IEEE ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT REVIEW, VOL. 46, NO.

1, FIRST QUARTER, MARCH 2018 117

Organizational Green Supply Chain

Management Capability
Assessment: A Hybrid Group
Decision Making Model Application
—JUN SUN Abstract—Green supply chain management (GSCM) is a strategic issue
Wuxi Vocational Institute of Commerce in organizations; it is even more critical and complex in emerging economies.
GSCM decision support tools can greatly advance the strategic notion of
—QINGYUN ZHU GSCM. Having a systemic, flexible and user-friendly tool can be beneficial
Foisie Business School to organizations and support the adoption of this tool. A relatively intuitive and
Worcester Polytechnic Institute user-friendly hybrid group decision making model that integrates fuzzy-grey
tools can help evaluate an organization’s GSCM capability. To show the utility
of the tool, a small case study from the Chinese automotive industry is
completed. Seven Chinese automotive enterprises are used in the case
illustration. The tool is easy to use so that managers can replicate and apply
it to many aspects of real-world problem solving as well as for benchmarking
IEEE DOI 10.1109/EMR.2018.2809907
and prioritization purposes.

Key words: Hybrid group decision making method (HGDMM), green supply
chain management (GSCM), GSCM capability, grey relation analysis (GRA),
multi-criteria assessment, case study

1 INTRODUCTION effectiveness (Mishra et al., 2017).

GSCM has been integrated into
C OUNTRIES are facing severe various global policies including the
United Nations’ sustainable
environmental issues as economies
grow and standards of living increase. development goals; and one of the
With this economic growth and “extraordinary tools” for Made in
affluence come high resource China 2025 (Wu €bbeke et al., 2016).
consumption, low efficiencies, and
high pollution emissions. These Given this greater emphasis on
issues are evident in many regions of corporate environmental
the world in both developed and consciousness, enterprises are
developing nations. Greening requested to implement GSCM
production and the supply chain is practices by their business and
necessary to help decouple economic supply chain partners. Greening
growth from environmental issues can permeate the organization
degradation (Deif, 2011). and its partners from product design
to post-sales customer maintenance
Green Supply Chain Management across inter-sectoral supply chains.
(GSCM) is an emergent However, GSCM is still in its early
organizational managerial innovation stages of development and adoption.
for enterprises to minimize their With extended producer responsibility
environmental risk, establish (EPR) for products and service-
business reputation, increase profits, embedded manufacturing (SEM),
enlarge market share, all the while manufacturers play a central role
enhancing overall ecological in GSCM implementation.
118 IEEE ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT REVIEW, VOL. 46, NO. 1, FIRST QUARTER, MARCH 2018

Green operations and supply chain environmentally friendly associated environmentally sound
assessments can be used to transportation and packaging, and strategic and operational decisions.
encourage ecological and socially- product end-of-life practices such as
responsible organizational 3Rs (i.e.: reuse, reduce and recycle) Yet the complexity and fuzziness of
behaviours. GSCM performance (Dubey et al., 2017; Hervani et al., GSCM decisions makes integrating
assessment, not to mention a 2005). decision support and evaluation
practical assessment tools, are systems in EMS a non-trivial issue.
relatively scarce. Effective greening GSCM has also included many other Existing studies have utilized multi-
assessment in supply chains requires dimensions including corporate criteria decision making methods
the participation of important supply environmental engagement with (MCDM) to construct assessment
chain members. Developing a suppliers and customers; integration systems for GSCM performance
decision support tool to help in and collaboration of internal and evaluation (Brandenburg et al., 2014).
assessment can help advance the external green practices is the key for
green strategic perspective and GSCM; and incorporating the internal
capabilities of organizations and their and external operations and reverse
3 METHODOLOGY
supply chains. logistics. A hybrid group decision making
model is proposed to help
This paper seeks to establish a more Reputation, trust, information managers evaluate green supply
scientific, comprehensive, dynamic confidentiality and coordination within chain performance. The general
and executable assessment system different economic, social and mathematical notation is described
for GSCM. The purpose is to help political contexts make GSCM as follows:
organizational managers and critical as well as complex (Ahi et al.,
decision makers facilitate the 2013). Pressure, key driving forces, Assuming that U ¼ ðA; C; P; vÞ is a
evaluation processes of green factors and obstacles of GSCM HGGDM evaluation system, and
operations and production implementation arise from many A ¼ fak ; k ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; lg is the set of
performance over the supply chain. different sources (Drohomeretski l decision makers, C ¼ fci ; i ¼ 1;
et al., 2014; Dubey et al., 2015; 2; . . . ; mg represents m criteria,
The analytical hierarchy process Govindan et al., 2015; Wang et al., P ¼ fpj ; j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; ng represents n
(AHP) may be used to frame the 2016). Seeking internal green supply objectives,
P v ¼ fv1 ; v2 ; . . . ; vm g
decision goal, criteria, indicators, chain performance helps motivate ð m i¼1 i v ¼ 1; vi  0Þ expresses the
and sub-indicators. A hybrid group manufacturers to enforce their GSCM index weight, and the evaluation
decision making model (HGDMM) is efforts (De Giovanni et al., 2012). matrix given by kth evaluator is as
constructed with integration of grey External green cooperation between follows:
relationship analysis, an entropy manufacturers and their supply chain
method and fuzzy numbers tool. partners can positively affect p1 p2 ... pn
2 ðkÞ ðkÞ ðkÞ
3
A case study from the Chinese environmental practices, strategic c1 u11 u12 ... u1n v
6 ðkÞ 7 1
automatic industry is utilized to management and corporate UðkÞ ¼ c2 6u ðkÞ
u22 ... u2n 7
ðkÞ v2
6 21 7
illustrate a practical model reputation (Zhu et al., 2017; Lun et al., ... 6 7 ...
4 5
application. The feasibility and 2015; Brandenburg et al., 2014). cm ðkÞ ðkÞ ðkÞ vm
um1 um1 ... umn
effectiveness of the proposed
model is then discussed. Studies on GSCM evaluation
ðkÞ
mainly focus on supplier selection, Where, uij represents the score of
monitoring, and evaluation object pj on criteria ci evaluated by
2 BACKGROUND
(Fahimnia et al., 2015). Corporate decision-maker ak. Given the multiple
GSCM is often used interchangeably environmental management systems decision makers and/or expert
with sustainable supply chains, (EMS) applications have expanded inputs, the framework can best be
although sustainability does imply GSCM evaluation to broader aspects generically categorized as a multiple
social dimensions as well (Ashby including green (ecological) design, criteria group decision model
et al., 2012; Zhu and Sarkis, 2016; green procurement, green (MCGDM)
Sarkis and Zhu, 2017) and closed transportation, green logistics,
loop supply chains (Shaharudin et al., reverse logistics, recycling, as well as The proposed multi-criteria
2017). GSCM includes managerial environmental management. A critical assessment framework includes
practices such as green design, dimension of these modern EMS is to six criteria by synthesizing
green purchase, total quality integrate decision support models assessment matrix data obtained
environmental management (TQEM), and tools to help managers make from surveys and expert evaluation.
ORGANIZATIONAL GREEN SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT: A HYBRID GROUP DECISION MAKING MODEL APPLICATION 119

The methodology is applied to The decision criteria groupings Sarkis and Dou, (2017); Uygun &
a GSCM evaluation study for and indices are selected according Dede, (2016)).
real-world case studies in the to five principles:
Chinese automotive manufacturing (1) Comprehensiveness and Six criteria groupings are included in
industry. Before setting up the case conciseness. For example, when the green assessment model to be
application environment and the constructing the integrated utilized for the automobile industry in
computations required in section 4; criteria/index framework for the case study below. Many of these
a general exposition of the product lifecycle management, are manufacturing oriented. There
core multicriteria assessment both qualitative and quantitative might be some minor differences
system structure, factors, and factors are included; between these and other
evaluation levels is presented in (2) Coordination and independence. manufacturing or service industrial
this section. Although the indicators may be sectors. Overall, the general criteria
closely interrelated, they should categories would be applicable
3.1 Construction of the GSCM be mutually or relatively across industries. These general
Multi-Criteria Assessment independent; criteria groupings include green
System There are two major (3) Stability and dynamics. The procurement, green manufacturing,
structural aspects that form the hybrid indicators are used not only to green logistics, green service, green
group decision making model evaluate the supply chain green benefits and green growth.
(HGDMM). These include what level but can also be to describe
criteria groupings, their indices and the process and future These criteria, although initially from
indicators (metrics/measures), to orientation of GSCM; the literature, were further refined and
include in the model; and also what (4) Systematic and hierarchical. elaborated with industry expert input
values are assigned to the indices The evaluation index framework through repeated discussion within
and factors by the decision makers. is a system that reflects the group workshops. The first four
Each of these is reviewed for the case performance of a broader, criteria are used to evaluate green
of greening organizations and their holistic, supply chain; functions and practices at each stage
supply chains. (5) Practical and accessible. of green manufacturing supply chains
The selected evaluation indexes in terms of equipment, technology,
3.1.1 Criteria, Indices, and Indicators should be understandable, management, and innovation. The
for HGDMM for GSCM: accessible and applicable. green benefits demonstrate the
GSCM assessment framework is present capacity of the evaluated
described with respect to criterion The criteria, indices, and indicator GSCM including ecological, social
groupings, indices that are the metrics are derived from GSCM and economic benefits. Green growth
sub-factors for each criterion; and performance monitoring, evaluation, represents an integration of cultural
example indicators, which are and scale development systems in formation, employee growth and
metrics or measures that can be the literature (e.g., Awasthi et al., green diffusion, indicating the future
used to evaluate the indices. (2016); Govindan et al., (2015); GSCM potential of the manufacturer.

The criteria groupings, indices and

Table 1. GSCM Assessment Framework
indicators of the assessment
Green procurement (u1 ) Green supplier (u1 ) framework are summarized in
Green purchasing management (u2 )
Table 1. Each criterion and its related
Green manufacturing (u2 ) Green manufacturer (u3 )
Ecological Design (u4 )
index is now overviewed.
Cleaning Production (u5 )
Green product (u6 ) (i) Green procurement (u1 )
GSCM capability of 3
Green logistics (u ) Green logistics provider (u7 )
focal firm/buyer Green logistics equipment and Technology (u8 )
and its supply Green procurement includes two
Green logistics management (u9 )
chain (U) indices, respectively green supplier
Green service (u4 ) Customer service (u10 )
Manufacturing service (u11 ) (u1 ) and green purchase
Green benefits (u5 ) Ecological benefit (u12 )
management (u2 ). The green supplier
Social benefit (u13 ) management index may include two
Economic benefit (u14 ) indicator aspects: one is the greening
Green growth (u6 ) Green culture (u15 ) level of suppliers, such as whether
Employee growth (u16 )
they have ISO14000 certification, an
Green diffusion (u17 )
environmental management system
120 IEEE ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT REVIEW, VOL. 46, NO. 1, FIRST QUARTER, MARCH 2018

(EMS) or meet related industrial Clean production (u5 ) is introduced Such services, and indicators, may
ecological standards. The and can have indicators to appraise include manufacturing guidance and
certification ratio, percentage, of all the greenness of equipment, the customer training. One of the key
green suppliers is typically a adoption of a hybrid manufacture or approaches to increase the value of
quantitative indicator measurement. remanufacture system, and capacity this index is through communication
Green supplier management also for recycling and reuse; as examples. and cooperation with end-consumers
include cooperation for meeting green Green products (u6 ) may include with regard to product eco-design and
targets between buyers and indicators such as green labels, green purchasing and consumption.
suppliers. Examples include whether certification of environmental Customer satisfaction is an indicator
green suppliers are selected protection and industry awards of that is typically a quantitative variable.
according to some environmentally products. China’s situation would Buyers in the supply chain can also
oriented standard; and whether the include indicators on whether provide their supply chain partners
buyer develops a green cooperation products are in product catalogs for (customers and suppliers) with
arrangement with suppliers. These industrial energy conservation and financial support and information
cooperation agreements should environmental protection (such as services; a possible indicator for
promote suppliers enhancing their Application Engineering of performance on this index.
greening consciousness and Recommended Catalog for Energy
practice. Saving and New Energy Automobile). (v) Green benefits (u5 )

The green purchasing or (iii) Green logistics (u3 ) Green benefits include some of the
procurement management index triple bottom line indices including
focuses on inspecting and auditing Green logistics is a critical activity to ecological benefits (u12 ), social
green control of raw materials and evaluate within a GSCM assessment. benefits (u13 ) and economic benefits
components, and the implementation We introduce three indices for this (u14 ). Ecological benefits can include
of green purchasing activities. criteria: 1) green logistic providers indicators of resource-saving and
The proportion of green raw material (u7 ), 2) green logistics equipment& energy-saving ratios. Example ratios
or components purchased may technology (u8 ), and 3) green logistics might include (in the case of Chinese
be indicator measures for this management (u9 ). Similar to the automobile industry) two numerical
index and are typically quantitative. green supplier management index, items, value-added energy
index u7 is used to estimate the consumption per 10000 yuan and
(ii) Green manufacturing (u2 ) greening level of the logistics SO2 and CO2 emissions per unit of
providers and the green cooperation revenue generated. Social benefits
One of the key functions for GSCM is between manufacturer and logistic mainly are assessed by approval and
green manufacturing, the second providers; which would be example support from stakeholders and
criterion grouping; which in this indicators. u8 may include indicators manufacturer’s green image and
decision system, includes four indices to estimate the third party logistics or reputation. It is measured by the rank
green manufacturer (u3 ), ecological self-operating logistics including of development index of social
design (u4 ), clean production (u5 ) and transportation equipment and responsibility issued by social
green products (u6 ). technology, warehousing, packaging authoritative organizations. Green
intelligence, automation, energy economic benefits are estimated by
u3 is mainly used to evaluate the conservation and emissions the growth of sales volume and sales
relevant environmental quality of reduction, informatization, growth rate of the selected green
manufacturer and may include self- standardization and mechanization. products.
diagnosis actions and capabilities u9 may include indicators to measure
indicators. In terms of u4 , green the efficiency of transportation, (vi) Green growth (u6 )
factory design, green R&D warehousing and packaging.
investment, and environmentally Green growth represents the
conscious design are some indicators (iv) Green services (u4 ) potential of the supply chain green
from important identified topics development. It consists of three
covering products and supply chain- Green services contains two indices: indices: 1) green culture (u15 ), 2) staff
wide activities. Average green R&D customer service (u10 ) and growth (u16 ) and 3) green diffusion
investment per year is an specific manufacturing service (u11 ). (u17 ). Green culture stands for an
indicator example, which is Customer service represents the organization’s awareness of
considered a quantitative measure service level of helping downstream green issues and its reflection in
for this index. distributors and end consumers. organizational culture (both possible
ORGANIZATIONAL GREEN SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT: A HYBRID GROUP DECISION MAKING MODEL APPLICATION 121

indicators). Staff growth stands for the knowledge on a given topic. If the relational analysis (GRA) (Kuo et al.,
growing green awareness from the expert is not as familiar with a topic or 2008) is proposed to determine the
employees. Employee training level criteria, then their evaluation should indicator weights.
may be one example indicator. Green probably not carry as much weight
diffusion demonstrates the immersion when compared to more The Theil uneven index is one type of
level of green initiatives. It can be knowledgeable experts. All the entropy methods dealing with
calculated through public reports survey data and the experts’ inequality amongst distributions
such as corporate social judgemental valuation data, in this (Theil, 1967). Weights determined by
responsibility report. decision support system is, converted the Theil index don’t represent the
to 7-scale triangle fuzzy number importance of the index itself, but the
3.2 Data Valuation (Lu et al., 2008) as shown in Table 2. relative competitive importance
Approaches Different types of These are example transformations; amongst other indices (Zhang et al.,
data, and their multi-objective and may vary depending on further 2011). The relative importance of
characteristics make evaluation for study and development of scales and each index in MCDM can be
social and economic systems outcomes. measured by the means of a Theil
complex. Given the variety of data index (which originated to determine
including precise or imprecise, Index values are calculated by income distribution inequities in
interval, or subjective data need to be arithmetic mean based on the economics).
standardized before they can be normalized survey data. All evaluated
aggregated and used for comparative data given by experts are 7-scale Multi-criteria assessment system is
purposes. Some of these steps are linguistic values according to their comprehensive and more precise in
needed before assessment. expertise and familiarity on each evaluation but exposed to the
index. For the index weights, entropy correlation amongst indices concerns
In multi-criteria group decision value a popular approach in objective (Yuan et al., 2012). To avoid correlation
making situations, especially weighting methods, when amongst indices and the deviations in
interactive ones with input from quantitative, tangible, and/or archival subjective evaluation results, a grey
decision maker and experts, weights index data exists. Subjective multiple correlation differential approach is
are typically obtained by subjective criteria methods, such as AHP, may used in deriving index weights based
estimations rather than hard be used to determine individual’s on group decision-making method (Liu
numerical valuations. Fuzzy personal judgement when perceptual et al., 2010). Taking comprehensive
approaches can transform those or subjective information is needed, group evaluation for all objects as the
individual judgemental data including especially in cases when archival, reference sequence and the group
linguistic data and interval data into tangible data is non-existent. evaluation index for all objectives as
deterministic, precise values. the comparative sequence, the
Previous research shows that any correlation degree of the latter can
In this situation, linguistic values are weighing method has its advantages be calculated by the GRA correlation
used to represent those expert and disadvantages, thus scientifically method.
familiarity or preference for indices mixing and modifying qualitative and
and potential decision alternatives. quantitative methods might be more The multiplicative aggregation
Expert familiarity valuations are used effective in practical decision making. method is adopted for mixing the
to provide greater or lesser input Thus, a novel hybrid weighting weight of evaluation indices. The final
weighting for a group of experts when method combining these approaches scores and rankings can be obtained
aggregating their experience or with the Theil index and grey after calculating a weighted hybrid
value for each objective. The case
study will show how these
Table 2. 7-Scale Triangle Fuzzy Number for Linguistic Data and Interval Data calculations are made and are
Linguistic data summarized in a framework. The
Level Interval Triangle fuzzy
data number technique can be completed on an
Expert familiarity Assessment variable Mðl; m; uÞ Excel spreadsheet with some minor
1 Very familiar Very strong/Good [10,9) (9,10,10) spreadsheet development
2 Familiar Strong/Good [9,7) (7,9,10)
3 Moderately familiar Medium strong/good [7,5) (5,7,9)
4 Medium Fair/Medium [5,3.5) (3,5,7) The framework application flow chart
5 Moderately Unfamiliar Medium weak/poor [3.5,2) (1,3,5) for the case study and supporting
6 Unfamiliar Weak/Poor [2,1) (0,1,3) expressions for calculations are
7 Very Unfamiliar Very weak/poor [1,0) (0,0,1)
summarized in Fig. 1.
122 IEEE ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT REVIEW, VOL. 46, NO. 1, FIRST QUARTER, MARCH 2018

The following sections demonstrate (enacted in 2003), Made in China China’s manufacturing sectors. This
the framework application on a 2025 strategy, Implementation Guide impact is not limited only to green
step-by-step basis using a case for Green Manufacturing Engineering products, but also development of
study environment in the Chinese (2016-2020) policy all incorporate green plants, green manufacturing
automotive industry. with environmental laws and and automotive green supply chains.
regulations with an emphasis in green
manufacturing. The auto-industry has The Automobile Industrial
4 CASE STUDY OF EVALUATING some of the greatest potential for Association, Wuxi Province, China,
GSCM IN THE CHINESE environmental improvement through helped identify seven Chinese
greener manufacturing principles. auto manufacturers to evaluate
AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY the proposed model. These
To date, GSCM has gained Auto manufacturing is one of the pilot organizations include the FAW Group
increasing attention from Chinese green industries in the Made in China Corporation (state-owned enterprise),
government. Regulations such as 2025 policy. Auto industry greening Dongfeng Motor Corporation
Cleaner Production Promotion Law will have a profound impact on all of (state-owned enterprise), SAIC Motor

Fig. 1. Proposed model application flow chart and model calculations.

ORGANIZATIONAL GREEN SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT: A HYBRID GROUP DECISION MAKING MODEL APPLICATION 123

(state-owned enterprise), GAC An example set of substeps are u11 ¼ fð7; 9; ð5; 7; ð9; 10; ð9; 10;
Group (state-owned enterprise), now described with the necessary ð7; 9; ð5; 7; ð5; 7g
BYD Automobile (private company), calculations to complete the first u12 ¼ fStrong; MediumStrong;
Chery Automobile (private company), major step.
and Changan Automobile (private Strong; Strong; Strong;
company). Take factor u1 as an example to MediumStrong; Strongg
illustrate the formation process of
4.1 Model Application Steps The data matrix. Step1.1 Convert the survey data into
evaluation procedure is based on the fuzzy numbers using a conversion set
flow chart in Fig. 1. The general steps u1 have two indicators. of values.
include:
The greening level of suppliers u11 u11 ¼ fð7; 9; 10Þ; ð5; 7; 9Þ; ð9; 10; 10Þ;
Step 1 Standardize information and with seven indicator levels, ð9; 10; 10Þ; ð7; 9; 10Þ; ð5; 7; 9Þ;
data collected. The major data source
ð5; 7; 9Þg
were annual reports (2013-2016) fð9; 10; ð7; 9; ð5; 7; ð3:5; 5; ð2; 3:5;
and the annual social responsibility u12 ¼ fð7; 9; 10Þ; ð5; 7; 9Þ; ð7; 9; 10Þ;
ð1; 2; ð0; 1g
reports (2013-2016) released by the ð7; 9; 10Þ; ð7; 9; 10Þ; ð5; 7; 9Þ;
auto companies. In addition, websites ð5; 7; 9Þg
and the Green supplier management
of all evaluated enterprises and their
u12 with seven indicator levels of:
partners (mainly their suppliers and
Step1.2 Crisp fuzzy data to exact
logistic providers) were identified and
fVeryStrong; Stong; MediumStrong; Fair; data; using a conversion equation
used to inform expert opinions. Web
MediumWeak; Weak; VeryWeakg:
(see Fig. 1 Step 1).
resources include Marklines global
auto information platform, the u11 ¼ f8:750; 7:000; 9:750; 9:750;
Chinese commercial vehicle website, These levels are assigned by
8:750; 7:000; 7:000g
and auto channels of Sohu.net and knowledgeable experts in each
Xinhua.net. Supplementary category after reading the u12 ¼ f8:750; 7:000; 8:750; 8:750;
information for sub-indexes are documentation offered from 8:750; 7:000; 7:000g
conducted through one-on-one secondary sources.
personal interview communication
Step1.3 calculate value u1 of seven
with associated managers of The calculations for Table 3 are as
auto companies from u11 and u12
cross-functional teams, including follows:
by a simple arithmetic mean method:
quality, procurement, logistics,
administration, marketing, and First, the assigned scored indicator u1 ¼ f8:750; 7:000; 9:250; 9:250;
customer service. The survey rough data obtained for each of the
response rate is 100% owing seven auto companies for each factor 8:750; 7:000; 7:000g
to “Guanxi” relationships. are assigned as:
These values are shownins the first
row in Table 3. In the same way, the
Table 3. Normalized Data Matrix
normalized research value of u2  u17
Indicator SAIC FAW Dongfeng GAC BYD Chery Changan in Table 3 can be obtained.
Motor Group Motor Group Automobile Automobile Automobile
u1 8.750 7.000 9.250 9.250 8.750 7.000 7.000
u2 9.250 6.000 7.000 7.875 8.750 6.000 6.000 Step 2 Standardize experts’
u3 8.750 7.875 9.250 7.875 9.250 7.875 6.875 evaluation data Experts who
u4 6.438 8.035 5.868 7.090 6.036 6.386 5.191 participated in this investigation
u5 8.313 7.438 7.875 7.438 7.188 7.375 6.500
u6 8.750 7.000 8.750 8.750 9.750 7.000 7.000 included both academics and industry
u7 9.277 8.535 8.206 8.020 5.802 8.610 7.949 practitioners whose expertise is
u8 9.750 9.250 6.000 8.750 8.375 7.875 8.750 in the automobile industry. Three
u9 8.893 7.465 9.112 9.241 6.803 6.271 8.988
u10 8.547 9.311 9.853 9.306 8.173 9.160 8.939 academics completed the analysis;
u11 8.986 6.743 8.062 8.802 6.989 6.873 7.435 two management executives,
u12 4.555 5.581 8.581 7.694 3.568 2.728 6.828 and four senior technicians were
u13 8.249 5.458 10.355 8.333 7.438 4.586 5.189
u14 8.521 8.783 8.985 6.703 9.881 7.589 9.404 also involved. Each of them had
u15 7.614 7.857 8.175 7.088 8.031 6.817 7.445 several years of experience in the
u16 4.109 4.166 4.142 3.319 6.556 3.811 4.847 industry and were well versed in
u17 4.643 3.457 4.287 4.321 3.903 1.064 1.310
the state-of-the art practices.
124 IEEE ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT REVIEW, VOL. 46, NO. 1, FIRST QUARTER, MARCH 2018

The industry representatives who Step 3 Determine hybrid evaluation comprehensive evaluation value of
participated in this evaluation matrix. See columns 3-10 in Table 5 each evaluation item (the reference
processes are from competitive auto for a summary of the respondent sequence) is calculated; second, a
companies including Toyota and FAW evaluations for each factor averaged comprehensive evaluation value by
Taihu. across all companies. removing data from each item (the
comparative sequence) is calculated.
Four sub-steps are used to help form Step 4 Process indicator objective Third, we calculate a Deng correlation
group decision-making matrix. Firstly, weight. The combined objective degree by comparing the comparative
we combine and standardize two weight vector of the indicators in the sequence with the reference
de-fuzzified matrices about expected example problems is as follows: sequence for coefficient  ¼ 0:5.
familiarity with indices and objects, Finally, the combined subjective
into an expert weight matrix. Secondly, weight vector modified from Grey
tc ¼ ð0:048; 0:048; 0:048; 0:070;
an evaluation matrix from each expert correlation factor weights is
is obtained using normalized original 0:096; 0:024; 0:048; 0:048; 0:072;
determined:
evaluation data. Thirdly, a weighted 0:049; 0:072; 0:069; 0:092;
evaluation matrix of each expert is 0:024; 0:072; 0:048; 0:069Þ ac ¼ ð0:056; 0:042; 0:041; 0:070;
calculated. Finally, group decision 0:100; 0:027; 0:053; 0:068;
making matrix is formed. The 0:061; 0:059; 0:096; 0:039;
normalized experts’ evaluation data Step 5 Process indicator subjective
0:075; 0:021; 0:078; 0:046; 0:069Þ
matrix is shown on Table 4. weight determinations. Initially a

Table 4. Normalized Experts’ Evaluation Data Matrix

Step 6 Determine hybrid indicator
weights. Subjective and objective
Indicator SAIC FAW Dongfeng GAC BYD Chery Changan
Motor Group Motor Group Automobile Automobile Automobile weights are assembled into hybrid
u1 4.561 4.702 5.634 3.597 3.952 3.650 4.726 indicator weights by using the
u2 4.235 3.518 6.671 3.258 4.554 2.202 2.877 multiplicative synthesis formula
u3 5.932 5.875 4.084 3.527 4.373 3.770 5.462 (see Fig. 1):
u4 5.267 3.756 4.598 2.101 3.903 3.488 4.068
u5 5.898 4.552 5.412 4.309 3.473 3.380 3.792
u6 6.363 3.823 4.905 2.807 4.022 4.697 5.227 v ¼ ð0:042; 0:031; 0:031; 0:076; 0:149;
u7 5.963 4.115 5.368 2.730 3.548 4.359 5.181
0:010; 0:039; 0:051; 0:068; 0:044;
u8 5.912 5.703 4.424 3.821 3.898 4.559 5.152
u9 5.277 5.050 5.180 4.323 3.916 4.435 5.062 0:108; 0:042; 0:107; 0:008; 0:087;
u10 4.155 5.023 5.069 4.348 3.466 4.507 4.324
u11 3.878 4.372 4.831 4.664 2.574 3.123 4.878 0:034; 0:073Þ
u12 6.406 3.990 5.314 2.727 5.083 3.841 4.561
u13 4.810 4.108 4.632 3.385 3.547 3.047 3.471 The hybrid indicator weights are used
u14 4.042 2.255 4.786 3.319 2.169 3.038 2.625
u15 5.391 4.360 5.893 5.355 3.736 2.974 3.937 to weigh the relative
u16 3.766 3.709 5.108 4.556 2.194 3.189 3.028
u17 4.524 4.385 4.880 2.994 3.356 2.936 4.310 Step 7 Evaluate and rank objects
(companies). Calculate a supply
chain greenness level of each
Table 5. Hybrid Evaluation Matrix
automotive enterprise. The ranking
Indicator SAIC FAW Dongfeng GAC BYD Chery Changan
Motor Group Motor Group Automobile Automobile Automobile
amongst them is shown as follows
u1 6.656 5.851 7.442 6.424 6.351 5.325 5.863
(p stands for manufacturers under
u2 6.743 4.759 6.835 5.567 6.652 4.101 4.438 evaluation):
u3 7.341 6.875 6.667 5.701 6.811 5.822 6.169
u4 5.853 5.896 5.233 4.595 4.969 4.937 4.630
u5 7.105 5.995 6.644 5.873 5.330 5.377 5.146 p3 > p1 > p4 > p2 > p7 > p5 > p6 ;
u6 7.557 5.412 6.827 5.778 6.886 5.848 6.113
u7 7.620 6.325 6.787 5.375 4.675 6.484 6.565 which is detailed in Table 6.
u8 7.831 7.476 5.212 6.285 6.136 6.217 6.951
u9 7.085 6.257 7.146 6.782 5.359 5.353 7.025
u10 6.351 7.167 7.461 6.827 5.820 6.834 6.632 4.2 Findings The ranking for seven
u11 6.432 5.558 6.447 6.733 4.782 4.998 6.156 evaluated auto enterprises in terms of
u12 5.480 4.786 6.948 5.210 4.325 3.284 5.694
the green level of supply chains from
u13 6.530 4.783 7.494 5.859 5.492 3.817 4.330
u14 6.281 5.519 6.886 5.011 6.025 5.313 6.015 high to low are: Dongfeng, SAIC,
u15 6.503 6.109 7.034 6.221 5.883 4.896 5.691 GAC, FAW, Changan, BYD, and
u16 3.938 3.938 4.625 3.938 4.375 3.500 3.938
Chery. From the perspective of the
u17 4.583 3.921 4.583 3.657 3.630 2.000 2.810
corporate type, the supply chain
ORGANIZATIONAL GREEN SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT: A HYBRID GROUP DECISION MAKING MODEL APPLICATION 125

of the state-owned auto-makers HGDMM is perceived to be practical is needed to improve their positioning
are greener than that of private for managers to use in facilitating their amongst its competitors.
companies. From the perspective green supply chain management
of evaluation index, ten indices for decisions. 5 CONCLUSION AND
Dongfeng automobile are ranked the
first place, and six indices of SAIC list Additionally, the tool can be used for
MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS
first place, FAW and GAC ranked first a variety of other purposes; e.g., Green supply chain management is
once each. ranking research and development strategic and critical in organizations.
projects, selecting or ranking Managerial decisions on improving
One of the reason might be the suppliers, or other multiple criteria green performance and increasing
environmental pressures from decision making characteristics. green capacity is even more complex.
stakeholders vary across In this situation, the ranking is Industries will benefit from a
different corporate types. Green completed as a benchmarking construction of a systematic and
consciousness of private auto exercise to determine how well user-friendly tool that could facilitate
manufacturers are increasing and automotive organizations are green supply chain associated
enhancing over the decade. The competing on various greening decision making performance and
increasing green consciousness efforts. The measures could have benchmarking evaluation. This paper
helps to promote a number of green been based on performance such as introduced a hybrid group decision
initiatives such as new energy cost or quality business metrics that making model (HGDMM) tool and
vehicles of BYD, green plant of are both tangible or intangible. example application for managerial
Chery, so on and so forth. There implementation.
will be a time delay before the green Managers who might use this
initiatives to take effect, but from approach for benchmarking purposes The tool incorporates both objective
a long term perspective, green need to realize that there are and subjective factors selected from
effectiveness will reveal and be significant areas for subjectivity and green supply chain management
reflected in the overall organizational there are margin’s of error. Although literature, and is applied to evaluate
performance especially supply chain the final scores are quantified, GSCM capabilities of Chinese auto
dimensions. managers should be aware of the manufacturers. The case study helps
amount of subjectivity involved. What- validate the tool’s usability. Also,
The proposed HGDMM evaluation if analyses or sensitivity analyses can results reveal the fact that with current
method is user-friendly and effective be carried out by varying weights or domestic and global industrial
inn generating the results. The idea even scales. This additional analysis development trends, it is the right time
“hybrid” guides the whole evaluation can help provide managers with an to mobilize Chinese manufacturing
process for weakening the subjective idea of the solution robustness. It can enterprises to motivate their upstream
randomness and objective rigidity. also help managers determine what suppliers, distributers /retailers,
manufacturing service providers and
Table 6. Ranking of Green Supply Chain for Auto Manufacturers
downstream supply chain, to
implement green manufacturing and
Indicator Indicator SAIC FAW Dongfeng GAC BYD Chery Changan
weight Motor Group Motor Group Automobile Automobile Automobile supply chain practices. A ranking and
u1 0.042 6.656 5.851 7.442 6.424 6.351 5.325 5.863 benchmarking tool and method, such
u2 0.031 6.743 4.759 6.835 5.567 6.652 4.101 4.438 as the one proposed in this paper can
u3 0.031 7.341 6.875 6.667 5.701 6.811 5.822 6.169
greatly improve GSCM in Chinese
u4 0.076 5.853 5.896 5.233 4.595 4.969 4.937 4.630
u5 0.149 7.105 5.995 6.644 5.873 5.330 5.377 5.146 and other country organizations. The
u6 0.010 7.557 5.412 6.827 5.778 6.886 5.848 6.113 tool can evaluate other supply chain
u7 0.039 7.620 6.325 6.787 5.375 4.675 6.484 6.565
partners and help identify the
u8 0.051 7.831 7.476 5.212 6.285 6.136 6.217 6.951
u9 0.068 7.085 6.257 7.146 6.782 5.359 5.353 7.025 drawbacks of each party and help in
u10 0.044 6.351 7.167 7.461 6.827 5.820 6.834 6.632 continuous improvement initiatives
u11 0.108 6.432 5.558 6.447 6.733 4.782 4.998 6.156
to increase overall green level
u12 0.042 5.480 4.786 6.948 5.210 4.325 3.284 5.694
u13 0.107 6.530 4.783 7.494 5.859 5.492 3.817 4.330 of the entire supply chains. Policy
u14 0.008 6.281 5.519 6.886 5.011 6.025 5.313 6.015 makers can also utilize the tool for
u15 0.087 6.503 6.109 7.034 6.221 5.883 4.896 5.691
evaluation processes that can
u16 0.034 3.938 3.938 4.625 3.938 4.375 3.500 3.938
u17 0.073 4.583 3.921 4.583 3.657 3.630 2.000 2.810 eventually lead to industry or
Green Value 6.460 5.679 6.479 5.747 5.299 4.820 5.383
nationwide socio-ecological and
environmental development in a
Ranking 2 4 1 3 6 7 5
more sustainable way.
126 IEEE ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT REVIEW, VOL. 46, NO. 1, FIRST QUARTER, MARCH 2018

The auto mobile industry case study is makers. It is simple, yet robust. Many Level Talents Training Project of
an exemplary application of the tweaks can also be utilized depending Fifth Phase in Jiangsu Province,
proposed model. This practice is not on company and decision maker China (BRA2017481), in part the
limited to certain industries. The goals. But, care must be taken to also philosophy and social science fund
application of this proposed tool could realize, that like any other modelling project of colleges and universities
also help managers from other approach, the model is limited by the in Jiangsu Province, China
industries to use in their green supply quality of data, and the analysis (2017SJB0844), and in part the
chain management decision making utilized to make eventual decision. Doctoral Research Startup Fund
processes. Besides, the application in within Institute of Supply Chain
China can be extended to other ACKNOWLEDGMENT Studies of Wuxi Vocational Institute
countries. The model is designed with of Commerce.
extensive applicability beyond culture, This paper was supported in part by
industry, organizations and decision the Research Project of 333 High

REFERENCES
Ahi, P., & Searcy, C. (2013). A comparative literature analysis of definitions for green
and sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 52,
329–341.
Ashby, A., Leat, M., & Hudson-Smith, M. (2012). Making connections: A review of
supply chain management and sustainability literature. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, 17(5), 497–516.
Awasthi, A., & Kannan, G. (2016). Green supplier development program selection
using NGT and VIKOR under fuzzy environment. Computers & Industrial
Engineering, 91, 100–108. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
cie.2015.11.011.
Brandenburg, M., Govindan, K., Sarkis, J., & Seuring, S. (2014). Quantitative
models for sustainable supply chain management: Developments and directions.
European Journal of Operational Research, 233(2), 299–312.
De Giovanni, P., & Vinzi, V. E. (2012). Covariance versus component-based
estimations of performance in green supply chain management. International
Journal of Production Economics, 135(2), 907–916.
Deif, A. M. (2011). A system model for green manufacturing. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 19(14), 1553–1559.
Drohomeretski, E., Gouvea da Costa, S., & Pinheiro de Lima, E. (2014). Green
supply chain management: Drivers, barriers and practices within the Brazilian
automotive industry. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 25(8),
1105–1134.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S. J., & Fosso Wamba, S. (2017). World class
sustainable supply chain management: Critical review and further research
directions. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 28(2), 332–362.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Papadopoulos, T., & Childe, S. J. (2015). Green supply
chain management enablers: Mixed methods research. Sustainable Production
and Consumption, 4, 72–88.
Fahimnia, B., Sarkis, J., & Davarzani, H. (2015). Green supply chain management:
A review and bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Production
Economics, 162, 101–114. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijpe.2015.01.003.
Govindan, K., Rajendran, S., Sarkis, J., & Murugesan, P. (2015). Multi criteria
decision making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: a
literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 98, 66–83.
Hervani, A. A., Helms, M. M., & Sarkis, J. (2005). Performance measurement for green
supply chain management. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 12(4), 330–353.
ORGANIZATIONAL GREEN SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT: A HYBRID GROUP DECISION MAKING MODEL APPLICATION 127

Kuo, Y., Yang, T., & Huang, G. W. (2008). The use of grey relational analysis in
solving multiple attribute decision-making problems. Computers & Industrial
Engineering, 55(1), 80–93.
Liu, S., Dang, Y., Fang, Z., & Xie, N. M. (2004). Grey system theory and its
application. Beijing, China: Science Press.
Lun, Y. V., Lai, K. H., Wong, C. W., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2015). Greening propensity
and performance implications for logistics service providers. Transportation
Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 74, 50–62.
Mangan, J., & Lalwani, C. (2016). Global logistics and supply chain management.
Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley.
Mishra, D., Gunasekaran, A., Papadopoulos, T., & Hazen, B. (2017). Green supply
chain performance measures: A review and bibliometric analysis. Sustainable
Production and Consumption, 10, 85–99.
Sarkis, J., & Dou, Y. (2017). Green supply chain management: A concise
introduction. Abingdon, U.K.: Routledge.
Sarkis, J., & Zhu, Q. (2017). Environmental sustainability and production:
Taking the road less travelled. International Journal of Production Research,
55, 1–17.
Shaharudin, M. R., Govindan, K., Zailani, S., Tan, K. C., & Iranmanesh, M. (2017).
Product return management: Linking product returns, closed-loop supply chain
activities and the effectiveness of the reverse supply chains. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 149, 1144–1156.
Theil, H., & Theil, H. (1967). Economics and information theory. Amsterdam,
The Netherlands.
Ubeda, S., Arcelus, F. J., & Faulin, J. (2011). Green logistics at Eroski: A case study.
International Journal of Production Economics, 131(1), 44–51. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.04.041
€ & Dede, A. (2016). Performance evaluation of green supply chain
Uygun, O.,
management using integrated fuzzy multi-criteria decision making techniques.
Computers & Industrial Engineering, 102, 502–511.
Van Bommel, H. W. (2011). A conceptual framework for analyzing sustainability
strategies in industrial supply networks from an innovation perspective. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 19(8), 895–904.
Wang, Z., Mathiyazhagan, K., Xu, L., & Diabat, A. (2016). A decision making trial
and evaluation laboratory approach to analyze the barriers to Green Supply Chain
Management adoption in a food packaging company. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 117, 19–28.
Wu€bbeke, J., Meissner, M., Zenglein, M. J., Ives, J., & Conrad, B. (2016). Made in
China 2025. Mercator Institute for China Studies, (2), 14–41.
Yuan, Y., Li, Y. J., & Jiang, W. (2012). Study of regional economic competitiveness
based on correlation coefficients standard deviation model for multiple attribute
evaluation method. Operations Research and Management Science, 21(2),
249–255.
Zhang, S. Y., Xu, J. C., & Li, D. J. (2011). Grey evaluation on corporate venture
capital project based on the Theil index. Systems Engineering–Theory &
Practice, 31(11), 2052–2059.
Zhu, Q., Feng, Y., & Choi, S. B. (2017). The role of customer relational governance
in environmental and economic performance improvement through green supply
chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 155, 46–53.
Zhu, Q., & Sarkis, J. (2016). Green marketing and consumerism as social change in
China: Analyzing the literature. International Journal of Production Economics,
181, 289–302.