This article was downloaded by: [Tamilnadu Agricultural Univ]

On: 10 August 2013, At: 00:33

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Production Research
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tprs20
An integrated fuzzy multi-criteria group decision-
making approach for green supplier evaluation
Glin Bykzkan
a
a
Industrial Engineering, Galatasaray University, Istanbul, Turkey
Published online: 19 Aug 2011.
To cite this article: Glin Bykzkan (2012) An integrated fuzzy multi-criteria group decision-making approach for green supplier
evaluation, International Journal of Production Research, 50:11, 2892-2909, DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2011.564668
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2011.564668
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
International Journal of Production Research
Vol. 50, No. 11, 1 June 2012, 28922909
An integrated fuzzy multi-criteria group decision-making
approach for green supplier evaluation
Gu lc in Bu yu ko zkan
*
Industrial Engineering, Galatasaray University, Istanbul, Turkey
(Received 9 September 2010; final version received 14 February 2011)
Purchasing is one of the most vital functions within a company and supplier performance evaluation is one
of the most important business processes of the purchasing function. Traditionally, companies have
considered factors such as price, quality, flexibility, etc. while evaluating suppliers. However, environmental
pressures urge them to consider green issues. This study proposes a decision model for supplier performance
evaluation by considering various environmental performance criteria. An integrated, fuzzy group decision-
making approach is adopted to evaluate green supplier alternatives. More precisely, a fuzzy analytic hierarchy
process (AHP) is applied to determine the relative weights of the evaluation criteria and an axiomatic design
(AD)-based fuzzy group decision-making approach is applied to rank the green suppliers. Finally, a case study
is given to demonstrate the potential of the methodology.
Keywords: supplier selection; multi-criteria decision making; fuzzy logic; green supplier; fuzzy AHP;
fuzzy AD; group decision making
1. Introduction
Competitive advantages associated with supply chain management philosophy can be achieved by strategic
collaboration with suppliers and service providers. The success of a supply chain is highly dependent on its suppliers
and, thus, the supplier selection problem has been a major research area (Vahdani and Zandieh 2010). In recent
years, an additional strategic dimension of suppliers is taken into account, which is their contribution to sustainable
development, particularly in relation to the environment (Humphreys et al. 2006, Lu et al. 2007, Lee et al. 2009).
Pressure from governments, institutions and consumers has forced many companies to improve their
environmental performance (Sarkis 1998, Pun 2006). Over the last few years, organisations have responded to this
challenge by implementing a number of programmes (Humphreys et al. 2006). First, managers introduced end-of-
pipe initiatives aimed at reducing emissions, waste and energy consumption. At the end of the 1980s, clean
technologies were introduced along, with programmes for reducing the environmental impact of key steps in the
production process. At the beginning of the 1990s, enterprises changed their operating procedures and introduced
eco-auditing frameworks for modifying products and services. Organisations are facing a fourth phase; in which
environmentally conscious firms, mainly large companies, are developing environmental programmes aimed
at organising their supply chains (Gupta 1995, Sarkis 2003). Greater collaboration among the members of a supply
chain might foster the development of improved environmental practices (Vachon and Klassen 2006). For this
reason, many companies have begun to pay more attention to their suppliers environmental performance. This
paper presents an integrated decision framework for evaluating and selecting green suppliers that effectively takes
environmental performances into account.
The supplier selection process mainly involves evaluation of different alternatives of suppliers based on various
criteria. This process is essentially considered a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) problem (Pomerol and
Romero 2000), which is affected by different tangible and intangible criteria including price, quality, performance,
technical capability, delivery, etc. A number of alternative approaches have been proposed to take these criteria into
account, such as mathematical programming models (Amid et al. 2006, Kumar et al. 2006), combined
methodologies (Sevkli et al. 2007, Lin 2009, Wu and Blackhurst 2009), intelligent techniques (Choy et al. 2004,
Isiklar et al. 2007, Che 2010) and fuzzy MCDM methods (Chan et al. 2008, Lee 2009, Sen et al. 2010, Sevkli 2010).
Hence, a considerable number of studies have been developed for supplier evaluation and selection problems
*Email: [email protected]
ISSN 00207543 print/ISSN 1366588X online
2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2011.564668
http://www.tandfonline.com
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
T
a
m
i
l
n
a
d
u

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

U
n
i
v
]

a
t

0
0
:
3
3

1
0

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
3

since 1960. However, there are a limited number of studies that address environmentally-related supplier evaluation
problems.
As a result of its multi-criteria nature, the green supplier evaluation process requires an appropriate multi-
criteria analysis and this paper presents a decision framework based on the integrated analytic hierarchy process
(AHP) (Saaty 1980) and axiomatic design (AD) approach (Suh 1990) in fuzzy environments. One of the most
outstanding MCDM approaches is the AHP (Saaty 1980), which is based on roots in obtaining the relative weights
among the factors and the total values of each alternative based on these weights. In comparison with other MCDM
methods, the AHP method has been widely used in MCDM and has been successfully applied to address many
practical decision-making problems (Saaty and Vargas 2001). In spite of AHP method popularity, this method is
often criticised because of its inability to handle uncertain and imprecise decision-making problems (Cheng 1999,
Chan et al. 2008, Lee 2009). AD principles (Suh 1990), including the information axiom, present also an opportunity
for MCDM analysis. In the conventional AHP and AD methods, experts assessments are represented in the form
of exact numbers. However, in many practical cases, the experts preferences are uncertain and they are reluctant or
unable to make numerical comparisons. For this reason, subjectivity and vagueness in the assessment process
are dealt with using fuzzy logic (Zadeh 1965, 1975). For the green supplier evaluation process, it is logical also to
incorporate group opinions from different management positions. Therefore, group decision making is another
important aspect of this study. Finally, an integrated, fuzzy, group decision-making approach is applied in order
to evaluate green supplier alternatives.
The remaining sections of this paper are organised as follows. In Sections 2 and 3, respectively, the proposed
decision framework and green supplier evaluation criteria are introduced. Section 4 presents details of the utilised
techniques. Section 5 describes an industrial application of green supplier evaluation with the proposed model.
Section 6 provides some concluding remarks and perspectives.
2. Proposed green supplier evaluation model
Great environmental challenges, such as global warming, have demanded greater organisational concern regarding
their environmental management (Boiral 2006, Cruz and Matsypura 2009). However, in order to improve their
relations with the environment, organisations must contribute towards a reduction in environmental impacts from
their supply chains, stimulating improvements in their suppliers environmental performance (Handfield et al. 2002,
Lu et al. 2007, Verghese and Lewis 2007, Kovacs 2008, Jabbour and Jabbour 2009). Therefore, green supplier
evaluation and selection processes are vital in a green supply chain. Although environmentally conscientious
customers demand that a company works with green suppliers, only a limited number of researchers have focused
on the ensuing supplier selection problem in the literature. Among the techniques proposed, we can refer to AHP
(Noci 1997, Handfield et al. 2002), fuzzy AHP (Lu et al. 2007, Lee et al. 2009), fuzzy VIKOR (Bu yu ko zkan and
Feyzioglu 2008), fuzzy TOPSIS (Awasthi et al. 2010), grey entropy (Yuzhong and Liyun 2007), fuzzy goal
programming (Tsai and Hung 2009), case-based reasoning (Humphreys et al. 2003), and some hybrid methodologies
such as the integration of fuzzy ANP and fuzzy PROMETHEE (Tuzkaya et al. 2009), fuzzy AHP and particle
swarm optimisation (Che 2010), and finally the combination of artificial neural networks, data envelopment analysis
and ANP (Kuo et al. 2010).
Evaluating and selecting green suppliers is a type of MCDM problem, which is quite complex and involves both
qualitative and quantitative factors. It needs a tool to help the manager make the multi-criteria decision problem
simple and efficient, and handle the ambiguity of the human decisions at the same time. Therefore, this study
presents an integrated, fuzzy, group decision-making approach to effectively evaluate green supplier alternatives.
Among the available MCDM methods, AHP is used to calculate the criteria weights and AD is used to rank the
alternative green suppliers. There are many weight calculation procedures, but the AHP has some advantages, one
of the most important of which is that it is based on pairwise comparison. It also calculates the inconsistency index,
which is the ratio of the decision maker (DM)s inconsistency. However, sometimes a large number of pairwise
comparisons should be performed by DMs and this situation, especially in fuzzy AHP, makes the usage of the AHP
process impractical. In order to reduce the number of pairwise comparisons and rank the alternatives more
effectively, another MCDM technique, AD, can be used to systematically evaluate the most suitable suppliers as
a result of the definition of the design interval of each evaluation criterion. However, in many problems, the human
assessment is uncertain, and it is relatively difficult for the DM to provide exact numerical values for the criteria.
International Journal of Production Research 2893
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
T
a
m
i
l
n
a
d
u

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

U
n
i
v
]

a
t

0
0
:
3
3

1
0

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
3

Hence, most of the selection parameters cannot be given precisely and the evaluation data of the alternative
suppliers suitability for various subjective criteria are usually expressed in linguistic terms by the DMs.
Furthermore, it is also recognised that human judgement on qualitative attributes is always subjective and, thus,
imprecise. In order to model this kind of uncertainty in human preference, fuzzy logic could be a more natural
approach (Zadeh 1965). To cope with this problem, the fuzzy AHP and fuzzy AD methods are used to ensure more
accurate decision making. Multiple DMs are often preferred to a single DM to avoid bias and to minimise partiality
in the decision process (Herrera et al. 2001). Therefore, group decision making is another important concern in this
study. Finally, a combined fuzzy, group decision-making approach is applied in order to evaluate and rank green
supplier alternatives.
Figure 1 describes the proposed evaluation methodology. The first step in the methodology is determining
evaluation criteria and sub-criteria for performance evaluation of green suppliers. These criteria and sub-criteria
undergo pairwise comparison by a group of DMs. Supplier alternatives are identified and evaluated by the group
of DMs with respect to sub-criteria for a detailed appraisal. According to judgements on FRs and alternatives,
the group of DMs determines two ranges in linguistic terms: design range, i.e. the range of FRs, and system range,
i.e. alternatives performances. Ranges are translated into fuzzy numbers and are then aggregated. Information
contents for each alternative according to each sub-criterion are calculated and hierarchical fuzzy AD is applied
in order to determine weighted information content. The last step of the fuzzy AD methodology is ranking the
alternatives and selecting the best supplier according to a decreasing order of information content. Finally, another
MCDM technique, namely TOPSIS (technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution), is applied to
compare the outcome of the proposed methodology. As the study includes incomplete information with subjective
judgements, TOPSIS is also employed in fuzzy environments to assure coherence.
3. Green supplier evaluation criteria
Historically, several methodologies have been developed for evaluating, selecting and monitoring potential suppliers
(Weber et al. 1991, Boer et al. 2001) that take into account factors such as quality, logistics and cost. However, none
of these methodologies has considered the importance of environmental factors in the decision-making process.
In recent years, a number of researchers have begun to identify some relevant criteria. Sarkis (1998) groups
together environmental criteria such as design for the environment, life cycle analysis, total quality environmental
Computation of the weighted
decision matrix
Comparison of the outcome
Calculation of distances and
closeness coefficient
Normalisation
Fuzzy TOPSIS
C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
Fuzzy AHP
Determining main criteria and sub-criteria
for green supplier selection
Computation of common are and
information contents
Fuzzification and aggregation of DMs
judgments
Identification of green supplier alternatives
DMs evaluations of green supplier
alternatives and FRs with sub-criteria
Establishing main criteria and sub-criteria
weights
Ranking of the alternatives and selection of
the most appropriate green supplier
Fuzzy
Axiomatic
Design
with
group
decision
Figure 1. A general view of the proposed evaluation methodology.
2894 G. Buyukozkan
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
T
a
m
i
l
n
a
d
u

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

U
n
i
v
]

a
t

0
0
:
3
3

1
0

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
3

management, green supply chain and ISO 14000 environmental management system requirements, but uses them
only to evaluate existing internal company operations environmental performance. Focused on supplier selection,
Noci (1997) identifies four environmental categories: green competencies, current environmental efficiency,
suppliers green image and net life cycle cost. Enarsson (1998) proposes using a fishbone diagram-based instrument,
similar to those used in quality assessment, within companies for the evaluation of suppliers from an environmental
viewpoint. Four main factors have been identified: the supplier as a company, the suppliers processes, the product
itself and transportation. Rao and Holt (2005) propose that more environmentally-friendly transportation, cleaner
production and technologies, environmentally-friendly raw materials, the provision of information to consumers
on environmentally-friendly products and/or production methods, the taking back of packaging and recycling
of materials internal to the company are important green issues.
By consolidating several studies, Humphreys et al. (2006) propose seven environmental categories. The
environmental costs (pollutant effects) and environmental costs (improvement) categories are grouped together
under quantitative environmental criteria. The other five categories management competencies, green image,
design for environment, environmental management systems and environmental competencies are in a separate
group, entitled qualitative environmental criteria. Kongar (2005) introduces environmental consciousness
indicators such as recyclability of goods, decreased amount of hazardous substances and compatibility with
health and safety regulations into the supplier evaluation process. In another survey, Lu et al. (2007) consider the
environmental criteria materials, energy use, solid residue, liquid residue and gaseous residue for the supplier
selection process. Recently, Kuo et al. (2010) determined six green supplier selection dimensions, including quality,
cost, delivery, service, environment and corporate social responsibility; while Awasthi et al. (2010) define usage
of environmentally-friendly technology, environmentally-friendly materials, green market share, partnership with
green organisations, management commitment to green practices, adherence to environmental policies, involvement
in green projects, staff training, lean process planning, design for environment, environmental certification, and
pollution control initiatives as green supplier evaluation criteria.
Among all these studies, however, most of them only focused on an environmental viewpoint and did not
consider other important non-environmental factors. In a comprehensive green supplier selection model, all
conventional factors, on top of environmental issues, need to be incorporated together to find the most suitable
supplier that performs well in all important respects.
Based on a detailed literature survey and the contribution of industrial experts who actually work in the
environmental- and purchasing management-related departments of different companies in Turkey, the most
important factors for evaluating green suppliers can be structured into the four main criteria of product cost,
product quality, service performance and environmental performance. The structure of the evaluation model
containing main and sub-criteria is shown in Figure 2. All criteria explanations and main references are summarised
in Table 1.
GREEN SUPPLIER EVALUATION
Product
quality
Product
cost
Service
performance
Environmental
performance
Rejection
rate
Delivery
performance
Freight
cost
Product
price
Tariff & custom
duties
Lead Time
increase
Quality
assessment
Remedy for
quality problems
Technological &
RD Support
Responsiveness
Ease of
communication
Supplier
reputation
envir. mngmt
competencies
existing envir.
mngnt systems
design for
environment
production for
environment
logistics for
environment
environmental
costs
Figure 2. Green supplier evaluation model.
International Journal of Production Research 2895
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
T
a
m
i
l
n
a
d
u

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

U
n
i
v
]

a
t

0
0
:
3
3

1
0

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
3

T
a
b
l
e
1
.
G
r
e
e
n
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
m
a
i
n
a
n
d
s
u
b
-
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
.
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
E
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
M
a
i
n
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
c
o
s
t
(
C
1
)
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
p
r
i
c
e
(
C
1
1
)
A
f
i
r
m
a
l
w
a
y
s
d
e
s
i
r
e
s
t
o
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
c
o
v
e
r
i
t
s
a
c
t
u
a
l
c
o
s
t
s
,
b
u
t
a
l
s
o
t
o
e
a
r
n
a
n
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
p
r
o
f
i
t
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
c
o
s
t
,
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
c
o
s
t
,
w
a
r
r
a
n
t
y
c
o
s
t
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
c
o
s
t
s
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
m
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
t
h
e
t
o
t
a
l
p
r
i
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
.
G
l
a
d
w
i
n
e
t
a
l
.
(
1
9
9
5
)
,
S
t
a
v
r
o
p
o
l
o
u
s
(
2
0
0
0
)
,
M
a
t
o
s
a
n
d
H
a
l
l
(
2
0
0
7
)
,
L
e
e
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
9
)
,
M
i
n
g
-
L
a
n
g
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
9
)
,
W
u
(
2
0
0
9
)
,
Z
h
a
n
g
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
9
)
,
A
w
a
s
t
h
i
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
1
0
)
,
K
u
o
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
1
0
)
F
r
e
i
g
h
t
c
o
s
t
(
C
1
2
)
T
h
i
s
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
s
t
h
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
y
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
c
h
a
n
n
e
l
c
o
s
t
,
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
e
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
,
i
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
c
o
s
t
,
h
a
n
d
l
i
n
g
a
n
d
p
a
c
k
a
g
i
n
g
c
o
s
t
,
d
a
m
a
g
e
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
i
n
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
c
o
s
t
.
M
o
t
w
a
n
i
e
t
a
l
.
(
1
9
9
9
)
,
L
e
e
(
2
0
0
9
)
,
K
u
o
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
1
0
)
T
a
r
i
f
f
a
n
d
c
u
s
t
o
m
d
u
t
i
e
s
(
C
1
3
)
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
h
a
v
e
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
n
o
r
m
s
o
f
i
m
p
o
s
i
n
g
t
a
r
i
f
f
a
n
d
c
u
s
t
o
m
d
u
t
i
e
s
o
n
t
h
e
g
o
o
d
s
a
n
d
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
d
.
P
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
g
i
v
e
n
t
o
t
h
e
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
c
o
u
n
t
r
y
h
a
v
i
n
g
f
e
w
e
r
d
u
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
t
a
x
e
s
.
M
i
n
(
1
9
9
4
)
,
H
u
a
n
g
a
n
d
K
e
s
k
a
r
(
2
0
0
7
)
,
C
h
a
n
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
8
)
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
(
C
2
)
R
e
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
r
a
t
e
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
(
C
2
1
)
T
h
i
s
i
s
d
e
f
i
n
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
m
s
o
f
t
h
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
p
a
r
t
s
r
e
j
e
c
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
o
f
s
o
m
e
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
a
n
d
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
t
h
e
d
e
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
p
a
r
t
s
d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d
i
n
i
n
-
h
o
u
s
e
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
a
n
d
t
h
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
l
i
n
e
.
L
i
a
o
a
n
d
R
i
t
t
s
c
h
e
r
(
2
0
0
7
)
,
M
a
t
o
s
a
n
d
H
a
l
l
(
2
0
0
7
)
,
C
a
r
r
e
r
a
a
n
d
M
a
y
o
r
g
a
(
2
0
0
8
)
,
K
u
o
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
1
0
)
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
l
e
a
d
t
i
m
e
(
C
2
2
)
D
e
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
p
a
r
t
s
,
w
h
i
c
h
a
r
e
n
o
t
d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
b
u
t
n
o
t
i
c
e
d
a
f
t
e
r
w
a
r
d
s
,
c
a
n
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
l
e
a
d
t
i
m
e
s
.
Z
a
i
m
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
3
)
,
L
e
e
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
9
)
,
K
u
o
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
1
0
)
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
(
C
2
3
)
T
h
i
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
i
s
s
u
e
s
s
u
c
h
a
s
w
h
e
t
h
e
r
o
r
n
o
t
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
t
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
o
f
p
a
r
t
s
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
c
a
r
r
i
e
d
o
u
t
b
y
t
h
e
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
.
A
r
e
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
s
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
e
d
f
o
r
s
t
r
i
c
t
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
a
s
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
d
o
t
h
e
y
h
a
v
e
a
s
t
r
o
n
g
c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
t
o
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
n
g
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
f
a
i
l
u
r
e
s
?
H
s
u
a
n
d
H
u
(
2
0
0
9
)
,
L
e
e
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
9
)
,
M
i
n
g
-
L
a
n
g
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
9
)
,
W
u
(
2
0
0
9
)
,
K
u
o
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
1
0
)
R
e
m
e
d
y
f
o
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
(
C
2
4
)
T
h
i
s
a
t
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
h
e
l
p
s
i
n
i
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
r

s
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
t
o
s
o
l
v
e
t
h
e
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
m
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e
r
.
T
h
e
c
a
p
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
i
n
h
a
n
d
l
i
n
g
a
b
n
o
r
m
a
l
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
i
s
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
.
L
e
e
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
1
)
,
Z
a
i
m
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
3
)
,
C
h
a
n
a
n
d
K
u
m
a
r
(
2
0
0
7
)
,
L
e
e
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
9
)
,
K
u
o
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
1
0
)
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
(
C
3
)
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
(
C
3
1
)
T
h
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
t
o
f
o
l
l
o
w
t
h
e
p
r
e
d
e
f
i
n
e
d
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
i
s
a
l
w
a
y
s
a
n
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
s
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
o
n
.
T
h
e
m
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e
r
s
h
o
u
l
d
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
s
u
p
p
l
y
c
h
a
i
n
n
e
t
w
o
r
k
o
n
t
i
m
e
a
n
d
h
a
v
e
t
h
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
t
o
f
o
l
l
o
w
t
h
e
e
x
a
c
t
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
a
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
d
e
m
a
n
d
.
W
e
b
e
r
e
t
a
l
.
(
1
9
9
1
)
,
C
h
a
n
a
n
d
K
u
m
a
r
(
2
0
0
7
)
,
S
e
v
k
l
i
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
7
)
,
C
h
a
n
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
8
)
,
L
e
e
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
9
)
,
W
u
(
2
0
0
9
)
,
Z
a
n
g
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
9
)
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
a
n
d
R
&
D
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
(
C
3
2
)
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
i
s
a
d
v
a
n
c
i
n
g
v
e
r
y
f
a
s
t
a
n
d
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
s
a
r
e
m
o
r
e
l
i
k
e
l
y
t
o
a
s
s
u
m
e
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
f
o
r
o
u
t
s
o
u
r
c
e
d
d
e
s
i
g
n
,
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
,
p
r
o
t
o
t
y
p
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
t
h
e
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
.
S
e
v
k
l
i
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
7
)
,
H
s
u
a
n
d
H
u
(
2
0
0
9
)
,
L
e
e
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
9
)
,
A
w
a
s
t
h
i
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
1
0
)
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
(
C
3
3
)
T
h
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
t
o
c
h
a
n
g
e
a
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r

s
d
e
m
a
n
d
,
p
r
i
c
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
,
o
r
d
e
r
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
a
n
d
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
s
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
h
a
s
a
n
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
.
A
m
o
r
e
f
l
e
x
i
b
l
e
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
i
n
t
e
r
m
s
o
f
d
e
m
a
n
d
c
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
c
h
o
s
e
n
f
o
r
b
e
t
t
e
r
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
i
n
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
.
C
h
a
n
a
n
d
K
u
m
a
r
(
2
0
0
7
)
,
C
h
a
n
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
8
)
,
L
e
e
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
9
)
,
M
i
n
g
-
L
a
n
g
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
9
)
,
K
u
o
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
1
0
)
E
a
s
e
o
f
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
(
C
3
4
)
T
h
e
e
a
s
e
o
f
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
n
e
g
o
t
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
s
t
h
e
l
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
a
n
d
m
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e
r
.
A
m
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
-
i
n
g
f
i
r
m
s
h
o
u
l
d
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
s
s
u
c
h
a
s
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
i
t
y
,
e
t
h
i
c
a
l
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
d
a
t
a
i
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
c
a
p
a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
i
n
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
W
e
b
e
r
e
t
a
l
.
(
1
9
9
1
)
,
M
i
n
(
1
9
9
4
)
,
C
h
a
n
a
n
d
K
u
m
a
r
(
2
0
0
7
)
,
S
e
v
k
l
i
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
7
)
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
r
e
p
u
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
C
3
5
)
2896 G. Buyukozkan
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
T
a
m
i
l
n
a
d
u

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

U
n
i
v
]

a
t

0
0
:
3
3

1
0

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
3

T
h
e
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
o
f
t
h
e
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
a
n
a
l
y
s
e
d
c
a
r
e
f
u
l
l
y
b
y
t
a
k
i
n
g
i
n
t
o
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
t
s
p
a
s
t
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
,
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
t
o
m
a
r
k
e
t
,
a
n
d
i
t
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
t
o
c
r
e
a
t
e
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
s
u
p
p
l
y
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
.
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
s
w
i
t
h
a
g
o
o
d
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
b
a
s
e
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
p
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
.
W
e
b
e
r
e
t
a
l
.
(
1
9
9
1
)
,
C
h
a
n
a
n
d
K
u
m
a
r
(
2
0
0
7
)
,
S
e
v
k
l
i
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
7
)
,
L
i
n
a
n
d
C
h
a
n
g
(
2
0
0
8
)
,
W
u
(
2
0
0
9
)
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
(
C
4
)
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
c
o
m
p
e
t
e
n
c
i
e
s
(
C
4
1
)
T
h
i
s
i
s
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
r

s
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
t
o
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
l
y
r
e
d
u
c
e
p
o
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
t
o
d
e
s
i
g
n
c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
t
h
a
t
h
a
v
e
a
l
o
w
i
m
p
a
c
t
o
n
t
h
e
s
t
a
t
e
o
f
n
a
t
u
r
a
l
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
a
n
d
a
r
e
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
a
n
y

s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
T
h
e
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
o
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
o
u
l
d
o
f
f
e
r
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
c
o
m
p
e
t
e
n
-
c
i
e
s
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
s
o
u
n
d
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
i
m
a
g
e
.
N
o
c
i
(
1
9
9
7
)
,
H
u
m
p
h
r
e
y
s
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
6
)
,
M
a
t
o
s
a
n
d
H
a
l
l
(
2
0
0
7
)
,
L
e
e
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
9
)
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
m
a
n
-
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
(
C
4
2
)
T
h
i
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
c
h
e
c
k
i
n
g
a
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
r

s
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
p
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
,
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
-
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
I
S
O
1
4
0
0
1
.
T
h
i
s
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
s
o
n
e
o
f
t
h
e
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
f
o
r
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
s
t
o
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
t
h
e
i
r
s
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
.
N
o
c
i
(
1
9
9
7
)
,
H
u
m
p
h
r
e
y
s
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
6
)
,
M
a
t
o
s
a
n
d
H
a
l
l
(
2
0
0
7
)
,
H
s
u
a
n
d
H
u
(
2
0
0
9
)
,
L
e
e
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
9
)
,
K
u
o
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
1
0
)
D
e
s
i
g
n
f
o
r
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
(
C
4
3
)
T
h
i
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
c
h
e
c
k
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
r

s
d
e
s
i
g
n
f
o
r
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
c
a
p
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
(
e
.
g
.
d
e
s
i
g
n
f
o
r
d
i
s
a
s
s
e
m
b
l
y
)
s
o
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
b
e
c
o
m
e
s
m
o
r
e
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
l
y
-
f
r
i
e
n
d
l
y
.
T
h
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
d
e
s
i
g
n
i
n
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
t
h
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
o
n
n
a
t
u
r
e
i
s
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
.
N
o
c
i
(
1
9
9
7
)
,
H
a
n
d
f
i
e
l
d
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
2
)
,
R
a
o
a
n
d
H
o
l
t
(
2
0
0
5
)
,
Z
u
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
5
)
,
H
u
m
p
h
r
e
y
s
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
6
)
,
M
a
t
o
s
a
n
d
H
a
l
l
(
2
0
0
7
)
,
L
i
n
a
n
d
C
h
a
n
g
(
2
0
0
8
)
,
H
s
u
a
n
d
H
u
(
2
0
0
9
)
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
(
C
4
4
)
T
h
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
s
t
h
e
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
r

s
m
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
a
r
e
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
f
r
o
m
a
n
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
p
e
r
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
:
t
y
p
e
s
o
f
e
n
e
r
g
y
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
u
s
e
d
,
l
o
w
e
n
e
r
g
y
c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
b
y
t
a
k
i
n
g
e
n
e
r
g
y
-
s
a
v
i
n
g
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
,
l
e
v
e
l
a
t
w
h
i
c
h
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
r
e
l
e
a
s
e
s
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
h
a
r
m
f
u
l
t
o
t
h
e
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
,
t
h
e
e
x
t
e
n
t
t
o
w
h
i
c
h
a
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
i
s
w
o
r
k
i
n
g
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
t
h
e
i
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
s
,
a
n
d
e
x
t
e
n
t
t
o
w
h
i
c
h
t
h
e
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
i
s
u
s
i
n
g
d
a
n
g
e
r
o
u
s
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
i
n
i
t
s
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
N
o
c
i
(
1
9
9
7
)
,
S
a
r
k
i
s
(
2
0
0
3
)
,
R
a
o
a
n
d
H
o
l
t
(
2
0
0
5
)
L
o
g
i
s
t
i
c
s
f
o
r
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
(
C
4
5
)
L
o
g
i
s
t
i
c
s
i
s
a
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
t
o
t
a
l
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
l
i
f
e
c
y
c
l
e
a
n
d
t
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
t
h
e
d
e
g
r
e
e
t
o
w
h
i
c
h
t
h
e
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
h
a
s
t
a
k
e
n
s
t
e
p
s
t
o
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
a
n
d
u
s
e
m
o
r
e
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
-
t
a
l
l
y
-
f
r
i
e
n
d
l
y
l
o
g
i
s
t
i
c
s
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
i
s
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
.
F
a
c
t
o
r
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
:
r
e
t
u
r
n
l
o
a
d
s
,
c
h
o
i
c
e
o
f
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
m
o
d
e
,
l
o
a
d
o
p
t
i
m
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
t
h
e
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
r

s
g
e
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
a
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
W
e
b
e
r
(
1
9
9
1
)
,
R
a
o
a
n
d
H
o
l
t
(
2
0
0
5
)
,
W
a
l
t
o
n
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
6
)
,
C
h
a
n
a
n
d
K
u
m
a
r
(
2
0
0
7
)
,
S
e
v
k
l
i
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
7
)
,
L
e
e
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
9
)
,
W
u
(
2
0
0
9
)
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
c
o
s
t
s
(
C
4
6
)
C
o
s
t
s
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
p
o
l
l
u
t
a
n
t
s
s
u
c
h
a
s
c
o
s
t
s
f
o
r
s
o
l
i
d
w
a
s
t
e
d
i
s
p
o
s
a
l
a
n
d
c
o
s
t
s
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
u
p
p
l
i
e
r

s
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
s
u
c
h
a
s
t
h
e
c
o
s
t
f
o
r
b
u
y
i
n
g
n
e
w
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
t
h
a
t
w
i
l
l
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
f
e
w
e
r
p
o
l
l
u
t
a
n
t
s
.
N
o
c
i
(
1
9
9
7
)
,
H
u
m
p
h
r
e
y
s
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
6
)
,
L
e
e
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
9
)
,
T
u
z
k
a
y
a
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
0
9
)
,
K
u
o
e
t
a
l
.
(
2
0
1
0
)
International Journal of Production Research 2897
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
T
a
m
i
l
n
a
d
u

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

U
n
i
v
]

a
t

0
0
:
3
3

1
0

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
3

4. Techniques of the proposed evaluation model
4.1 Fuzzy AHP approach
The AHP (Saaty 1980) is a quantitative technique that facilitates structuring a complex multi-attribute problem,
and provides an objective methodology for choosing the most appropriate from among a set of solution strategies
for solving that problem. But, on the other hand, the AHP is inadequate and defective in handling the ambiguity of
the concepts that are associated with human beings subjective judgements. The fuzzy AHP method, which combines
AHP and fuzzy logic, allows a more accurate description of the decision-making process. For this reason, some
researchers specifically use the fuzzy extension of AHP for supplier evaluation. As a matter of fact, in the literature,
green supplier evaluation studies can be found that utilise a fuzzy AHP approach. Lu et al. (2007) constructed
a multi-objective decision-making process for green supply chain management to help managers in measuring and
evaluating suppliers performance using a fuzzy AHP method. Recently, Lee et al. (2009) also proposed a green
supplier selection model for high-tech industry using fuzzy AHP methodology; while Che (2010) used a fuzzy AHP
technique to calculate the weight of each green supplier evaluation criterion.
Fuzzy set theory is a mathematical theory pioneered by Zadeh (1965), which is designed to model the vagueness
or imprecision of human cognitive processes. The key idea of fuzzy set theory is that an element has a degree
of membership in a fuzzy set (Zimmermann 1985). It has the advantage of mathematically representing uncertainty
and ambiguity and providing formalised tools for dealing with the imprecision intrinsic to many problems. In the
following, some essential definitions of fuzzy logic are briefly reviewed.
A fuzzy number is a special fuzzy set F{(x,
F
(x)), x2R}, where x takes values on the real line, R:
15x 51 and
F
(x) is a continuous mapping from R to the closed interval [0, 1]. A triangular fuzzy number
(TFN) denoted as
~
M(l, m, u), where l mu and its triangular-type membership function can be defined as:
Fx
0, x 0 l or x 1 u
x l
ml
, l x m
u x
u m
, m x u
_

_
_

_
where l mu, l and u stand for the lower and upper value of the support of
~
M, respectively, and m is the mid-value
of
~
M. The main operational laws for two TFNs
~
M
1
(l
1
, m
1
, u
1
) and
~
M
2
(l
2
, m
2
, u
2
) are as follows:
~
M
1

~
M
2
(l
1
l
2
, m
1
m
2
, u
1
u
2
),
~
M
1

~
M
2
(l
1
l
2
, m
1
m
2
, u
1
u
2
) and
~
M
2
(l
2
, m
2
, u
2
).
The main steps of the applied fuzzy AHP methodology are given as follows.
Step 1: After setting the decision goal, construct a committee of experts with E members and determine the
alternatives and sets of criteria for evaluation.
Step 2: Design the fuzzy linguistic scale and develop the criteria evaluation. In this step, determination of relative
importance among the attributes using experts opinion through paired comparison analysis is needed.
Step 3: Construct the fuzzy comparison matrices. TFNs are used to indicate the relative strength of each pair
of elements and the preferences of the DM in the same hierarchy. By using TFNs, via pairwise comparison, the
fuzzy judgement matrix
~
A is constructed as below:
~
A
~ a
11
~ a
12
. . . ~ a
1n
~ a
21
~ a
22
. . . ~ a
2n
: :
: :
: :
~ a
n1
~ a
n2
. . . ~ a
nn
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

_
where ~ a
ij
(a
l
ij
, a
m
ij
, a
u
ij
) indicates the importance among the compared criteria (importance of i over j), where
i j 1, 2, . . . , n.
Step 4: Aggregate the group decision. As group members play different roles in an organisation, the relative
importance of DMs may not be equal in the decision group (Zhang and Lu 2003); some can be more important
2898 G. Buyukozkan
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
T
a
m
i
l
n
a
d
u

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

U
n
i
v
]

a
t

0
0
:
3
3

1
0

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
3

than others. Therefore, the relative importance weighting of each DM should be considered. The normalised weight
v
k
of an expert E
k
(k 1, . . . , p) is denoted as v

k
v
k
=

n
i
1v
i
.
Considering the weights of all DMs in the group, a weighted normalised fuzzy decision matrix A can be
constructed,
~ a
11
~ a
12
. . . ~ a
1n
~ a
21
~ a
22
. . . ~ a
2n
: :
: :
: :
~ a
n1
~ a
n2
. . . ~ a
nn
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

p
i1
v

k
~ a
k
11
~ a
k
12
. . . ~ a
k
1n
~ a
k
21
~ a
k
22
. . . ~ a
k
2n
: :
: :
: :
~ a
k
n1
~ a
k
n2
. . . ~ a
k
nn
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

_
Step 5: Estimate triangular fuzzy priorities ~ w
i
where i 1, 2, . . . , n from the judgement matrix. The logarithmic
least-squares method can be used for calculating these weights (Tuzkaya et al. 2009); ~ w
k
(w
l
k
, w
m
k
, w
u
m
)
k 1, 2, . . . , n where
w
s
k

n
i1
a
s
kj
_ _
1=n

n
i1

n
i1
a
m
ij
_ _
1=n
, s 2 fl, m, ug
for 0 51 and all I, j, where I 1, 2, . . . , n, j 1, 2, . . . , n.
In order to control the results of the method, the consistency ratio (CR) for each of the matrices and the overall
inconsistency for the hierarchy are calculated. The CR is used to directly estimate the consistency of the pairwise
comparisons and should be less than 0.10. Then, it can be said that the comparisons are acceptable if they are above
0.10, they are not acceptable. In this study, the inconsistency ratios for all the comparison matrices were calculated
for the mean values of the fuzzy numbers. Because the lower and upper values provide flexibility for human
judgements, they are not expected to have rigid consistency.
Step 6: Defuzzify the weights obtained from fuzzy matrices. In this step, defuzzification of the weights is done by
using
F
~
t
ij
_ _
1=2
_
1
0
inf
x2<
~
t

ij
sup
x2<
~
t

ij
_ _
d
Step 7: Evaluate the alternatives. The priority weight of each alternative can be obtained by multiplying the matrix
of evaluation ratings by the vector of attribute weights and summing over all attributes.
4.2 Fuzzy AD approach
AD, a systematic method offering a scientific base for design, was introduced by Suh (1990) and its application areas
include product, software, quality system, general system, manufacturing system, ergonomics and engineering
system designs (Suh 2001, Kulak et al. 2010). AD is based on two axioms: the independence axiom states that the
independence of functional requirements (FRs) should be maintained; and the information axiom states that,
among the designs that satisfy the FRs, the design with the minimum information content is the best design.
Information content, on which the MCDM technique is based, represents a probability function for satisfying an
FR. Therefore, the design with the highest probability of meeting these requirements is the best design. Information
content I
i
of a design with probability of success p
i
for a given FR
i
is defined as I
i
log
2
1
p
i
_ _
. According to
Suh (2001), logarithm is employed to calculate information contents in order to obtain additivity. On the other
hand, the probability of success is given by the design range (the requirements for the design) and the system
range (the system capacity). Figure 3 illustrates the design and system ranges as well as the common area.
The intersection of the ranges offers the feasible solution. Therefore, the probability of success can be expressed
as p
i

_
u
l
pFR
i
dFR
i
, where l and u represent the lower and upper limits of the design range, and where p represents
the probability distribution function of the system for a given FR
i
.
International Journal of Production Research 2899
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
T
a
m
i
l
n
a
d
u

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

U
n
i
v
]

a
t

0
0
:
3
3

1
0

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
3

The probability of success p
i
is equal to the common area A
c
. Consequently, the information content can be
expressed as I
i
log
2

1
A
c
. Also, if the probability distribution function is uniform, the probability of success
becomes p
i

common range
system range
. Therefore, the information content can also be written as I
i
log
2
system range
common range
_ _
. However,
conventional information content approach cannot be used with incomplete information, since the expression
of system and design ranges by crisp numbers would be ill-defined. For this reason, the information axiom of AD is
utilised as a fuzzy MCDM technique by Kahraman and Kulak (2005). While there are many applications of AD
methodology in the literature, there are relatively few studies on FAD applications for MCDM (Kulak et al. 2010).
Initially, Kulak and Kahraman (2005a, 2005b) applied the FAD approach to the comparison of advanced
manufacturing systems and multi-attribute transportation company selection under determined criteria, respec-
tively. Recently, Celik et al. (2009b) employed the method for shipyard selection, and Cebi and Kahraman (2010)
used it for the optimal selection of location for emergency service.
Fuzzy AD methodology is based on conventional AD. However, crisp ranges are replaced by fuzzy numbers
that represent linguistic terms, as seen in Figure 4. In this study, TFNs are employed. Information content is
calculated as in a non-fuzzy environment. Intersection of TFNs representing design and system ranges presents the
common area (Kulak and Kahraman 2005a). Information content in a fuzzy environment is calculated as follows:
I
i

1, no intersection
log
2
Area of system range
Common area
_ _
, otherwise
_
_
_
In this study, weighted information content calculation is adapted from Kahraman and Cebi (2009). This model
requires determination of weights of criteria and sub-criteria. Total weighted information content for first-level
criteria is calculated as I

n
i1
w
i
I
i
, where n is the number of the first-level criteria and

n
i1
w
i
1.
Figure 3. Systemdesign ranges and common area.
Figure 4. Systemdesign ranges and common area in fuzzy environment.
2900 G. Buyukozkan
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
T
a
m
i
l
n
a
d
u

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

U
n
i
v
]

a
t

0
0
:
3
3

1
0

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
3

Likewise, information content for second-level criteria (sub-criteria for criterion i) is calculated as I
i

m
j1
w
ij
I
ij
,
where m is the number of sub-criteria for criterion i and

m
j1
w
ij
1 for i 1, . . . , n. The lower-level information
contents are calculated similarly. According to the information axiom, alternatives are ranked with increasing order
of information content.
4.3 Aggregation methodology
In this study, the fuzzy group decision-making method presented by Chen (1998) is employed in order to aggregate
fuzzy opinions of the DMs. This method is recently employed by Celik et al. (2009b). The steps of the method are as
follows.
Step 1: Calculate the degree of agreement S
u,v
W
u
, W
v
of the opinions between each pair of experts E
u
and E
v
where S
u,v
W
u
, W
v
2 0, 1 ; 1 u M, 1 v M and u 6 v. Let A and B be two standardised TFN
A a
1
, a
2
, a
3
, B b
1
, b
2
, b
3
, where 0 a
1
a
2
a
3
1 and 0 b
1
b
2
b
3
1. Then the degree of similarity
between the standardised TFNs A and B can be measured by the similarity function
SA, B 1
a
1
b
1
j j a
2
b
2
j j a
3
b
3
j j
4
,
where SA, B 2 0, 1. The larger the value of SA, B, the greater is the similarity between the standardised TFNs
A and B. The following equation is valid for the degree of similarity: SA, B SB, A.
Step 2: Calculate the average degree of agreement AA(E
u
) of expert E
u
, u 1, 2, . . . , M, where
AAE
u

1
M1

M
v1
v6u
SW
u
, W
v

Step 3: Calculate the relative degree of agreement RA(E

u
) of expert E
u
, u 1, 2, . . . , M, where
RAE
u

AAE
u

M
u1
AAE
u

.
Step 4: Calculate the consensus degree coefficient CC(E
u
) of expert E
u
, u 1, 2, . . . , M, where
CCE
u
w
eu
1 RAE
u
. 0 1 is a relaxation factor of the method and w
eu
is degree of
importance of expert. It shows the importance of w
eu
over RA(E
u
).
Step 5: The aggregation result of the fuzzy opinions is W
AG
CCE
1
R
1
CCE
2
R
2
CCE
M
R
M
,
where operators and are the fuzzy multiplication operator and the fuzzy addition operator, respectively.
The method is independent of the type of membership functions being used (Chen 1998, Celik et al. 2009b).
4.4 Fuzzy TOPSIS technique
In our methodology, another MCDM method, fuzzy TOPSIS, is applied in order to compare the FAD outcomes.
The basic principle of TOPSIS (Chen and Hwang 1992) is that the optimal solution should have the shortest
distance from the positive ideal solution and the farthest from the negative ideal solution. Fuzzy TOPSIS is applied
in this study because of its basic concept and wide applications, such as those described by Shih (2008) and Chen
and Hung (2010). Moreover, TOPSIS is based on geometrical principles, similar to AD, which also operates on
a geometrical level. The fuzzy TOPSIS methodology is adapted from Chen (2000) and its steps are as follows.
Step 1: With m alternatives, n criteria and k DMs, a fuzzy MCDM problem can be expressed as:
D $
A
1
A
2
A
3
A
4
~ x
11
~ x
12
. . . ~ x
1n
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~ x
m1
~ x
m2
. . . ~ x
mn
_
_
_
_
_
_

_
C
1
C
2
C
n
~
D represents the fuzzy decision matrix with alternatives A and criteria C.
International Journal of Production Research 2901
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
T
a
m
i
l
n
a
d
u

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

U
n
i
v
]

a
t

0
0
:
3
3

1
0

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
3

Step 2: Aggregated judgements ~ x
ij
are calculated as
~ x
ij

1
k
~ x
1
ij
~ x
2
ij
~ x
k
ij
where ~ x
k
ij
~ a
k
ij
,
~
b
k
ij
, ~ c
k
ij

~ x
k
ij
represents fuzzy judgement of expert k.
Step 3: The next step is the normalisation. Normalised fuzzy decision matrix
~
R is calculated as
~
R ~ r
ij
_ _
mn
, i 1, 2, . . . , m; j 1, 2, . . . , n
~ r
ij

a
ij
C

j
,
b
ij
C

j
,
c
ij
C

j
_ _
C

j
max
i
C
ij
To avoid the complicated normalisation formula used in classical TOPSIS, the linear scale transformation
is used to transform the various criteria scales into a comparable scale (Chen 2000). Linear scale transformation
for normalisation is also employed by Kuo et al. (2007) and Celik et al. (2009a).
Step 4: Next, a weighted normalised fuzzy decision matrix is computed, where w
j
is the weight for criteria j:
~ v
ij
~ r
ij
~ w
j
where ~ v ~ v
ij
_ _
mn
, i 1, 2, . . . , m; j 1, 2, . . . , n
Step 5: Since the TFNs are included in the [0,1] range, positive and negative ideal reference points (FPIRP,
FNIRP) are as follows:
A

~ v

1
, ~ v

2
, . . . , ~ v

n
_ _
, A

~ v

1
, ~ v

2
, . . . , ~ v

n
_ _
where ~ v

j
1, 1, 1, ~ v

j
0, 0, 0
Step 6: The next step is calculating the distance of alternatives from FPIRP and FNIRP:
d

n
j1
d ~ v
ij
, ~ v

j
, i 1, 2, . . . , m; j 1, 2, . . . , n, d

n
j1
d ~ v
ij
, ~ v

j
, i 1, 2, . . . , m; j 1, 2, . . . , n
d
~
A,
~
B

1
3
a
1
b
1

2
a
2
b
2

2
a
3
b
3

2
_ _
_
Step 7: The performance indices are computed in order to rank the alternatives. Performance indices are sorted in
decreasing order:
PI
i

i
d

i
d

i
, i 1, 2, . . . , m
5. Case study
The automotive industry is vitally important to the Turkish economy. The international companies that
manufacture in Turkey attach great importance to environmental issues. Correspondingly, Turkish companies
manufacture not only for Turkey but also for a worldwide market. As a result, Turkish companies must now take
into account environmental standards, laws and regulations, particularly those of the European Union. The
automotive industry is characterised by a high degree of value added by suppliers in manufacturing as well as in the
engineering of automotive components, which strongly suggests the implementation of collaborative approaches
(Lockstrom et al. 2010). From now on, environmental performance of suppliers is a very important concern.
Turkish automotive companies are also pioneers in green supply chain management and green supplier issues in
Turkish industries. A case study is thus conducted in XYZ Company (the name of the company is not supplied for
reasons of confidentiality), a main producer in the Turkish automotive industry, in order to examine the proposed
green supplier evaluation model.
2902 G. Buyukozkan
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
T
a
m
i
l
n
a
d
u

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

U
n
i
v
]

a
t

0
0
:
3
3

1
0

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
3

Three XYZ managers are the experts, so DMs, of our study. DM1 is a purchasing manager, DM2 is an
environment and quality systems manager and DM3 is the executive vice president responsible for production.
XYZ Companys green supplier evaluation process is performed as follows:
. Determination of evaluation criteria and their weights. The green supplier evaluation criteria have been
discussed previously. The DMs in our case company confirm the identified evaluation criteria. In terms
of importance, pairwise comparisons of all the main and sub-criteria using the linguistic terms provided
in Table 2 are obtained from the three DMs of 0.40, 0.30 and 0.30, respectively. Tables 3 and 4 provide
the linguistic evaluation matrices of the main green supplier evaluation criteria and its fuzzy aggregated
evaluation matrix. Obtained final criteria weights are given in Table 5.
. Determination of green supplier alternatives. Five green supplier alternatives are identified by the XYZ
managers: S1 (established SME), S2 (established, large-scale supplier), S3 (up and coming SME), S4
(established SME) and S5 (established, large-scale supplier).
. Determination of the design and system ranges. Linguistic terms are employed in all evaluation processes.
An 11-level fuzzy scale is used to assess the alternatives and the FRs. The scale with the linguistic terms and
corresponding fuzzy membership functions are displayed in Table 2. The identified supplier alternatives are
evaluated by DMs with respect to determined sub-criteria. Tables 6 and 7 display expert judgements.
. Fuzzification and aggregation of DMs judgements. DMs judgements on FRs and alternatives are first
translated into fuzzy numbers and then aggregated using the methodology described in the previous section.
Table 2. Linguistic terms and membership functions for system and design ranges.
Linguistic term Abbrv.
Fuzzy membership
function Linguistic term Abbrv.
Fuzzy membership
function
None N (0, 0, 1) At least none LN (0, 1, 1)
Very low VL (0, 0.1, 0.2) At least very low LVL (0.05, 1, 1)
Low L (0.1, 0.2, 0.3) At least low LL (0.1, 1, 1)
Fairly low FL (0.2, 0.3, 0.4) At least fairly low LFL (0.2, 1, 1)
More or less low ML (0.3, 0.4, 0.5) At least more or less low LML (0.3, 1, 1)
Medium M (0.4, 0.5, 0.6) At least medium LM (0.4, 1, 1)
More or less good MG (0.5, 0.6, 0.7) At least more or less good LMG (0.5, 1, 1)
Fairly good FG (0.6, 0.7, 0.8) At least fairly good LFG (0.6, 1, 1)
Good G (0.7, 0.8, 0.9) At least good LG (0.7, 1, 1)
Very good VG (0.8, 0.9, 1) At least very good LVG (0.8, 1, 1)
Excellent E (0.9, 1, 1) At least excellent LE (0.9, 1, 1)
Table 3. Linguistic evaluation matrix of main criteria by DMs.
DM1 DM2 DM3
C1 C2 C3 C4 C1 C2 C3 C4 C1 C2 C3 C4
C1 1 FG VG FG 1 VG VG FG 1 FG VG G
C2 VG VG 1 VG VG 1 VG G
C3 1 1 VG 1 VG 1 G
C4 1 1 1
Table 4. Fuzzy aggregated evaluation matrix of main criteria.
C1 C2 C3 C4
C1 1 (0.66, 0.76, 0.86) (0.8, 0.9,1) (0.63, 0.73, 0.83)
C2 (1/0.86, 1/0.76, 1/0.66) 1 (0.8, 0.9, 1) (0.77, 0.87, 0.97)
C3 (1/1, 1/0.9, 1/0.8) (1/1, 1/0.9, 1/0.8) 1 (0.77, 0.87, 0.97)
C4 (1/0.83, 1/0.73, 1/0.63) (1/0.97, 1/0.87, 1/0.77) (1/0.97, 1/0.87, 1/0.77) 1
International Journal of Production Research 2903
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
T
a
m
i
l
n
a
d
u

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

U
n
i
v
]

a
t

0
0
:
3
3

1
0

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
3

. Calculation of the weighted information contents and ranking of the alternatives. The aggregated design
and system ranges are employed in order to compute common areas and information contents for the
green supplier alternatives. The information contents and criteria weights are employed in order to apply
hierarchical FAD and compute weighted information contents. Table 8 displays the outcome of the
methodology. Final results demonstrate that supplier 2 (S2) is the most suitable alternative for XYZ
Company.
. Application of the fuzzy TOPSIS. Once weighted information contents are calculated and supplier
alternatives rated, fuzzy TOPSIS, as described in the previous section, is applied in order to compare the
outcome. Tables 9 and 10 display distances from FPIRPs and FNIRPs for each criterion, respectively.
Table 11 displays the total distances from positive and negative ideal points, as well as performance indices
for each alternative. Based on these results, supplier 5 (S5) is determined as the most suitable alternative for
XYZ Company.
. Comparison of the two MCDM methods. The ranking of the alternatives (see Tables 8 and 11) differ
considerably with the application of fuzzy AD and fuzzy TOPSIS. The FRs are mostly responsible for this
differentiation, since the ideal reference points for fuzzy AD are defined by DMs, whereas ideal reference
points for fuzzy TOPSIS are set by the methodology itself. Therefore, fuzzy AD emerges as a more
appropriate technique since the information contents are calculated in respect to the alternatives
Table 7. DMs judgements on system ranges.
C11 C12 C13 C21 C22 C23 C24 C31 C32 C33 C34 C35 C41 C42 C43 C44 C45 C46
DM1 A1 FG MG FG G G G VG G MG VG VG G FG FG MG MG FG MG
A2 FG FG FG VG VG VG E VG G VG FG E VG FG FG FG VG G
A3 VG G FG MG M MG M MG M MG VG MG M MG MG MG M MG
A4 G FG MG FG MG FG MG FG MG FG G MG MG MG MG MG MG FG
A5 G M FG FG VG G FG FG M FG G FG FG G MG MG FG FG
DM2 A1 MG MG MG VG FG FG FG G MG G VG G MG FG FG FG G FG
A2 G FG G E G VG E FG FG VG VG VG VG G G G G G
A3 VG VG VG MG M FG ML MG ML M FG M M MG M MG ML M
A4 VG FG MG FG FG G FG MG MG FG VG FG MG MG MG MG M FG
A5 FG MG M G FG G MG FG FG G G FG MG FG FG FG FG MG
DM3 A1 FG FG MG FG FG MG G VG FG VG G G FG G FG MG FG MG
A2 G FG G VG VG G VG VG G VG MG VG VG FG G G VG G
A3 G G G FG MG MG M FG M MG FG MG M MG MG M M M
A4 G FG FG FG FG MG MG FG M FG FG FG FG MG MG MG FG FG
A5 G G FG G G FG FG G FG VG G G FG FG MG MG MG MG
Table 5. Green supplier main and sub-criteria weights.
C1 0.21 C2 0.25 C3 0.25 C4 0.29
C11 0.56 C21 0.43 C31 0.35 C41 0.23
C12 0.32 C22 0.19 C32 0.16 C42 0.20
C13 0.12 C23 0.23 C33 0.19 C43 0.17
C24 0.15 C34 0.11 C44 0.20
C35 0.19 C45 0.10
C46 0.10
Table 6. DMs judgements on design ranges.
C11 C12 C13 C21 C22 C23 C24 C31 C32 C33 C34 C35 C41 C42 C43 C44 C45 C46
DM1 LG LM LM LFG LM LM LM LMG LM LML LM LM LFG LMG LFG LMG LM LM
DM2 LFG LM LMG LMG LMG LFG LML LG LML LM LML LM LMG LM LML LFG LM LFG
DM3 LG LFG LMG LFG LM LMG LM LFG LM LML LMG LFL LMG LG LMG LM LM LFG
2904 G. Buyukozkan
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
T
a
m
i
l
n
a
d
u

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

U
n
i
v
]

a
t

0
0
:
3
3

1
0

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
3

performances in responding to the FRs, defined by the DMs. However, in fuzzy TOPSIS, alternatives
are rated against each other with the normalisation step. Consequently, alternative S2 appears to be the
most suitable alternative as a green supplier. Nevertheless, fuzzy TOPSIS may be applied in cases where
there are no requirements set by DMs and alternatives are merely compared to each other.
Table 10. Distances from FNIRP.
d
C11
d
C12
d
C13
d
C21
d
C22
d
C23
d
C24
d
C31
d
C32
S1 0.08 0.05 0.02 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.08 0.03
S2 0.09 0.05 0.46 0.10 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.08 0.04
S3 0.11 0.06 0.60 0.07 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.02
S4 0.10 0.05 0.50 0.08 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.03
S5 0.09 0.05 0.38 0.08 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.07 0.03
d
C33
d
C34
d
C35
d
C41
d
C42
d
C43
d
C44
d
C45
d
C46
S1 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.02
S2 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.03
S3 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.02
S4 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.02
S5 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.02
Table 9. Distances from FPIRP.
d
C11
d
C12
d
C13
d
C21
d
C22
d
C23
d
C24
d
C31
d
C32
S1 0.92 0.95 0.98 0.91 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.92 0.97
S2 0.91 0.95 0.55 0.90 0.96 0.95 0.96 0.92 0.96
S3 0.89 0.94 0.41 0.93 0.97 0.96 0.98 0.94 0.98
S4 0.90 0.95 0.51 0.92 0.97 0.96 0.98 0.94 0.97
S5 0.49 0.53 0.51 0.49 0.54 0.53 0.55 0.50 0.55
d
C33
d
C34
d
C35
d
C41
d
C42
d
C43
d
C44
d
C45
d
C46
S1 0.96 0.98 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.98 0.98
S2 0.96 0.98 0.96 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.95 0.97 0.97
S3 0.97 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.96 0.97 0.96 0.99 0.98
S4 0.97 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.96 0.98 0.98
S5 0.54 0.55 0.54 0.53 0.52 0.54 0.53 0.56 0.56
Table 8. Weighted information contents.
WI
C1
WI
C2
WI
C3
WI
C4
WI Ranking
S1 215.57 41.14 24.80 92.50 88.58 3
S2 83.89 5.87 17.59 30.52 32.33 1
S3 23.10 172.68 151.00 276.44 165.94 5
S4 56.49 80.78 95.23 145.46 98.05 4
S5 104.87 41.98 51.75 98.61 74.05 2
Table 11. Total distances and PIs.
d

i
d

i
PI Ranking
S1 17.23 0.77 0.0428 5
S2 16.70 1.31 0.0728 2
S3 16.76 1.25 0.0694 3
S4 16.81 1.20 0.0667 4
S5 9.55 1.12 0.1053 1
International Journal of Production Research 2905
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
T
a
m
i
l
n
a
d
u

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

U
n
i
v
]

a
t

0
0
:
3
3

1
0

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
3

6. Concluding remarks
The competitive environment of the new century forces companies to focus on their core competencies and
outsource many of their business processes from outside suppliers. Moreover, increasing environmental concerns
lead governments to adopt new and tight regulations covering whole product life cycles, which in terms make
producer and distributors more environmentally conscientious. From this perspective, the introduction of effective
green supplier evaluation has primary importance, since it allows companies to identify suppliers characterised by
sound environmental performance and competencies that can support such firms in the continuous improvement
of their environmental performance. After identifying the decision criteria of such an evaluation process, we
proposed an integrated, fuzzy, group decision-making framework to effectively evaluate green suppliers. As recent
studies on fuzzy AHP and fuzzy AD demonstrate that these techniques are appropriate tools to support the decision
making process, fuzzy AHP is applied to determine criteria weights and fuzzy AD is used to rank green supplier
alternatives according to their performance obtained from FRs. The approach was applied in a Turkish company
and the steps of the application are provided as a case study. The results obtained through the application of fuzzy
AD were compared with the outcome of another decision-making technique, namely, fuzzy TOPSIS, which is widely
cited in the MCDM literature.
Although the green supplier evaluation problem was analysed in this study, the proposed approach is generic;
it may be used to assist companies in making appropriate and quick decisions during the evaluation of suppliers
with different perspectives.
In this study, we assume that there is no relation between evaluation criteria. Criteria dependencies can be
considered in a future study.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to express her gratitude to the industrial experts for their support in evaluation of the framework.
References
Amid, A., Ghodsypour, S.H., and OBrien, C., 2006. Fuzzy multiobjective linear model for the supplier selection in a supply
chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 104 (2), 394407.
Awasthi, A., Chauhan, S.S., and Goyal, S.K., 2010. A fuzzy multicriteria approach for evaluating environmental performance
of suppliers. International Journal of Production Economics, 126 (2), 370378.
Boer, L., Labro, E., and Morlacchi, P., 2001. A review of methods supporting supplier selection. European Journal of Purchasing
and Supply Management, 7 (2), 7589.
Boiral, O., 2006. Global warming: should companies adopt a proactive strategy? Long Range Planning, 39 (3), 315330.
Bu yu ko zkan, G. and Feyzioglu, O., 2008. Evaluation of suppliers environmental management performances by a fuzzy
compromise ranking technique. Journal of Multiple-Valued Logic and Soft Computing, 14 (35), 309324.
Carrera, D.A. and Mayorga, R.V., 2008. Supply chain management: a modular fuzzy inference system approach in supplier
selection for new product development. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 19 (1), 112.
Cebi, S. and Kahraman, C., 2010. Developing a group decision support system based on fuzzy information axiom.
Knowledge-Based Systems, 23 (1), 316.
Celik, M., et al., 2009a. Application of axiomatic design and TOPSIS methodologies under fuzzy environment for proposing
competitive strategies in Turkish container ports in maritime transportation network. Expert Systems with Applications:
An International Journal, 36 (3), 45414557.
Celik, M., et al., 2009b. Fuzzy axiomatic design-based performance evaluation model for docking facilities in the shipbuilding
industry: the case of Turkish shipyards. Expert Systems with Applications: An International Journal, 36 (1), 599615.
Chan, F.T.S. and Kumar, N., 2007. Global supplier development considering risk factors using a fuzzy extended AHP-based
approach. Omega, 35 (4), 417431.
Chan, F.T.S., et al., 2008. Global supplier selection: a fuzzy-AHP approach. International Journal of Production Research,
46 (14), 38253857.
Che, Z.H., 2010. A genetic algorithm-based model for solving multi-period supplier selection problem with assembly sequence.
International Journal of Production Research, 48 (15), 43554377.
Chen, C.-T., 2000. Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under a fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets and Systems,
114 (1), 19.
Chen, L.-H. and Hung, C.-C., 2010. An integrated fuzzy approach for the selection of outsourcing manufacturing partners
in pharmaceutical R&D. International Journal of Production Research. iFirst, 26 January.
2906 G. Buyukozkan
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
T
a
m
i
l
n
a
d
u

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

U
n
i
v
]

a
t

0
0
:
3
3

1
0

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
3

Chen, S.M., 1998. Aggregating fuzzy opinions in the group decision making environment. Cybernetics and Systems, 29 (4),
363376.
Chen, S.J. and Hwang, C.L., 1992. Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. Berlin:
Springer-Verlag.
Cheng, C.H., 1999. Evaluating weapon systems using ranking fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy Systems, 107 (1), 2535.
Choy, K.L., Lee, W.B., and Lo, V., 2004. Development of a case based intelligent supplier relationship management system
linking supplier rating system and product coding system. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 9 (1),
86101.
Cruz, J.M. and Matsypura, D., 2009. Supply chain networks with corporate social responsibility through integrated
environmental decision-making. International Journal of Production Research, 47 (3), 621648.
Enarsson, L., 1998. Evaluation of suppliers: how to consider the environment? International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, 28 (1), 517.
Gladwin, T.N., Kennelly, J.J., and Krause, T., 1995. Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: implications for
management theory and research. Academy of Management Review, 20 (4), 874907.
Gupta, M., 1995. Environmental management and its impact on the operations function. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 15 (8), 3451.
Handfield, R., et al., 2002. Applying environmental criteria to supplier assessment: a study in the application of the analytical
hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 141 (1), 7087.
Herrera, F., Herrera-Viedma, E., and Chiclana, F., 2001. Multiperson decision-making based on multiplicative preference
relations. European Journal of Operational Research, 129 (2), 372385.
Hsu, C.-W. and Hu, A.H., 2009. Applying hazardous substance management to supplier selection using analytic network
process. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17 (2), 255264.
Huang, S.H. and Keskar, H., 2007. Comprehensive and configurable metrics for supplier selection. International Journal of
Production Economics, 105 (2), 510523.
Humphreys, P.K., et al., 2006. Employing dynamic fuzzy membership functions to assess environmental performance in the
supplier selection process. International Journal of Production Research, 44 (12), 23792419.
Humphreys, P.K., McIvor, R., and Chan, F.T.S., 2003. Using case-based reasoning to evaluate supplier environmental
management performance. Expert Systems with Applications, 25 (2), 141153.
Isiklar, G., Alptekin, E., and Bu yu ko zkan, G., 2007. Application of a hybrid intelligent decision support model in logistics
outsourcing. Computers & Operations Research, 34 (12), 37013714.
Jabbour, A.B.L.S. and Jabbour, C.J.C., 2009. Are supplier selection criteria going green?. Case studies of companies in Brazil.
Industrial Management & Data Systems, 109 (4), 477495.
Kahraman, C. and Cebi, S., 2009. A new multi-attribute decision making method: hierarchical fuzzy axiomatic design.
Expert Systems with Applications: An International Journal, 36 (3), 48484861.
Kahraman, C. and Kulak, O., 2005. Fuzzy multi-attribute decision making using an information axiom based approach.
In: C. Kahraman, ed. Fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making: theory and applications with recent developments. New York:
Springer.
Kongar, E., 2005. A comparative study on multiple criteria heuristic approaches for environmentally benign 3PLs selection.
Proceeding of the 3rd International Logistics and Supply Chain Congress, November, Istanbul, Turkey.
Kovacs, G., 2008. Corporate environmental responsibility in the supply chain. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16 (15), 15711578.
Kulak, O. and Kahraman, C., 2005a. Multi-attribute comparison of advanced manufacturing systems using fuzzy vs. crisp
axiomatic design approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 95 (3), 415424.
Kulak, O. and Kahraman, C., 2005b. Fuzzy multi-attribute selection among transportation companies using axiomatic design
and analytic hierarchy process. Information Sciences, 170 (24), 191210.
Kulak, O., Cebi, S., and Kahraman, C., 2010. Applications of axiomatic design principles: a literature review. Expert Systems
with Applications, 37 (9), 67056717.
Kumar, M., Vrat, P., and Shankar, R., 2006. A fuzzy goal programming approach for vendor selection problem in a supply
chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 101 (2), 273285.
Kuo, M.-S., Tzeng, G.-H., and Huang, W.-C., 2007. Group decision-making based on concepts of ideal and anti-ideal points in
a fuzzy environment. Mathematical and Computer Modeling, 45 (34), 324339.
Kuo, R.J., Wang, Y.C., and Tien, F.C., 2010. Integration of artificial neural network and MADA methods for green supplier
selection. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18 (12), 11611170.
Lee, A.H.I., 2009. A fuzzy AHP evaluation model for buyersupplier relationships with the consideration of benefits,
opportunities, costs and risks. International Journal of Production Research, 47 (15), 42554280.
Lee, A.H.I., et al., 2009. A green supplier selection model for high-tech industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 36 (4),
79177927.
Liao, Z. and Rittscher, J., 2007. A multi-objective supplier selection model under stochastic demand conditions. International
Journal of Production Economics, 105 (1), 150159.
International Journal of Production Research 2907
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
T
a
m
i
l
n
a
d
u

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

U
n
i
v
]

a
t

0
0
:
3
3

1
0

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
3

Lin, H.T. and Chang, W.L., 2008. Order selection and pricing methods using flexible quantity and fuzzy approach for buyer
evaluation. European Journal of Operational Research, 187 (2), 415428.
Lin, R.-H., 2009. An integrated FANPMOLP for supplier evaluation and order allocation. Applied Mathematical Modelling,
33 (6), 27302736.
Lockstrom, M., et al., 2010. Antecedents to supplier integration in the automotive, industry: a multiple-case study of foreign
subsidiaries in China. Journal of Operations Management, 28 (3), 240256.
Lu, L.Y.Y., Wu, C.H., and Kuo, T.-C., 2007. Environmental principles applicable to green supplier evaluation by using
multi-objective decision analysis. International Journal of Production Research, 45 (1819), 43174331.
Matos, S. and Hall, J., 2007. Integrating sustainable development in the supply chain: the case of life cycle assessment in oil
and gas and agricultural biotechnology. Journal of Operations Management, 25 (6), 10831102.
Min, H., 1994. International supplier selection: a multi-attribute utility approach. International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, 24 (5), 2433.
Ming-Lang, T., Chiang, J.H., and Lan, L.W., 2009. Selection of optimal supplier in supply chain management strategy with
analytic network process and choquet integral. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 57 (1), 330340.
Motwani, J., et al., 1999. Supplier selection in developing countries: a model development. Integrated Manufacturing Systems,
10 (3), 154162.
Noci, G., 1997. Designing green vendor rating systems for the assessment of a suppliers environmental performance.
European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 3 (2), 103114.
Pomerol, J.-C. and Romero, S.B., 2000. Multicriterion decision in management: principles and practice. Norwell:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Pun, K.F., 2006. Determinants of environmentally responsible operations: a review. International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, 23 (3), 279297.
Rao, P. and Holt, D., 2005. Do green supply chains lead to competitiveness and economic performance? International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, 25 (2), 898916.
Saaty, T.L., 1980. The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill Company.
Saaty, T.L. and Vargas, L.G., 2001. Models, methods, concepts and applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Boston:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Sarkis, J., 1998. Evaluating environmentally conscious business practices. European Journal of Operational Research, 107 (1),
159174.
Sarkis, J., 2003. A strategic decision framework for green supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 11 (4),
397409.
Sen, C.G., Sen, S., and Basligil, H., 2010. Pre-selection of suppliers through an integrated fuzzy analytic hierarchy process
and maxmin methodology. International Journal of Production Research, 48 (6), 16031625.
Sevkli, M., 2010. An application of the fuzzy ELECTRE method for supplier selection. International Journal of Production
Research, 48 (12), 33933405.
Sevkli, M., et al., 2007. An application of data envelopment analytic hierarchy process for supplier selection: a case study of
BEKO in Turkey. International Journal of Production Research, 45 (9), 19732003.
Shih, H.-S., 2008. Incremental analysis for MCDM with an application to group TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational
Research, 186 (2), 720734.
Stavropolous, N., 2000. Suppliers in the new economy. Telecommunications Journal of Australia, 50 (4), 2729.
Suh, N.P., 1990. The principles of design. New York: Oxford University Press.
Suh, N.P., 2001. Axiomatic design; advances applications. New York: Oxford University Press.
Tsai, W.-H. and Hung, S.-J., 2009. A fuzzy goal programming approach for green supply chain optimization under
activity-based costing and performance evaluation with a value-chain structure. International Journal of Production
Research, 47 (18), 49915017.
Tuzkaya, G., et al., 2009. Environmental performance evaluation of suppliers: a hybrid fuzzy multi-criteria decision approach.
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 6 (3), 477490.
Vachon, S. and Klassen, R.D., 2006. Green project partnership in the supply chain: the case of the package printing industry.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 14 (67), 661671.
Vahdani, B. and Zandieh, M., 2010. Selecting suppliers using a new fuzzy multiple criteria decision model: the fuzzy balancing
and ranking method. International Journal of Production Research, 48 (18), 53075326.
Verghese, K. and Lewis, H., 2007. Environmental innovation in industrial packaging: a supply chain approach. International
Journal of Production Research, 45 (18), 43814401.
Walton, S.V., Handfield, R.B., and Melnyk, S.A., 2006. The green supply chain: integrating suppliers into environmental
management processes. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 34 (2), 211.
Weber, C.A., Current, J.R., and Benton, W.C., 1991. Vendor selection criteria and methods. European Journal of Operational
Research, 50 (1), 218.
Welford, R. and Starkey, R., 1996. Business and the environment. London: Earthscan.
2908 G. Buyukozkan
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
T
a
m
i
l
n
a
d
u

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

U
n
i
v
]

a
t

0
0
:
3
3

1
0

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
3

Wu, T. and Blackhurst, J., 2009. Supplier evaluation and selection: an augmented DEA approach. International Journal of
Production Research, 47 (16), 45934608.
Wu, D., 2009. Supplier selection: a hybrid model using DEA, decision tree and neural network. Expert Systems with Applications,
36 (5), 91059112.
Yuzhong, Y. and Liyun, W., 2007. Grey entropy method for green supplier selection. Proceedings of International Conference
on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, September, Shanghai, China, 46824685.
Zadeh, L.A., 1965. Fuzzy sets. Information Control, 8 (3), 338353.
Zadeh, L.A., 1975. The concept of a linguistic variable and its applications to approximate reasoning. Information Sciences, 8,
199249 (I); 301357 (II).
Zaim, S., Sevkli, M., and Tarim, M., 2003. Fuzzy analytic hierarchy based approach for supplier selection. Journal of
Euromarketing, 12 (3), 147176.
Zhang, D., et al., 2009. A novel approach to supplier selection based on vague sets group decision. Expert Systems with
Applications, 36 (5), 95579563.
Zhang, G.Q. and Lu, J., 2003. An integrated group decision-making method dealing with fuzzy preferences for alternatives
and individual judgments for selection criteria. Group Decision and Negotiation, 12 (6), 501515.
Zhu, O., Sarkis, J., and Geng, Y., 2005. Green supply chain management in China: pressures, practices and performance.
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 25 (5), 449468.
Zimmermann, H.J., 1985. Fuzzy set theory and its applications. Boston, MA: Kluwer.
International Journal of Production Research 2909
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
T
a
m
i
l
n
a
d
u

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

U
n
i
v
]

a
t

0
0
:
3
3

1
0

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
3