This article was downloaded by: [Tamilnadu Agricultural Univ] On: 10 August 2013, At: 00:32 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

Environmental principles applicable to green supplier evaluation by using multi-objective decision analysis
Louis Y.Y. Lu , C.H. Wu & T.-C. Kuo
a a a b

Graduate School of Management, Yuan Ze University, Taiwan, Republic of China

b

Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Ming Hsin University of Science and Technology, Taiwan, Republic of China Published online: 03 Dec 2010.

To cite this article: Louis Y.Y. Lu , C.H. Wu & T.-C. Kuo (2007) Environmental principles applicable to green supplier evaluation by using multi-objective decision analysis, International Journal of Production Research, 45:18-19, 4317-4331, DOI: 10.1080/00207540701472694 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207540701472694

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/termsand-conditions

Downloaded by [Tamilnadu Agricultural Univ] at 00:32 10 August 2013

International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45, Nos. 1819, 15 September1 October 2007, 43174331

Environmental principles applicable to green supplier evaluation by using multi-objective decision analysis
LOUIS Y.Y. LUy, C.H. WU*y and T.-C. KUOz
yGraduate School of Management, Yuan Ze University, Taiwan, Republic of China zDepartment of Industrial Engineering and Management, Ming Hsin University of Science and Technology, Taiwan, Republic of China

Downloaded by [Tamilnadu Agricultural Univ] at 00:32 10 August 2013

(Revision received May 2007) The recent shift from buying products to purchasing sets of services makes the re-use of recovered materials, parts and products desirable. In response to heightened governmental regulations and rising public awareness of the effect of industrial production on the environment, many organizations are now undertaking major initiatives to transform their supply chain processes. In contrast with the reverse logistic models, the green supply chain (GSC) is a broad concept that refers to a variety of methods by which companies work with their suppliers to improve the environmental performance of their products or manufacturing processes of the suppliers, customers or both. Two primary goals of GSC include: (1) consistently meeting specified environmental performance criteria among the participants in the supply chain, and promoting responsible corporate environmental behaviour among all the players in the chain of products and services, and (2) helping suppliers to recognize the importance of resolving environmental issues and support them in installing their own improvement initiatives. The emergence of GSC is one of the most significant environmental developments in the past decade, offering the opportunity for companies to align their supply chains in accordance with environmental and sustainability goals. GSC provides information and technical assistance to small- and medium-sized businesses that lack the resources of large companies, and can monitor and measure progress to facilitate environmental enhancement. The number of products produced entirely of recyclable materials will increase in the future, and organizations will have to make supply chain decisions within the context of growing environmental concerns and responsibilities. This study presents an innovative method using simple and efficient procedures to evaluate the effectiveness of projects supplying GSC concept. Specifically, a multi-objective decision making process for GSC management (GSCM) is presented to help the supply chain manager in measuring and evaluating suppliers performance based on an analytical hierarchy process (AHP) decision-making method. In addition, to reduce subjective bias in designing a weighting system, a fuzzy logic process is used to modify the AHP. Keywords: Environment supply chain management; Analytical hierarchy process; Reverse logistics; Multi-objective decision making

*Corresponding author. Email: chw@must.edu.tw

International Journal of Production Research ISSN 00207543 print/ISSN 1366588X online 2007 Taylor & Francis http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals DOI: 10.1080/00207540701472694

4318

L. Y.Y. Lu et al.

1. Introduction The most recent decade witnessed significant interest in both environmental management and supply chain management (SCM) challenges. Lamming and Hampson (1996) emphasized that parallels exist between environmental management practices (such as life cycle analysis, waste management and product stewardship) and SCM practices (such as vendor assessment, total quality management, lean supply, and collaborative practices); that is, in addition to traditional performance dimensions of cost, quality, delivery and technology. Supply chain (SC) managers must also consider the impact of their decisions on the environment, known as the environmental supply chain management (ESCM) or the green supply chain management (GSCM) (Jacqueline et al. 1995, Zsidisin and Siferd 2001, Boons 2002, Geoffrey et al. 2002, Sharratt and Choong 2002, Kumar and Malegeant 2006, Tsoulfas and Pappis 2006). In contrast to the reverse logistic models (Hart 1997, Bettac et al. 1999, Linton 1999, Mulder et al. 1999, Nagel et al. 1999, van Hoek 1999), GSCM is a broad term describing a variety of approaches through which companies work with their suppliers to improve the environmental performance of the products or manufacturing processes of suppliers and customers. GSCM is not a chain of businesses with one-to-one, business-to-business relationships, but instead it is a network of multiple business and collaborative relationships for environmental betterment. It requires successful coordination, integration and management across members (enterprises) in the supply chain that includes raw material suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, users, and recyclers (Geoffrey et al. 2002). In response to increased governmental regulations of Packaging and Packaging Waste (PPW 2004), Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE 2003), Restriction of the use of certain Hazardous Substance in Electrical and Electronic Equipment (RoHS 2003), Eco-Design Requirements for Energy Using Products (EUP 2005), and rising public awareness of how industrial production affects the environment, many organizations are initiating significant reforms of their entire SC system. Brand companies such as Xerox and Interface have acknowledged responsibility for their products in the end-of-life (EOL) phase and, therefore, have established an environmental criteria hierarchy for designing and managing this phase to enhance their residual value. IBM sets forth environmental criteria for managing EOL products (i.e. places re-use and re-manufacturing ahead of re-cycling), and includes EOL factors in their initial product design criteria. Pitney Bows focused on managing existing waste rather than changing the quantity and characteristics of waste through product redesign (Fishbein 2000). Sony initiated Green Partner Activities in July 2001, requiring all of its suppliers to review and strengthen their environmental management efforts (Sony 2003). In addition, manufacturing enterprises are adopting various short- and long-term strategies to implement environmentally friendly management practices that reduce the amount of waste produced. This added risk creates an opportunity for environmentally conscious supply chain management to affect both environmental and financial performance (Handfield et al. 2005). In Taiwan for instance, with the brand companies increasingly relying on their suppliers environmental performance (Narasimhan and Carter 1998), managers face significant challenges of having to: comply with existing and up-and-coming

Downloaded by [Tamilnadu Agricultural Univ] at 00:32 10 August 2013

Environmental principles applicable to green supplier evaluation

4319

legislation, reduce costs, meet customer expectations/demands, introduce technological innovations, remain competitive and maintain a good corporate image. However, they found it is quite difficult to implement the green concept throughout the entire supply chain. The reasons are summarized as follows: 1. Most companies, especially the small- and medium-sized companies (SMEs) hesitate to implement environmental principle related strategies because they cannot adequately determine the economic risks. 2. The high level managers in many SMEs are just beginning to emphasize the environmental issues; however, they are short of human resources and budgets to address environmental concerns. 3. In the past, supplier evaluation often involved applying a weighted scoring system (Monczka et al. 1997). The manager usually used past historical data to measure supplier performance. Unfortunately, the past historical data may not have accurately reflected current reality since the environmental regulations are getting tougher to meet (Handfield 2002). 4. The last reason is the most critical one. Each enterprise may have hundreds of suppliers which need to be monitored and controlled. While supplier evaluation and selection decisions are routine, very few companies have developed an approach and methodology for incorporating environmental issues into this decision. Therefore, it needs a simple and efficient tool to help the manager make the multi-criteria decision problem based on the life cycle management. This study presents a method using an analytical hierarchy process (AHP) that involves simple and efficient procedures, to measure a multi-objective project to help the manager to evaluate their cooperating green suppliers. Furthermore, to reduce subjective bias in designing a weighting system, a fuzzy logic process is used to modify the AHP. 2. Background Earlier, Wu and Dunn (1995) indicated that every element in the corporate value chain (Porter 1985) should be involved in minimizing the firms total environmental impact from start to finish of the SC and also from the beginning to the end of the product life cycle. Figure 1 shows the relationship between resource conversion and pollutant generation. As resources are used to create desired utilities, pollutants are implicitly produced as by-products during each step in the integrated SC process. Sarkis (2003) summarized how operational life cycle and environmentally conscious organizational practices. In his study, several environmental tools are compared. Liu et al. (2002) noted that the design for recycling (DFR) process focused on closing the loop of materials and components after use by (re)using/ utilizing them for new products. Within the loops, among the various forms of possible recycling approaches to re-use, service, re-manufacturing, re-cycling of production scrap, re-cycle (separation), re-cycle (shred) and disposal activities. Concerning the SC itself, four specific areas were discussed as potential closing the loop candidates for: 1. Supplier selection and evaluation. 2. Surplus and scrap disposition.

Downloaded by [Tamilnadu Agricultural Univ] at 00:32 10 August 2013

4320
Raw material acquisition Inbound logistics

L. Y.Y. Lu et al.
Outbound logistics

Transformation

Marketing

After-sales

Purchasing, vendor selection vendor location

Consolidation Inventory Mode selection Management Carrier selection Packaging Materials handling Warehousing Backhaul management

Network design Inventory decisions Packaging Consolidation Mode selection Carrier selection Warehousing Backhaul management

Service levels Channel decisions

Retums handling Parts management Service network

Downloaded by [Tamilnadu Agricultural Univ] at 00:32 10 August 2013

Figure 1.

Adapted from Porters value chain (Wu and Dunn 1995).

3. Carrier selection and transportation of hazardous materials. 4. Product design, packaging and labelling. Boons (2002) described six types of product chain management in terms of their collective outcomes: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Material reduction. Material substitution. Material recycling. Product substitution. Product re-cycling. Elimination.

Considering an example of material reduction, both supplier and producer of a product may be integrated, as in the case of the production of glass milk bottles in the Netherlands. Then, the material reduction involves coordination with suppliers through internal decision-making within the firm. The GSCM function should include the following steps: 1. Analysing the environmental impact of an existing supply chain system based on life cycle analysis (LCA) tools such as eco-indicators. 2. Simultaneously minimizing the environmental impact and operating costs of a supply chain system by using operations research techniques. 3. Generating a procurement decision for a SC system to reach an environmental target at the lowest possible cost. Handfield (2002) applied environmental criteria to evaluate suppliers by using AHP. This study was only developed through using a Delphi group of environmental experts. The purchasing manager or the supply chain manager was not considered. Burke and Gaughran (2006) provided an intelligent environmental management process for SMEs in manufacturing. In the above research, the use of information technology in assisting SMEs manages their environmental impacts has significant potential for providing a complete holistic environmental information management system.

Environmental principles applicable to green supplier evaluation

4321

Based on this brief overview of greening of the supply chain, managers have realized that a large and rising level of environmental risk is embedded in various companies supply chains. Additionally, buyersupplier relations play an increasingly important role in addressing environmental issues. The third concern is that firms should change their environmental performance methods in order to incorporate environmental concerns of external sources. Therefore, a system analysis is needed to integrate environmental management with the greening of the SC. SC managers must consider the complete environmental impact of a product during its entire life cycle, including raw material, manufacturing/assembly processes, distribution, use and disposal. The environmental effects include material, energy, air, water, and solid waste pollution.

Downloaded by [Tamilnadu Agricultural Univ] at 00:32 10 August 2013

3. Green supplier evaluation by using the multi-objective decision analysis As mentioned above, the green supplier evaluation could be seen as a multi-objective decision analysis challenge. To solve such a complex problem, the AHP method was used. The advantage of AHP to the user includes its reliance on easily obtained managerial judgment data, its ability to reconcile differences (inconsistencies) in managerial judgments and perceptions, and the existence of easy-to-use commercial software that implements the AHP (Calantone et al. 1999). The framework is depicted as follows (figure 2). 1. Environmental impact analysis hierarchy structure (figure 2). This step develops the hierarchy of the problem in terms of the overall goal, the criteria to be used and the decision alternatives. 2. Environmental analysis evaluation. Select the proper design guidelines based on environmental considerations. 3. Fuzzy multi-objective decision making. To prevent bias in the data, fuzzy logic is used to evaluate design alternatives based on the AHP weighting factor.

3.1 Integration of AHP and fuzzy logic The AHP method developed by Satty (1990) aggregates various facets of the decision problem using a single optimization function known as the objective functions. The goal of AHP is to select the alternative that results in the greatest value of the objective function. Therefore, the green supplier selection is transformed to find the greatest value of the objective function. Furthermore, to reduce the subjective bias from the weighting system, a fuzzy logic process is used to modify the AHP. Since the AHP is a fundamental method that is described in many research studies (Satty 1980, 1990). Here only the summarized steps of AHP are described: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. To To To To To To establish the hierarchy structure. construct a pair-wise comparison matrix. calculate the priority vector. calculate the maximum Eigen value. examine the consistency. arrange the evaluation criteria and their weights.

4322

L. Y.Y. Lu et al.

Current environmental regulations

Companies environmental policies

NGO environmental guidelines

NGO: non governmental organization To construct the AHP structure based on the life cycle management

Downloaded by [Tamilnadu Agricultural Univ] at 00:32 10 August 2013

Weighting factor determination

Weighting factor revised by using fuzzy logic

Fuzzy method

To conduct supplier evaluation

Figure 2.

The framework of green supplier evaluation.

After the AHP method is finished, the SC manager then performs a simple comparison evaluation by seeking a decision function, D, that simultaneously satisfies all of the environmental criteria. Therefore, they need to combine the weighting goals into an overall decision function to reduce subjective bias. Based on the AHP, the preferences are attached to each goal to quantify the designers feelings about the effect that each goal should have on the chosen alternative. Define a universe of m alternatives, A {a1, a2, . . . am} and a set of n objectives, O {O1, O2, . . . , On}. Let the parameter bi be contained on the set of weighting preference, W {b1, b2, . . . , bm}. Then the function is represented as the interaction of n-tuples, denoted as a decision measure, M(Oi, bi), involving aims and preferences. D MO1 , b1 \ MO2 , b2 \ \ MOn , bn 1

The most important problem in equation (1) is to determine which operation should relate to each goal Oi, and its importance bi, that preserves the linear ordering

Environmental principles applicable to green supplier evaluation

4323

required of the preference set, and at the same time relates the two quantities in a logical way where negation is also accommodated. A particular alternative, a, can be replaced with a classical implication of the form, MOi a, bi bi ! Oi a Ci a where Ci a bi [ Oi a hence Ci a max bi a, Oi a 2

Downloaded by [Tamilnadu Agricultural Univ] at 00:32 10 August 2013

Equation (2) indicates a unique relationship between a preference and its associated goal. As the ith goal becomes more important in the final decision, bi rises, causing bi to fall, which in turn causes Ci(a) to fall, thereby increasing the likelihood that C1(a) Oi(a), where Oi(a) denotes the value of the decision function D(a), denoting alternative a. Therefore, a reasonable decision model for the alternative a is the joint intersection of n decision measures, denoting as D(a). Da MO1 a, b1 \ MO2 a, b2 \ \ MOn a, bn n \ Mbi [ Oi a
i1

The optimum design, D*, is the alternative a that maximizes D(a) based on the calculation using equation (3).

3.2 Environmental criteria applicable to the supply chain In order to develop a rational framework from many different types of environmental criteria, a group of supply chain managers from Common Wealth, a leading magazine in Taiwan, surveyed 500 companies. These criteria were designed to encourage exploration by the supply chain manager of potential environmental impacts during the life cycle stages of a product. The life cycle stages, life cycle management, of a product include the time from the extraction of resources needed to make the product to its disposal, in the pre-manufacturing, manufacturing, packaging, use/maintenance and end-of-life stages. In addition, the related environmental concern questions provide manufacturers with some related ideas and options for resolving the concerns. SC managers could minimize the products environmental impact based on the following criteria. All the questions are a relative measure of the attributes of the product under consideration. It complements the economic, customer-value, manufacturability and other parameters that may also be evaluated. There are many research studies which have investigated the design for environmental criteria. The following are case environmental criteria, questions and observations to be used for evaluation purposes.

4324

L. Y.Y. Lu et al.

1. Pre-manufacturing. Parts and raw materials are procured for use in manufacturing products. For instance, (i) What percentage of product or component suppliers has an environmental management system (EMS) in existence? (ii) What percentage of product or component suppliers has incorporated formal energy conservation practices? (iii) What percentage of product or component suppliers has regularly published a company environmental report? 2. Manufacturing. All stages of the production processes within the company, from the time the raw materials enter the facility until the product is ready for packaging. Manufacturing includes chemical or thermal processing, assembly and finishing. As an example, some measures might include: (i) Is the highest possible amount of recycled material used in the product? (ii) Are hazardous materials avoided or minimized? (iii) Is the amount of material used minimized, etc? 3. Packaging and distribution. The material is packaged for both transport and purchase, routed through the appropriate distribution and transport system and delivered to the consumer. For this stage, the key questions could be as follows: (i) Have re-usable transport packaging options been studied for distribution between company facilities? (ii) Are the packaging materials clearly marked or easily identified by material type? (iii) Is the packaging free from bromated flame retardants, which may produce hazardous emissions if incinerated at low temperatures? 4. Use and maintenance. The time from when the customer receives the product until the customer is ready to dispose of the product. Criteria for this stage may be: (i) Is the product or component easily disassembled for upgrade, repair or re-use? (ii) Are parts readily available for the repair of this product or component? (iii) If plastics are used, are they clearly marked by resin type? 5. End of life. Due to the hazardous material content, waste electric and electronic equipment may cause environment problems during the waste management phase if it is not properly pre-treated. Metrics for this stage could include: (i) Do removable fasteners such as snaps, darts and screws have the same head type, and are adhesive or welds avoided for joining parts to make disassembly, repair, re-use or re-cycling easy? (ii) Are the materials easily re-used or commonly re-cycled? (iii) Is the release of ozone-depleting substances and global warming gases avoided upon disposal of this product or component?

Downloaded by [Tamilnadu Agricultural Univ] at 00:32 10 August 2013

Environmental principles applicable to green supplier evaluation

4325

4. Case study From the discussion above, it follows that the SC manager should evaluate how well each alternative satisfies each environmental criterion, and to combine the objectives into an overall decision function. Managers can evaluate their suppliers by using the fundamentals of the AHP method along with a fuzzy logic analysis process. According to the EUP (2005) directive, the significant way to evaluate the environmental impacts is by applying a life cycle design, LCD, (raw materials production, manufacturing, use, and recovery/reutilization) in the greening SC. For, each phase the general measurements, the environmental impact analysis of materials, energy use, solid residue, liquid residue and gaseous residue are evaluated for each stage. Figure 3 shows the system architecture of the proposed methodology. The input to the system should be the information concerning the environmental impact of the product. The multi-objective decision-making process, based on the pre-manufacturing, product manufacture, distribution/packaging, use, maintenance and end of life, could generate a greener project. The SC manager in SMEs frequently wishes to combine the weighting aims into an overall decision function, to determine the sensitivity of the optimum solutions to the preference rating. The SC manager evaluated three projects to verify the validity of the model. The pair-wise comparison matrix of the AHP was constructed and calculated according to the five environmental criteria as depicted in table 1. Since different companies will have different weighting factors for the environmental criteria. A survey form was designed. Table 1 shows the results of pair-wise comparison by using the AHP process. Moreover, the weighting factor for each life cycle stage in the AHP method was calculated in tables A1A5 of the Appendix. Furthermore, the weighting factor was

Downloaded by [Tamilnadu Agricultural Univ] at 00:32 10 August 2013

Green supply chain management

Environmental criteria

Materials

Energy use

Solid residue

Liquid residue

Gaseous residue

Supply chain Premanufacturing stages

Product manufacture

Distribution, packaging

Product use, maintenance

End of life

Supplier 1

Supplier 2

Supplier 3

Figure 3.

The green supply chain hierarchy.

4326 Table 1.

L. Y.Y. Lu et al. The pair-wise comparison of environmental criteria. Energy using 3 1 3 5 2 Solid residues 2 0.33333 1 2 0.5 Liquid residues 2 0.2 0.5 1 0.5 Gaseous residues 3 0.5 2 2 1 Weighting 0.352255 0.072003 0.185511 0.272178 0.118053

Materials Materials Energy using Solid residues Liquid residues Gaseous residues 1 0.33333 0.5 0.5 0.33333

 5.151229, CI 0.037807, CR 0.03375650.1.

Downloaded by [Tamilnadu Agricultural Univ] at 00:32 10 August 2013

obtained and arranged in table 2, which shows the relative weights with respect to the five criteria. The weighting factor of five environmental criteria based on the five supply chain stages were summed and recalculated as shown in table 3. The SC manager sets up the problem as follows: A fa 1 , a 2 , a 3 g O fPre-manufacturing, Manufacturing, Distribution, Use=Maintenance, End-of-lifeg W fb1 , b2 , b3 , b4 , b5 g ! 0, 1 The GSC manager studied three possible decision scenarios for premanufacturing, product manufacture, distribution/package, use/maintenance, and end-of-life. The results are shown in table 4; and it can be used to help the GSC designer to choose the desired design alternative to achieve the minimum environmental impact. To consider the weighting factor, furthermore, the problem is converted into a multi-attribute decision making problem. The membership functions for the alternatives are then calculated according to equations (1)(3). The GSC managers combine the weighting goals into an overall decision function to calculate the sensitivity of the optimum solutions to the preference rating as follows: Da1
n \ i1

Mbi [ Oi a

0:2180 _ 0:35 ^ 0:5330 _ 0:55 ^ 0:037 _ 0:65 ^ 0:086 _ 0:7 ^ 0:127 _ 0:6 0:35 Da2 0:2180 _ 0:55 ^ 0:5330 _ 0:5 ^ 0:037 _ 0:7 ^ 0:086 _ 0:5 ^ 0:127 _ 0:7 0:533 Da3 0:2180 _ 0:5 ^ 0:5330 _ 0:8 ^ 0:037 _ 0:6 ^ 0:086 _ 0:7 ^ 0:127 _ 0:5 0:5

Environmental principles applicable to green supplier evaluation Table 2. The pair-wise comparison of value chain activities. Energy using 0.072002801 0.173730047 0.558959564 0.038954677 0.082135546 0.14622 Solid residues 0.185511204 0.173730047 0.558959564 0.038954677 0.082135546 0.14622 Liquid residues 0.272177871 0.213762356 0.523010432 0.033200288 0.073807666 0.156219

4327

Materials Pre-manufacturing Manufacturing Distribution Use and maintenance End of life 0.352254902 0.252632118 0.536868132 0.03566601 0.104620692 0.070213

Gaseous residues 0.118053221 0.218489608 0.487985102 0.044223274 0.07132794 0.177974

Downloaded by [Tamilnadu Agricultural Univ] at 00:32 10 August 2013

Table 3.

The normalized weighting factor for each criteria based on the environmental aspects. Materials Energy use 0.072 0.013 0.040 0.003 0.006 0.011 Solid residues 0.186 0.032 0.104 0.007 0.015 0.027 Liquid residues 0.272 0.058 0.142 0.009 0.020 0.043 Gaseous residues 0.118 0.026 0.058 0.005 0.008 0.021 Sum 0.218 0.533 0.037 0.086 0.127

Pre-manufacturing Manufacturing Distribution Use and maintenance End of life

0.352 0.089 0.189 0.013 0.037 0.025

Table 4.

The results of fuzzy calculation. Weighting a1 0.35 0.55 0.65 0.70 0.60 a2 0.55 0.50 0.70 0.50 0.70 a3 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.5

Pre-manufacturing Manufacturing Distribution/package Use and maintenance End-of-life

0.218 0.533 0.037 0.086 0.127

Therefore, the optimal design alternative, D*, is a3, since it maximizes the objective function as shown in the following: D max Da1 , Da2 , Da3 maxf0:35, 0:533, 0:5g 0:533

5. Conclusion At the beginning of the 21st century, environmental considerations have become a critical element in the design of products. This study presents an efficient GSC approach to enable managers to evaluate various projects and establish an environmentally benign product design. The hierarchical structure of the

4328

L. Y.Y. Lu et al.

environmentally conscious design indices was built by AHP. The multi-objective decision making model was used to select the best project in the green supply chain. The advantages of this method are as follows. . The model is intuitive, and captures the expertise of experienced SC designers. . The method can be easily computerized, enabling it to serve as a decisionmaking tool to assist SC managers in designing environmentally benign products. . The scheme can be generalized to handle a variety of environmental situations efficiently.

Downloaded by [Tamilnadu Agricultural Univ] at 00:32 10 August 2013

It is important to note that it is very difficult to make a decision for different suppliers when considering all the environmental criteria, since there are just too many factors which need to be considered. Avoiding this shortcoming, rank reversal of AHP (Belton and Gear 1984, Dyer 1990a), the above issues are listed to assist in making comparisons. The paired comparisons depend upon the specific alternatives (Dyer 1990b). Additionally, the alternatives are evaluated on the same metric. Of course, the number of products produced entirely of recyclable materials will increase in the future, and organizations will need to make all supply chain decisions within the context of growing environmental issues, concerns and challenges. In the future, further exploration and investigation is needed to determine efficacy of the integrated AHP and fuzzy logic application.

Acknowledgements The author would like to thank the National Science Council of the Republic of China, Taiwan for partially supporting this research under Contract No. NSC 91-2213-E-159-014.

Appendix
Table A1. The pairwise comparison of value chain activities in the material screening.

Materials Pre-manufacturing Manufacturing Distribution Use and maintenance End of life

Use and End of Pre-manufacturing Manufacturing Distribution maintenance life Weighting 1.00 5.00 0.11 0.33 0.20 0.20 1.00 0.11 0.20 0.14 9.00 9.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 5.00 0.33 1.00 0.50 5.00 7.00 0.33 2.00 1.00 0.252632 0.536868 0.035666 0.104621 0.070213

 5.293591, CI 0.073398, C 0.06553450.1.

Environmental principles applicable to green supplier evaluation Table A2.

Energy using Pre-manufacturing Manufacturing Distribution Use and maintenance End of life

4329

The pair-wise comparison of value chain activities in the energy using.

Use and End of Pre-manufacturing Manufacturing Distribution maintenance life Weighting 1.00 7.00 0.14 0.33 1.00 0.14 1.00 0.11 0.20 0.20 7.00 9.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 5.00 0.33 1.00 3.00 1.00 5.00 0.33 0.33 1.00 0.173730 0.558960 0.038955 0.082136 0.146220

 5.353856, C 0.088464, CR 0.07898650.1.

Downloaded by [Tamilnadu Agricultural Univ] at 00:32 10 August 2013

Table A3.
Solid residues

The pair-wise comparison of value chain activities on the solid residues.

Use and End of Pre-manufacturing Manufacturing Distribution maintenance life Weighting 1.00 5.00 0.11 0.20 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.11 0.20 0.20 9.00 9.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.33 1.00 3.00 1.00 5.00 0.20 0.33 1.00 0.213762 0.523010 0.033200 0.073808 0.156219

Pre-manufacturing Manufacturing Distribution Use and maintenance End of life

 5.36729, CI 0.091823, CR 0.08198450.1.

Table A4.
Liquid residues

The pair-wise comparison of value chain activities on the liquid residues.

Use and End of Pre-manufacturing Manufacturing Distribution maintenance life Weighting 1.00 3.00 0.14 0.14 0.33 0.33 1.00 0.14 0.20 0.33 7.00 7.00 1.00 3.00 7.00 7.00 5.00 0.33 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.14 0.33 1.00 0.298437 0.427710 0.035864 0.071156 0.166833

Pre-manufacturing Manufacturing Distribution Use and maintenance End of life

 5.35577, CI 0.088942, CR 0.07941350.1.

Table A5.

The pair-wise comparison of value chain activities on the gaseous residues.

Use and End of Pre-manufacturing Manufacturing Distribution maintenance life Weighting 1.00 3.00 0.20 0.20 0.33 0.33 1.00 0.14 0.11 0.33 5.00 7.00 1.00 3.00 7.00 5.00 9.00 0.33 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.14 0.33 1.00 0.218490 0.487985 0.044223 0.071328 0.177974

Gaseous residues Pre-manufacturing Manufacturing Distribution Use and maintenance End of life

 5.431582, CI 0.107895, CR 0.09650.1.

4330

L. Y.Y. Lu et al.

References
Belton, V. and Gear, T., On the short-coming of Sattys method of analytic hierarchies. Omega, 1984, 11(3), 228230. Bettac, E., Maas, K., Beullens, P. and Bopp, R., RELOOP: reverse logistics chain optimization in multi-user trading environment, in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, IEEE, Danvers, Massachusetts, USA, 1999, pp. 4247. Bloemhof-Ruwarrd, J.M., van Beek, P., Hordijk, L. and Van Wassenhove, L.N., Interactions between operational research and environmental management. Euro. J. Oper. Res., 1995, 85, 229243. Boons, F., Greening products: a frame for product chain management. J. Cleaner Prod., 2002, 10, 495505. Burke, S. and Gaughran, W.F., Intelligent environmental management for SMEs in manufacturing. Robot. & Comput-Integ. Manuf., 2006, 22, 566575. Calantone, R.J., Di Benedetto, C.A. and Schmidt, J.B., Using the analytic hierarchy process in new product screening. J. Prod. Innov. Manage., 1999, 16(1), 6576. Dyer, J.S., Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process. Manage. Sci., 1990a, 36(3), 249258. Dyer, F.S., A clarification of remarks on the analytic hierarchy process. Manage. Sci., 1990b, 36(3), 274275. EUP, Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2005 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-using products and amending Council Directive 92/42/EEC and Directives 96/57/EC and 2000/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. Fishbein, B.K., McGarry, L.S. and Dillon, P.S., Leasing: A Step Toward Producer Responsibility, 2000 (Inform Inc.: New York). Geoffrey, J.L.F., Hagelaar, J.G. and van der Vorst, A.J., Environmental supply chain management: using life cycle assessment to structure supply chains. Int. Food & Agribusi. Manage. Rev., 2002, 4, 399412. Handfield, R., Sroufe, R. and Walton, S., Integrating environmental management and supply chain strategies. Business Strat. Environ., 2005, 14, 119. Handfield, R., Walton, S.V., Sroufe, R. and Melnyk, S.A., Applying environmental criteria to supplier assessment: a study in the application of the analytical hierarchy process. Euro. J. Oper. Res., 2002, 141, 7087. Hart, S.L., Beyond greening: Strategies of a sustainable world. Harv. Business Rev., 1997, 75(1), 6676. Kopicki, R., Berg, M.J., Legg, L., Dasappa, V. and Maggioni, C., Reuse and RecyclingReverse Logistics Opportunities, 1993 (Council of Logistics Management: Oak Brook, IL). Kumar, S. and Malegeant, P., Strategic alliance in a closed-loop supply chain, a case of manufacturer and eco-non-profit organization. Technovation, 2006, 26, 11271135. Lamming, R. and Hampson, J., The environment as a supply chain management issue. British J. Manage., 1996, 7, 4562. Linton, J.D., Electronic products at their end-of-life: options and obstacles. J. Electron. Manuf., 1999, 9(1), 2940. Liu, Z.F., Liu, X.P., Wang, S.W. and Liu, G.F., Recycling strategy and a recyclability assessment model based on an artificial neural network. J. Mater. Proc. Tech., 2002, 129, 500506. Mulder, L., Scheidt, L. and Schneider, A, Collecting electronic waste in Europe: a sony view, in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, IEEE, Massachusetts, 1999. Nagel, C., Nilsson, J. and Boks, C., Europe end-of-life systems for electrical and electronic equipment, in Proceedings of EcoDesign Conference, IEEE, Tokyo, February, 1999. Narasimhan, R. and Carter, J., Research Monograph. Case Studies. Center for Advanced Environmental Supply Chain Management, Tempe, AZ, 1998.

Downloaded by [Tamilnadu Agricultural Univ] at 00:32 10 August 2013

Environmental principles applicable to green supplier evaluation

4331

Downloaded by [Tamilnadu Agricultural Univ] at 00:32 10 August 2013

Porter, M.E., Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, 1985 (The Free Press: New York, NY). PPW, Directive 2004/12/EC (amending Directive 94/62/EC) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004. Rice, F., Who scores best on the environment? Fortune, 26 July 1993, 5960. ROHS, Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment. Sarkis, J., Supply chain management and environmental consciousness. Technovation, 1995, 15(2), 7997. Sarkis, J., A strategic decision framework for green supply chain management. J. Cleaner Prod., 2003, 11, 397409. Satty, T.L., The Analytical Hierarchy Process, 1980 (McGraw Hill: New York, NY). Satty, T.L., The Analytical Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation, 1990 (RWS Publications: Pittsburgh). Sharratt, P.N. and Choong, P.M., A life-cycle framework to analyze business risk in process industry projects. J. Clearer Prod., 2002, 10, 479493. Sony, Sony Green Partner Activities, Developments in the Green Partner Environmental Quality Approval Program, Sony Corporation Procurement Center, 1 February 2005. Tsoulfas, G.T. and Pappis, C.P., Environmental principles applicable to supply chain design and operation. J. Cleaner Prod., 2006, 14, 15931602. Van Hoek, R., From reversed logistics to green supply chains. Int. J. Supp. Chain Manage., 1999, 4(3), 129135. McDonough, W., Braungart, M., Anastas, P.T. and Zimmerman, J.B., Applying the principles of green engineering to cradle-to-cradle design. Environ. Sci. and Tech., 2003, 37(23), 434A441A. WEEE, Directive 2002/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on waste electrical and electronic equipment. Woods, J.A. and Marien, E.J., The Supply Chain Yearbook, 2001 (McGraw-Hill: New York). Wu, H.J. and Dunn, S., Environmentally responsible logistics systems. Int. J. Physics Distrib. & Logist. Manage., 1995, 25(2), 2038. Zsidisin, G.A. and Siferd, S.P., Environmental purchasing: A framework for theory development. Euro. J. Purch. and Supp. Manage., 2001, 7(1), 6173.