Journal of Cleaner Production 96 (2015) 194e208

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Fuzzy Axiomatic Design approach based green supplier selection:

a case study from Singapore
Devika Kannan a, *, Kannan Govindan b, Sivakumar Rajendran c
a
Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Aalborg University, Copenhagen, Denmark
b
Department of Business and Economics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense 5230, Denmark
c
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Nadar Saraswathi College of Engineering and Technology, Theni 625531, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM) is a developing concept recently utilized by manufacturing
Received 9 November 2013 rms of all sizes. All industries, small or large, seek improvements in the purchasing of raw materials,
Received in revised form manufacturing, allocation, transportation efciency, in curbing storage time, importing and disposing of
21 December 2013
products, with a view towards achieving environment objectives and reducing costs in the
Accepted 28 December 2013
Available online 8 January 2014
manufacturing process. Hence, GSCM has an impact both from an academic scholarly perspective, as well
as from the view of industrial managers, because organizations benet when they are socially respon-
sible in addition to being efciently managed.
Keywords:
Green supplier selection
A signicant way to implement responsible GSCM is to reconsider, in innovative ways, the purchase
Multi criteria decision making and supply cycle, and a preliminary step would be to ensure that the supplier of goods successfully
Fuzzy Axiomatic Design incorporates green criteria. Therefore, this paper proposes a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM)
Environmental performance approach called Fuzzy Axiomatic Design (FAD) to select the best green supplier for Singapore-based
plastic manufacturing company. At rst, the environmental criteria was developed along with the
traditional criteria based on the literature review and company requirements. Next, the FAD method-
ology evaluates the requirements of both the manufacturer (design needs) and the supplier (functional
needs), and because multiple criteria must be considered, a multi-objective optimization model of a
fuzzy nature must be developed. The application of the proposed approach in the case company has been
illustrated and the result of this study helps rm to establish the systematic approach to select the best
green supplier within the set of criteria. When the proposed methodology is applied, it allows not only to
select the most appropriate green supplier but also helps to analyse most appropriate alternative sup-
plier which shows the great difference when compared to the other approaches. Finally, the managerial
implication, conclusions of the study is discussed.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction For many organizations, controlling their hazardous substances and

Purchasing is a primary function for any organization, so
selecting the best supplier is a vital component of the business
relationship and it is one of the most critical issues in the
competitive environment (Kannan et al., 2013). It is reasonable to
presume that selecting a supplier is a decision made on multiple
criteria, generally considering cost, quality, and service aspects. In
recent times due to the awareness of environmental responsibility,
manufacturing companies have begun to consider environmental
issues in their production process (Yeh and Chuang, 2011).
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mdevi89@rediffmail.com (D. Kannan).
disposing of their harmful wastes is a priority (Awasthi et al., 2010).
Selecting a suitable supplier is a common second priority (Chiou
et al., 2011). GSCM practices would naturally insist upon environ-
mental regulations being followed in order to abide by Restriction
on Hazardous Substances (RoHS) directives, and to evaluate sup-
plier compliance to hazardous substance management (Hsu and
Hu, 2009). In 2001, due to a noxious material present in the game
control cables, the Dutch government blocked distribution of 1.3
million Sony PlayStation systems, a crisis that led to the inspection
of over 6000 factories and resulted in the formation of a new
supplier management system (Esty and Winston, 2006; Hsu and
Hu, 2009). On several TV models, after a number of sets started
smoking, Sony offered free safety checks. The latest information
reveals that 1.6 million of Sonys LCD TVs may carry faulty

0959-6526/$ e see front matter 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.12.076
 D. Kannan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 96 (2015) 194e208
mechanisms that may need repair (Humphries, 2011); the models
affected are LCDs sold in Europe since June 2007 (BBC News, 2011).
Clearly, to ensure an efcient GSC, the supplier selection process
should be made not only by considering the traditional parameters
but also by addressing environmental parameters (Grisi et al.,
2010).
In green supply chain literature, various techniques are used to
evaluate and to select green suppliers. Some of those techniques
include Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) (Noci, 1997; Handeld
et al., 2002; Lu et al., 2007; Chiou et al., 2008; Lee et al., 2009;
Grisi et al., 2010); Analytic Network Process (ANP) (Hsu and Hu
2009, Bykzkan and ifi, 2010, 2011); the rough set method-
ology (Bai and Sarkis, 2010a, b); Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)
(Kumar and Jain, 2010); and fuzzy TOPSIS methodology (Awasthi
et al., 2010). Other techniques blend two or more systems to
create a hybrid methodology. For instance, some of the most fruitful
hybrid techniques include a knowledge-based system using Case-
Based Reasoning (Humphreys et al., 2003a, b); a threshold
method and grey correlation analysis (Li and Zhao, 2009); Genetic
Algorithm (GA) and AHP (Yan, 2009); Articial Neural Network
(ANN) and Multi Attribute Decision Analysis (MADA) (Kuo et al.,
2010); DEA and AHP (Wen and Chi, 2010); DEA and ANP (Kuo
and Lin, 2011); and so forth.
The core focus of this study is the selection of a green supplier
under a multi-criteria environment for the manufacturing company
in Singapore. Environmental criteria that pertain to materials in the
plastic manufacturing process must include processing, handling,
storing, and transportation costs. Another focus must be on the
disposal process: the material should not be hazardous, and it
should be adapted for recycling. When the criteria for supplier
selection conict, the selection process must adopt a multi-criteria
approach. Accordingly, the present research establishes 11 main
criteria and 60 sub-criteria that are considered for ve potential
suppliers. The next stage in the assessment process introduces a
difculty. When decision makers are asked to identify their
methods of selecting a supplier, their responses are linguistic and,
hence, inexact and unquantiable. Due to the nature of this un-
quantiable and/or incomplete information, judgments are fuzzy
and, hence, fuzzy logic is used: specically, an FAD methodology.
The strength of the proposed model is that despite the vagueness of
experts opinions in the evaluation process, the model is easy to
apply. This study not only selected the best supplier, but also the
FAD techniques were used to analyze the suppliers who did not
satisfy the case companys requirements and made the following
contribution.
1. The development of main and sub-criteria selection using af-
nity diagram method based on comprehensive literature re-
view and case company requirements.
2. The development of best green supplier selection framework
based on various environmental criteria and traditional criteria
3. The proposal of FAD approach is to solve the MCDM and not only
selects the best green supplier but also analyses the most
appropriate alternative supplier for the case company
requirement.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2
provides a literature review with a focus on GSCM and green
supplier selection criteria. Section 3 presents the related criteria
to evaluate green suppliers. Section 4 gives the FAD methodol-
ogy, and its utilization and computational results are given in
Section 5. Discussion and sensitivity analysis of the result is
presented in Section 6. Finally, Sections 7 and 8 contains the
managerial implication, concluding remarks, limitation and
future research.
195
2. Literature review
2.1. Green Supply Chain Management
GSCM has been a prominent topic of interest since the 1990s.
Green et al. (1998) indicate that environmental multi-criteria
implementation must comply with regulations, legislation, and a
companys expenditures. Bowen et al. (2001) state that companies
will execute GSCM practices if they achieve both pecuniary and
effective benets. In SCM, a critical decision is the selection of a
supplier. (Bai and Sarkis, 2010b). Many manufacturing organiza-
tions develop and implement solutions to environmental chal-
lenges by monitoring interactions both with suppliers and with
customers (Vachon and Klassen, 2006). A primary goal of GSCM is
to reduce pollution and other environmental impacts (Tseng, 2011)
and helping the suppliers to recognize the importance of resolving
environmental issues and support them in installing their own
improvement initiatives (Lu et al., 2007). As a result, environmen-
tally conscious purchasing focuses on environmentally related
costs; when waste is reduce, ones resource efciency can be
maximized (Handeld et al., 2002). Kuo and Lin (2011) insisted that
suppliers must conform to directives such as the Restrictions on
Hazardous Substances (RoHS) and the Waste Electrical and Elec-
tronic Equipment (WEEE) or they will not be considered. Lee et al.
(2009) explain that, due to the increasing government regulation
and strong public awareness in environmental issues, rms have to
implement green environment practices in order to survive in to-
days global marketplace. Environmental supplier management
integrates the supplier with the manufacturer (Zhang et al., 2003),
and it involves a three-stage process: selecting, evaluating, and
then developing the suppliers (Bai and Sarkis, 2010b). Three steps
are involved: an analysis of the product, an analysis of the supplier
relation, and a match-up between product requirements and po-
tential suppliers. In summary, identifying and minimizing envi-
ronmental burdens should become a normal working practice
within companies, because those actions are the key for successful
sustainable development (Warner and Ryall, 2001).
2.2. Green supplier selection criteria
In most supplier selection tasks, both timely and ecological
criteria are considered. Quantitative environmental criteria are ar-
ticulated in monetary terms, and qualitative environmental criteria
focus on the company image (Humphreys et al., 2003a, b). Some of
the major criteria addressed for supplier development are green
knowledge transfer, investment and resource transfer, and man-
agement and organization practices. (Bai and Sarkis, 2010b). Some
studies are based on the potential drivers like GSCM capabilities,
the strategic level of the purchasing department, the level of
environmental commitment, or the degree of green supplier
assessment and collaboration (Large and Thomsen, 2011). In a
portfolio-based analysis, pollution control, and prevention are
identied as vital environmental factors (Zhu et al., 2010). Four
drivers, namely regulation, customer pressure, social responsibility,
and business benets, are common considerations with green
purchasing decisions (EITayeb et al., 2010). Walton et al. (1998)
state that companies must engross suppliers and purchasers to
meet, even to exceed the environmental expectations of their
customers and their governments. Many manufacturing concerns
organize through outsourcing and thus make the companies vitally
dependent on their supplier. Most of the companies ask their
suppliers to implement ISO14001-Environmental Management
because that standard is a prevalent tool by which environmental
aspects are addressed (Nawrocka, 2008). Buyukozkan and Cifci
(2011) are other researchers who consider environmental factors
196 D. Kannan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 96 (2015) 194e208

Table 1a
Criteria Summary related to developing framework and categories.

Main criteria Sub-Criteria Author

Quality Quality systems Yang and Wu (2007), Hsu and Hu (2009)

Process capability Yang and Wu (2007)
Quality assurance Yang and Wu (2007), Kuo et al. (2010), Lee et al. (2009), Tseng (2011), Buyukozkan
and Cifci (2011), Hsu and Hu (2009), Grisi et al. (2010), Buyukozkan and Cifci (2011),
Chiou et al. (2008)
Reject rate Kuo et al. (2010), Cao (2011)
Management commitment to quality Kuo et al. (2010), Lee et al. (2009), Yeh and Chuang (2011)
Process improvement Kuo et al. (2010)
Warranties and claim policies Kuo et al. (2010), Cao (2011)
Capability of handling abnormal quality Lee et al. (2009)
Price Purchasing price Yang and Wu (2007), Grisi et al. (2010), Buyukozkan and Cifci (2011)
Price performance value Chiou et al. (2008), Kuo et al. (2010), Cao (2011)
Compliance with sectoral price behavior Kuo et al. (2010)
Transportation cost Kuo et al. (2010), Yeh and Chuang (2011)
Production cost Yeh and Chuang (2011)
Capability of Supplying capability Yang and Wu (2007), Chiou et al. (2008), Kuo et al. (2010), Grisi et al. (2010), Tseng (2011)
supplier/Delivery Level of technique Yang and Wu (2007), Grisi et al. (2010), Cao (2011)
Capability of product development Yang and Wu (2007), Lee et al. (2009), Kuo et al. (2010)
Order fulll rate Kuo et al. (2010)
Lead time Kuo et al. (2010), Cao (2011)
Capability of R & D Lee et al. (2009)
Technology level Lee et al. (2009)
Flexibility of the supplier Tseng (2011), Buyukozkan and Cifci (2011)
Supplier Stock management Hsu and Hu (2009), Kuo et al. (2010), Kuo et al. (2010), Grisi et al. (2010)
Service Rate of processing order form Yang and Wu (2007)
Rate of delivery in time Yang and Wu (2007), Yeh and Chuang (2011), Cao (2011)
Degree of information modernized Humphreys et al. (2003a,b), Yang and Wu (2007), Hsu and Hu (2009)
Service quality Chiou et al. (2008), Tseng (2011), Buyukozkan and Cifci (2011), Cao (2011)
Environment Environment protection system certication Handeld et al. (2002), Humphreys et al. (2003a,b), Chiou et al. (2008), Awasthi et al.
protection/ (2010), Bai and Sarkis (2010a,b), Yeh and Chuang (2011), Buyukozkan and Cifci (2011),
Environment Chiou et al. (2011), Cao (2011)
Management Validity of clean technique Noci (1997), Humphreys et al. (2003a,b), Yang and Wu (2007), Cao (2011)
Environment efciency Humphreys et al. (2003a,b), Yang and Wu (2007), Grisi et al. (2010)
EUP Kuo et al. (2010)
ODC Handeld et al. (2002), Kuo et al. (2010), Cao (2011)
RoHS Kuo et al. (2010), Tseng (2011)
Capability of preventing pollution Lee et al. (2009)
Continuous monitoring and regulatory compliance Chiou et al. (2008), Lee et al. (2009)
Internal control process Lee et al. (2009)
Environmental Management systems Tseng (2011)
Environmental protection policies Humphreys et al. (2003a,b), Awasthi et al. (2010),Yeh and Chuang (2011)
Environmental protection plans Humphreys et al. (2003a,b), Yeh and Chuang (2011), Cao (2011)
Management system Management systems Yang and Wu (2007), Chiou et al. (2008)
Management ideas Yang and Wu (2007)
Researching and developing Yang and Wu (2007)
Relationship to the supplier Tseng (2011)
Reverse logistics system Humphreys et al. (2003a,b), Chiou et al. (2008),
Yeh and Chuang (2011), Buyukozkan and Cifci (2011)
Management commitment Awasthi et al. (2010)
Management support Humphreys et al. (2003a,b)
Production facilities and capacity Grisi et al. (2010), Buyukozkan and Cifci (2011)
Corporate social The interests and rights of employee Kuo et al. (2010), Buyukozkan and Cifci (2011)
responsibility The rights of stakeholder Kuo et al. (2010)
(CSR) Information disclosure Chiou et al. (2008), Kuo et al. (2010)
Respect for the policy Chiou et al. (2008), Kuo et al. (2010), Buyukozkan and Cifci (2011), Cao (2011)
Pollution control Air emissions Noci (1997), Handeld et al. (2002), Humphreys et al. (2003a,b), Lu et al. (2007),
Yeh and Chuang (2011)
Waste water Noci (1997), Humphreys et al. (2003a,b), Lu et al. (2007), Yeh and Chuang (2011)
Solid wastes Noci (1997), Handeld et al. (2002), Humphreys et al. (2003a,b), Lu et al. (2007),
Yeh and Chuang (2011)
Energy consumption Noci (1997), Humphreys et al. (2003a,b), Lu et al. (2007), Yeh and Chuang (2011),
Cao (2011)
Use of harmful materials Noci (1997), Humphreys et al. (2003a,b), Yeh and Chuang (2011)
Solid waste treatment cost Yeh and Chuang (2011)
Chemical waste treatment cost Yeh and Chuang (2011)
Air pollution treatment cost Yeh and Chuang (2011)
Energy consumption cost Yeh and Chuang (2011)
Water pollution treatment cost Yeh and Chuang (2011)
Pollution control initiatives Awasthi et al. (2010)
Pollution reduction capability Humphreys et al. (2003a,b)
Green Product Recycle Handeld et al. (2002), Humphreys et al. (2003a,b), Lee et al. (2009), Awasthi et al. (2010),
Yeh and Chuang (2011), Buyukozkan and Cifci (2011)
Green packaging Handeld et al. (2002), Chiou et al. (2008), Lee et al. (2009), Buyukozkan and Cifci (2011)
Cost of component disposal Noci (1997), Lee et al. (2009)
Green certications Tseng (2011)
 D. Kannan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 96 (2015) 194e208 197

Table 1a (continued )

Main criteria Sub-Criteria Author

Green production Tseng (2011)

Reuse Handeld et al. (2002), Humphreys et al. (2003a,b),
Chiou et al. (2008), Buyukozkan and Cifci (2011)
Re-manufacture Handeld et al. (2002), Humphreys et al. (2003a,b), Chiou et al. (2008), Buyukozkan and
Cifci (2011)
Disposal Humphreys et al. (2003a,b), Buyukozkan and Cifci (2011)
Green Image Materials used in the supplied components Lee et al. (2009)
that reduce the impact on natural resources
Ability to alter process and product for reducing Lee et al. (2009)
the impact on natural resources
Social responsibility Chiou et al. (2008)
Lee et al. (2009)
Ratio of green customers to total customers Lee et al. (2009), Grisi et al. (2010), Cao (2011)
Green purchasing capabilities Noci (1997), Hsu and Hu (2009), Tseng (2011)
Green customers market share Noci (1997), Humphreys et al. (2003a,b), Awasthi et al. (2010), Yeh and Chuang (2011)
Stakeholders relationship Noci (1997), Humphreys et al. (2003a,b), Chiou et al.(2008)
Green materials coding and recording Hsu and Hu (2009)
Green management systems Grisi et al. (2010)
Green Innovation Green technology capabilities Chiou et al. (2008),Tseng (2011), Buyukozkan and Cifci (2011)
Green design Handeld et al. (2002),Yang and Wu (2007)
Chiou et al. (2008), Hsu and Hu (2009), Grisi et al. (2010), Tseng (2011)
Green process planning Lee et al. (2009), Tseng (2011)
Recycling product design Yeh and Chuang (2011)
Renewable product design Yeh and Chuang (2011)
Green R & D Project Awasthi et al. (2010)
Redesign of product Humphreys et al. (2003a,b)
Environmental Use of environment friendly technology Humphreys et al. (2003a,b), Awasthi et al. (2010)
Performance Use of environment friendly materials Noci (1997), Humphreys et al. (2003a,b), Chiou et al. (2008), Awasthi et al. (2010)
Partnership with green organizations Humphreys et al. (2003a,b), Awasthi et al. (2010)
Training supplier employees on environmental issues Bai and Sarkis (2010a,b)
Supplier environmental evaluation and feedback Bai and Sarkis (2010a,b)
Auditing suppliers Bai and Sarkis (2010a,b)
Hazardous Management for hazardous substances Hsu and Hu (2009), Cao (2011)
Substance Prevention of mixed material Hsu and Hu (2009)
Management Process auditing Hsu and Hu (2009)
Warehouse management Hsu and Hu (2009)
Inventory of hazardous substances Hsu and Hu (2009)

in the way of a sustainable supply chain; they pursue social, eco-
nomic, and environmental issues.
2.3. Green supplier evaluation
Currently, due to outsourcing initiatives, organizations have
become more dependent on suppliers, so it is more critical to
choose and evaluate their suppliers performance. As noted, sup-
plier evaluation and selection requires the consideration of multi-
ple objectives and criteria (Bhutta and Huq, 2002). Research has
been robust in this eld with studies that include approaches and
implementations from a wide range of mathematical practices and
methodologies. Consequently, numerous multi-criteria decision
support tools have been developed for structuring and supporting
such decisions (Wu et al., 2010). Due to the uncertainties that
accompany both qualitative and quantitative factors, the evaluation
and selection of green suppliers is therefore an MCDM problem.
MCDM techniques should be employed to manage the green sup-
plier selection problem appropriately. Bai and Sarkis (2010a, b)
applied Rough set methodology which utilizes an incomplete in-
formation approach which is more realistic in some data poor en-
vironments for green supplier development. There is also a
limitation and practical managerial concerns with this MCDM
approach in which the number of rules can become quite large
depending on the volume of the data which is to be analyzed. When
compared to environmental issues, the process of purchasing
becomes even more intricate (Lee et al., 2009), because green
purchasing should consider the suppliers environmental re-
sponsibility in addition to such traditional factors as cost, quality,
lead-time, and exibility. Lee et al. (2009) applied fuzzy AHP inte-
grated with the Delphi method for green supplier evaluation. The
Delphi method was initially used to differentiate the criteria for
evaluating traditional and green suppliers and fuzzy AHP is used to
solve the green supplier selection process. Noci (1997) proposed an
AHP based method for assessing a vendors environmental ef-
ciency. The tool was applied in an automotive case using ve steps
to calculate suppliers capabilities to achieve high environmental
performance. By the sh bone diagram, Enarsson (1998) evaluated
the environmental characteristics of the supplier, and for supplier
assessment, Handeld et al. (2002) has used the environmental
criteria in AHP and illustrated the case of AHP as a decision support
tool to help managers understand the trade-offs between envi-
ronmental dimensions. During the period 2005e2009, the use of
AHP has increased exponentially and it acts as a dominant factor in
manufacturing (Sipahi and Timor, 2010) and it makes a complex
decision making process more rational (Handeld et al., 2002). In
some supplier selection methodologies, Case-Based Reasoning
(CBR) and Multi Attribute Analysis (MAA) are used (Humphreys
et al., 2003a, b), and the Knowledge Based System (KBS), inte-
grated with environmental factors for the supplier selection pro-
cess (Humphreys et al., 2003a, b), is another famous methodology
in MCDM. Tseng (2011) evaluated GSCM criteria based on linguistic
preferences and used a grey fuzzy set theory for the electronics
industry. Zhu et al. (2010) used ANP technology for a portfolio-
based analysis in supplier selection; they mention that ANP
methodology is not complicated, and that while both quantitative
and qualitative factors are mixed into the decision making process,
it helps to obtain a common solution for multiple parties. Hsu and
198 D. Kannan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 96 (2015) 194e208

Table 1b
Evaluation criteria.

Main criteria Sub-Criteria Denition

C1: Quality C11: Quality Systems Ensure high quality control on the products and provide the quality related certicates
like ISO9000, QS9000 etc.
C12: Quality Assurance Third party quality certicate is produced by supplier to ensure the green product
C13: Reject Rate At what percentage the supplied materials are rejected by the quality control
C14: Warranties and Claim Policies Existence of warranties and claim polices are provided by the supplier or agreements
between the customer and the supplier for the faulty products
C15: Capability of handling abnormal quality Capability to fulll the abnormal quality specication of the customer without
compromising the existing product price
C2: Price C21: Purchasing price Lower product price without compromising the quality which includes warranty cost,
processing cost, cost of greening etc.
C22: Price performance value High quality performance for the product value
C23: Transportation cost Fixed transportation cost for the supply of the products
C3: Capability of C31: Supplying capability Ability to meet delivery schedules or promises and the ability to react quickly to the
Supplier/Delivery customer orders
C32: Level of Technique Using innovative tools for scheduling and delivery
C33: Capability of Product Development Capability of developing new designs and speed of development
C34: Order fulll rate Compliance with the predetermined order of quantities
C35: Lead time Flexibility in time between the placement and the arrival of an order without
compromising quality and cost.
C36: Capability of R & D Having infrastructure for research and development work
C37: Technology Level Technology development of the supplier to meet the current and the future demand of
the rm
C38: Flexibility of the Supplier The ability of scheduling and changing orders
C39: Supplier Stock Management Compliance of suppliers stock management system with the production line
C4: Service C41: Rate of processing order form Level of processing the customer order
C42: Rate of delivery in time Level of delivery on time as per agreement with the customer
C43: Degree of information modernized Tracking system of current orders, share expertise and resolve conicts
C44: Service quality Provide the service dimension by reliability, responsiveness, assurance and satisfaction
C5: Environment C51: Environment Protection System Whether the supplier has environment-related certicates, such as ISO 14000
protection/ Certication
Environment C52: Environment Efciency Production of material ecologically efcient
Management C53: EUP Eco-design requirements for energy using products
C54: RoHS Level of restriction of hazardous substance in the production process
C55: Environmental Protection policies/plans Compliance with the local regulation and policies
C6: Corporate social C61: The interests and rights of employee Labor relations, human rights and interests of employee
responsibility (CSR) C62: The rights of stakeholder The interests and the right of shareholders, consumers, communities and related
stakeholder
C63: Information disclosure Expose non-nancial information
C64: Respect for the policy Comply with local regulations and policies
C7: Pollution control C71: Air Emissions The quantity control and treatment of hazardous emission, such as SO2, NH3, CO and
HC1
C72: Waste water The quantity control and the treatment of waste water
C73: Pollution control Initiatives Pollution minimization initiatives related to Air emissions, Waste water disposal, Solid
wastes, Energy consumption, Use of harmful materials, Hazardous wastes etc.
C74: Pollution Reduction Capability Level of systems used to reduce the pollution
C8: Green Product C81: Recycle Ability to treat the used products or their accessories, to reprocess the materials, and to
replace the required new materials when producing new products.
C82: Green Packaging The level of green materials used in packaging
C83: Cost of Component Disposal The processing cost at the end of life of the products (The cost is reduced as recycling
increases)
C84: Green Certications Provides green related certicates for products
C85: Green Production Level of clean or environmental friendly production system maintained
C86: Reuse Ability to obtain the used products and their related accessories.
C87: Re-Manufacture Detach certain accessories from waste products for the future usage.
C88: Disposal Capability of incinerating or burying the disposed material in the green way.
C9: Green Image C91: Materials used in the supplied The use of materials in the components that has a lower impact on the natural resources
components that reduce the impact
on natural resources
C92: Ability to alter process and product for The ability of the supplier to alter the process and product design in order to reduce the
reducing the impact on natural resources impact on the natural resources
C93: Ratio of green customers to total customers The ratio of customers that demand green products to the total customers of the
supplier
C94: Green customers market share Retention of customers with green purchasing habits
C95: Stakeholders relationship Relationship with the supplier in the environmental activities and initiatives.
C96: Green materials coding and recording Suppliers utilize materials coding and recording to separate RoHS and non-RoHS
materials in storage which aims to avoid material mixing.
C10: Green Innovation C101: Green Technology Capabilities Level of implementation of clean technologies
C102: Green Design Capability of new product design of the supplier to meet the current and the future
demand of the rm
C103: Green Process/Production Planning The level of green process planning of the supplier
C104: Recycling Product Design Supplier products are designed for recycling with the goal of achieving more efcient
and complete recycling
C105: Renewable Product Design Product manufactured by using lowest energy from the natural resources
C106: Green R & D Project Green R&D projects on green product and process planning
C107: Redesign of Product Capabilities to redesign the product to the environmental standards
 D. Kannan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 96 (2015) 194e208
Table 1b (continued )
Main criteria Sub-Criteria
C11: Hazardous Substance C111: Management for Hazardous Substances
Management
C112: Prevention of mixed material
C113: Process Auditing
C114: Warehouse Management
C115: Inventory of Hazardous Substances
The criteria C13, C21, C23, C35, C41, C71, and C83 are cost criteria, whereas others are benet criteria.
Hu (2009) applied ANP for green supplier selection to further
incorporate interdependencies among decision structure compo-
nents. Their argument was that ANP captures both quantitative and
qualitative criteria, reecting a more realistic result offering
managerial insights while selecting suppliers systematically.
Kannan et al. (2013) solves multi-sourcing supplier selection
problems in green supply chains and their proposed approach
(integrated approach of fuzzy AHP, fuzzy TOPSIS and fuzzy Multi
Objective Linear Programming) not only evaluate the supplier
against the set of qualitative and quantitative criteria but also helps
rms to set the order allocation from the multiple suppliers in
realistic situations. Zouggari and Benyoucef (2012), presents a new
decision making approach for group multi-criteria supplier selec-
tion problem, which clubs supplier selection process by fuzzy-AHP
method with order allocation by fuzzy TOPSIS among the selected
suppliers. The proposed approach generates decision-making
knowledge, and thereafter, the developed combination of rules
order allocation can easily be interpreted, adopted and at the same
time if necessary, modied by decision makers. Chai et al. (2012)
has provided the systematic literature review on 123 journals
from 2008 to 2012 on decision making in supplier selection and
concluded that the most frequently used technique is AHP (24.39%),
followed by LP (15.44%), TOPSIS (14.63%), ANP (12.20%), DEA
(10.57%), and multi-objective optimization (10.57%). However, we
found from the literature review that, the MCDM approaches
mostly focused on the selection of the appropriate supplier but did
not analyse failure causes or criteria of the alternate supplier.
In this paper, the researcher develops an FAD method and
handles a multi-attribute decision making problem for selecting
the best green supplier for a plastic manufacturing company based
in Singapore. Axiomatic Design principles were initiated by Suh
(1990) and FAD was presented by Kulak and Kahraman (2005). In
the literature there are a few applications of FAD (see Kulak, 2005;
Kulak and Kahraman, 2005a; Kulak et al., 2005). FAD is one of the
methodologies used for decision making problems under a fuzzy
environment and it is explained in the Section 4.2.
3. Evaluation criteria
Suppliers are a vital part for any organization. The right supplier
can furnish the company with high quality and good quantity
products at a reasonable cost and also comply with the environ-
mental factors in the current supply chain manufacturing environ-
ment (Kuo and Lin, 2011). The environmental factors selected, based
on the companys manufacturing process and material used, are
critical. Past researchers recognize difculties in implementation
and budget constraints. Environmental criteria may derive from all
stages of the product life cycle: from resource extraction to
199
Denition
Management of hazardous substances in the production procedure, the company should
carry out preventive management approaches for the restricted chemicals.
Level of production procedure standards should be established for green and non-green
materials.
Auditing system for checking process conditions, parameter-setup document
(document SOP and records) management, product change management, disqualied
product management and tracking, improvement approaches, and quality management
system for production environment.
Level of warehouse management could prevent material-mixing and maintain the
product quality
Compliance with regulations of hazardous substances to prevent the products from
containing exceed in restricted substances
manufacturing, use and re-use, nal recycling, and disposal
(Buyukozkan and Cifci, 2011). In this paper, a systematic approach is
carried out to consider the 26 traditional criteria and 72 environ-
mental criteria under 13 main criteria from the comprehensive
literature review (Govindan et al., 2013); these criteria are sum-
marized in Table 1a. Upon the recommendation of the case com-
panys expert and the academic experts at the rst international
workshop on Eco-Efcient Based Green Supply Chain Manage-
ment held in October 2011 at the University of Southern Denmark,
Odense. The criteria chosen have been narrowed to 21 traditional
criteria and 39 environmental criteria under 11 main criteria. We
use an Afnity Diagram methodology, presented by academic ex-
perts at the rst international workshop on Eco-Efcient Based
Green Supply Chain Management held in October 2011 at the
University of Southern Denmark, Odense. An Afnity Diagram is a
tool that gathers large amounts of language data (ideas, opinions,
issues) and organizes them into groupings based on their natural
relationships. The compilation of these rened criteria with de-
nition is given in Table 1b and the selection hierarchy for the most
appropriate green supplier is illustrated in Fig. 1.
4. Methodology
The MCDM technique refers to making decisions over available
alternatives which are characterized by multiple criteria. Now,
MCDM problems are common in engineering decision making
processes due to an increasing complexity in the socio-economic
environment. The problem this paper addresses is a company in
Singapore that manufactures the plastic raw materials for elec-
tronic products, the automobile industry, and other uses. The
company must make decisions about which green supplier who
supplies the material for new product development will comply
with the environmental criteria of the company as well as abide by
government regulations. For the green supplier selection solution,
11 main criteria and 60 sub-criteria are considered, and the FAD
methodology is proposed. In the decision making process, exact
preference information (often quantitative) is better than inexact
information (often qualitative) regarding alternatives. But in reality,
decision makers often face fuzzy issues and problems due to many
aspects in the real world that cannot be assessed in a quantitative
way. (Mehrjerdi, 2012).
4.1. Fuzzy set theory in MCDM
The fuzzy set theory was introduced by Zadeh (1965) to resolve
the uncertainty and imprecision associated with information. Fuzzy
data may consist of linguistic terms such as fuzzy sets or fuzzy
numbers. If the fuzzy data are linguistic terms, they are
200 D. Kannan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 96 (2015) 194e208
transformed into fuzzy numbers rst. Then, all the fuzzy numbers
(or fuzzy sets) are assigned crisp scores. In this study the repre-
sentation of these linguistic labels is based on some graphic scales
in which the left-point, the mid-point, and the right-point of the
range functions are dened (Zeng et al., 2007). A score system for
linguistic labels is shown in Fig. 2. The semantics of the terms are
given by fuzzy numbers dened in the [
10, 10] interval, which are
validated by triangular membership functions. Each expert should
provide a decision about his/her judgment as a precise numerical
value between 0 and 10 (e.g. 7, 8, etc.), a possible range of numerical
value between [0, 10] (e.g. 6e7, 7e9), a linguistic term (e.g. VL, VP,
etc.), or an approximate value between 0 and 10 (e.g. A6, A8, etc.)
Because few decisions allow for qualitative measurements in
this paper, a fuzzy MCDM methodology has garnered great interest
and we proposed FAD methodology as technique to solve the
MCDM environment.
4.2. Fuzzy AD (Axiomatic Design)
AD principles were initiated by Suh (1990) and are widely used
in engineering. The ultimate goal is to establish a scientic basis to
improve design activities by providing the designer with a theo-
retical foundation based on logical and rational thought process
and tools (Suh, 2001). AD principles allow for the selection of not
only the best alternative within a set of criteria, but also the most
appropriate alternative. It is the main difference between the
classical MCDM method and AD. For example, Babic (1999) devel-
oped a method based on AD principles. The method assists de-
signers in determining the most appropriate exible
manufacturing system conguration. Kulak (2005) developed a
decision support system based on information axioms of the design
principles to examine a material handling equipment selection
problem. Kulak and Kahraman (2005) proposed the new MCDM
method based on information axioms under a fuzzy environment.
The evaluation of the alternatives and the denition of functional
requirements (FRs)were dened by triangular fuzzy numbers. The
proposed approach was applied to multi-criteria comparison of
advanced manufacturing systems. Kulak and Kahraman (2005a)
applied the information axiom to a multi-criteria transportation
company selection problem. Kahraman et al. (2009, 2010) devel-
oped a weighted information axiom approach to select alternative
renewable energy sources. Gonalves-Coelho and Mouro (2007)
used axiomatic design principles to select manufacturing technol-
ogies. The axioms were used to check whether design parameters
satised FRs. Subsequently, the information axioms were employed
to select the most appropriate technology. Celik et al. (2009) used a
fuzzy information axiom to select the best alternatives among
shipyards. That information axiom allowed decision makers to
dene the design interval for each criterion.
The most important concept in Axiomatic Design is the design
axioms. The rst design axiom is the Independence Axiom; the
second axiom is the Information Axiom. The axioms are stated as
follows:
(1) The Independence Axiom: Maintain the independence of FRs
(2) The Information Axiom: Minimize the information content
The rst axiom, Independence Axiom, states that the indepen-
dence of FRs should always be maintained to characterize the
design goals. The FRs are dened as the minimum set of indepen-
dent requirements. The second axiom, Information Axiom, states
that among those designs that satisfy the Independence axiom, the
design which has the smallest information content is the best
design. Then, the information is dened in terms of the information
content Ik, that is related in its simplest form to the probability of
satisfying the given FRs. Ik determines the design with the highest
probability of success is the best design.
Information content Ik for a given FRk is dened as follows:


1
I k log2 (1)
pk
where pk is the probability of achieving the functional requirement
FRk and log is the logarithm in base 2 (with the unit of bits). For
there are n FRs, the total information content is the sum of all these
probabilities. If Ik approaches innity, the system will never work.
When all probabilities are one, the information content is zero and,
conversely, the information content is innite when one or more
probabilities are equal to zero.
In the process of design, the probability of success is given by
what designer wishes to achieve in terms of tolerance (i.e. design
range) and what the system is capable of delivering (i.e. system
range). As shown in Fig. 3, the overlap between the designer-
specied design range and the system capability range system
range is the region where the acceptable solution appears.
Therefore, the uniform probability distribution function pk can
be written as
Common Range
pk (2)
System Range
Here, the common range can measure the matching level of
design range and system range. The design range can be regarded
as the expectation level and the system range can be regarded as
the real level.
Therefore, the information content is equal to


System Range
I k log2 (3)
Common Range
The probability of achieving FRk in the design range may be
expressed, if FRk is a continuous random variable as:
Zdru
pk pS FRk dFRk (4)
drl
where ps(FRk) is the system pdf (probability density function) for
FRk. The equation above Eq. (4) gives the probability of success by
integrating the system pdf over the entire design. In Fig. 4, the area
of the common range (Acr) is equal to the probability of success pk
(Kulak and Kahraman, 2005; Suh, 2001).
Therefore, the information content is equal to:


1
I log2 (5)
Acr
For expression of the system and design ranges in the fuzzy case,
incomplete information can be used. Hence, triangular or trape-
zoidal fuzzy numbers can well dene these kinds of expressions.
There is a membership function of triangular or trapezoidal fuzzy
numbers instead of probability density functions in crisp cases
because of the differences of expression between crisp AD and
fuzzy AD. Triangular fuzzy numbers are used to depict design goals
and properties of the alternatives. Fig. 5 illustrates the information
content calculation procedure with triangular fuzzy numbers; both
system and design ranges consist of triangular fuzzy numbers. So,
information content is calculated by Equation (6):


TFN of System Design
I log2 (6)
Common Area
 D. Kannan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 96 (2015) 194e208 201

Fig. 1. A Hierarchy for the selection of the most appropriate Green supplier. C11-Hazardous Substance Management.

The importances of FAD are scores is performed by applying the fuzzy weighted trape-
zoidal averaging operator, which is dened by Eq. (7):
1. The development of best alternative selection framework
based on various environmental criteria and traditional
~ 1 1   
criteria and selects the best alternative within the set of Sij ~sij ~s2ij .~s1t ~K ~1t
ij .sij ; sij aij $bij $c ij (7)
criteria. K
2. These approaches that depend on minimum information axiom
where K is the number of decision makers;~
Sij is the ratings of al-
do not let an alternative to be selected even if that alternative
ternatives and i and j represent alternative i and criterion j,
meets the design ranges of all criteria successfully, but not any of
respectively.
these ranges. Also, this approach is used to analyses the elimi-
nated alternative and intimate the criteria where the alternative
Step 4 Dene the FRs, the minimum sets of independent re-
can improve the performance.
quirements that characterize the design goals for each cri-
terion. To represent FRs, triangular fuzzy numbers can be
used.
4.3. Proposed approach Step 5 Calculate Information Contents (I). The decision area of each
criterion and each alternative is evaluated with respect.
The proposed approach consists of following framework of the Information content is calculated by using the system range
model as given in Fig. 6, followed by a step by step guide. and the common range which is the intersection area be-
tween system range and design range (see Eq. (6)).
Step 1 As seen from the criteria selection, there are tangible and Step 6 Select the best alternative. The best alternative has the
intangible criteria. The crisp set can easily dene tangible minimum total information content value. Eqs. (8) and (9)
criteria but it cannot easily dene intangible criteria. are used for this selection.
Therefore, linguistic terms will be used for intangible
criteria. Experts are required to provide their judgments Xn
on the basis of their knowledge and expertise for each Iit I
j1 ij
(8)
factor.
Step 2 The linguistic terms of the experts opinion are transferred 8 t 9
>
> I >
to triangular fuzzy numbers (TFNs) as per the linguistic scale < 1t >
=
information. * I
I min 2 (9)
>
> >
Step 3 Aggregate individual TFNs into group TFNs. The aim of this : t >;
step is to apply an appropriate operator to aggregate indi- Im
vidual preferences made by an individual expert into a where i and j represent the number of alternative and criteria,
group preference of each factor. The aggregation of TFN respectively.

VL L M H VH
VP P F G VG
VL: VERY LOW
1.0 L: LOW
M:MEDIUM
H:HIGH
VH: VERY HIGH

VP:VERY POOR
P:POOR
0.5 F:FAIR
G:GOOD
VG:VERY GOOD

SCORE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Fig. 3. Design range, system range, common range and probability density function of
Fig. 2. Membership functions of the score system. an FR (Kulak and Kahraman, 2005).
202 D. Kannan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 96 (2015) 194e208

expert group consists of four people from the case company who
are responsible for the planning of green initiatives, evaluating the
suppliers performance, and maintaining the list of the approved
suppliers. The case experience provided assistance in understand-
ing how to establish the decision model for supplier selection and
selecting appropriate suppliers under the GSCM rubric. The appli-
cation and analysis of FAD methodology is presented in the
following steps.

5.2. Application of FAD for green supplier selection

The evaluation of the suppliers that uses the FAD technique

proposed here is composed of seven steps, as follows:

Fig. 4. Design range, system range, common range and pdf of an FR (Kulak and Step 1 Each criteria of the supplier is evaluated by the experts by
Kahraman, 2005).
using the linguistic scale as dened in the Section 4.1; the
5. Model evaluation linguistic assessment of the criteria is presented in Table 2.

This section will try to apply the proposed method, FAD, to a

case company for the selection of green supplier based on the
selected criteria.

5.1. Case company background

Linking supply chain activities and environmental issues has

been a topic of interest over the last decade. For example, in recent
years, many manufacturing organizations have increased their in-
terest in GSCM. The case study is based on an engineering plastic
material manufacturer located in Singapore, which supplies the
material globally for many electronics products manufacturers, for
automobile manufacturers, and other products. This company has
many plants located globally and manufacture variety grade of
engineering plastics through purchasing of raw material globally
and locally. According to their recent policy changes, the company
obliged to abide the local government regulations and pressures
from its target market which include environmental regulations
such as the RoHS (Restriction on Hazardous Substances) and the
WEEE (Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment). Hence, the case
company is working on a project to develop the new products from
the raw material which will be purchased from the supplier who
will be selected based on the framed criteria.
In concerns of GSC, the manufacturing company has to deal with
environmental issues along the whole supply chains and interested
in incorporating green initiatives into the supplier evaluation and
selection process. In relation to the increased environmental reg-
ulations and to improve the GSCM practices, the case company
wants to implement a systematic method of selecting appropriate
suppliers for their new products based on competency. The pro-
posed decision model for supplier selection in GSCM was imple-
mented for 60 sub-criteria under 11 main criteria which was
already discussed in Section 3. The relative importance of criteria
for supplier selection is determined based on expert opinions; the

System Design
Range Range
Common
Area
0
Fig. 5. The common area of system and design ranges. Fig. 6. Framework of the model.
 D. Kannan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 96 (2015) 194e208 203

Table 2
Experts assessments for the criteria of the alternatives.

Supplier 1 Supplier 2 Supplier 3 Supplier 4 Supplier 5

E1 E2 E3 E4 E1 E2 E3 E4 E1 E2 E3 E4 E1 E2 E3 E4 E1 E2 E3 E4

C1 C11 A7 M G L A8 M F M A8 H G L A8 H VG H A9 VH VG H
C12 7e8 H 8e9 A7 8e9 M 7e9 A9 8e9 M 8e9 A8 7e9 L 8e9 A7 9e10 VH 9e10 A9
C13 1 A2 1 3 1 1 A1 3 2 A2 1 1 1 1 1 A2 A1 2 1 1
C14 G G F G VG VG G G G G G G G VG F F VG G G VG
C15 7 A9 8 H 8 7e9 A7 M 9 A8 8 H 8 A7 9 H 10 A9 9 VH
C2 C21 H A6 7 6e7 L A7 7 7e8 M A7 6 6e7 L A8 7 7e9 VH A9 10 9e10
C22 G 9 7e9 8e9 F 7 8 7e8 G A9 9 8e9 G 9 8 9e10 VG 10 9 9e10
C23 A8 6e7 VL L L 7e8 VH 6 M 4 5e6 A6 L A6 5e6 A5 H A7 6 5e6
C3 C31 H 9 7 7e9 VH A9 9e10 7e9 H 9 8e9 G VG 8 8e9 G VG 9 10 A9
C32 G 9 A9 9e10 9 8 A9 9 H G 9 9 VH G 9 9 H VG 10 9e10
C33 9 A9 8 7 A9 10 8 7 9 8e9 8 8 9 A9 10 8 10 A9 9 10
C34 VH 10 10 9 H 9 9 9 H A9 9 8e10 M 7 8 6e8 VH 9 9e10 A9
C35 VL 6 5 7e8 VL 6 6 6e8 L 7 7 8 L 8 A7 7e8 H 9 8 A7
C36 G 7 7 6 VG 7e9 A9 9 G 6e8 8 A8 F G A8 6e7 G 7 A6 7e9
C37 L A6 6e8 8 L 7 6 A6 H 9 A8 7e9 M 7 7 9 H 8 A9 8e10
C38 M 6 6e8 6e8 H 8 7 A7 H 8 A8 A8 VH 9e10 10 9 G 9 8e9 A9
C39 8 9 9 A9 8 8 7 7 8 9 10 8e10 9 9 8e9 8 10 9 9e10 A9
C4 C41 7 8 8 A8 H 7e9 A8 8 H 9 A9 A8 VH 8 8 9 VH 9 A9 A9
C42 VL 8 9 7e9 L 8 L 7e9 9 8 8e9 H VH 6 5 8 H 7 7e9 A8
C43 F 7 6 A6 F 7 A7 7e8 G A9 8 8e9 G 9 8 9e10 VG 9 9 A9
C44 9 9 7 A8 VH A9 9e10 7e9 H 9 8e9 G VG 8 8e9 G VG 9 9e10 A9
C5 C51 8 H A9 7e8 8e9 M 7e9 A9 8e9 M 8e9 8 9 8e9 A8 8 9e10 VH A9 10
C52 7 7 A8 7 8 8 A9 8 7 8 7e9 9 9 8 8e9 9 9 10 8e10 10
C53 9 H 9 A8 9 9e10 8 A8 H 9 8 8 8e9 9e10 A9 8 H 9 H 10
C54 A9 9 G 8e10 A8 8 G 8e9 7e8 7 8 G G 9 8 8e9 9e10 9 A8 8e10
C55 G 8 7 7e9 8 7 8e9 A8 9 10 9e10 8 VG A9 10 9 VG 10 10 9
C6 C61 8 9 7e8 A8 8e9 M 7e9 A9 G A9 8 8e9 G 9 9 A9 VG 9 A9 9
C62 8e9 7 A7 6 VG 7e9 A9 9 G A8 8 A8 VH G 10 9 H VG 10 9e10
C63 A9 10 9e10 9 H VH 9 10 10 9e10 A9 9 H 9 10 H VH VH H 9
C64 VG 10 9 9 G 9 9 9 G G 9 9e10 G G 9e10 A9 10 G 10 G
C7 C71 4 4 A5 4e5 L 4e5 A4 5 VL 5 5e6 4 L L 7 6 VL L 5 7
C72 H A9 8 8 8 8 7 7e9 A7 A8 M 8 M 8 7e8 A7 H 9 9 A9
C73 A8 8 7 6 VG 7e9 A9 9 G 6e8 8 A8 F G A8 6e7 9 7 A8 7e9
C74 G 7 8 A8 G 7 A7 7e8 G A9 8 8e9 G 9 8 9e10 VG 8 8e9 A9
C8 C81 7 8 7 7e9 H 9 8e9 8 8 10 A9 9 8 9e10 A9 9 10 9 9 A9
C82 8 M 7 A7 9 9 9e10 H H 7 8 7e9 VH 9 9 10 8 H H A8
C83 7 7 8 7e9 A7 7e9 7 8 L 7e8 A7 L H 9 8e9 7e9 8 L 9 A8
C84 A8 H A9 7e8 8e9 M 7e9 A9 A8 M 8e9 8 9 M 8 A8 10 VH 8e9 10
C85 A9 8 8-9 G 9 9 A9 G 8 7 6 VG G 9 9e10 G 9 9 VG VG
C86 7 A8 7 7e9 H 9 8e9 8 8 A9 VH 9 8 9e10 A9 9 VH 8 9e10 A9
C87 M 8 7 L H 9 A7 8 A9 10 10 9 9 A9 A9 9 H 9 9 8e9
C88 A7 6e8 F 7 7 6e7 8 A7 7e9 8 G 9 8e10 G G A9 A9 A8 G VG
C9 C91 8e9 A8 A9 9 A7 8 9 8 A8 8e9 8e10 9 8 A8 9 9 9 A9 10 A8
C92 9 8 G G G 9 G 8e10 A9 A8 9 9 10 9 G 9e10 9 G G 8e9
C93 7 6e8 8 A7 M 8 7 6e8 8 9 A9 9 A8 H 8e10 9 9 VH H A9
C94 G 8 7e9 A8 8 8 A8 7 7 G A8 7e9 9 9 A9 8e9 G 8 G A9
C95 A9 9 VG 9e10 9 8 G 8 7e9 G A9 9 9 8 G A8 10 9e10 VG 9
C96 8 7 6 A6 8e9 7 A7 7e8 G A9 8 8e9 G 8 8 9e10 VG 8e9 9 A9
C10 C101 G 9 8 8 A9 8e9 8e10 9 G 9 10 8e9 A9 8 7e8 9 9e10 9 G A9
C102 8 H 7 8 A8 A9 8e10 9 9 H 8e9 8 9 8 A8 7e9 VH H 9 10
C103 7 L M 7 L 7 6 7e8 M 7 6e8 7 H 7 7 A7 8 8 H H
C104 9 8 8-9 G A8 9 A9 G 8 7 6 G G 9 8e9 G 9 A9 VG 9e10
C105 9 A9 G 8 9 A7 8 9 G 9 8e10 G G 8 7 6 G 9 9 A9
C106 7 7 A7 8 8 7 7 A7 8 8 A7 7 9 8 7e9 8 G 8 8 A9
C107 7 7e9 A7 8 9 A8 7e9 H 8 9 A8 8e9 H 9 VH 9 H 8 8e10 9
C11 C111 G 7e9 8 9 A9 7 A7 7e8 G A9 8 9e10 G 9 8 9e10 VG 8 A8 A9
C112 A9 10 9e10 8 9 8e9 A7 8 G 8 8e9 A8 VG 9e10 10 A9 G VG 8 9
C113 A8 9 7 A8 VH A9 9e10 7e9 8e10 9 8e9 G VG 8 8e9 G G 9 9e10 A9
C114 VG 10 9 A9 G 9 A9 8e9 G G 9 9e10 G G 10 A9 10 G 10 G
C115 G 8 7 8e9 VG 7e9 VG 9 G G 8 A8 G G A8 6e7 VG 9 8 7e9

Step 2 After obtaining the linguistic assessments of criteria for each Production under Green Product for supplier 1 is calcu-
supplier from the experts, the next step is standardizing lated as follows:
these evaluations by converting them to triangular fuzzy
numbers. The evaluation of cost-based criteria is transformed ~
S1Greenproduction 7:25; 8:25; 9:25
by inverse scoring, which means that if a cost criterion rates
very low (VL), it is scored as if it were very high (VH).
Step 3 Table 3 provides the aggregation of experts assessments for Step 4 The minimum set of independent requirements that char-
supplier 1. The aggregations of the obtained scores are acterize the design goals called FRs are decided as follows:
calculated by Eq. (7). For example, the aggregation of Green AVG e at least Very Good (7.5, 10, 10)
204 D. Kannan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 96 (2015) 194e208

Table 3
Triangular fuzzy number and converted TFN for supplier 1.

Evaluation Criteria Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert 4 Aggregated TFN (System Range)

Score TFN Score TFN Score TFN Score TFN

C1 C11 A7 6 7 8 M 2.5 5 7.5 G 5 7.5 10 L 0 2.5 5 3.38 5.50 7.63

C12 7e8 7 7.5 8 H 5 7.5 10 8e9 8 8.5 9 A7 6 7 8 6.50 7.63 8.75
C13 1 1 1 1 A2 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1.50 1.75 2.00
C14 G 5 7.5 10 G 5 7.5 10 F 2.5 5 7.5 G 5 7.5 10 4.38 6.88 9.38
C15 7 7 7 7 A9 8 9 10 8 8 8 8 H 5 7.5 10 7.00 7.88 8.75
C2 C21 H 0 2.5 5 A6 5 6 7 7 7 7 7 6e7 6 6.5 7 4.50 5.50 6.50
C22 G 5 7.5 10 9 9 9 9 7e9 7 8 9 8e9 8 8.5 9 7.25 8.25 9.25
C23 A8 7 8 9 6e7 6 6.5 7 VL 7.5 10 10 L 5 7.5 10 6.38 8.00 9.00
C3 C31 H 5 7.5 10 9 9 9 9 7 7 7 7 7e9 7 8 9 7.00 7.88 8.75
C32 G 5 7.5 10 9 9 9 9 A9 8 9 10 9e10 9 9.5 10 7.75 8.75 9.75
C33 9 9 9 9 A9 8 9 10 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 8.00 8.25 8.50
C34 VH 7.5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 9 9.13 9.75 9.75
C35 VL 7.5 10 10 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 7e8 7 7.5 8 6.38 7.13 7.25
C36 G 5 7.5 10 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6.25 6.88 7.50
C37 L 0 2.5 5 A6 5 6 7 6e8 6 7 8 8 8 8 8 4.75 5.88 7.00
C38 M 2.5 5 7.5 6 6 6 6 6e8 6 7 8 6e8 6 7 8 5.13 6.25 7.38
C39 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 A9 8 9 10 8.50 8.75 9.00
C4 C41 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 A8 7 8 9 7.50 7.75 8.00
C42 VL 0 0 2.5 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 7e9 7 8 9 6.00 6.25 7.13
C43 F 2.5 5 7.5 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 A6 5 6 7 5.13 6.00 6.88
C44 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 7 7 7 7 A8 7 8 9 8.00 8.25 8.50
C5 C51 8 8 8 8 H 5 7.5 10 A9 8 9 10 7-8 7 7.5 8 7.00 8.00 9.00
C52 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 A8 7 8 9 7 7 7 7 7.00 7.25 7.50
C53 9 9 9 9 H 5 7.5 10 9 9 9 9 A8 7 8 9 7.50 8.38 9.25
C54 A9 8 9 10 9 9 9 9 G 5 7.5 10 8e10 8 9 10 7.50 8.63 9.75
C55 G 5 7.5 10 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7e9 7 8 9 6.75 7.63 8.50
C6 C61 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 7e8 7 7.5 8 A8 7 8 9 7.75 8.13 8.50
C62 8e9 8 8.5 9 7 7 7 7 A7 6 7 8 6 6 6 6 6.75 7.13 7.50
C63 A9 8 9 10 10 10 10 10 9e10 9 9.5 10 9 9 9 9 9.00 9.38 9.75
C64 VG 7.5 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8.88 9.50 9.50
C7 C71 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 A5 4 5 6 4e5 4 4.5 5 4.00 4.38 4.75
C72 H 5 7.5 10 A9 8 9 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 7.25 8.13 9.00
C73 A8 7 8 9 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 7.00 7.25 7.50
C74 G 5 7.5 10 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 A8 7 8 9 6.75 7.63 8.50
C8 C81 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7e9 7 8 9 7.25 7.50 7.75
C82 8 8 8 8 M 2.5 5 7.5 7 7 7 7 A7 6 7 8 5.88 6.75 7.63
C83 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 7e9 7 8 9 7.25 7.50 7.75
C84 A8 7 8 9 H 5 7.5 10 A9 8 9 10 7e8 7 7.5 8 6.75 8.00 9.25
C85 A9 8 9 10 8 8 8 8 8e9 8 8.5 9 G 5 7.5 10 7.25 8.25 9.25
C86 7 7 7 7 A8 7 8 9 7 7 7 7 7e9 7 8 9 7.00 7.50 8.00
C87 M 2.5 5 7.5 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 L 0 2.5 5 4.38 5.63 6.88
C88 A7 6 7 8 6e8 6 7 8 F 2.5 5 7.5 7 7 7 7 5.38 6.50 7.63
C9 C91 8e9 8 8.5 9 A8 7 8 9 A9 8 9 10 9 9 9 9 8.00 8.63 9.25
C92 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 G 5 7.5 10 G 5 7.5 10 6.75 8.00 9.25
C93 7 7 7 7 6e8 6 7 8 8 8 8 8 A7 6 7 8 6.75 7.25 7.75
C94 G 5 7.5 10 8 8 8 8 7e9 7 8 9 A8 7 8 9 6.75 7.88 9.00
C95 A9 8 9 10 9 9 9 9 VG 7.5 10 10 9e10 9 9.5 10 8.38 9.38 9.75
C96 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 A6 5 6 7 6.50 6.75 7.00
C10 C101 G 5 7.5 10 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 7.50 8.13 8.75
C102 8 8 8 8 H 5 7.5 10 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 7.00 7.63 8.25
C103 7 7 7 7 L 0 2.5 5 M 2.5 5 7.5 7 7 7 7 4.13 5.38 6.63
C104 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 8e9 8 8.5 9 G 5 7.5 10 7.50 8.25 9.00
C105 9 9 9 9 A9 8 9 10 G 5 7.5 10 8 8 8 8 7.50 8.38 9.25
C106 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 A7 6 7 8 8 8 8 8 7.00 7.25 7.50
C107 7 7 7 7 7e9 7 8 9 A7 6 7 8 8 8 8 8 7.00 7.50 8.00
C11 C111 G 5 7.5 10 7e9 7 8 9 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 7.25 8.13 9.00
C112 A9 8 9 10 10 10 10 10 9e10 9 9.5 10 8 8 8 8 8.75 9.13 9.50
C113 A8 7 8 9 9 9 9 9 7 7 7 7 A8 7 8 9 7.50 8.00 8.50
C114 VG 7.5 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 9 A9 8 9 10 8.63 9.50 9.75
C115 G 5 7.5 10 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 8e9 8 8.5 9 7.00 7.75 8.50

AG e at least Good (5, 10, 10)
AF e at least Fair (4, 10, 10)
AL3 e at least 3 (3, 10, 10)
AL.5 e at least 0.5 (0.5, 10, 10)
FRs that are dened for each criterion are given in Fig. 7. These
recommendations have been determined by the researcher after
interviewing with the academicians and the company experts who
contribute to the GSCM. From the experts opinion the alternatives
must be at least very good (AVG) for all criteria except the reject
rate criteria which must have at least 0.5 FR, lead time, rate of
processing order, rate of delivery time must have at least 3 FR,
purchasing price, air emission, waste water must have at least fair
FR and transportation cost, cost of component disposal must have
at least good FR.
Step 5 As mentioned above, the information content values are
computed which is based on decision-making algorithm
with the fuzzy information axiom. To illustrate this algo-
rithm, a sample calculation is provided for supplier 2 with
 D. Kannan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 96 (2015) 194e208 205

therefore, there is only one green supplier supplier 5 who satises

all the criteria.
In this literature, the sensitivity analysis was conducted to see
1 the importance of criteria weights (FRs range) in evaluating the
performance of suppliers. Sensitivity analysis addresses the ques-
tion, how sensitive is the overall decision to small changes in the
individual weights assigned? (Awasthi et al., 2010). To investigate
the impacts of change in weightages of criteria, 12 experiments
were conducted and the details of 12 experiments are presented in
AL.5 AL3 AF AG AVG Table 6. In the sensitivity analysis experiments, the FRs range for
benet criteria are set to (7.5, 10, 10), (4, 10, 10), (3, 10, 10) and cost
0 0.5 3 4 5 7.5 10 criteria are set to (5, 10, 10), (4, 10, 10), (3, 10, 10), (0.5, 10, 10). When
the benet criteria are tightened as a range (7.5, 10, 10) and the cost
Fig. 7. Functional Requirements (FRs) for dened criteria.
criteria was taken for all the sets mentioned above, we found that
respect to the level of technique criterion as shown in Fig. 8. supplier 5 was the best alternative in the cost criteria range of (0.5,
By graphical plotting of aggregated TFN of system range and 10, 10). When the benet criteria are set in medium range (4, 10, 10)
functional requirement of TFN, the intersecting points of against the cost criteria for all 4 ranges, all the suppliers were
both the areas are determined in Table 4. The common area selected in the cost criteria range of (0.5, 10, 10) amongst them the
and system area are calculated from the graph by the area supplier 5 was the best alternative. When the benet criteria are set
calculation method. in the range (3, 10, and 10) against the cost criteria for all 4 ranges,
again we found that all the suppliers were selected in the cost
Common Area 0:187 criteria range of (0.5, 10, and 10) amongst them the supplier 5 was
the best alternative. From the result of sensitivity analysis, it can be
seen from Table 6 that by changing the weightage of criteria, even
System Area 0:250
though the information content is changed, supplier 5 was the best
So the information content I32 for supplier 2 is alternative and other suppliers satised the companys require-


 ment in two experiments. Out of 12 experiments, supplier 5 has the
System Area 0:250 lowest information content in three experiments, and it shows the
I32 log2 log2 0:420
Common Area 0:187 decision making process is unaffected by the criteria weights of
FRs: supplier 5 is selected as best supplier.
6. Results and sensitivity analysis This study not only selected the best supplier, but also the FAD
techniques were used to analyze the suppliers who did not satisfy
The total information content values for each green supplier are the case companys requirements. For example, whereas suppliers
determined on the basis of considered criteria using the FAD 1, 2, and 3 failed to be selected, they were best in some criteria.
technique as shown in Table 5. Supplier 5 is selected as the most Supplier 1 is best in criteria C13, C23, C41, C63, C112, C115; Supplier
appropriate green supplier for our Singapore case company with 2 is best in C14, C73, and C114. From our analysis, suppliers 1, 2, and
respect to the pre-determined FRs based on the experts evaluation. 3 mostly failed in green criteria such as environmental efciency
The elimination of the other suppliers displays the non-satisfaction (C52), pollution control initiatives (C73), remanufacturing (C87),
of criteria. Specically, supplier 1 is eliminated with respect to the disposal (C88), green materials coding and recording (C96), green
criteria C36, C37, C38, C43, C52, C62, C73, C87, C96, C103, C106. process/production planning (C103), green R & D project (C106),
Supplier 2 is eliminated with respect to the criteria C37, C39, C88, and so forth. From the FAD technique results, the decision maker
C103, C106, and supplier 3 is eliminated with respect to the criteria can advise the supplier who has not satised the required criteria
C103. Supplier 4 satises all the criteria but the information content how to improve their green criteria performance. Finally, based on
value is higher than that provided by supplier 5. From Table 5, the performance of the suppliers (information content values for

Fig. 8. Assessment of Level of Technique criterion for the supplier 2.

206 D. Kannan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 96 (2015) 194e208

Table 4 criteria of supplier) and with respect to the functional requirement

Intersecting point from graph plot. for each criteria of case company, supplier 5 is selected as the best
System range Functional requirement Intersecting Intersecting supplier because of the sum of information content values of all
(design range) point 1 point 2 criteria is low (IA 39.27) as compared to other suppliers.
A B C D E F

x 8.5 8.75 9.5 7.5 10 10 8.61 8.86 7. Managerial implication

y 0 1 0 0 1 0 0.44 0.55
The objective of this case study is to select the best green sup-
plier for the development of new products which abides the

Table 5
Information content of each supplier.

FR Supplier 1 Supplier 2 Supplier 3 Supplier 4 Supplier 5

I I I I I

C1 C11 7.50 10.00 10.00 10.30 7.13 4.30 1.52 0.70

C12 7.50 10.00 10.00 2.38 2.31 2.69 7.23 0.09
C13 0.50 10.00 10.00 2.03 2.33 2.33 2.73 2.73
C14 7.50 10.00 10.00 2.83 1.17 2.00 3.61 1.17
C15 7.50 10.00 10.00 1.92 4.38 1.39 1.92 0.08
C2 C21 4.00 10.00 10.00 1.25 0.35 0.81 0.26 0.34
C22 7.50 10.00 10.00 1.19 8.29 0.81 0.73 0.04
C23 5.00 10.00 10.00 0.32 2.36 3.25 1.63 2.94
C3 C31 7.50 10.00 10.00 1.92 0.31 1.41 1.17 0.08
C32 7.50 10.00 10.00 0.51 0.42 1.23 0.56 0.24
C33 7.50 10.00 10.00 0.99 0.65 0.79 0.25 0.06
C34 7.50 10.00 10.00 0.02 0.56 0.69 8.56 0.14
C35 3.00 10.00 10.00 0.30 0.27 0.22 0.20 0.39
C36 7.50 10.00 10.00 a 0.40 2.38 4.13 3.86
C37 7.50 10.00 10.00 a a 1.41 7.97 1.03
C38 7.50 10.00 10.00 a 3.39 1.86 0.04 0.81
C39 7.50 10.00 10.00 0.42 a 0.25 0.52 0.10
C4 C41 3.00 10.00 10.00 0.16 0.39 0.27 0.44 0.32
C42 3.00 10.00 10.00 0.44 0.95 0.09 0.27 0.18
C43 7.50 10.00 10.00 a 8.81 1.19 0.73 0.19
C44 7.50 10.00 10.00 0.99 0.31 1.41 1.17 0.14
C5 C51 7.50 10.00 10.00 1.64 2.31 2.95 0.82 0.05
C52 7.50 10.00 10.00 a 0.99 1.50 0.52 0.06
C53 7.50 10.00 10.00 0.95 0.53 1.32 0.44 0.89
C54 7.50 10.00 10.00 0.69 1.64 3.12 1.12 0.35
C55 7.50 10.00 10.00 2.56 1.94 0.19 0.08 0.02
C6 C61 7.50 10.00 10.00 1.24 2.31 1.19 0.61 0.19
C62 7.50 10.00 10.00 a 0.40 1.86 0.31 0.24
C63 7.50 10.00 10.00 0.10 0.31 0.10 0.89 0.63
C64 7.50 10.00 10.00 0.08 0.56 1.07 1.10 0.58
C7 C71 4.00 10.00 10.00 3.09 1.49 0.91 0.44 0.36
C72 4.00 10.00 10.00 0.15 0.22 0.43 0.47 0.08
C73 7.50 10.00 10.00 a 0.40 2.38 4.13 1.58
C74 7.50 10.00 10.00 2.56 3.64 1.19 0.73 0.50
C8 C81 7.50 10.00 10.00 4.46 1.12 0.25 0.33 0.14
C82 7.50 10.00 10.00 8.56 0.46 2.56 0.08 1.97
C83 5.00 10.00 10.00 0.42 0.42 0.53 0.68 0.23
C84 7.50 10.00 10.00 1.61 2.31 3.19 2.95 0.04
C85 7.50 10.00 10.00 1.19 0.61 4.64 1.07 0.12
C86 7.50 10.00 10.00 3.58 1.12 0.37 0.33 0.28
C87 7.50 10.00 10.00 a 1.92 0.06 0.26 0.73
C88 7.50 10.00 10.00 9.03 a 1.39 1.25 1.04
C9 C91 7.50 10.00 10.00 0.56 1.50 0.56 0.65 0.26
C92 7.50 10.00 10.00 1.61 1.25 0.44 0.28 1.41
C93 7.50 10.00 10.00 5.58 8.56 0.42 1.03 0.66
C94 7.50 10.00 10.00 1.86 2.46 2.38 0.33 1.58
C95 7.50 10.00 10.00 0.14 1.32 1.03 1.39 0.04
C96 7.50 10.00 10.00 a 3.58 1.19 1.12 0.28
C10 C101 7.50 10.00 10.00 1.32 0.35 0.46 0.82 0.51
C102 7.50 10.00 10.00 2.80 0.46 1.12 1.03 0.31
C103 7.50 10.00 10.00 a a a 4.56 2.06
C104 7.50 10.00 10.00 1.12 1.03 5.97 1.41 0.14
C105 7.50 10.00 10.00 0.95 0.99 1.25 5.97 0.61
C106 7.50 10.00 10.00 a a 4.46 0.99 1.39
C107 7.50 10.00 10.00 3.58 1.41 0.82 0.56 0.95
C11 C111 7.50 10.00 10.00 1.39 2.80 0.81 0.73 0.69
C112 7.50 10.00 10.00 0.19 1.24 1.64 0.05 0.94
C113 7.50 10.00 10.00 1.58 0.31 0.81 1.17 0.51
C114 7.50 10.00 10.00 0.08 0.81 1.07 0.94 0.58
C115 7.50 10.00 10.00 2.29 0.33 1.97 2.57 0.62
Total IA a a a 89.86 39.27
 D. Kannan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 96 (2015) 194e208 207

Table 6
Experiments for sensitivity analysis.

Expt. Denition of functional requirements Information content (I) Ranking

no.
Benet criteria Cost criteria Supplier 1 Supplier 2 Supplier 3 Supplier 4 Supplier 5

C11, C12, C14, C15, C22, C31, C32, C34, C13, C21, C23, C35,
C36, C37, C38, C39, C42, C43, C44, C51, C41, C71, C83
C52, C53, C54, C55, C61, C62, C63, C64,
C72, C73, C74, C81, C82, C84, C85, C86,
C87, C88, C91, C92, C93, C94, C95, C96,
C101, C102, C103, C104, C105, C016,
C107, C111, C112, C113, C114, C115

1 7.50, 10.00, 10.00 5.00, 10.00, 10.00 e

2 7.50, 10.00, 10.00 4.00, 10.00, 10.00 a a a a a e
3 7.50, 10.00, 10.00 3.00, 10.00, 10.00 a a a a a e
4 7.50, 10.00, 10.00 0.50, 10.00, 10.00 a a a a 40.88 Supplier 5
5 4.00, 10.00, 10.00 5.00, 10.00, 10.00 a a a a a e
6 4.00, 10.00, 10.00 4.00, 10.00, 10.00 a a a a a e
7 4.00, 10.00, 10.00 3.00, 10.00, 10.00 a a a a a e
8 4.00, 10.00, 10.00 0.50, 10.00, 10.00 20.26 17.67 13.31 12.94 7.65 Supplier 1 > Supplier 2 >
Supplier 3 > Supplier 4 >
Supplier 5
9 3.00, 10.00, 10.00 5.00, 10.00, 10.00 a a a a a e
10 3.00, 10.00, 10.00 4.00, 10.00, 10.00 a a a a a e
11 3.00, 10.00, 10.00 3.00, 10.00, 10.00 a a a a a e
12 3.00, 10.00, 10.00 0.50, 10.00, 10.00 14.89 13.19 10.48 10.18 6.55 Supplier 1 > Supplier 2 >
Supplier 3 > Supplier 4 >
Supplier 5

environmental criteria and traditional criteria. By examining the 11
main criteria and 60 sub criteria, this study helps the rm managers
in understanding the green supplier evaluation and selection pro-
cess and offers the following benets. The rst benet of this study
is developing main and sub-criteria selection using afnity diagram
method based on comprehensive literature review and case com-
pany requirement. The second benet is not only in selecting the
best green supplier, but also were used to analyse the supplier who
did not satisfy the rm requirement and intimate the area where
they can improve their performance. The result of this study helps
rm to establish the systematic approach to select the best green
supplier within the set of criteria and helps to analyse the most
appropriate alternate supplier which shows the great difference
when compared to the other approaches.
8. Conclusion
In industry, environmental protection and sustainable develop-
ment are getting more and more attention. In order to extend the
product life cycle and to pursue enterprise perpetuity, a rm is needed
to emphasize environmental and green protection, now a critical part
of social responsibility. A good green supplier selection model in a
dynamic, competitive, and regulatory environment can help to lessen
the environmental and legal risks and to increase the competitiveness
of a rm. In the purchases of the organization, the supplier selection is
a key function. The selection of the suitable supplier among the many
conicting criteria of qualitative and quantitative nature makes the
evaluation process an MCDM problem. This paper proposes a model
to select the criteria for evaluating green suppliers and to evaluate the
performance of suppliers. The Afnity Diagram method is applied rst
to select the most important sub-criteria for traditional suppliers and
for green suppliers. The results for green supplier criteria are applied
next to construct a hierarchy for green supplier evaluations. It is
difcult to consider the assessments of decision makers on alterna-
tives with respect to related criteria precisely. In many decision
making problems, the decision makers dene their preference in
linguistic form since it is relatively difcult to provide exact numerical
values during the evaluation of alternatives. It is possible to apply
many MCDM techniques to solve these multi-criteria problems in the
literature. In this paper, a fuzzy AD model is constructed based on the
hierarchy to evaluate green suppliers for a Singapore case company
who manufactures plastic raw material. The methodology was suc-
cessful in selecting the most suitable supplier. The strength of the
proposed model is that despite the vagueness of experts opinions in
the evaluation process, the model is easy to apply. The supplier who
most satises FRs is selected as the best green supplier and the pro-
posed approaches that depend on the minimum information content
do not let an alternative supplier to be selected even if that alternative
supplier meets the FRs of all other criteria successfully but not any of
these ranges. However, the numerical value can be assigned instead of
innitive information content in order to make possible the most
appropriate alternative supplier who meets all other criteria suc-
cessfully, except the criterion having innitive information content.
Manufacturers of related industries can use our proposed model or
tailor the model to meet their own needs to evaluate their green
suppliers or to select the best green supplier for cooperation.
The proposed approach has some limitations. One of the limita-
tions is that due to the dependency of minimum information content
of this proposed approach, the alternative supplier cannot be
selected if the information content of any one criteria is innitive
and meets the FRs of all other criteria successfully. Another limitation
is that even we can nd the criterion where the eliminated supplier
not able to satisfy, it is not possible to evaluate how much they
deviate from the design requirement because of the innitive in-
formation content. In future research, other MCDM techniques such
as AHP, ANP, and TOPSIS, can be used, and their results can be
compared with one of our proposed methodologies. A sensitivity
analysis can be done to determine the changes in the results that are
relative to the changes in the weightage of the criteria.
Acknowledgment
This research was supported by a Grant from Forsknings-og
Innovationsstyrelsen (1681448).
References
Awasthi, A., Chauhan, S.S., Goyal, S.K., 2010. A fuzzy multicriteria approach for eval-
uating environmental performance of suppliers. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 126, 370e378.
208 D. Kannan et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 96 (2015) 194e208
Babic, B., 1999. Axiomatic design of exible manufacturing systems. Int. J. Prod. Res.
37 (5), 1159e1173.
Bai, C., Sarkis, J., 2010a. Green supplier development: analytical evaluation using
rough set theory. J. Clean. Prod. 18, 1200e1210.
Bai, C., Sarkis, J., 2010b. Integrating sustainability into supplier selection with grey
system and rough set methodologies. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 124 (1), 252e264.
BBC News, 2011. Sony Offers to Check Smoking TV Models. Available at: http://
www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15272573 (accessed 12.10.11.).
Bhutta, K.S., Huq, F., 2002. Supplier selection problem: a comparison of total cost of
ownership and analytic hierarchy process approaches. Supply Chain Manag. Int.
J. 7 (3), 126e135.
Bowen, F.E., Cousins, P.D., Lamming, R.C., Faruk, A.C., 2001. The role of supply
management capabilities in green supply. Prod. Operat. Manag. Summer 10 (2),
174e189.
Bykzkan, G., ifi, G., 2010. Evaluation of the green supply chain management
practices: a fuzzy ANP approach. iFirst Prod. Plan. Control, 1e14.
Bykzkan, G., ifi, G., 2011. A novel fuzzy multi-criteria decision framework for
sustainable supplier selection with incomplete information. Comput. Indust. 62,
164e174.
Cao, H., 2011. The study of the suppliers evaluating and choosing strategies based
on the green supply chain management. In: International Conference on BMEI,
IEEE, vol. 3, pp. 788e791 (13e15) May.
Celik, M., Kahraman, C., Cebi, S., Er, I.D., 2009. Fuzzy axiomatic design-based per-
formance evaluation model for docking facilities in shipbuilding industry: the
case of Turkish shipyards. Expert Syst. Appl. 36 (1), 599e615.
Chai, J., Liu, J.N.K.., Ngai, E.W.T., 2012. Application of decision-making techniques in
supplier selection: a systematic review of literature. Expert Syst. Appl. 40 (10),
3872e3885.
Chiou, C.Y., Hsu, C.W., Hwang, W.Y., 2008. Comparative investigation on green
supplier selection of the American, Japanese and Taiwanese electronics in-
dustry in China. In: International Conference on IE&EM, IEEE 8e11 Dec,
pp. 1909e1914.
Chiou, T.Y., Chan, H.K., Lettice, F., Chung, S.H., 2011. The inuence of greening the
suppliers and green innovation on environmental performance and competitive
advantage in Taiwan. Trans. Res. Part E 47, 822e836.
ElTayeb, T.K., Zailani, S., Jayaraman, K., 2010. The examination on the drivers for
green purchasing adoption among EMS 14001 certied companies in Malaysia.
J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 21 (2), 206e225.
Enarsson, L., 1998. Evaluation of suppliers: how to consider the environment. Int. J.
Phys. Distribut. Logist. Manag. 28 (1), 5e17.
Esty, D.C., Winston, A.S., 2006. Green to Gold: How Smart Companies Use Envi-
ronment Strategy to Innovate, Create, Value and Build Competitive Advantage.
Yale University Press, New Haven.
Gonalves-Coelho, A.M., Mouro, A.J.F., 2007. Axiomatic design as support for
decision-making in a design for manufacturing context: a case study. Int. J.
Prod. Econ. 109 (1e2), 81e89.
Govindan, K., Rajendran, S., Sarkis, J., Murugesan, P., 2013. Multi criteria decision
making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: a literature
review. J. Clean. Prod. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.046 (in press).
Green, K., Morton, B., New, S., 1998. Green purchasing and supply policies: do they
improve companies environmental performance? Supply Chain Manag. 3 (2),
89e95.
Grisi, R.M., Guerra, L., Naviglio, G., 2010. Supplier performance evaluation for green
supply chain management. Bus. Perform. Meas. Manag., 149e163. Part 4.
Handeld, R., Walton, S.V., Sroufe, R., Melnyk, S.A., 2002. Applying environmental
criteria to supplier assessment: a study in the application of the analytical hi-
erarchy process. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 141, 70e87.
Hsu, C.W., Hu, A.H., 2009. Applying hazardous substance management to supplier
selection using analytic network process. J. Clean. Prod. 17, 255e264.
Humphreys, P., McIvor, R., Chan, F.T.S., 2003a. Using case-based reasoning to eval-
uate supplier environmental management performance. Expert Syst. Appl. 25,
141e153.
Humphreys, P.K., Wong, Y.K., Chan, F.T.S., 2003b. Integrating environmental criteria
into the supplier selection process. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 138 (1e3), 349e356.
Humphries, M., 2011. Sony to Repair 1.6 Million Bravia LCD TVs that May Produce
Smoke or Melt. Available at: http://www.geek.com/articles/news/sony-to-
repair-1-6-million-bravia-lcd-tvs-that-may-produce-smoke-or-melt-20111012/
(accessed 12.10.11.).
Kannan, D., Khodaverdi, R., Olfat, L., Jafarian, A., Diabat, A., 2013. Integrated fuzzy
multi criteria decision making method and multi-objective programming
approach for supplier selection and order allocation in a green supply chain.
J. Clean. Prod. 47, 355e367.
Kahraman, C., Cebi, S., Kaya, I., 2010. Selection among renewable Energy alternatives using
fuzzy axiomatic design: the case of Turkey. J. Univers. Comput. Sci. 16 (1), 82e102.
Kahraman, C., Kaya, I., Cebi, S., 2009. A comparative analysis for multiattribute
selection among renewable energy alternatives using fuzzy axiomatic design
and fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Energy 34, 1603e1616.
Kulak, O., Kahraman, C., 2005. Multi-attribute comparison of advanced
manufacturing systems using fuzzy vs. crisp axiomatic design approach. Int. J.
Prod. Econ. 95, 415e424.
Kulak, O., Kahraman, C., 2005a. Fuzzy multi-attribute selection among trans-
portation companies using axiomatic design and analytic hierarchy process. Inf.
Sci. 170, 191e210.
Kulak, O., Durmusoglu, M.B., Kahraman, C., 2005. Fuzzy multi-attribute equip-
ment selection based on information axiom. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 169,
337e345.
Kulak, O., 2005. A decision support system for fuzzy multi-attribute selection of
material handling equipments. Expert Syst. Appl. 29 (2), 310e319.
Kumar, A., Jain, V., 2010. Supplier selection: a green approach with carbon
footprint monitoring. In: International Conference on SCMIS, IEEE 6e9 Oct,
pp. 1e9.
Kuo, R.J., Lin, Y.J., 2011. Supplier selection using analytic network process and data
envelopment analysis. Int. J. Prod. Res., 1e12 (iFirst).
Kuo, R.J., Wang, Y.C., Tien, F.C., 2010. Integration of articial neural network
and MADA methods for green supplier selection. J. Clean. Prod. 18 (12),
1161e1170.
Large, R.O., Thomsen, C.G., 2011. Drivers of green supply management performance:
evidence from Germany. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 17 (3), 176e184.
Lee, A.H.I., Kang, H.Y., Hsu, C.F., Hung, H.C., 2009. A green supplier selection model
for high-tech industry. Expert Syst. Appl. 36, 7917e7927.
Li, X., Zhao, C., 2009. Selection of suppliers of vehicle components based on green
supply chain. In: International Conference on IE&EM, IEEE 21e23 Oct, pp. 1588e
1591.
Lu, L.Y.Y., Wu, C.H., Kuo, T.C., 2007. Environmental principles applicable to green
supplier evaluation by using multi-objective decision analysis. Int. J. Prod. Res.
45 (18e19), 4317e4331.
Mehrjerdi, Y.Z., 2012. Developing fuzzy TOPSIS method based on interval valued
fuzzy sets. Int. J. Comput. Appl. 42 (14), 7e18.
Nawrocka, D., 2008. Environmental supply chain management, ISO 14001 and
RoHS. How are small companies in the electronics sector managing? Corp. Soc.
Responsib. Environ. Manag. 15, 349e360.
Noci, G., 1997. Designing green vendor rating systems for the assessment of a
suppliers environmental performance. Eur. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 3 (2),
103e114.
Sipahi, S., Timor, M., 2010. The analytic hierarchy process and analytic network
process: an overview of applications. Manag. Decis. 48 (5), 775e808.
Suh, N.P., 1990. The Principles of Design. Oxford University Press, New York.
Suh, N.P., 2001. Axiomatic Design: Advances and Applications. Oxford University
Press.
Tseng, M.L., 2011. Green supply chain management with linguistic preferences and
incomplete information. Appl. Soft Comput. 11 (8), 4894e4903.
Vachon, S., Klassen, R.D., 2006. Green project partnership in the supply chain: the
case of the package printing industry. J. Clean. Prod. 14, 661e671.
Walton, S.V., Handeld, R.B., Melnyk, S.A., 1998. The Green supply chain: integrating
suppliers into environmental management processes. J. Supply Chain Manag.
34 (2), 2e11.
Warner, K.E., Ryall, C., 2001. Greener purchasing activities within UK local author-
ities. Eco-Manage. Audit. 8 (1), 36e45.
Wen, U.P., Chi, J.M., 2010. Developing green supplier selection procedure:
a DEA approach. In: International Conference on IE&EM, IEEE 29e31 Oct,
pp. 74e79.
Wu, D.D., Zhang, Y., Wu, D., Olson, D.L., 2010. Fuzzy multi-objective programming
for supplier selection and risk modeling: a possibility approach. Eur. J. Operat.
Res. 200, 774e787.
Yan, G., 2009. Research on green suppliers evaluation based on AHP & genetic
algorithm. In: International Conference on SPS, IEEE 15e17 May, pp. 615e619.
Yang, Y., Wu, L., 2007. Grey entropy method for green supplier selection. In:
International Conference on WiCom, IEEE 21e25 Sept, pp. 4682e4685.
Yeh, W.C., Chuang, M.C., 2011. Using multi-objective genetic algorithm
for partner selection in green supply chain problems. Expert Syst. Appl. 38,
4244e4253.
Zadeh, L.A., 1965. Fuzzy sets. J. Inform. Control 8, 338e353.
Zeng, J., An, M., Smith, N.J., 2007. Application of a fuzzy based decision making
methodology to construction project risk assessment. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 25,
589e600.
Zhang, H.C., Li, J., Merchant, M.E., 2003. Using fuzzy multi-agent decision-making in
environmentally conscious supplier management. CIRP Ann. e Manuf. Technol.
52 (1), 385e388.
Zhu, Q., Dou, Y., Sarkis, J., 2010. A portfolio-based analysis for green supplier
management using the analytical network process. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J.
15 (4), 306e319.
Zouggari, A., Benyoucef, L., 2012. Simulation based fuzzy TOPSIS approach for
group multi-criteria supplier selection problem. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 25 (3),
507e519.