Evaluation of suppliers' environmental management performances by a fuzzy compromise ranking technique

Journal of Multiple-Valued Logic and Soft Computing

Volumn 14, Issue 3-5, 2008, Pages 309-323

  Büyüközkan, Gülçin ^a   Feyzioǧlu, Orhan ^a  

^a GALATASARAY UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Compromise solution; Fuzzy logic; Multiple criteria analysis; Supplier environmental performance; Supplier evaluation; VIKOR method

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT;

COMPROMISE SOLUTION; MULTIPLE CRITERIA ANALYSIS; SUPPLIER ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE; SUPPLIER EVALUATION; VIKOR METHODS;

FUZZY LOGIC;

EID: 38849097106     PISSN: 15423980     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (33)

1. Florida, R. (1996). Lean and green: the move to environmentally conscious manufacturing. Calif. Manage Rev., 39(1), 80-105.
2. Gungor, A., Gupta, S.M. (1999). Issues in environmentally conscious manufacturing and product recovery: a survey. Comput Ind. Eng., 36, 811-853.
3. Sarkis, J. (2003). A strategic decision framework for green supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod., 11(4), 397-409.
4. Noci, G. (1997). Designing 'green' vendor rating systems for the assessment of a supplier's environmental performance. Eur. J. Pur. Supply Manag., 3(2), 103-114.
5. Rao, P. (2005). The greening of suppliers-in the south east Asian context. J. Clean. Prod., 13, 935-945.
6. Sheu, J.-B., Chou, Y-H., Hu, C-C. (2005). An integrated logistics operational model for green-supply chain management. Transport. Res. E-Log., 41(4), 287-313.
7. Pun, K.F. (2006). Determinants of environmentally responsible operations: a review. Int. J. Qual. & Reliab. Manage., 23(3), 279-297.
8. Büyüközkan, G. (2004). An analytic approach for strategic analysis of green product development. Proceeding of the 13th International Working Seminaron Production Economics, Innsbruck, Austria, 2, 87-96.
9. Li, L., Geiser, K. (2005). Environmentally responsible public procurement (ERPP) and its implications for integrated product policy (IPP). J. Clean. Prod., 13(7), 705-715.
10. Enarsson, L. (1998). Evaluation of suppliers: how to consider the environment. Int. J. Phys. Distr. Logist. Manag., 28(1), 5-17.
11. Humphreys, P.K., Wong, Y.K., Chan, F.T.S. (2003). Integrating environmental criteria into the supplier selection process. J. Mat. Proc. Tech., 138, 349-356.
12. Kongar, E. (2005). A comparative study on multiple criteria heuristic approaches for environmentally benign 3PLs selection. Proceeding of the 3rd International Logistics and Supply Chain Congress, Istanbul, 23-24.
13. Min, H., Galle, W.P. (2001). Green purchasing practices of US firms. Int. J. Oper. & Prod. Manage., 21(9), 1222-1238.
14. Richards, D.J. (1994). Environmentally conscious manufacturing. World Class Design to Manuf, 1(3), 15-22.
15. Green, K., Morton, B. and New, S. (1998), Green purchasing and supply policies: do they improve companies' environmental performance? Supply Chain Manage.: Int. J., 3(2), 89-95.
16. Zhang, H.C., Kuo, T.C. and Lu, J. (1997), Environmentally conscious design and manufacturing: a state-of-the-art survey. J. Manuf. Syst., 16(5), 352-371.
17. Kahraman, C., Cebeci, U., Ulukan, Z. (2003). Multi-criteria supplier selection using fuzzy AHP. Logist. Inform. Manag., 16(6), 382.
18. Pi, W.-N., Low, C. (2005). Supplier evaluation and selection using Taguchi loss functions. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Tech., 26(1-2), 155-160.
19. Wang, G. Huang, S.H., Dismukes, J.P. (2004). Product-driven supply chain selection using integrated multi-criteria decision-making methodology. Int. J. Prod. Econ., 91(1), 1-15.
20. Sarkis, J. (1998). Evaluating environmentally conscious business practices. Eur. J. Oper. Res., 107, 159-174.
21. de Boer, L., Labro, E., Morlacchi, P. (2001). A review of methods supporting supplier selection. Eur. J. Pur. Supply Manag., 7(2), 75-89.
22. Opricovic, S. (1998). Mullicriteria optimization of civil engineering systems. Faculty of Civil Engineering, Belgrade.
23. Opricovic, S., Tzeng, G.H. (2004). Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur. J. Oper. Res., 156, 445-455.
24. Tzeng, G.H., Lin, C.W., Opricovic, S. (2005). Multi-criteria analysis of alternative-fuel buses for public transportation. Energ. Policy, 33, 1373-1383.
25. Opricovic, S., Tzeng, G.-H. (2007). Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods. Eur. J. Oper. Res., 178(2), 514-529
26. Chu, M-T., Shyu, J., Tzeng, G-H., Khosla, R. (2007). Comparison among three analytical methods for knowledge communities group-decision analysis, Expert Syst. Appl., article in press, available thru http://www. sciencedirect.com.
27. Zadeh, L.A. (1975). The concept of a linguistic variable and its applications to approximate reasoning. Inform. Sciences, Part I, 8, 199-249; Part II, 8, 301-357; Part III, 9, 43-80.
28. Kaufmann, A., Gupta, M.M. (1991). Introduction to fuzzy arithmetic theory and applications. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold
29. Zadeh, L.A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Inform. Control., 8, 338-353.
30. Opricovic, S., Tzeng, G.H. (2003). Denazification within a multicriteria decision model. Int J. Uncertain Fuzz., 11, 635-652.
31. Bojadziev, G., Bojadziev, M. (1997). Fuzzy logic for business, finance, and management: advances in fuzzy systems. New Jersey: World Scientific Pub.
32. Fortemps, P., Roubens, M. (1996). Ranking and denazification methods based on area compensation. Fuzzy Set. Syst., 82, 319-330.
33. Cheng, C.H., Lin, Y. (2002). Evaluating the best main battle tank using fuzzy decision theory with linguistic criteria evaluation. Eur. J. Oper. Res., 142, 174-186.