i is not equal to j. When scoring is
conducted for a pair, a reciprocal value is automatically assigned to the reverse comparison within the matrix;
e ij) is a matrix value assigned to the relationship of component j, A(a
i.e., if A(a e ij) is equal to 1/A(a
e ij).
e
(b) Estimating the degree of optimism for A: is estimated by the index of optimism μ. A higher value of the index μ
indicates a higher degree of optimism. The index of optimism is a linear convex combination defined (Joshi
and Kant, 2012; Ayağ and Özdemir, 2006; Li, 1999) as
aαij ¼ μe
e aαiju þ ð1 μÞe
aαiju ; where 0 < μ ≤ 1 (5)
While a is fixed, the following crisp judgment matrix can be obtained after setting the index of optimism, μ, in
order to estimate the degree of satisfaction.
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Malviya and Kant
2 3
1 aα12
e … aα1n
e
6eaα21 1 … aα2n 7
e
e¼6
A 6
7
7 (6)
4… … ⋱ ⋮ 5
aαn1
e aαn2
e … 1
(c) Check consistency. The consistency ratio (CR) is used to estimate directly the consistency of pairwise compari-
sons. Repeat the same procedure for all the determinants.
(i) Solve for fuzzy eigenvalue: the eigenvalue method can be used for calculating the eigenvector or weight vector
for each pairwise matrix. The eigenvector is calculated by fixing the i value and identifying the maximal eigen-
value (Joshi and Kant, 2012; Saaty, 1980). A fuzzy eigenvalue, λ, is a fuzzy number solution to
e x ¼ eλe
Ae x (7)
where A e is an n × n fuzzy matrix containing fuzzy numbers A(a e ij) and e

x is a non-zero n × 1 fuzzy vector
containing fuzzy numbers.
for 0 < a ≤ 1 and all i, j where i = 1, 2, …, n and j = 1, 2, …, n.
Normalization of the matrix of paired comparisons and calculation of priority weights (approximate attribute
weights) are done before calculating λmax.
(ii) The CR for each of the matrices and overall inconsistency for the hierarchy are calculated in order to control the
results of this method. The deviations from consistency are expressed by the following equation:
λmax n
consistency index CI ¼ (8)
n1
The CR is computed using Equation 9. RI is the average index for randomly generated weights obtained using
Table 5. The value of RI has been obtained depending upon the rank of the matrix (Joshi and Kant, 2012; Saaty, 1980):
CI
CR ¼ (9)
RI
If the CR is less than 0.10, the comparisons are acceptable, otherwise not. If the consistency test is not passed, the
decision maker is required to revise the original values in the pairwise comparison matrix.
Step 5. Pairwise comparison of dimensions. The decision group was asked to make a pairwise comparison matrix
for using fuzzy numbers ðe1 ; e3 ; e5 ; e e Þ, determining the relative importance of each of the dimensions with
7; 9
respect to each determinant. Repeat the procedure as mentioned in Step 4.
Step 6. Pairwise comparison matrices of interdependences. In order to reflect the interdependences in the network,
construct pairwise comparisons among all the attribute-enablers.
Step 7. Super-matrix formation. The outcome of the above steps is an unweighted super-matrix. To obtain the
global priority in a system that has interdependent effects, all local priority vectors are allocated to the
relevant columns of the super-matrix. The super-matrix is a partitioned matrix where each sub-matrix is
composed of a set of relationships between two levels in the graphical model. The convergence of the
super-matrix can be obtained by raising the super-matrix to the (2k + 1)th power, where k is an arbitrary
large number. The new matrix is called the limited super-matrix (Saaty, 1996).
Size (n) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
RI 0 0 0.52 0.89 1.11 1.25 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.49
Table 5. Average index for randomly generated weights (RI)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Step 8. Evaluation of alternatives. The final set of pairwise comparisons can be made for the relative impact of each
of the alternatives on the variables in influencing the determinants.
Step 9. Calculate desirability index for determinant. The desirability index for each alternative can be calculated
based on the weights obtained from the pairwise comparisons of the alternatives, dimensions and enablers
from the converged super-matrix. The equation of desirability index, Dia, for concept alternative i and deter-
minant a is defined as follows (Meade and Sarkis, 1999):
J X
X K ja
Dia ¼ P ja AD I
kja Akja Sikja (10)
j¼1 k¼1
where
Pja is the relative importance weight of dimension j on determinant a.
ADkja the relative importance weight for attribute-enabler k of dimension j and determinant a for the dependence (D)
relationships between the attribute-enabler’s component levels.
AIkja the stabilized relative importance weight for attribute-enabler k of dimension j and determinant a for the
independence (I) relationships within the attribute-enabler’s component levels.
Sikja the relative impact of concept alternative i on attribute-enabler k of dimension j of the concept selection network.
Kja the index set of attribute-enablers for dimension j of determinant a and.
J the index set for attribute j.

Step 10. Selection of the best alternative. The final weighted index (WI) for an alternative i is the summation of the
products of the desirability indices and the relative importance weights of the determinants. After calculating
the final desirability index for each alternative, normalize them to rank the alternatives and determine the best
alternative.
Step 11. Conduct sensitivity analysis on the final outcome to confirm the stability of the model.
Empirical Case Analysis

Problem Identification
Implementation of GSCM and its proper functioning is becoming a core activity of many manufacturing
organizations. It is currently highly relevant for automobile industries. Though Indian automobile organizations
have started implementing and maintaining GSCM practices, their effectiveness is very low because of the adoption
of poor GSCM strategies. It is necessary to identify highly relevant and effective GSCM strategies to improve the
success rate of GSCM implementation. Research is needed in the identification of important GSCM strategies
so that the Indian manufacturing organizations can concentrate on these high rank strategies before starting to
implement them.
Case organization X is interested in implementing GSCM because it suffers pressure from buyers as well as
strong environmental regulations across the world on climate change initiatives. Organization X is a medium
scale automobile organization situated in Madhya Pradesh, India. The organization has more than 950 employees
with an annual turnover of more than 50 crores. The organization’s mission is to transcend new heights of being
recognized as a world class gear manufacturer across the globe. Organization X caters for the ever-growing needs
of the axle gear market for cars, trucks and tractors. The organization today manufactures a wide range of crown
wheel and pinions, bevel gears, bevel pinions, spider kit assemblies and differential cages and housings. In
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Malviya and Kant
addition, fast development of superior quality products with good customer service has enabled Organization X to
become an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) supplier to many car and tractor companies in India, Europe
and Asia. This company is interested in identifying the GSCM strategies for fruitful functioning of GSCM imple-
mentation. The following shows how Organization X utilized the proposed fuzzy ANP framework methodology to
select the best GSCM strategy for successful GSCM implementation.
Application of Proposed Framework

The detailed hierarchy and the application of the fuzzy ANP framework are shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4 respec-
tively. The detailed procedure of the proposed framework is described below.
Step 1. Formation of multi-functional decision-making expert team. A decision-making group of 15 members is

formed, which comprises seven chief general managers representing procurement, manufacturing, design,
finance, human resources, three SC executives, three GSCM project implementation executives and two
customers in the identification and evaluation of GSCM strategies.
Step 2. Develop the model and formulate the problem based on the inputs given by the experts.
e are used in
Step 3. Defining the scale of relative importance used in the pairwise comparison matrix – TFNse1 to 9
this study for pairwise comparison (see Table 4).
Step 4. Construction of pairwise comparison matrix. After forming a decision hierarchy, the expert panel was
asked to construct the pairwise comparison matrices using a fuzzy linguistic scale. The fuzzy judgment
matrices for major criteria and sub-criteria were prepared by discussing with each expert from industry
and academia, for each determinant, dimensions of the GSCM strategy selection, GSCM enabler’s per-
spectives and its sub-criteria. Decision makers were asked to construct a pairwise comparison matrix
of the determinants with respect to the objective (see Table 6). Table 6 has been prepared using the
TFN values shown in Table 4. For example, if a decision maker assigns the value 5 between green
Figure 3. ANP framework to select the best strategy for GSCM implementation
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Figure 4. ANP based framework for selecting the best GSCM strategy
purchasing (GP) and green marketing (GK), it means that GP is strongly more important or preferred
over GK. Likewise, comparisons among all other factors have been computed and the final matrix has
been prepared as shown in Table 6.
After finalizing these assessments of relative importance for the determinants, the TFNs and α-cuts are used to
convert the subjective judgment of decision makers into fuzzy judgments (Bhosale and Kant, 2014). By using
Equation 3, lower and upper limits of the fuzzy numbers with respect to α are defined.
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Malviya and Kant
Determinants Green marketing Green design Green purchasing Green manufacturing Green management
(GK) (GD) (GP) (GM) system (GMS)
Green marketing (GK) 1.00 0.33 0.20 0.14 0.11

Green design (GD) 3.00 1.00 0.33 0.20 0.14
Green purchasing (GP) 5.00 3.00 1.00 0.33 0.14
Green manufacturing (GM) 7.00 5.00 3.00 1.00 0.33
Green management system (GMS) 9.00 7.00 7.00 3.00 1.00
Table 6. Fuzzy comparison matrix for determinants

1
e1 α ¼ ½1; 3 2α ; e1 1 α ¼ ; 1
3 2α

1 1
e3 α ¼ ½ 1 þ 2α; 5 2α ; e3 1 α ¼ ;
5 2α 1 þ 2α

1 1
e5 α ¼ ½ 3 þ 2α; 7 2α ; e5 1 α ¼ ;
7 2α 3 þ 2α

1 1 1
e
7 α ¼ ½ 5 þ 2α; 9 2α ; e
7 α¼ ;
9 2α 5 þ 2α

1 1 1
e α ¼ ½ 7 þ 2α; 11 2α ;
9 e
9 α¼ ; :
11 2α 7 þ 2α
By substituting the value of α = 0.5 in the above expressions, we obtain the following values of fuzzy numbers.
e1 α ¼ ½ 1; 2 e1 1
α ¼ ½ 1=2; 1
e3 α ¼ ½ 2; 4 e3 1
α ¼ ½ 1=4; 1=2
e5 α ¼ ½ 4; 6 e5 1
α ¼ ½ 1=6; 1=4
1
e7 α ¼ ½ 6; 8 e7 α ¼ ½ 1=8; 1=6
e α ¼ ½ 8; 10
9 e 1
9 α ¼ ½ 1=10; 1=8 :
Using values of these fuzzy numbers, the ‘fuzzy comparison matrices (FCMs) for major criteria’ are the
following.
2 3
1:00 ½ 2; 4 ½ 1=6; 1=4 ½ 1=4; 1=2 ½ 1=10; 1=8
6 ½ 1=4; 1=2 ½ 1=4; 1=2 ½ 1=6; 1=4 ½ 1=6; 1=4 7
6 1:00 7
6 7
e ¼ 6 ½ 4; 6
A ½ 2; 4 1:00 ½ 2; 4 ½ 1=4; 1=2 7
6 7
6 7
4 ½ 2; 4 ½ 4; 6 ½ 1=4; 1=2 1:00 ½ 1=4; 1=2 5
½ 8; 10 ½ 4; 6 ½ 2; 4 ½ 2; 4 1:00
Determinants Green Green Green Green Green e-vector

marketing design purchasing manufacturing management system
(GK) (GD) (GP) (GM) (GMS)
Green marketing (GK) 1.00 0.38 0.20 0.15 0.11 0.035

Green design (GD) 3.00 1.00 0.38 0.20 0.15 0.068
Green purchasing (GP) 5.00 3.00 1.00 0.38 0.15 0.127
Green manufacturing (GM) 7.00 5.00 3.00 1.00 0.38 0.254
Green management system (GMS) 9.00 7.00 7.00 3.00 1.00 0.517
Table 7. Pairwise comparison matrix of the relative importance of the determinants
DOI: 10.1002/bse
From Equation 5, we transform this FCM into a group crisp comparison matrix (GCCM), which in turn helps
to determine the weights of the major criteria of GSCM enablers’ perspectives. Here, the value of consistency
index (μ) is taken as 0.5. Hence, using values from the above FCM and Equation 5, GCCM for major criteria
are the following.
Ã = GCCM main (α = 0.5, μ =0.5).
2 3
1 3 0:2085 0:375 0:1125
6 0:375 0:2085 7
6 1 0:375 0:2085 7
6 7
e¼6 5
A 3 1 3 0:375 7
6 7
6 7
4 3 5 0:375 1 0:375 5
9 5 3 3 1
Then for the determinants the eigenvalue λmax = 5.264, so CI = 0.066 and CR = CI/RI, where RI for n = 5 is 1.11.
Therefore, CR = 0.059. Since CR < 0.10, the crisp comparison matrix for the determinant is acceptable. This means
that the fuzzy comparison matrix Ae of major criteria is consistent. The e-vectors are calculated by normalizing each
factor in a row and then by taking the average of the final column (see Table 7).
Step 5. Repeat the same procedure for the dimensions of each determinant and perform all fuzzy calculations.
Three matrices are constructed. Table 8 shows a fuzzy comparison matrix of the dimensions for the
determinant green marketing (GK).
Step 6. The interdependences in the network are revealed by constructing the fuzzy comparison matrix for the
enablers under each dimension for all five determinants and performing all the fuzzy calculations. For
example, the fuzzy comparison matrix for the enablers under the strategic perspective (SP) for the
determinant green marketing is shown in Table 9.
Then a fuzzy pairwise comparison is conducted among all the enablers to reveal the interdependences in the
network. For example, the fuzzy comparison matrix for top management commitment and support (SP1) under
the strategic perspective (SP) for green marketing (GK) is shown in Table 10.
Step 7. Super-matrix formation. For the three determinants one super-matrix is formed, which needs to be
calculated. One such super-matrix M presenting the results of the relative importance measures for each
of the enablers for the green marketing determinant is shown in Table 11. These super-matrix values have
been imported from the pairwise comparison matrices of the interdependences (Zaerpour et al., 2008). If
strong dependences among the criteria do not exist, a simple hierarchy and the additive solution method is
appropriate (Saaty, 1996). The dependences in this case are considered to be strong. Schenkerman (1994)
has shown that the super-matrix method is proficient in dropping the incidence of rank reversal, therefore
providing more precise interpretations of decision-maker preferences. A simple solution method to explain
this problem by raising the super-matrix M to a high power until convergence occurs has been suggested by
Saaty (1996).
Green marketing (GK) SP OP SCP BSP LP TP e-vector
SP 1.00 1.00 0.20 0.33 3.00 1.00 0.097

OP 1.00 1.00 0.14 0.20 1.00 0.33 0.057
SCP 5.00 7.00 1.00 1.00 9.00 3.00 0.375
BSP 3.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 7.00 1.00 0.264
LP 0.33 1.00 0.11 0.14 1.00 0.20 0.039
TP 1.00 3.00 0.33 1.00 5.00 1.00 0.167
Table 8. Fuzzy pairwise comparison matrix of the dimensions for the determinant green marketing (GK)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Malviya and Kant
SP1 SP2 SP3 SP4 SP5 e-vector
SP1 1.00 3.00 7.00 3.00 7.00 0.462

SP2 0.33 1.00 7.00 3.00 3.00 0.263
SP3 0.14 0.14 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.045
SP4 0.33 0.33 3.00 1.00 3.00 0.148
SP5 0.14 0.33 3.00 0.33 1.00 0.082
Table 9. Fuzzy comparison matrix for the enablers under strategic planning (SP) for green marketing (GK)
SP2 SP3 SP4 SP5 e-vector
SP2 1.00 7.00 3.00 3.00 0.516

SP3 0.14 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.070
SP4 0.33 3.00 1.00 3.00 0.257
SP5 0.33 3.00 0.33 1.00 0.157
Table 10. Fuzzy comparison matrix for SP1 under strategic planning (SP) for green marketing (GK)
Next, to obtain a long term set of stable weights of super-matrix M is made to converge. For convergence the
super-matrix M needs to be ‘column stochastic’; i.e., the sum total of the columns of the super-matrix needs to
be one. Convergence can be obtained by raising the super-matrix M to the (2 k + 1)th power, where k is an arbitrary
large number. The new matrix is called the limited super-matrix or converged super-matrix. In this particular case
the convergence is reached at M55, as shown in Table 12.
Step 8. For each GSCM strategy alternative, fuzzy comparison evaluation is needed to give the relative impact on
the number of enablers that are included in each of the determinants. Table 13 shows one such pairwise
comparison matrix, where the impact of five determinants is evaluated on the strategic enabler (SE) in
influencing the determinant green marketing (GK).
Step 9. Desirability index. For each alternative under each determinant, the desirability index is calculated using
Equation 10. The desirability index for each strategy has been calculated using the relative weights
obtained from the pairwise comparison of alternatives, dimensions and weight of enablers from the
converged super-matrix. The desirability index for the green marketing (GK) determinant is shown in
Table 14. Till now the analysis has been conducted only for green marketing (GK); similar analysis is
carried out for another four determinants, i.e. green design and development, green procurement, green
manufacturing and environmental management system.
Step 10. Calculate the weighted index for each GSCM strategy alternative and compute the final result according to
the highest value. The final result is shown in Table 15. Table 15 shows that the resource based strategy
(0.3574) is ranked first, followed by the efficiency based strategy (0.2493), risk based strategy (0.1788),
closed loop strategy (0.1199) and innovation based strategy (0.0946). Figure 5 shows the percentage
contribution of each GSCM strategy for the successful GSCM implementation.
Step 11. Sensitivity analysis. In sensitivity analysis, the ranking reversal of the alternatives is checked by
changing the weights of relative importance of the attributes (Chen et al., 2012; Chang et al., 2007).
The decision maker can check the ranking reversals by changing the weights (of relative importance) of
the attributes by a percentage point. However, it is obvious that, if the assigned weights are changed, then
the chances for rank reversals of the alternatives increase (Chang et al., 2007; Kannan et al., 2013). Sensi-
tivity analysis is conducted in order to monitor the robustness of the solutions ranked by the weight of
GSCM strategies. In the present study 10 experiments were conducted, as shown in Table 16.
In Experiment 1, the weights of green design (GD) and green marketing (GK) are interchanged. In Experiment 2
the weights of green procurement (GP) and green manufacturing (GM) are exchanged. Similarly, the weights of
DOI: 10.1002/bse
GSCM SP1 SP2 SP3 SP4 SP5 OP1 OP2 OP3 OP4 OP5 SCP1 SCP2 SCP3 SCP4 SCP5 SCP6 SCP7 BSP1 BSP2 BSP3 BSP4 LP1 LP2 LP3 LP4 LP5 TP1 TP2 TP3
enablers
SP1 0.000 0.586 0.516 0.567 0.496

SP2 0.516 0.000 0.257 0.275 0.304
SP3 0.070 0.068 0.000 0.052 0.054
SP4 0.257 0.228 0.157 0.000 0.146
SP5 0.157 0.117 0.070 0.106 0.000
OP1 0.000 0.586 0.569 0.499 0.491
OP2 0.583 0.000 0.296 0.329 0.318
OP3 0.248 0.266 0.000 0.126 0.134
OP4 0.115 0.103 0.090 0.000 0.056
OP5 0.053 0.046 0.045 0.046 0.000
SCP1 0.000 0.037 0.039 0.044 0.039 0.034 0.030
SCP2 0.159 0.000 0.181 0.226 0.181 0.182 0.152
SCP3 0.211 0.258 0.000 0.276 0.260 0.222 0.216
SCP4 0.295 0.312 0.371 0.000 0.371 0.299 0.298
SCP5 0.211 0.258 0.260 0.276 0.000 0.222 0.216
SCP6 0.078 0.082 0.097 0.119 0.097 0.000 0.088
SCP7 0.045 0.052 0.052 0.059 0.052 0.040 0.000
BSP1 0.000 0.649 0.624 0.562
BSP2 0.600 0.000 0.266 0.290
BSP3 0.340 0.193 0.000 0.148
BSP4 0.061 0.156 0.108 0.000
LP1 0.000 0.237 0.407 0.273 0.22
LP2 0.101 0.000 0.127 0.092 0.09
LP3 0.468 0.427 0.357 0.559 0.41
LP4 0.335 0.268 0.000 0.075 0.28
LP5 0.096 0.068 0.110 0.000 0.000
TP1 0.000 0.830 0.740
TP2 0.75 0.000 0.260
TP3 0.25 0.170 0.000
Table 11. Super-matrix for green marketing (GK) before convergence (M)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
GSCM SP1 SP2 SP3 SP4 SP5 OP1 OP2 OP3 OP4 OP5 SCP1 SCP2 SCP3 SCP4 SCP5 SCP6 SCP7 BSP1 BSP2 BSP3 BSP4 LP1 LP2 LP3 LP4 LP5 TP1 TP2 TP3
Malviya and Kant
enablers
SP1 0.354 0.354 0.354 0.354 0.354

SP2 0.282 0.282 0.282 0.282 0.282
SP3 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059
SP4 0.181 0.181 0.181 0.181 0.181
SP5 0.112 0.112 0.112 0.112 0.112
OP1 0.358 0.358 0.358 0.358 0.358
OP2 0.310 0.310 0.310 0.310 0.310
OP3 0.189 0.189 0.189 0.189 0.189
OP4 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.093
OP5 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046
SCP1 0.037 0.037 0.037 0.037 0.037 0.037 0.037
SCP2 0.159 0.159 0.159 0.159 0.159 0.159 0.159
SCP3 0.201 0.201 0.201 0.201 0.201 0.201 0.201
SCP4 0.251 0.251 0.251 0.251 0.251 0.251 0.251
SCP5 0.201 0.201 0.201 0.201 0.201 0.201 0.201
SCP6 0.089 0.089 0.089 0.089 0.089 0.089 0.089
SCP7 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049
BSP1 0.374 0.374 0.374 0.374
BSP2 0.304 0.304 0.304 0.304
BSP3 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200
BSP4 0.092 0.092 0.092 0.092
LP1 0.256 0.256 0.256 0.256 0.256
LP2 0.101 0.101 0.101 0.101 0.101
LP3 0.430 0.430 0.431 0.430 0.430
LP4 0.146 0.146 0.146 0.146 0.146
LP5 0.079 0.079 0.079 0.079 0.079
TP1 0.445 0.445 0.445
TP2 0.379 0.379 0.379
TP3 0.176 0.176 0.176
Table 12. Super-matrix for green marketing (GK) after convergence (M45)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
RBS RB EB IB CL e-vector
RBS 1.00 0.33 0.14 0.20 0.14 0.043

RB 3.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.20 0.096
EB 7.00 3.00 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.215
IB 5.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 0.398
CL 7.00 5.00 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.248
Table 13. Fuzzy pairwise comparison matrix for the alternatives under green marketing, SP and SP1
Dimensions GSCM Pja ADkja AI kja S1kja S2kja S3kja S4kja S5kja Risk Resource Efficiency Innovation Closed
enablers based based based based based
strategy strategy strategy strategy strategy
SP SP1 0.097 0.462 0.354 0.043 0.096 0.215 0.398 0.248 0.00342 0.00068 0.00152 0.00393 0.00631
SP2 0.097 0.263 0.282 0.045 0.103 0.244 0.486 0.123 0.00176 0.00032 0.00075 0.00088 0.00350
SP3 0.097 0.045 0.059 0.039 0.101 0.367 0.332 0.162 0.00009 0.00001 0.00003 0.00004 0.00009
SP4 0.097 0.148 0.181 0.058 0.067 0.408 0.377 0.090 0.00106 0.00015 0.00017 0.00023 0.00098
SP5 0.097 0.082 0.112 0.045 0.093 0.132 0.296 0.434 0.00012 0.00004 0.00008 0.00039 0.00026
OP OP1 0.057 0.447 0.358 0.042 0.104 0.251 0.446 0.156 0.00230 0.00039 0.00096 0.00143 0.00409
OP2 0.057 0.299 0.310 0.306 0.059 0.384 0.212 0.038 0.00205 0.00163 0.00031 0.00020 0.00113
OP3 0.057 0.156 0.189 0.099 0.067 0.511 0.275 0.049 0.00086 0.00017 0.00011 0.00008 0.00046
OP4 0.057 0.066 0.093 0.063 0.109 0.192 0.412 0.224 0.00007 0.00002 0.00004 0.00008 0.00014
OP5 0.057 0.033 0.046 0.223 0.445 0.195 0.098 0.041 0.00002 0.00002 0.00004 0.00000 0.00001
SCP SCP1 0.375 0.031 0.037 0.044 0.101 0.235 0.505 0.115 0.00010 0.00002 0.00004 0.00005 0.00022
SCP2 0.375 0.154 0.159 0.038 0.135 0.326 0.380 0.122 0.00300 0.00035 0.00124 0.00112 0.00349
SCP3 0.375 0.206 0.201 0.041 0.094 0.211 0.395 0.259 0.00327 0.00063 0.00146 0.00402 0.00613
SCP4 0.375 0.284 0.251 0.033 0.107 0.409 0.295 0.156 0.01097 0.00089 0.00287 0.00418 0.00789
SCP5 0.375 0.206 0.201 0.056 0.474 0.226 0.042 0.203 0.00350 0.00087 0.00735 0.00314 0.00065
SCP6 0.375 0.078 0.089 0.107 0.065 0.430 0.345 0.053 0.00112 0.00028 0.00017 0.00014 0.00090
SCP7 0.375 0.041 0.049 0.050 0.377 0.285 0.050 0.239 0.00022 0.00004 0.00029 0.00018 0.00004
BSP BSP1 0.264 0.505 0.374 0.498 0.244 0.152 0.065 0.041 0.00759 0.02484 0.01217 0.00203 0.00326
BSP2 0.264 0.270 0.304 0.225 0.090 0.375 0.270 0.039 0.00812 0.00488 0.00196 0.00085 0.00585
BSP3 0.264 0.124 0.200 0.459 0.268 0.119 0.109 0.045 0.00078 0.00301 0.00176 0.00029 0.00071
BSP4 0.264 0.102 0.092 0.293 0.436 0.094 0.136 0.040 0.00023 0.00072 0.00108 0.00010 0.00034
LP LP1 0.039 0.222 0.256 0.495 0.292 0.108 0.059 0.047 0.00024 0.00111 0.00065 0.00011 0.00013
LP2 0.039 0.075 0.101 0.093 0.155 0.368 0.343 0.042 0.00011 0.00003 0.00005 0.00001 0.00010
LP3 0.039 0.394 0.430 0.035 0.075 0.156 0.225 0.509 0.00104 0.00023 0.00050 0.00340 0.00150
LP4 0.039 0.244 0.146 0.490 0.289 0.107 0.076 0.038 0.00015 0.00069 0.00041 0.00005 0.00011
LP5 0.039 0.065 0.079 0.111 0.058 0.384 0.370 0.078 0.00008 0.00002 0.00001 0.00002 0.00007
TP TP1 0.167 0.634 0.445 0.036 0.078 0.182 0.185 0.518 0.00855 0.00171 0.00366 0.02438 0.00872
TP2 0.167 0.261 0.379 0.040 0.070 0.155 0.222 0.514 0.00255 0.00065 0.00116 0.00847 0.00365
TP3 0.167 0.106 0.176 0.033 0.097 0.143 0.244 0.483 0.00045 0.00010 0.00030 0.00150 0.00076
Total desirability index (Di1) of GK for GSCM strategy alternatives 0.06381 0.04450 0.0411 0.0613 0.0615
Table 14. Desirability index for green marketing (GK)
green management system (GMS) and green marketing (GK), green marketing (GK) and green procurement (GP),
green marketing (GK) and green manufacturing (GM), green design (GD) and green procurement (GP),
green design (GD) and green manufacturing (GM), green design (GD) and green management system
(GMS), green procurement (GP) and green management system (GMS), and green manufacturing (GM) and green
management system (GMS) are interchanged, as shown in Table 16. From Figure 6 and Table 16, the changes in
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Malviya and Kant
Alternatives Determinants Calculated weights for alternatives
GK GD GP GM GMS
0.0349 0.0680 0.1267 0.2536 0.5169 Weighted index Normalization Rank
Risk based strategy 0.0022 0.0037 0.0062 0.0140 0.0221 0.0483 0.1788 3
Resource based strategy 0.0016 0.0065 0.0121 0.0190 0.0574 0.0966 0.3574 1
Efficiency based strategy 0.0014 0.0037 0.0093 0.0178 0.0351 0.0673 0.2493 2
Innovation based strategy 0.0021 0.0019 0.0017 0.0074 0.0124 0.0256 0.0946 5
Closed loop strategy 0.0022 0.0027 0.0030 0.0107 0.0139 0.0324 0.1199 4
0.2701 1.000
Table 15. Weighted index for various alternative GSCM strategies
Figure 5. Percentage contribution of each GSCM strategy implementation [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Exp. no Definition Risk Resource Efficiency Innovation Closed

based based based based loop
strategy strategy strategy strategy strategy
E1 GK = 0.068, GD = 0.0349, GP = 0.1267, GM = 0.2536, GMS = 0.5169 0.180 0.351 0.248 0.099 0.123
E2 GK = 0.0349, GD = 0.068, GP = 0.2536, GM = 0.1267, GMS = 0.5169 0.176 0.373 0.256 0.095 0.118
E3 GK = 0.5169, GD = 0.068, GP = 0.1267, GM = 0.2536, GMS = 0.0.349 0.216 0.239 0.202 0.161 0.182
E4 GK = 0.1267, GD = 0.068, GP = 0.0349, GM = 0.2536, GMS = 0.5169 0.184 0.340 0.238 0.111 0.133
E5 GK = 0.2536, GD = 0.068, GP = 0.1267, GM = 0.0.349, GMS = 0.5169 0.186 0.333 0.226 0.121 0.135
E6 GK = 0.0349, GD = 0.1267, GP = 0.0.68, GM = 0.2536, GMS = 0.5169 0.180 0.357 0.245 0.098 0.123
E7 GK = 0.0349, GD = 0.2536, GP = 0.1267, GM = 0.068, GMS = 0.5169 0.179 0.371 0.239 0.093 0.118
E8 GK = 0.0349, GD = 0.5169, GP = 0.1267, GM = 0.2536, GMS = 0.0.68 0.199 0.331 0.228 0.100 0.141
E9 GK = 0.0349, GD = 0.068, GP = 0.5169, GM = 0.2536, GMS = 0.1267 0.187 0.335 0.257 0.080 0.115
E10 GK = 0.0349, GD = 0.068, GP = 0.1267, GM = 0.5169, GMS = 0.2536 0.191 0.322 0.252 0.099 0.135
Table 16. Sensitivity analysis
the final ranking can be depicted for successful GSCM strategy implementation. From the 10 experiments, it can be
seen that the resource based strategy (RB) is of the first rank, with the highest weighted average index of 0.35,
followed by the efficiency based strategy (EB) with 0.25. This suggests that RB and EB have most impact on GSCM
strategy implementation. The risk based strategy (RBS), closed loop strategy (CL) and innovation based (IB) are in
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Figure 6. Results of sensitivity analysis [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
third, fourth and fifth positions respectively. Similarly, all the rankings of the GSCM strategy change very slightly as
the determinant weights change. Hence, the ranking of the GSCM strategy implementation is relatively insensitive
to the determinant weights.
Result and Discussion

The result of this study shows that each GSCM strategy highlights on its own specific determinants. The method-
ology adopted for this empirical study is a fuzzy ANP because it works out which group and which elements are
most significant for accomplishing the selected GSCM strategy. It is effectively utilized and applied to select the best
GSCM strategy (among risk based, resource based, efficiency based, innovation based and closed loop strategies). It
is achieved by integrating the various determinants (green marketing, green design and development, green
procurement, green manufacturing and environmental management system), and dimensions (strategic, organiza-
tional, social–cultural, buyer–supplier, legislation and technical enabler perspectives) of GSCM implementation.
Table 15 shows the results obtained from the empirical case analysis.
The result shows the best alternative is the resource based strategy with the highest weighted index of 0.3574.
It has the maximum impact on each determinant. It helps in effective utilization of the available resources to
enhance the overall productivity of an organization. From Table 15, it has been observed that a green manage-
ment system (0.5169) is the most important determinant in the selection of GSCM strategy. These results
support that the case organization should improve the green management system with the help of appropriate
GSCM strategy, i.e. resource based strategy, having a higher desirability index (0.0574) for a green management
system. A green management system is the consistent set of administrative and operational policies and
practices. It also considers the protection of the environment through the mitigation of environmental
impacts and damage. This includes all of the product’s life cycle phases: planning, implementation, operation,
expansion, reallocation or deactivation of ventures or activities (Shen et al., 2013). The resource based strategy
with the help of its enabler information technology infrastructure (TP1; Di = 0.0214 in the green management
system) helps to share information across boundaries of time and space if used properly. Thus, aligning the
appropriate information technology infrastructure and GSCM strategies is the key to higher organizational per-
formance. The empirical study validates the effectiveness, workability and usefulness of the proposed model.
Sensitivity analysis has been conducted to check the robustness of the proposed model. From the analysis,
the resource based strategy is found to have higher impact on the whole system (see Table 16). After such anal-
ysis, the case organization under study has a clear understanding of how business function affects the GSCM
strategy selection.
With the continuous elevation of environmental awareness among consumers, manufacturers adopting
GSCM strategies should gradually increase their research and development. It establishes their image as a green,
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Malviya and Kant
eco-friendly and socially responsible enterprise and creates a differentiated competitive advantage over their
competitors (Zhang et al., 2014). If the organization wants to choose an appropriate GSCM strategy, the top
management could refer to the results from several comprehensive analyses with a balance between short term
and long term profits in business operations (Chen et al., 2012). The results of the case analysis allow managers
to determine what patterns might exist between the several relationships. This study may help managers to make
decisions, to analyze and to standardize their environmental advantages dynamically. These clearly suggest that
making a decision that would deeply affect the operations of SC necessitates rigorous and strong managerial
investigation.
Conclusion
The objective of this study is to explore the implementation of GSCM strategies and to select the best GSCM
strategy. The MCDM based fuzzy ANP methodology has been used to provide a guideline on how to select a suitable
GSCM strategy. It also accomplishes an effective green management system for selecting the best strategy, which
includes many criteria. The advantage of utilizing the fuzzy ANP approach is that it effectively evaluates which
determinant and dimensional factor are most important for achieving the chosen GSCM strategy. It also helps in
analyzing the interdependence and interrelations among the various determinants and dimensions of the GSCM
strategy selection. The fuzzy concept is applied to avoid the vagueness and uncertainty in human preference
judgement. This study provides a research model that identifies the key concepts of GSCM strategy in the context
of the dynamic competitive environment. Many organizations consider cleaner production by means of GSCM
strategy implementation.
The empirical case study of an Indian automobile parts manufacturing organization is used to validate
the applicability, workability and usefulness of the proposed model. The result of the proposed model shows
that the resource based strategy is in the first position, with the highest weighted index of 0.3574. It has the
maximum impact on each determinant. These results support the view that the case organization should
improve the green management system with the help of an appropriate GSCM strategy, i.e. the resource
based strategy, having a higher desirability index (0.0574) for the green management system. Considering
the resource based strategy and developing a green management system in an organization helps in the
development and use of resources of many categories, such as manufacturing resources, storage resources,
logistics resources, human resources and financial resources. If these resources are utilized properly and
proficiently, this results in maximizing customer service levels, minimizing lead times and optimizing inven-
tory levels. This is the main contribution of this study. It shows that the resource based strategy has the
highest impact on the whole system. Basically, the model has substantial flexibility. It can act as a benchmark
and process development tool for decisions concerning GSCM strategy implementation. This study examines
environmental strategy implementation requirements reaching towards the smaller industries in the automo-
bile SC. It will be of interest to automobile industries who aim to design GSCM strategies and also justify
the associated investments, and for the policy makers who aim to support automobile industries in their
changeover towards green practice implementation and strategy development. The study also discusses and
presents some possible effects and success factors of GSCM implementation when trying to develop a closer
collaboration among different factors in the GSCM. Finally, the study shows how a systematic approach can
help organizations to establish their modified GSCM strategy implementation. ANP is a robust decision-
making method for investigating the key concern facing GSCM and environmentally sensible business prac-
tices. The possibility of interdependent evaluations makes ANP more beneficial and flexible. Despite its many
advantages, similarly to any other model it does have disadvantages; for example, its analysis is very tedious
and time consuming. When the number of factors and relationships increases, its complexity can also geo-
metrically increase. This study has been conducted considering only the Indian automobile industry, further
such analysis could be conducted considering some other type of industry in India and outside India using
ANP or with other decision-making tools, such as interpretive structural modeling (ISM), analytical hierarchy
process (AHP) etc.
DOI: 10.1002/bse
References
Abdulrahman MD, Gunasekaran A, Subramanian N. 2014. Critical barriers in implementing reverse logistics in the Chinese manufacturing
sectors. International Journal of Production Economics 147: 460–471.
Ali W, Frynas JG, Mahmood Z. 2017. Determinants of corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure in developed and developing countries: a
literature review. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 24(4): 273–294.
Andic E, Yurt O, Baltacıoglu T. 2012. Green supply chains: efforts and potential applications for the Turkish market. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling 58: 50–68.
Ansari ZN, Kant R. 2017. Exploring the framework development status for sustainability in supply chain management: a systematic literature
synthesis and future research directions. Business Strategy and the Environment 26(7): 873–892.
Arimura TH, Darnall N, Katayama H. 2011. Is ISO 14001 a gateway to more advanced voluntary action? The case of green supply chain
management. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 61(2): 170–182.
Ayağ Z, Özdemir RG. 2006. A fuzzy AHP approach to evaluating machine tool alternatives. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 17(2): 179–190.
Azevedo SG, Carvalho H, Cruz MV. 2011. The influence of green practices on supply chain performance: a case study approach. Transportation
Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 47(6): 850–871.
Azzone G, Noci G. 1998. Identifying effective PMSs for the deployment of ‘green’ manufacturing strategies. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management 18(4): 308–335.
Babiak K, Trendafilova S. 2011. CSR and environmental responsibility: motives and pressures to adopt green management practices. Corporate
social responsibility and environmental management 18(1): 11–24.
Bag S, Anand N. 2014. Modeling Green Supply Chain Management framework using ISM and MICMAC analysis. African Journal of Business
Management 8(22): 1053–1065.
Baughn CC, McIntosh JC. 2007. Corporate social and environmental responsibility in Asian countries and other geographical regions. Corporate
Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 14(4): 189–205.
Baumann H, Boons F, Bragd A. 2002. Mapping the green product development field: engineering, policy and business perspectives. Journal of
Cleaner Production 10(5): 409–425.
Bellman RE, Zadeh LA. 1970. Decision-making in a fuzzy environment. Journal of Management Science 17(4): 141–164.
Bhat VN. 1993. Green marketing begins with green design. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 8(4): 26–31.
Bhosale VA, Kant R. 2014. Selection of best knowledge flow practicing organisation using hybrid fuzzy AHP–VIKOR method. International
Journal of Decision Sciences, Risk and Management 5(3): 234–262.
Bird R, Hall AD, Momentè F, Reggiani F. 2007. What corporate social responsibility activities are valued by the market? Journal of Business Ethics
76(2): 189–206.
Bowen FE, Cousins PD, Lamming RC, Faruk AC. 2001. The role of supply management capabilities in green supply. Production and Operations
Management 10(2): 174–189.
Buckley JJ. 1985. Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 17: 233–247.
Buyukozkan G, Cifci G. 2012. Evaluation of the green supply chain management practices: a fuzzy ANP approach. Production Planning and
Control 23(6): 405–418.
Carbone V, Moatti V. 2011. Towards greener supply chains: an institutional perspective. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications
14(3): 179–197.
Carbone V, Moatti V, Vinzi VE. 2012. Mapping corporate responsibility and sustainable supply chains: an exploratory perspective. Business
Strategy and the Environment 21(7): 475–494.
Chang CW, Wu CR, Lin CT, Chen HC. 2007. An application of AHP and sensitivity analysis for selecting the best slicing machine. Computers &
Industrial Engineering 52(2): 296–307.
Chen CC, Shih HS, Shyur HJ, Wu KS. 2012. A business strategy selection of green supply chain management via an analytic network process.
Computers and Mathematics with Applications 64(8): 2544–2557.
Cheng JH, Sheu JB. 2012. Inter-organisational relationships and strategy quality in green supply chains – moderated by opportunistic behaviour
and dysfunctional conflict. Industrial Marketing Management 41(4): 563–572.
Chiarini A. 2014. Strategies for developing an environmentally sustainable supply chain: differences between manufacturing and service sectors.
Business Strategy and the Environment 23(7): 493–504.
Chou SY, Chang YH. 2008. A decision support system for supplier selection based on a strategy-aligned fuzzy SMART approach. Expert Systems
with Applications 34(4): 2241–2253.
Chung CJ, Wee HM. 2011. Short life-cycle deteriorating product remanufacturing in a green supply chain inventory control system. International
Journal of Production Economics 129(1): 195–203.
Colicchia C, Melacini M, Perotti S. 2011. Benchmarking supply chain sustainability: insights from a field study. Benchmarking 18(5): 705–732.
Curkovic S, Sroufe R. 2011. Using ISO 14001 to promote a sustainable supply chain strategy. Business Strategy and the Environment
20(2): 71–93.
Danese P, Romano P, Formentini M. 2013. The impact of supply chain integration on responsiveness: the moderating effect of using an
international supplier network. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 49(1): 125–140.
Darnall N, Jolley GJ, Handfield R. 2008. Environmental management systems and green supply chain management: complements for sustain-
ability? Business Strategy and the Environment 17(1): 30–45.
Davies IA, Crane A. 2003. Ethical decision making in fair trade companies. Journal of Business Ethics 45: 79–92.
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Malviya and Kant
Dey PK, Cheffi W. 2012. Green supply chain performance measurement using the analytic hierarchy process: a comparative analysis of
manufacturing organisations. Production Planning and Control 24(8–9): 702–720.
Diabat A, Kannan G. 2011. An analysis of the drivers affecting the implementation of green supply chain management. Resources, Conservation
and Recycling 55(6): 659–667.
Dubey R, Gunasekaran A, Papadopoulos T, Childe SJ. 2015. Green supply chain management enablers: mixed methods research. Sustainable
Production and Consumption 4: 72–88.
Dubis D, Prade H. 1978. Operations on fuzzy numbers. International Journal of Systems Science 9: 613–626.
El Korchi A, Millet D. 2014. Conditions of emergence of OEM’s reverse supply chains. Journal of Remanufacturing 4(1): 1–17.
El Saadany A, Jaber MY. 2010. A production/remanufacturing inventory model with price and quality dependent return rate. Computers and
Industrial Engineering 58(3): 352–362.
Eltayeb TK, Zailani S, Ramayah T. 2011. Green supply chain initiatives among certified companies in Malaysia and environmental sustainability:
investigating the outcomes. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55(5): 495–506.
Foerstl K, Azadegan A, Leppelt T, Hartmann E. 2015. Drivers of supplier sustainability: moving beyond compliance to commitment. Journal of
Supply Chain Management 51(1): 67–92.
Gavronski I, Klassen RD, Vachon S, Nascimento LFMD. 2011. A resource-based view of green supply management. Transportation Research Part
E: Logistics and Transportation Review 47(6): 872–885.
Ginsberg JM, Bloom PN. 2004. Choosing the right green marketing strategy. MIT Sloan Management Review 46(1): 79–84.
Giunipero LC, Hooker RE, Denslow D. 2012. Purchasing and supply management sustainability: drivers and barriers. Journal of Purchasing and
Supply Management 18(4): 258–269.
González-Torre P, Alvarez M, Sarkis J, Adenso-Díaz B. 2010. Barriers to the implementation of environmentally oriented reverse logistics: evi-
dence from the automotive industry sector. British Journal of Management 21(4): 889–904.
Govindan K, Khodaverdi R, Vafadarnikjoo A. 2015. Intuitionistic fuzzy based DEMATEL method for developing green practices and perfor-
mances in a green supply chain. Expert Systems with Applications 42(20): 7207–7220.
Green K, Morton B, New S. 1996. Purchasing and environmental management: interactions, policies and opportunities. Business Strategy and the
Environment 5(3): 188–197.
Hajmohammad S, Vachon S, Klassen RD, Gavronski I. 2012. Lean management and supply management: their role in green practices and
performance. Journal of Cleaner Production 39: 312–320.
Handfield R, Sroufe R, Walton S. 2005. Integrating environmental management and supply chain strategies. Business Strategy and the
Handfield R, Walton SV, Seegers LK, Melnyk SA. 1997. Green value chain practices in the furniture industry. Journal of Operations Management
15(4): 293–315.
Harris LC, Crane A. 2002. The greening of organisational culture: management views on the depth, degree and diffusion change. Journal of
Organisational Change Management 15(3): 214–234.
Hervani AA, Helms MM, Sarkis J. 2005. Performance measurement for green supply chain management. Benchmarking 12(4): 330–353.
Hofmann H, Busse C, Bode C, Henke M. 2014. Sustainability-related supply chain risks: conceptualization and management. Business Strategy
and the Environment 23(3): 160–172.
Hsu CW, Hu AH. 2008. Green supply chain management in the electronic industry. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology
5(2): 205–216.
Hsu CW, Hu AH. 2009. Applying hazardous substance management to supplier selection using analytic network process. Journal of Cleaner
Production 17(2): 255–264.
Hu AH, Hsu CW. 2006. Empirical study in the critical factors of green supply chain (GSCM) practice in the Taiwanese electrical and electronics
industries. International Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology 2: 853–857.
Hu AH, Hsu CW. 2010. Critical factors for implementing green supply chain management practice: an empirical study of electrical and
electronics industries in Taiwan. Management Research Review 33(6): 586–608.
Huang JJ. 2008. A matrix method for the fuzzy analytic network process. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based
Systems 16(06): 863–878.
Jabbour LS, Jabbour CJC. 2009. Are supplier selection criteria going green? Case studies of companies in Brazil. Industrial Management & Data
Systems 109(4): 477–495.
Jayaram J, Avittathur B. 2015. Green supply chains: a perspective from an emerging economy. International Journal of Production Economics 164:
234–244.
Jeenger P, Kant R. 2013. Understanding the knowledge sharing barriers in organisation: a fuzzy AHP approach. Journal of Information and Knowl-
edge Management 12(01): 1350003
Johansson G, Winroth M. 2009. Lean vs. Green manufacturing: similarities and differences. In Proceedings of 16th International Annual EurOMA
Conference. Göteborg, Sweden; 14–17.
Joshi K, Kant R. 2012. Decision making in effective supply chain collaboration: a fuzzy AHP approach. International Journal of Decision Sciences,
Risk and Management 4(3/4): 197–216.
Kannan D, Khodaverdi R, Olfat L, Jafarian A, Diabat A. 2013. Integrated fuzzy multi criteria decision making method and multi-
objective programming approach for supplier selection and order allocation in a green supply chain. Journal of Cleaner Production
47: 355–367.
Karlsson R, Luttropp C. 2006. Eco-Design: what’s happening? An overview of the subject area of EcoDesign and of the papers in this special
issue. Journal of Cleaner Production 17(15/16): 1291–1298.
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Karsak EE, Sozer S, Alptekin SE. 2002. Product planning in quality function deployment using a combined analytic network process and goal
programming approach. Computers and Industrial Engineering 44: 171–190.
Kim J, Rhee J. 2012. An empirical study on the impact of critical success factors on the balanced scorecard performance in Korean green supply
chain management enterprises. International Journal of Production Research 50(9): 2465–2483.
Kirubakaran B, Ilangkumaran M. 2015. The selection of optimum maintenance strategy based on ANP integrated with GRA–TOPSIS. Journal for
Global Business Advancement 8(2): 190–215.
Koplin J, Seuring S, Mesterharm M. 2007. Incorporating sustainability into supply management in the automotive industry – the case of the
Volkswagen AG. Journal of Cleaner Production 15(11): 1053–1062.
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.
Laari SJ, Töyli T, Solakivi L, Ojal A. 2016. Firm performance and customer-driven green supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production
112: 1960–1970.
Large RO, Thomsen CG. 2011. Drivers of green supply management performance: evidence from Germany. Journal of Purchasing and Supply
Management 17(3): 176–184.
Lau KH. 2011. Benchmarking green logistics performance with a composite index. Benchmarking 18(6): 873–896.
Lazarus RJ. 2008. Super wicked problems and climate change: restraining the present to liberate the future. Cornell Law Review 94: 1153–1234.
Lee JW, Kim SH. 2000. Using analytic network process and goal programming for interdependent information system project selection.
Computers and Operations Research 27: 367–382.
Lee SM, Kim ST, Choi D. 2012. Green supply chain management and organisational performance. Industrial Management & Data Systems 112(8):
1148–1180.
Lee SY, Klassen RD. 2008. Drivers and enablers that foster environmental management capabilities in small- and medium-sized suppliers in
supply chains. Production and Operations Management 17(6): 573–586.
Li RJ. 1999. Fuzzy Method in group decision making. Computers and Mathematics with Applications 38(1): 91–101.
Lin CY, Ho YH. 2008. An empirical study on logistics service providers’ intention to adopt green innovations. Journal of Technology Management &
Innovation 3(1): 17–26.
Lin RH. 2009. An integrated FANP–MOLP for supplier evaluation and order allocation. Applied Mathematical Modelling 33(6): 2730–2736.
Lippmann S. 1999. Supply chain environmental management: elements of success. Corporate Environmental Strategy 6(2): 175–182.
Liu X, Yang J, Qu S, Wang L, Shishime T, Bao C. 2012. Sustainable production: practices and determinant factors of green supply chain manage-
ment of Chinese companies. Business Strategy and the Environment 21(1): 1–16.
Malviya RK, Kant R. 2017. Modeling the enablers of green supply chain management: an integrated ISM–fuzzy MICMAC approach.
Benchmarking 24(2): 536–568.
Malviya RK, Kant R, Gupta AD. 2016. Identification of critical success factors for green supply chain management implementation. International
Journal of Logistics Systems and Management 25(4): 474–512.
Mangla SK, Kumar P, Barua MK. 2014. Flexible decision approach for analysing performance of sustainable supply chains under
risks/uncertainty. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management 15(2): 113–130.
Mangla SK, Kumar P, Barua MK. 2015. Prioritizing the responses to manage risks in green supply chain: an Indian plastic manufacturer
perspective. Sustainable Production and Consumption 1(1): 67–86.
Margolis JD, Walsh JP. 2003. Misery loves companies: rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly 48(2): 268–305.
Maryam Masoumi KS, Abdul-Rashid SH, Olugu EU, Ghazilla R, Ariffin R. 2015. An integrated framework-for designing a strategic green supply
chain with an application to the automotive industry. International Journal of Industrial Engineering 21(6): 46–51.
Meade LM, Sarkis J. 1999. Analyzing organizational project alternatives for agile manufacturing processes: an analytical network approach. In-
ternational Journal of Production Research 37(2): 241–261.
Meade LM, Presley A. 2002. R&D project selection using the analytic network process. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 49(1):
59–66.
Meckenstock J, Barbosa-Póvoa AP, Carvalho A. 2015. The wicked character of sustainable supply chain management: evidence from sustainability
reports. Business Strategy and the Environment 25(7): 449–477.
Menzel V, Smagin J, David F. 2010. Can companies profit from greener manufacturing? Measuring Business Excellence 14(2): 22–31.
Min H, Galle WP. 2001. Green purchasing practices of US firms. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 21(9): 1222–1238.
Min H, Kim I. 2012. Green supply chain research: past, present, and future. Logistics Research 4(1/2): 39–47.
Mishra N, Kumar V, Chan FTS. 2012. A multi-agent architecture for reverse logistics in a green supply chain. International Journal of Production
Research 50(9): 2396–2406.
Mollenkopf D, Stolze H, Tate WL, Ueltschy M. 2010. Green, lean, and global supply chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution and
Logistics Management 40(1/2): 14–41.
Momoh JA, Zhu J. 2003. Optimal generation scheduling based on AHP/ANP. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics – Part B:
Cybernetics 33(3): 531–535.
Montiel I. 2008. Corporate social responsibility and corporate sustainability: separate pasts, common futures. Organization and Environment 21(3):
245–269.
Mudgal RK, Shankar R, Talib P, Raj T. 2010. Modeling the barriers of green supply chain practices: an Indian perspective. International Journal of
Logistics Systems and Management 7(1): 81–107.
Muduli K, Barve A. 2013. Sustainable development practices in mining sector: a GSCM approach. International Journal of Environment and
Sustainable Development 12(2): 222–243.
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Malviya and Kant
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. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 76: 50–60.
Mutingi M. 2013. Developing green supply chain management strategies: a taxonomic approach. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management
6(2): 525–546.
Mutingi M, Mapfaira H, Monageng R. 2014. Developing performance management systems for the green supply chain. Journal of
Remanufacturing 4(1): 1–20.
Ofori G. 2000. Greening the construction supply chain in Singapore. European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 6(3): 195–206.
Parrish B. 2008. Sustainability-Driven Entrepreneurship: a Literature Review. SRI Working Paper 9, School of Earth and Environment, Leeds
University.
Polonsky MJ. 1994. An introduction to green marketing. Electronic Green Journal 1(2): 1–10.
Prakash A. 2002. Green marketing, public policy and managerial strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment 11(5): 285–297.
Preuss L. 2005. Rhetoric and reality of corporate greening: a view from the supply chain management function. Business Strategy and the
Rao P. 2002. Greening the supply chain: a new initiative in South East Asia. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 22(6):
632–655.
Rao P. 2007. Greening of the supply chain: An empirical study for SMES in the Philippine context. Journal of Asia Business Studies 1(2): 55–66.
Rao P, Holt D. 2005. Do green supply chains lead to competitiveness and economic performance?. International Journal of Operations and Produc-
tion Management 25(9): 898–916.
Saaty TL. 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill: New York.
Saaty TL. 1996. Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: the Analytic Network Process. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS.
Sarkis J. 2003. A strategic decision framework for green supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production 11(4): 397–409.
Sarkis J. 2012. A boundaries and flows perspective of green supply chain management. Supply Chain Management 17(2): 202–216.
Sarmiento R, Thomas A. 2010. Identifying improvement areas when implementing green initiatives using a multitier AHP approach.
Benchmarking 17(3): 452–463.
Schenkerman S. 1994. Avoiding rank reversal in AHP decision support models. European Journal of Operational Research 74(3): 407–419.
Seuring S. 2013. A review of modeling approaches for sustainable supply chain management. Decision Support Systems 54(4): 1513–1520.
Seuring S, Muller M. 2008. Core issues in sustainable supply chain management – a Delphi study. Business Strategy and the Environment 17(8):
455–466.
Sharma R, Garg S. 2015. Selecting the best operational strategy for job shop system: an ANP approach. International Journal of Industrial and
Systems Engineering 20(2): 231–262.
Sharma S, Vredenburg H. 1998. Proactive corporate environmental strategy and the development of competitively valuable organisational
capabilities. Strategic Management Journal 19: 729–753.
Shen L, Olfat L, Govindan K, Khodaverdi R, Diabat A. 2013. A fuzzy multi criteria approach for evaluating green supplier’s performance in green
supply chain with linguistic preferences. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 74: 170–179.
Sheu JB, Chen YJ. 2012. Impact of government financial intervention on competition among green supply chains. International Journal of
Production Economics 138(1): 201–213.
Sheu JB, Chou YH, Hu CC. 2005. An integrated logistics operational model for green-supply chain management. Transportation Research Part E:
Logistics and Transportation Review 41(4): 287–313.
Shi VG, Koh SL, Baldwin J, Cucchiella F. 2012. Natural resource based green supply chain management. Supply Chain Management
17(1): 54–67.
Simpson D, Power D, Samson D. 2007. Greening the automotive supply chain: a relationship perspective. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management 27(1): 28–48.
Simpson D, Samson D. 2008. Developing strategies for green supply chain management. Decision Line 39(4): 12–15.
Singh RK, Acharya P. 2014. Supply chain management: everlasting and contemporary research issues. International Journal of Logistics Systems
and Management 19(1): 1–19.
Soler C, Bergström K, Shanahan H. 2010. Green supply chains and the missing link between environmental information and practice. Business
Strategy and the Environment 19(1): 14–25.
Srivastava SK. 2008. Network design for reverse logistics. Omega 36(4): 535–548.
Tan XC, Liu F, Cao HJ, Zhang H. 2002. A decision-making framework model of cutting fluid selection for green manufacturing and a case study.
Journal of Materials Processing Technology 129(1–3): 467–470.
Teuscher P, Grüninger B, Ferdinand N. 2006. Risk management in sustainable supply chain management (SSCM): lessons learnt from the case
of GMO-free soybeans. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 13(1): 1–10.
Thun JH, Muller A. 2010. An empirical analysis of green supply chain management in the German automotive industry. Business Strategy and the
Trowbridge P. 2006. A case study of green supply chain management at advanced micro devices. In Greening the Supply Chain. Springer: London;
307–322.
Tseng ML. 2011. Green supply chain management with linguistic preferences and incomplete information. Applied Soft Computing 11(8):
4894–4903.
Vachon S, Klassen RD. 2008. Environmental management and manufacturing performance: the role of collaboration in the supply chain.
International Journal of Production Economics 111(2): 299–315.
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Vinodh S, Ramiya RA, Gautham SG. 2011. Application of fuzzy analytic network process for supplier selection in a manufacturing organisation.
Expert Systems with Applications 38(1): 272–280.
Wahba H. 2008. Does the market value corporate environmental responsibility? An empirical examination. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management 15(2): 89–99.
Walker H, Di Sisto L, McBain D. 2008. Drivers and barriers to environmental supply chain management practices: lessons from the public and
private sectors. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 14(1): 69–85.
Wang YF, Chen SP, Lee YC, Tsai CTS. 2013. Developing green management standards for restaurants: an application of green supply chain
management. International Journal of Hospitality Management 34: 263–273.
Wee YS, Quazi HA. 2005. Development and validation of critical factors of environmental management. Industrial Management & Data Systems
105(1): 96–114.
Whitelock VG. 2012. Alignment between green supply chain management strategy and business strategy. International Journal of Procurement
Management 5(4): 430–451.
Wu GC, Ding JH, Chen PS. 2012. The effects of GSCM drivers and institutional pressures on GSCM practices in Taiwan’s textile and apparel
industry. International Journal of Production Economics 135(2): 618–636.
Wu WW, Lee YT. 2007. Developing global managers’ competencies using the fuzzy DEMATEL method. Expert Systems with Applications
32(2): 499–507.
Xing K, Qian W, Zaman AU. 2016. Development of a cloud-based platform for footprint assessment in green supply chain management. Journal
of Cleaner Production 139: 191–203.
Xu L, Mathiyazhagan K, Govindan K, Noorul Haq A, Ramachandran NV, Ashok KA. 2013. Multiple comparative studies of Green Supply Chain
Management: pressures analysis. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 78: 26–35.
Yuang A, Kielkiewicz-Yuang A. 2001. Sustainable supply network management. Corporate Environmental Strategy 8(3): 260–268.
Zadeh LA. 1965. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control 8(2): 338–353.
Zaerpour N, Rabbani M, Gharehgozli AH. 2008. A novel multi criteria decision making framework for production strategy adoption considering
interrelations. In Operations Research Proceedings 2007. Springer: Berlin; 497–502.
Zhang CT, Wang HX, Ren ML. 2014. Research on pricing and coordination strategy of green supply chain under hybrid production mode.
Computers and Industrial Engineering 72: 24–31.
Zhang Y, Li ZH, Qi T, Zheng SL, Li HQ, Xu HB. 2004. Green manufacturing process of chromium compounds. Environmental Progress
24(1): 44–50.
Zhu Q, Cote RP. 2004. Integrating green supply chain management into an embryonic eco-industrial development: a case study of the Guitang
Group. Journal of Cleaner Production 12(8): 1025–1035.
Zhu Q, Geng Y, Fujita T, Hashimoto S. 2010. Green supply chain management in leading manufacturers: case studies in Japanese large
companies. Management Research Review 33(4): 380–392.
Zhu Q, Sarkis J. 2006. An inter-sectoral comparison of green supply chain management in China: drivers and practices. Journal of Cleaner
Production 14(5): 472–486.
Zhu Q, Sarkis J. 2007. The moderating effects of institutional pressures on emergent green supply chain practices and performance. International
Journal of Production Research 45(18/19): 4333–4355.
Zhu Q, Sarkis J, Lai KH. 2007. Green supply chain management: pressures, practices and performance within the Chinese automobile industry.
Journal of Cleaner Production 15(11): 1041–1052.
Zhu Q, Sarkis J, Lai KH. 2008. Confirmation of a measurement model for green supply chain management practices implementation.
International Journal of Production Economics 111(2): 261–273.
Zhu Q, Sarkis J, Lai KH. 2012. Examining the effects of green supply chain management practices and their mediations on performance
improvements. International Journal of Production Research 50(5): 1377–1394.
DOI: 10.1002/bse

Evaluation and Selection of Sustainable Strategy For Green Supply Chain Management Implementation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluation and Selection of Sustainable Strategy For Green Supply Chain Management Implementation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Business Strategy and the Environment

Bus. Strat. Env. 2018

Evaluation and Selection of Sustainable Strategy for

Received 2 May 2017; revised 3 September 2017; accepted 17 September 2017

Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM)

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM) Enabler Perspectives

GSCMEs Description References

GSCMEs Description References

GSCMEs Description References

Table 1. Description of GSCM enablers’ perspectives

S. no Determinants Explanation References

Table 2. Determinants of GSCM strategies

S. no Strategies Explanation References

Table 3. GSCM strategies

Fuzzy Set Theory

Figure 1. Membership functions of TFNs

Intensity of importance Fuzzy number Deﬁnition Membership function

1 e1 equally important/preferred (1, 1, 3)

Table 4. Linguistic scale of relative importance used in pairwise comparison

e α ¼ ½lα ; r α ¼ ½ðm r Þ α þ l; ðr mÞ α þ r :

Fuzzy Analytic Network Process

Step 1. Establish decision group.

where A e is an n × n fuzzy matrix containing fuzzy numbers A(a e ij) and e

RI 0 0 0.52 0.89 1.11 1.25 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.49

Table 5. Average index for randomly generated weights (RI)

Kja the index set of attribute-enablers for dimension j of determinant a and.

J the index set for attribute j.

Empirical Case Analysis

Application of Proposed Framework

Step 1. Formation of multi-functional decision-making expert team. A decision-making group of 15 members is

Green marketing (GK) 1.00 0.33 0.20 0.14 0.11

Table 6. Fuzzy comparison matrix for determinants

Determinants Green Green Green Green Green e-vector

Green marketing (GK) 1.00 0.38 0.20 0.15 0.11 0.035

Table 7. Pairwise comparison matrix of the relative importance of the determinants

Green marketing (GK) SP OP SCP BSP LP TP e-vector

SP 1.00 1.00 0.20 0.33 3.00 1.00 0.097

SP1 SP2 SP3 SP4 SP5 e-vector

SP1 1.00 3.00 7.00 3.00 7.00 0.462

SP2 SP3 SP4 SP5 e-vector

SP2 1.00 7.00 3.00 3.00 0.516

SP1 0.000 0.586 0.516 0.567 0.496

SP1 0.354 0.354 0.354 0.354 0.354

RBS 1.00 0.33 0.14 0.20 0.14 0.043

Table 14. Desirability index for green marketing (GK)

Alternatives Determinants Calculated weights for alternatives

0.0349 0.0680 0.1267 0.2536 0.5169 Weighted index Normalization Rank

Table 15. Weighted index for various alternative GSCM strategies

Exp. no Deﬁnition Risk Resource Efﬁciency Innovation Closed

Table 16. Sensitivity analysis

Figure 6. Results of sensitivity analysis [Colour ﬁgure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Result and Discussion

You might also like