Hindawi Publishing Corporation

Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Volume 2016, Article ID 8097386, 10 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/8097386

Research Article
A Fuzzy MCDM Approach for Green Supplier Selection from
the Economic and Environmental Aspects

Hsiu Mei Wang Chen,1 Shuo-Yan Chou,1 Quoc Dat Luu,2 and Tiffany Hui-Kuang Yu3
1
Department of Industrial Management, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, No. 43, Section 4,
Keelung Road, Da’an District, Taipei 10607, Taiwan
2
University of Economics and Business, Vietnam National University, 144 Xuan Thuy, Hanoi, Vietnam
3
Department of Public Finance, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan

Correspondence should be addressed to Hsiu Mei Wang Chen; [email protected]

Received 22 October 2015; Revised 26 January 2016; Accepted 31 January 2016

Academic Editor: Young Hae Lee

Copyright © 2016 Hsiu Mei Wang Chen et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
cited.

Due to the challenge of rising public awareness of environmental issues and governmental regulations, green supply chain
management (SCM) has become an important issue for companies to gain environmental sustainability. Supplier selection is
one of the key operational tasks necessary to construct a green SCM. To select the most suitable suppliers, many economic and
environmental criteria must be considered in the decision process. Although numerous studies have used economic criteria such
as cost, quality, and lead time in the supplier selection process, only some studies have taken into account the environmental issues.
This study proposes a comprehensive fuzzy multicriteria decision making (MCDM) approach for green supplier selection and
evaluation, using both economic and environmental criteria. In the proposed approach, a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP)
is employed to determine the important weights of criteria under vague environment. In addition, a fuzzy technique for order
performance by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) is used to evaluate and rank the potential suppliers. Finally, a case study in
Luminance Enhancement Film (LEF) industry is presented to illustrate the applicability and efficiency of the proposed method.

1. Introduction and maximize economic performance. Thus, the green sup-

plier selection process integrates environmental concerns
The change of climate and the escalation in global warm- into the interorganizational practices of SCM including
ing have driven increasing worldwide concern about the reverse logistics [6].
environmental protection. To gain and retain competitive Despite the growing work of green SCM, however, exis-
advantages in the global market, firms have started to focus tent researches generally concentrate mainly on decision
on the development of green products to satisfy customer making techniques with complicated mathematical computa-
environmental needs and requirements [1]. Consequently, tional models in supplier selection problem. In addition, con-
green supply chain management (SCM) development with sider environmental aspects in isolated way [7]. The imple-
environmental thinking and strategies has become an impor- mentation of green supply management is not well under-
tant task for firms [2]. stood, and understanding the environmental sustainability
Green supplier selection is a critical activity because the practices involving SCM activities is still limited [8]. There-
environmental performance of the supply chain is affected fore, more researches are needed to answer how companies
significantly by its constituent supplier [3, 4]. Environmental actually carry out green supplier selection [9] considering
and economic dimensions must be considered simultane- environmental and economic aspects simultaneously.
ously when firms select a suitable supplier [5]. The green In recent years, TOPSIS (technique for order perfor-
suppliers are chosen and must fit a firm’s expectations and mance by similarity to ideal solution), proposed by Shih et al.
objectives, so as to minimize negative environmental impact [10], has been a popular technique to solve MCDM problems.
2 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

The fundamental idea of TOPSIS is that the chosen alternative forces firm to develop ongoing sustainable capabilities and to
should have the shortest Euclidian distance from the positive- respond to the uncertain environment.
ideal solution and the farthest distance from the negative- The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In
ideal solution. The positive-ideal solution is a solution that Section 2 green supplier selection criteria and method liter-
maximizes the benefit criteria and minimizes the cost criteria, ature is reviewed. The basic concepts of fuzzy numbers are
whereas the negative ideal solution maximizes the cost shown in Section 3. The integrated fuzzy MCDM approach
criteria and minimizes the benefit criteria. In the classical is proposed in Section 4. Section 5 applies the proposed
TOPSIS method, the weights of the criteria and the ratings approach to a real case. Concluding remarks are presented in
of alternatives are known precisely, and crisp values are used Section 6.
in the evaluation process. Under many circumstances, how-
ever, crisp data are inadequate to simulate real-life decision 2. Literature Review on Green Supplier
problems. Consequently, a fuzzy TOPSIS method is proposed Selection Criteria and Methods
to deal with the deficiency in the traditional TOPSIS. The
method based on the weights of criteria and ratings of alterna- As a result of escalated global warming and increasing envi-
tives are evaluated by linguistic variables represented by fuzzy ronmental protection awareness, EU environmental orders
numbers. Some advantages of the TOPSIS [11] and fuzzy such as RoHS, WEEE, ErP, and REACH have been enforced.
TOPSIS method include the following: (i) a sound logic that The supply chains of firm and the products are required
embodies rational human choice; (ii) a simple computation to become more ecofriendly, especially in the electronics
process that can be used and programmed easily; (iii) the industry. The circumstance has driven supply chains not only
number of steps that remains the same regardless of the to comply with environmental policies but also to enforce
number of attributes; (iv) a scalar value that accounts for both firms govern their own corporate environmental policies to
the best and worst alternatives at the same time. As a result, sustain in the global market.
fuzzy TOPSIS approach has been broadly applied to decision- Green SCM has become a strategy to improve a firm’s
making applications over the past few decades. environmental and economic performance [25, 38]. Procure-
Several studies in the literature have mentioned the ment constitutes one of the key strategic functions in SCM.
difficulty of weighting the criteria and keeping consistency of Selecting the right supplier gives the firm a competitive edge
judgment when using fuzzy TOPSIS. Thus, the combination to either reduce costs, enhance the quality [39], or minimize
of the fuzzy TOPSIS with another method, such as fuzzy negative environmental impact, avoiding violating relevant
analytic hierarchy process (AHP), might be able to determine legislation [20].
proper objective weightings under a vague environment. The In practice, when a firm is purchasing, the professional
AHP, a powerful tool in applying MCDA, was introduced purchaser chooses the favorite suppliers on the basis of
and developed by Büyüközkan and Çifçi [12]. The AHP helps specifications and conditions. A firm primarily prioritizes
identify the weights or priority vector of the alternatives or the economic criteria such as cost, quality, delivery, and flexibil-
criteria, using a hierarchical model that includes target, main ity. The environmental certificate of ISO 14000, as one of envi-
criteria, subcriteria, and alternatives. Nevertheless, a major ronmental criteria, is usually applied for purchaser reference
disadvantage of AHP is that it is unable to handle adequately only. Efficient evaluation criteria can help the firm to reduce
the inherent uncertainty and imprecision of human thinking. the risks associated with suppliers [21]. Current literatures
Fuzzy AHP has been developed to solve this problem [13]. In address the most popular economic criteria considered by the
FAHP method, the application of the fuzzy comparison ratio decision makers for supplier selection and evaluation which
tolerates vagueness in the model. Decision makers use natural are quality [4, 12, 22, 23, 25], cost [20–24], delivery [21, 23, 26,
linguistic emphasis as well as certain numbers to evaluate 27], flexibility [22, 28, 29], and relationship [23, 28, 29]. Envi-
criteria and alternatives. Fuzzy AHP impressively resembles ronmental criteria are environmental management system
human thought and perception. In the literature, many [2, 19, 28, 32–34, 36, 37], green competencies [2, 33, 34, 36, 37],
studies have used either fuzzy TOPSIS or fuzzy AHP methods and ecodesign [28, 32, 34, 35]. Few studies simultaneously
to select and evaluate the suppliers [14–19]. However, few considered economic and environmental aspects for green
studies have proposed an integrated fuzzy MCDM approach supplier selection.
for suppliers selection and evaluation, especially in the case Currently, environmental factors play a vital role for the
of green suppliers. long term success of a supply chain, and the purchasing
This paper proposes an integrated fuzzy multicriteria process has become more complicated with environmental
decision making (MCDM) approach, to solve problems consideration [3]. Several studies have examined the criteria
of green supplier selection and supply chain construction of supplier selection and focused on different approaches or
simultaneously, effectively, and efficiently. To address the criteria. Table 1 presents the most commonly used criteria
research need, we leverage a small and medium sized high in the literature to evaluate the environmental and economic
tech company to draw a case study of an actual green performance of green supplier selection.
supplier selection and green SCM experience of a Taiwanese In the literature, numerous techniques have been devel-
optical prism manufacturing entity (hereinafter referred to oped to select the most suitable suppliers or green suppliers
as TOP, a pseudonym), in the Luminance Enhancement based on specific methods including fuzzy AHP [3, 40–43],
Film (LEF) industry. The company was selected because the analytic network process (ANP) [6, 29], data envelopment
rapidly changing environment of the optical prism industry analysis (DEA) [6], MCDM approach [13, 21, 31, 33, 44–47],
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 3

Table 1: Green supplier selection and evaluation criteria.

Criteria Subcriteria Sub-subcriteria/definition References

Cost Product price, logistics cost, and payment terms [20–24]
ISO quality system installed, quality award, product performance, [4, 12, 22, 23, 25]
Quality
warranties and claim policies, and repair and return rate
Lead time, on-time delivery, safety and security of components, and [21, 23, 26, 27]
Delivery
appropriateness of the packaging
Communication and e-commerce systems, capability of research [22, 23, 26]
Technology
development and innovation, and production facilities and capacity
Product volume changes, short setup time, conflict resolution, using
Economic criteria flexible machines, the demand that can be profitably sustained, and
Flexibility [22, 28, 29]
time or cost required to add new products to the existing production
operation
Financial [12, 23, 30]
Financial position, economical stability, and price strategy
capability
Culture Communication openness, vendor’s image, and mutual trust [20, 23, 27]
Innovativeness New launch of products and new launch of technologies [31]
Long term relationship, relationship closeness, communication [23, 28, 29]
Relationship
openness, and reputation for integrity
Pollution Average volume of air pollutants, waste water, solid waste, and [19, 22, 32]
production harmful materials released
Pollution [2, 19, 33]
Remediation and end-of-pipe controls
control
Resource [19, 32]
Consumption of resources in terms of raw material, energy, and water
consumption
Design for resource efficiency, design of products for reuse, recycle,
Ecodesign and recovery of material, design for reduction, or elimination of [28, 32, 34, 35]
hazardous materials
Environmental Environmental certificates such as ISO 14000, continuous monitoring
management and regulatory compliance, environmental policies, green process [2, 19, 28, 32–34, 36, 37]
system planning, and internal control process
Environmental criteria Green image Ratio of green customers to total customers and social responsibility [2, 33, 35]
Materials used in the supplied components that reduce the impact on
Green [2, 33, 34, 36, 37],
natural resources and ability to alter process and product for reducing
competencies
the impact on natural resources
Use of recycled and nontoxic materials, green packaging, and excess [6, 34, 36]
Green product
packaging reduction
Staff
environmental Staff training on environmental issues [36]
training
Management Commitment of senior managers to support and improve green [34, 36]
commitment supply chain management initiatives
The application of the environmental science to conserve the natural
Green [6, 34]
environment and resources and to curb the negative impact of human
Technology
involvement

structural equation modeling and fuzzy logic [23], optimum And each of those methods has its own advantages and
mathematical planning model [35], linguistic preferences disadvantages; this study proposes the integrated approach
[28], fuzzy linguistic computing approach [27], Fuzzy Adap- by combining the two most popular techniques for solving
tive Resonance Theory algorithm [30], and genetic algorithm green supplier problems, that is, fuzzy TOPSIS and fuzzy
(GA) [48]. AHP. In the proposed approach, the fuzzy AHP is employed
Although a number of methods have been studied, to determine the important weights of criteria under vague
most of the studies have only used either economic or environment. Then, the fuzzy TOPSIS is used to evaluate and
environmental criteria for evaluating the suppliers. There rank the potential suppliers. In addition, both economic and
are few studies considering economic and environmental environmental criteria are considered in proposed MCDM
criteria simultaneously in the supplier selection process. approach.
4 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

3. Fuzzy Numbers By the interval arithmetic, some main operations of 𝐴 and 𝐵

can be expressed as follows [50]:
There are various ways to define fuzzy numbers. This paper
defines the concept of fuzzy numbers as follows [49, 50]. (𝐴 ⊕ 𝐵)𝛼 = [𝐴𝛼𝑙 + 𝐵𝑙𝛼 , 𝐴𝛼𝑢 + 𝐵𝑢𝛼 ] ,

Definition 1. A real fuzzy number 𝐴 is described as any fuzzy (𝐴 ⊖ 𝐵)𝛼 = [𝐴𝛼𝑙 − 𝐵𝑢𝛼 , 𝐴𝛼𝑢 − 𝐵𝑙𝛼 ] ,
subset of the real line 𝑅 with membership function 𝑓𝐴, which
(𝐴 ⊗ 𝐵)𝛼 = [𝐴𝛼𝑙 ⋅ 𝐵𝑙𝛼 , 𝐴𝛼𝑢 ⋅ 𝐵𝑢𝛼 ] ,
has the following properties: (4)
(a) 𝑓𝐴 is a continuous mapping from 𝑅 to the closed 𝐴𝛼 𝐴𝛼
(𝐴 ⊘ 𝐵)𝛼 = [ 𝛼𝑙 , 𝛼𝑢 ] ,
interval [0, 1]. 𝐵𝑢 𝐵𝑙
(b) 𝑓𝐴(𝑥) = 0, for all 𝑥 ∈ (−∞, 𝑎]. (𝐴 ⊗ 𝑟)𝛼 = [𝐴𝛼𝑙 ⋅ 𝑟, 𝐴𝛼𝑢 ⋅ 𝑟] , 𝑟 ∈ 𝑅+ .
(c) 𝑓𝐴 is strictly increasing on [𝑎, 𝑏].
(d) 𝑓𝐴(𝑥) = 1, for all 𝑥 ∈ [𝑏, 𝑐]; 4. Proposed Approach for
(e) 𝑓𝐴 is strictly decreasing on [𝑐, 𝑑]. Green Suppliers Selection
(f) 𝑓𝐴(𝑥) = 0, for all 𝑥 ∈ (𝑑, ∞], In this section, an approach for green supplier selection by
combining fuzzy TOPSIS and fuzzy AHP method is pre-
where 𝑎, 𝑏, 𝑐, and 𝑑 are real numbers. Unless elsewhere
sented. The proposed approach offers a new way to solve the
specified, this research assumes that 𝐴 is convex and bounded
green supplier selection problem effectively and efficiently,
(i.e., −∞ < 𝑎, 𝑑 < ∞).
since it enables decision makers to minimize the negative
Definition 2. The fuzzy number 𝐴 = [𝑎, 𝑏, 𝑐, 𝑑] is a trape- environmental impact of the supply chain while simultane-
zoidal fuzzy number if its membership function is given by ously maximizing business performance. The procedure of
the proposed approach is stated as follows.
𝐿
{ 𝑓𝐴 (𝑥) , 𝑎 ≤ 𝑥 ≤ 𝑏,
{
{ Step 1. Identify a number of economic and environmental
{
{
{
{1, 𝑏 ≤ 𝑥 ≤ 𝑐, criteria.
𝑓𝐴 (𝑥) = { (1)
{
{ 𝑓𝐴𝑅 (𝑥) , 𝑐 ≤ 𝑥 ≤ 𝑑,
{
{ Step 2. Aggregate the important weights of the criteria.
{
{
{0, otherwise, Step 3. Aggregate the ratings of suppliers versus the criteria.
where 𝑓𝐴𝐿 (𝑥) and 𝑓𝐴𝑅 (𝑥) are the left and right membership Step 4. Normalize the fuzzy decision matrix.
functions of 𝐴, respectively [50].
When 𝑏 = 𝑐, the trapezoidal fuzzy number is reduced Step 5. Construct the weighted normalized fuzzy decision
to a triangular fuzzy number and can be denoted by 𝐴 = matrix.
(𝑎, 𝑏, 𝑑). Thus, triangular fuzzy numbers are special cases of
trapezoidal fuzzy numbers. Step 6. Calculate normalized weighted rating.

Definition 3 (the distance between fuzzy triangular numbers). Step 7. Calculate 𝐴+ , 𝐴− , 𝑑𝑖+ , and 𝑑𝑖− .
Let 𝐴 = (𝑎1 , 𝑏1 , 𝑑1 ) and 𝐵 = (𝑎2 , 𝑏2 , 𝑑2 ) be two triangular fuzzy
numbers. The distance between them is given using the vertex Step 8. Obtain the closeness coefficient.
method by
Assume that a committee of 𝑙 decision makers (𝐷𝑡 , 𝑡 = 1 ∼
1 2 2 2
𝑙) is responsible for evaluating 𝑚 suppliers (𝐴 𝑖 , 𝑖 = 1 ∼ 𝑚)
𝑑 (𝐴, 𝐵) = √ [(𝑎1 − 𝑎2 ) + (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 ) + (𝑑1 − 𝑑2 ) ]. (2) under 𝑛 selected criteria (𝐶𝑗 , 𝑗 = 1 ∼ 𝑛), where the suitability
3
ratings of alternatives under each of the criteria, as well as the
Definition 4 (𝛼-cuts). The 𝛼-cuts of fuzzy number 𝐴 can be weights of the criteria, are assessed in linguistic terms [51, 52]
defined as 𝐴𝛼 = {𝑥 | 𝑓𝐴(𝑥) ≥ 𝛼}, 𝛼 ∈ [0, 1], where 𝐴𝛼 represented by triangular fuzzy numbers.
is a nonempty bounded closed interval contained in 𝑅 and
can be denoted by 𝐴𝛼 = [𝐴𝛼𝑙 , 𝐴𝛼𝑢 ], where 𝐴𝛼𝑙 and 𝐴𝛼𝑢 are its 4.1. Identify a Number of Economic and Environmental
lower and upper bounds, respectively [50]. For example, if a Criteria. In this study, the criteria are classified into two
triangular fuzzy number 𝐴 = (𝑎, 𝑏, 𝑑), then the 𝛼-cuts of 𝐴 categories, that is, economic criteria (𝐶𝑗 , 𝑗 = 1, . . . , 𝑙) and
can be expressed as follows: environmental criteria (𝐶𝑗 , 𝑗 = 𝑙 + 1, . . . , 𝑛). The number of
economic and environmental criteria is selected from Table 1
𝐴𝛼 = [𝐴𝛼𝑙 , 𝐴𝛼𝑢 ] = [(𝑏 − 𝑎) 𝛼 + 𝑎, (𝑏 − 𝑑) 𝛼 + 𝑑] . (3) through screening by the decision makers.

Definition 5 (arithmetic operations on fuzzy numbers). 4.2. Aggregate the Important Weights of the Criteria. In this
Given fuzzy numbers 𝐴 and 𝐵, where 𝐴, 𝐵 ∈ 𝑅+ , the 𝛼-cuts section, a fuzzy AHP is applied to obtain more decisive
of 𝐴 and 𝐵 are 𝐴𝛼 = [𝐴𝛼𝑙 , 𝐴𝛼𝑢 ] and 𝐵𝛼 = [𝐵𝑙𝛼 , 𝐵𝑢𝛼 ], respectively. judgments by prioritizing the economic and environmental
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 5

criteria. Several fuzzy AHP methods have been proposed in 4.3. Aggregate the Ratings of Suppliers versus the Criteria. Let
literature to solve the MCDM problems. This study adopts 𝑥𝑖𝑗𝑡 = (𝑒𝑖𝑗𝑡 , 𝑓𝑖𝑗𝑡 , 𝑔𝑖𝑗𝑡 ), 𝑖 = 1 ∼ 𝑚, 𝑗 = 1 ∼ 𝑛, 𝑡 = 1 ∼ 𝑙, be the
the extent analysis method proposed by Chang [53] due suitability rating assigned to green supplier 𝐴 𝑖 , by decision
to its popularity and computational simplicity. Chang’s [53] maker 𝐷𝑡 , for criterion 𝐶𝑗 . The averaged suitability rating,
method is briefly discussed as follows. 𝑥𝑖𝑗 = (𝑒𝑖𝑗 , 𝑓𝑖𝑗 , 𝑔𝑖𝑗 ), can be evaluated as follows:
Let 𝑋 = {𝑥1 , 𝑥2 , . . . , 𝑥𝑛 } be an object set and let 𝑈 =
{𝑢1 , 𝑢2 , . . . , 𝑢𝑚 } be a goal set. According to Chang [53], each 1
object is taken and an extent analysis for each goal (𝑔𝑖 ) 𝑥𝑖𝑗 = ⊗ (𝑥𝑖𝑗1 ⊕ 𝑥𝑖𝑗2 ⊕ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⊕ 𝑥𝑖𝑗𝑡 ⊕ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⊕ 𝑥𝑖𝑗𝑙 ) , (12)
𝑙
is performed, respectively. Therefore, the 𝑚 extent analysis
values for each object are obtained as 𝑀𝑔1𝑖 , 𝑀𝑔2𝑖 , . . . , 𝑀𝑔𝑛𝑖 , 𝑖 = where 𝑒𝑖𝑗 = (1/𝑙) ∑𝑙𝑡=1 𝑒𝑖𝑗𝑡 , 𝑓𝑖𝑗 = (1/𝑙) ∑𝑙𝑡=1 𝑓𝑖𝑗𝑡 , and 𝑔𝑖𝑗 =
1, 2, . . . , 𝑛, where 𝑀𝑔𝑗 𝑖 (𝑗 = 1, 2, . . . , 𝑚) are triangular fuzzy (1/𝑙) ∑𝑙𝑡=1 𝑔𝑖𝑗𝑡 .
numbers (TFNs).
Assume that 𝑀𝑔𝑗 𝑖 are the values of extent analysis of the
𝑖th object for 𝑚 goals. The value of fuzzy synthetic extent 𝑆𝑖 is 4.4. Normalize Performance of Suppliers versus Criteria. To
defined as follows: ensure compatibility between average ratings and average
−1 weights, the average ratings are normalized into comparable
𝑚 𝑛 𝑚 scales. Suppose that 𝑟𝑖𝑗 = (𝑎𝑖𝑗 , 𝑏𝑖𝑗 , 𝑐𝑖𝑗 ) is the performance of
𝑆𝑖 = ∑ 𝑀𝑔𝑗 𝑖 ⊗ [∑ ∑ 𝑀𝑗 ] , (5) green supplier 𝑖 on criteria 𝑗. The normalized value 𝑥𝑖𝑗 can
𝑔𝑖
𝑗=1 𝑖=1 𝑗=1
[ ] then be denoted as follows:
where ∑𝑚 𝑀𝑔𝑗 𝑖 = (∑𝑚 𝑚
𝑚𝑗 , ∑𝑚
𝑗=1 𝑙𝑗 , ∑𝑗=1 𝑗=1 𝑢𝑗 ), 𝑗 = 1, 2,
𝑗=1 𝑎𝑖𝑗 𝑏𝑖𝑗 𝑐𝑖𝑗
. . . , 𝑚, 𝑖 = 1, 2, . . . , 𝑛. 𝑥𝑖𝑗 = ( , , ) , 𝑗 ∈ 𝐵,
Let 𝑀1 = (𝑙1 , 𝑚1 , 𝑢1 ) and 𝑀2 = (𝑙2 , 𝑚2 , 𝑢2 ) be two TFNs, 𝑐𝑗∗ 𝑐𝑗∗ 𝑐𝑗∗
whereby the degree of possibility of 𝑀1 ≥ 𝑀2 is defined as (13)
follows: 𝑎𝑗− 𝑎𝑗− 𝑎𝑗−
𝑥𝑖𝑗 = ( , , ) , 𝑗 ∈ 𝐶,
𝑉 (𝑀1 ≥ 𝑀2 ) = sup [min (𝜇𝑀1 (𝑥) , 𝜇𝑀2 (𝑥))] . 𝑐𝑖𝑗 𝑏𝑖𝑗 𝑎𝑖𝑗
𝑥≥𝑦
(6)

The membership degree of possibility is expressed as follows: where 𝑎𝑗− = min𝑖 𝑎𝑖𝑗 , 𝑐𝑗∗ = max𝑖 𝑐𝑖𝑗 , 𝑖 = 1, . . . , 𝑚, and 𝑗 =
1, . . . , 𝑛.
𝑉 (𝑀1 ≥ 𝑀2 ) = hgt (𝑀1 ∩ 𝑀2 ) = 𝜇𝑀2 (𝑑)

{ 1 if 𝑚1 ≥ 𝑚2 4.5. Calculate Normalized Weighted Rating. The normalized

{
{ weighted ratings 𝐺𝑖 are calculated by multiplying the nor-
{
{ (7)
= {0 if 𝑙2 ≥ 𝑢1 malized average rating 𝑥𝑖𝑗 with its associated weights 𝑤𝑗𝑡 as
{
{ 𝑙2 − 𝑢1 follows:
{
{ otherwise,
{ (𝑙2 − 𝑢1 ) + (𝑚1 − 𝑚2 )
𝐺𝑖 = 𝑥𝑖𝑗 ⊗ 𝑤𝑗 , 𝑖 = 1, . . . , 𝑚, 𝑗 = 1, . . . , ℎ. (14)
where 𝑑 is the ordinate of the highest intersection point of
two membership functions 𝜇𝑀1 (𝑥) and 𝜇𝑀2 (𝑥).
The degree of possibility for a convex fuzzy number to be 4.6. Calculate 𝐴+ , 𝐴− , 𝑑𝑖+ , and 𝑑𝑖− . The fuzzy positive-
greater than 𝑘 convex fuzzy numbers is defined as follows: ideal solution (FPIS, 𝐴+ ) and fuzzy negative-ideal solution
(FNIS, 𝐴− ) are obtained as follows:
𝑉 (𝑀 ≥ 𝑀1 , 𝑀2 , . . . , 𝑀𝑘 ) = min 𝑉 (𝑀 ≥ 𝑀𝑖 ) ,
(8) 𝐴+ = (1.0, 1.0, 1.0) ,
𝑖 = 1, 2, . . . , 𝑘.
(15)
The weight vector is given by 𝐴− = (0.0, 0.0, 0.0) .
𝑇
𝑊󸀠 = (𝑑󸀠 (𝐴 1 ) , 𝑑󸀠 (𝐴 2 ) , . . . , 𝑑󸀠 (𝐴 𝑛 )) , (9) The distance of each green supplier 𝐴 𝑖 , 𝑖 = 1, . . . , 𝑚, from 𝐴+
where and 𝐴− is calculated as follows:
𝑑󸀠 (𝐴 𝑖 ) = min 𝑉 (𝑆𝑖 ≥ 𝑆𝑘 ) , 𝑛
(10) 2
(𝑖 = 1, 2, . . . , 𝑛) , 𝑘 = 1, 2, . . . , 𝑛; 𝑘 ≠ 𝑖. 𝑑𝑖+ = √ ∑ (𝐺𝑖 − 𝐴+ ) ,
𝑖=1
Via normalization, we obtain the weight vectors as follows: (16)
𝑇 𝑛
𝑊 = (𝑑 (𝐴 1 ) , 𝑑 (𝐴 2 ) , . . . , 𝑑 (𝐴 𝑛 )) , (11) 𝑑𝑖− = √ ∑ (𝐺𝑖 − 𝐴− ) ,
2

where 𝑊 is a nonfuzzy number. 𝑖=1

This study adopts a “Likert Scale” of fuzzy numbers
starting from 1 to 9 to transform the linguistic values into where 𝑑𝑖+ represents the shortest distance of alternative 𝐴 𝑖
triangular fuzzy numbers, as shown in Table 2. and 𝑑𝑖− represents the farthest distance of green supplier 𝐴 𝑖 .
6 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Table 2: Linguistic variables describing weights of the “HOWs” criteria.

Linguistic scale for importance Triangular fuzzy scale 𝑀 = (𝑙, 𝑚, 𝑢)

Just equal (1.0, 1.0, 1.0)
Equal importance (1.0, 1.0, 3.0)
Weak importance (1.0, 3.0, 5.0)
Strong importance (3.0, 5.0, 7.0)
Very strong importance (5.0, 7.0, 9.0)
Extremely importance (7.0, 9.0, 9.0)
If factor 𝑖 has one of the above numbers assigned to it when compared to Reciprocals of above
factor 𝑗, then 𝑗 has the reciprocal value when compared with 𝑖 𝑀1−1 ≈ (1/𝑢1 , 1/𝑚1 , 1/𝑙1 )

4.7. Obtain the Closeness Coefficient. The closeness coefficient system of economic criteria ISO9001 and QC080000 and
of each green supplier, which is usually defined to determine environmental criteria ISO14001 and OHSAS18001. TOP has
the ranking order of all green suppliers, is calculated as implemented a continuous quality improvement program
follows: and constituted an international standard as a platform to
training staffs as well as suppliers. Those activities either
𝑑𝑖− save the costs of customers involved with their supplier
CC𝑖 = . (17)
𝑑𝑖+ + 𝑑𝑖− development program or strengthen TOP’s green brand
image.
A higher value of the closeness coefficient indicates that TOP has learned and accumulated plenty of green SCM
an alternative is simultaneously closer to PIS and further domain knowledge and capabilities as a main supplier of
from NIS. The closeness coefficient of each alternative is used LCD supply chain through the two-stage process of the raw
to determine the ranking order of all green suppliers and material quality verification and integration all of material in
indicates the best one among a set of given feasible green one product for each customer. Thus, TOP reversely requests
suppliers. the suppliers to comply with its customer environmental and
economic requirement. Under the consensus of a multidisci-
5. Case Study plinary group of decision makers with various points of view
and representing the different services of the company, TOP’s
In this paper, a comprehensive green supplier selection managers and heads of departments have decided that prod-
model is proposed by considering the important criteria in uct price, ISO quality system, and lead time are economic
economic and environmental aspects for evaluating green criteria. Green technology and environmental certificate are
suppliers. The proposed method is applied on the case of environmental criteria. The managers of the departments
the Taiwanese optical prism (TOP) manufacturing entity in such as Employee Health and Safety, Production, Quality
Luminance Enhancement Film (LEF) industry to solve green Control and Assessment, and Purchasing were required to
suppliers selection. make their evaluation, respectively.
TOP, founded in late 2003, is the leading optical prism In reality, TOP must work with suppliers for green prod-
manufacturer in Taiwan. TOP focuses on advanced product uct development. Quality control and supply ability of eco-
development and quality improvement. However, TOP is nomic criteria are the most important customer requirement
now dealing with the increase in competition. Moreover, the factors which related to green products. TOP’s management
LCD product life cycle is very short; qualified suppliers as team continuously integrates resources to investigate green
TOP frequently have to provide innovative products within products, such as light, lean production, and energy saving,
a limited lead time for customers verification to meet time- to satisfy stakeholders. TOP is keeping good relationship with
to-market as well. Consequently, with the purpose of main- the suppliers that will benefit from the purchasing materials if
taining the existing customers satisfaction and attracting needed. Additionally, TOP also maintains good relationship
new international customers to improve market share, the with customers who will provide TOP opportunities in
selection of quality constant green suppliers for long term innovative product developing and meeting the needs of
cooperation is extremely essential for survival of TOP. customers easier.
When TOP confirmed its role and strategy as a green The case revealed that the green criteria such as environ-
supplier, TOP needs to evaluate its core competences and ment and sustainability do not yet play a crucial role within
identify the gap between customer needs and consultant green supplier selection procedures in enterprise practice.
suggestions. TOP then restructures the ecological environ- Due to the environmental regulations, suppliers must meet
ment of the industry. TOP has employed the green SCM some minimum requirements in order to be eligible to work
simultaneously considering environmental and economic with focal firms on the supply chain. After that, most of the
aspects to either comply with regulation or meet customer companies do not apply environmental criteria to discrimi-
needs. Furthermore, TOP has proactively invested both qual- nate qualified suppliers; instead customers require suppliers
ity and environmental management system, such as quality to provide information such as Certificate of Nonuse of
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 7

Table 3: Fuzzy pairwise comparison of economic and environmental criteria.

Criteria 𝐶1 𝐶2 𝐶3 𝐶4 𝐶5
𝐶1 (1.0, 1.0, 1.0) (1.0, 3.0, 5.0) (5.0, 7.0, 9.0) (1.0, 3.0, 5.0) (1.0, 1.0, 3.0)
𝐶2 (1/5, 1/3, 1/1) (1.0, 1.0, 1.0) (1/9, 1/7, 1/5) (1/5, 1/3, 1/1) (5.0, 7.0, 9.0)
𝐶3 (1/9, 1/7, 1/5) (5.0, 7.0, 9.0) (1.0, 1.0, 1.0) (1/7, 1/5, 1/3) (1/7, 1/5, 1/3)
𝐶4 (1/5, 1/3, 1/1) (1.0, 3.0, 5.0) (3.0, 5.0, 7.0) (1.0, 1.0, 1.0) (1/3, 1/1, 1/1)
𝐶5 (1/3, 1/1, 1/1) (1/9, 1/7, 1/5) (3.0, 5.0, 7.0) (1.0, 1.0, 3.0) (1.0, 1.0, 1.0)

Table 4: Fuzzy weights of the economic and environmental criteria. Step 3 (aggregate the ratings of suppliers versus the criteria).
After the determination of the suppliers assessment criteria,
Criteria Fuzzy weight four company managers rate each supplier according to each
𝐶1 (0.123; 0.295; 0.699) criterion. A linguistic rating set of S was used to express the
𝐶2 (0.089; 0.173; 0.371) opinions of the managers, where S = (VP, P, F, G, VG), VP
𝐶3 (0.087; 0.168; 0.330) (Very Poor) = (0.0, 0.1, 0.2), P (Poor) = (0.1, 0.3, 0.5), F (Fair) =
𝐶4 (0.076; 0.203; 0.456) (0.3, 0.5, 0.7), G (Good) = (0.5, 0.7, 0.9), and VG (Very Good)
𝐶5 (0.074; 0.160; 0.371) = (0.8, 0.9, 1.0). Table 5 gives the aggregated suitability ratings
of four green suppliers (𝐴 1 , 𝐴 2 , 𝐴 3 , and 𝐴 4 ) using (12).

Controlled Substances, Certificate of Nonuse of Other Con- Step 4 (normalized performance of suppliers versus criteria).
trolled Substances, Material Safety Data Sheet, and Test For simplicity and practicality, all of the fuzzy numbers in this
Report of customer assigned items issued by SGS annually. paper are defined in the closed interval [0, 1]. Consequently,
Those certificates concern quality of economic criterion and the normalization procedure is no longer needed.
pollution control of environmental criterion.
According to institutional theory, implementation of Step 5 (calculate normalized weighted rating). Using (14), the
green SCM is due to mimetic and normative (competitive normalized weighted ratings 𝐺𝑖 can be obtained as shown in
and bench marking) mechanisms. Facing environmental pro- Table 6.
tection pressure and legitimacy isomorphism pressure, enter-
Step 6 (calculate 𝐴+ , 𝐴− , 𝑑𝑖+ , and 𝑑𝑖− ). As shown in Table 7,
prises must comply with social expectation and maintain
the distance of each green supplier from 𝐴+ and 𝐴− can be
consistency with external environment to survive. Thus, the
calculated by (15)∼(16).
environmental and economic dimensions must be considered
simultaneously [5]. Consequently, the proposed method is Step 7 (obtain the closeness coefficient). The closeness coef-
applied on the case of TOP following the steps below. ficients of green suppliers can be calculated by (17), as shown
in Table 8. Therefore, the ranking order of the four green
Step 1 (identify a number of economic and environmental cri-
suppliers is 𝐴 3 > 𝐴 4 > 𝐴 1 > 𝐴 2 . Consequently, the best
teria). In this study, the data used as input to implement the
green supplier is 𝐴 3 .
proposed green supplier selection and evaluate the method
were collected by means of semistructured interviews with
the top managers and head of departments. Four company 6. Conclusion
managers were required to make their evaluation, respec-
tively, according to their preferences for important weights While the types of industry vary, the key strategies of
of selection criteria and ratings of green suppliers. green supplier selection also are changed. Nevertheless, all
Using Table 1 and discussions with a company’s top man- industries should concern suppliers from both economic
agers and heads of departments, five criteria of economics and environmental aspects, because suppliers could influence
and environment for green supplier selection were selected. firms’ performance and stakeholders.
Economic criteria include product price (𝐶1 ), ISO quality Green supplier selection is an important and complicated
system (𝐶2 ), and lead time (𝐶3 ). Green technology (𝐶4 ) and MCDM problem, requiring evaluation of multiple economic
environmental certificate (𝐶5 ) are environmental criteria. and environmental criteria incorporating vagueness and
imprecision with the involvement of a group of experts.
Step 2 (aggregate the important weights of the criteria). Although numerous studies have used economic criteria in
After the determination of the green supplier criteria, each the supplier selection process, limited studies have consid-
of four company managers is asked to conduct a pairwise ered the economic and environmental criteria simultane-
comparison with regard to the different criteria using the ously. The implementation of green supply management was
fuzzy linguistic assessment variables (see Table 2 for these not well understood. This paper has proposed an integrated
variables). The completed matrices for the required cell are fuzzy MCDM approach to support the green suppliers selec-
shown in Table 3. Applying (5)–(8), the final weights of the tion and the evaluation process. In the proposed approach,
economic and environmental criteria are obtained as shown both economic and environmental criteria were considered.
in Table 4. In order to overcome the shortcomings of the existing fuzzy
8 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Table 5: Aggregate of the green supplier ratings versus criteria.

Company managers
Criteria Green suppliers 𝑟𝑖𝑗
𝐷1 𝐷2 𝐷3 𝐷4
𝐴1 VG G G VG (0.650, 0.800, 0.950)
𝐴2 F G G F (0.400, 0.600, 0.800)
𝐶1
𝐴3 G G G G (0.500, 0.700, 0.900)
𝐴4 G F G G (0.450, 0.650, 0.850)
𝐴1 G G G G (0.500, 0.700, 0.900)
𝐴2 F F G F (0.350, 0.550, 0.750)
𝐶2
𝐴3 G G VG G (0.575, 0.750, 0.925)
𝐴4 VG G VG G (0.650, 0.800, 0.950)
𝐴1 G F G F (0.400, 0.600, 0.800)
𝐴2 F F F G (0.350, 0.550, 0.750)
𝐶3
𝐴3 VG G VG G (0.650, 0.800, 0.950)
𝐴4 F G F F (0.350, 0.550, 0.750)
𝐴1 F G G F (0.400, 0.600, 0.800)
𝐴2 G VG G G (0.575, 0.750, 0.925)
𝐶4
𝐴3 G VG VG G (0.650, 0.800, 0.950)
𝐴4 VG G VG G (0.650, 0.800, 0.950)
𝐴1 G G G G (0.500, 0.700, 0.900)
𝐴2 VG G G VG (0.650, 0.800, 0.950)
𝐶5
𝐴3 G G G VG (0.575, 0.750, 0.925)
𝐴4 VG G G VG (0.650, 0.800, 0.950)

Table 6: Normalized weighted ratings of each market segment. proposed approach is effective in supplier selection for the
company. The application also indicated that the computa-
Green suppliers 𝐺𝑖
tional procedure is efficient and easy to use in practice. Future
𝐴1 (0.045, 0.138, 0.392) research should focus on developing an extension of fuzzy
𝐴2 (0.041, 0.129, 0.372) MCDM approach to segment the green suppliers based on
𝐴3 (0.052, 0.151, 0.413) the economic and environmental aspects. Different methods
𝐴4 (0.048, 0.143, 0.396) may be applied to select green suppliers and the results should
be compared with the proposed approach. The proposed
Table 7: The distance of each green supplier from 𝐴+ and 𝐴− . approach can also be applied to other management problems
with similar settings.
Green suppliers 𝑑+ 𝑑−
𝐴1 1.422 0.418
𝐴2 1.440 0.396 Conflict of Interests
𝐴3 1.402 0.442
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests
𝐴4 1.416 0.424
regarding the publication of this paper.

Table 8: Closeness coefficients of alternatives.

References
Alternatives Closeness coefficient Ranking
𝐴1 0.227 3 [1] Y.-S. Chen and C.-H. Chang, “The determinants of green prod-
𝐴2 0.216 4 uct development performance: Green dynamic capabilities,
green transformational leadership, and green creativity,” Journal
𝐴3 0.240 1
of Business Ethics, vol. 116, no. 1, pp. 107–119, 2013.
𝐴4 0.230 2
[2] A. H. I. Lee, H.-Y. Kang, C.-F. Hsu, and H.-C. Hung, “A green
supplier selection model for high-tech industry,” Expert Systems
TOPSIS technique, this study has integrated the fuzzy TOP- with Applications, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 7917–7927, 2009.
SIS technique with the fuzzy AHP method, to determine the [3] K. Govindan, S. Rajendran, J. Sarkis, and P. Murugesan, “Multi
important weights of economic and environmental criteria. criteria decision making approaches for green supplier evalua-
Finally, the proposed approach was employed to solve a real tion and selection: a literature review,” Journal of Cleaner Pro-
problem in the LEF industry. The results showed that the duction, vol. 98, pp. 66–83, 2015.
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 9

[4] R. J. Kuo, Y. C. Wang, and F. C. Tien, “Integration of artificial [23] M. Punniyamoorthy, P. Mathiyalagan, and P. Parthiban, “A
neural network and MADA methods for green supplier selec- strategic model using structural equation modeling and fuzzy
tion,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 18, no. 12, pp. 1161–1170, logic in supplier selection,” Expert Systems with Applications,
2010. vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 458–474, 2011.
[5] A. Gunasekaran and D. Gallear, “Special Issue on Sustainable [24] R. M. Grisi, L. Guerra, and G. Naviglio, “Supplier performance
development of manufacturing and services,” International evaluation for green supply chain management,” in Business Per-
Journal of Production Economics, vol. 140, no. 1, pp. 1–6, 2012. formance Measurement and Management, pp. 149–163, Springer,
[6] J. Sarkis, Q. Zhu, and K.-H. Lai, “An organizational theoretic Berlin, Germany, 2010.
review of green supply chain management literature,” Interna- [25] F. Mafakheri, M. Breton, and A. Ghoniem, “Supplier selection-
tional Journal of Production Economics, vol. 130, no. 1, pp. 1–15, order allocation: a two-stage multiple criteria dynamic pro-
2011. gramming approach,” International Journal of Production Eco-
[7] A. Appolloni, H. Sun, F. Jia, and X. Li, “Green Procurement in nomics, vol. 132, no. 1, pp. 52–57, 2011.
the private sector: a state of the art review between 1996 and [26] Y.-J. Chen, “Structured methodology for supplier selection and
2013,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 85, pp. 122–133, 2014. evaluation in a supply chain,” Information Sciences, vol. 181, no.
[8] H. C. Pimenta and P. D. Ball, “Analysis of environmental 9, pp. 1651–1670, 2011.
sustainability practices across upstream supply chain manage- [27] W.-P. Wang, “A fuzzy linguistic computing approach to supplier
ment,” Procedia CIRP, vol. 26, pp. 677–682, 2015. evaluation,” Applied Mathematical Modelling, vol. 34, no. 10, pp.
[9] C.-L. Hwang and K. Yoon, Multiple Attribute Decision Making— 3130–3141, 2010.
Methods and Applications: A State of the Art Survey, Springer, [28] M.-L. Tseng and A. S. F. Chiu, “Evaluating firm’s green supply
New York, NY, USA, 1981. chain management in linguistic preferences,” Journal of Cleaner
[10] H.-S. Shih, H.-J. Shyur, and E. S. Lee, “An extension of TOPSIS Production, vol. 40, pp. 22–31, 2013.
for group decision making,” Mathematical and Computer Mod- [29] Q. Zhu, Y. Dou, and J. Sarkis, “A portfolio-based analysis
elling, vol. 45, no. 7-8, pp. 801–813, 2007. for green supplier management using the analytical network
[11] T. L. Saaty, The Analytical Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New process,” Supply Chain Management, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 306–319,
York, NY, USA, 1980. 2010.
[12] G. Büyüközkan and G. Çifçi, “Evaluation of the green supply [30] G. A. Keskin, S. Ilhan, and C. Özkan, “The Fuzzy ART
chain management practices: a fuzzy ANP approach,” Produc- algorithm: a categorization method for supplier evaluation and
tion Planning and Control, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 405–418, 2012. selection,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 37, no. 2, pp.
[13] C.-C. Sun, “A performance evaluation model by integrating 1235–1240, 2010.
fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods,” Expert Systems with [31] C.-Y. Shen and K.-T. Yu, “Enhancing the efficacy of supplier
Applications, vol. 37, no. 12, pp. 7745–7754, 2010. selection decision-making on the initial stage of new product
[14] W. Xia and Z. Wu, “Supplier selection with multiple criteria in development: a hybrid fuzzy approach considering the strategic
volume discount environments,” Omega, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 494– and operational factors simultaneously,” Expert Systems with
504, 2007. Applications, vol. 36, no. 8, pp. 11271–11281, 2009.
[15] I. Chamodrakas, D. Batis, and D. Martakos, “Supplier selection [32] K. Govindan, R. Khodaverdi, and A. Jafarian, “A fuzzy multi
in electronic marketplaces using satisficing and fuzzy AHP,” criteria approach for measuring sustainability performance of
Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 490–498, a supplier based on triple bottom line approach,” Journal of
2010. Cleaner Production, vol. 47, pp. 345–354, 2013.
[16] K. Shaw, R. Shankar, S. S. Yadav, and L. S. Thakur, “Supplier [33] G. Tuzkaya, A. Ozgen, D. Ozgen, and U. R. Tuzkaya, “Envi-
selection using fuzzy AHP and fuzzy multi-objective linear ronmental performance evaluation of suppliers: a hybrid fuzzy
programming for developing low carbon supply chain,” Expert multi-criteria decision approach,” International Journal of Envi-
Systems with Applications, vol. 39, no. 9, pp. 8182–8192, 2012. ronmental Science & Technology, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 477–490, 2009.
[17] O. Kilincci and S. A. Onal, “Fuzzy AHP approach for supplier [34] Q. Zhu, J. Sarkis, and K.-H. Lai, “Initiatives and outcomes of
selection in a washing machine company,” Expert Systems with green supply chain management implementation by Chinese
Applications, vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 9656–9664, 2011. manufacturers,” Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 85,
[18] A. H. I. Lee, “A fuzzy supplier selection model with the consid- no. 1, pp. 179–189, 2007.
eration of benefits, opportunities, costs and risks,” Expert Sys- [35] W.-C. Yeh and M.-C. Chuang, “Using multi-objective genetic
tems with Applications, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 2879–2893, 2009. algorithm for partner selection in green supply chain problems,”
[19] C. Bai and J. Sarkis, “Green supplier development: analytical Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 4244–4253,
evaluation using rough set theory,” Journal of Cleaner Produc- 2011.
tion, vol. 18, no. 12, pp. 1200–1210, 2010. [36] A. Awasthi, S. S. Chauhan, and S. K. Goyal, “A fuzzy multi-
[20] M. Abdollahi, M. Arvan, and J. Razmi, “An integrated approach criteria approach for evaluating environmental performance of
for supplier portfolio selection: lean or agile?” Expert Systems suppliers,” International Journal of Production Economics, vol.
with Applications, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 679–690, 2015. 126, no. 2, pp. 370–378, 2010.
[21] M. S. Memon, Y. H. Lee, and S. I. Mari, “Group multi-criteria [37] J. Sarkis, “Manufacturing’s role in corporate environmental
supplier selection using combined grey systems theory and sustainability-Concerns for the new millennium,” International
uncertainty theory,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 42, Journal of Operations & Production Management, vol. 21, no. 5-
no. 21, pp. 7951–7959, 2015. 6, pp. 666–686, 2001.
[22] S. H. Hashemi, A. Karimi, and M. Tavana, “An integrated [38] S. M. Mirhedayatian, M. Azadi, and R. Farzipoor Saen, “A novel
green supplier selection approach with analytic network process network data envelopment analysis model for evaluating green
and improved Grey relational analysis,” International Journal of supply chain management,” International Journal of Production
Production Economics, vol. 159, pp. 178–191, 2015. Economics, vol. 147, pp. 544–554, 2014.
10 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

[39] C. Wu and D. Barnes, “An integrated model for green partner

selection and supply chain construction,” Journal of Cleaner
Production, vol. 112, pp. 2114–2132, 2016.
[40] G. Bruno, E. Esposito, A. Genovese, and R. Passaro, “AHP-based
approaches for supplier evaluation: problems and perspectives,”
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, vol. 18, no. 3, pp.
159–172, 2012.
[41] F. R. L. Junior, L. Osiro, and L. C. R. Carpinetti, “A comparison
between Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS methods to supplier
selection,” Applied Soft Computing, vol. 21, pp. 194–209, 2014.
[42] A. Kawa and W. W. Koczkodaj, “Supplier evaluation process by
pairwise comparisons,” Mathematical Problems in Engineering,
vol. 2015, Article ID 976742, 9 pages, 2015.
[43] X. Deng, Y. Hu, Y. Deng, and S. Mahadevan, “Supplier selection
using AHP methodology extended by D numbers,” Expert
Systems with Applications, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 156–167, 2014.
[44] N. Xie and J. Xin, “Interval grey numbers based multi-attribute
decision making method for supplier selection,” Kybernetes, vol.
43, no. 7, pp. 1064–1078, 2014.
[45] J. Lee, H. Cho, and Y. S. Kim, “Assessing business impacts of
agility criterion and order allocation strategy in multi-criteria
supplier selection,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 42, no.
3, pp. 1136–1148, 2015.
[46] L. Shen, L. Olfat, K. Govindan, R. Khodaverdi, and A. Diabat,
“A fuzzy multi criteria approach for evaluating green supplier’s
performance in green supply chain with linguistic preferences,”
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 74, pp. 170–179, 2012.
[47] B. Kanga, Y. Hu, Y. Deng, and D. Zhou, “A new methodology
of multicriteria decision-making in supplier selection based on
Z-numbers,” Mathematical Problems in Engineering, vol. 2016,
Article ID 8475987, 17 pages, 2016.
[48] N. Asthana and M. Gupta, “Supplier selection using artificial
neural network and genetic algorithm,” International Journal of
Indian Culture and Business Management, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 457–
472, 2015.
[49] D. Dubois and H. Prade, “Operations on fuzzy numbers,” Inter-
national Journal of Systems Science, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 613–626,
1978.
[50] A. Kaufmann and M. M. Gupta, Introduction to Fuzzy Arith-
metic: Theory and Applications, The Arden Shakespeare, 1991.
[51] L. A. Zadeh, “The concept of a linguistic variable and its appli-
cation to approximate reasoning—I,” Information Sciences, vol.
8, no. 3, pp. 199–249, 1975.
[52] L. A. Zadeh, “The concept of a linguistic variable and its applica-
tion to approximate reasoning—II,” Information Sciences, vol. 8,
no. 4, pp. 301–357, 1975.
[53] D.-Y. Chang, “Applications of the extent analysis method on
fuzzy AHP,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 95,
no. 3, pp. 649–655, 1996.