Advertisement

Sustainable supplier evaluation and selection with a novel two-stage DEA model in the presence of uncontrollable inputs and undesirable outputs: a plastic case study

  • Navid ZarbakhshniaEmail author
  • Tina Jamali Jaghdani
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • 112 Downloads

Abstract

Today in the global market, sustainable supply chain management has turned into a significant issue for managers and researchers. Selection and evaluation related to the rewarding and satisfying supplier are one of the main points in each supply chain. Data envelopment analysis (DEA) is a popular method to measure the performance and efficiency of suppliers and organizations. In this study, a novel two-stage DEA network model is proposed in the presence of uncontrollable inputs and undesirable outputs with considering the set of intermediate elements between two stages to evaluate and select the best sustainable supplier. The provided model is applied in a plastic case study by ten decision-making units (DMUs) as suppliers or alternatives to denote validity and applicability of the suggested model.

Keywords

Supply chain management Sustainable supplier selection Two-stage data envelopment analysis Uncontrollable inputs Undesirable outputs Multiple criteria decision-making 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the anonymous reviewers as well as editor Erhan Budak for their constructive comments and suggestions.

References

  1. 1.
    Ahmadi HB, Petrudi SHH, Wang X (2017) Integrating sustainability into supplier selection with analytical hierarchy process and improved grey relational analysis: a case of telecom industry. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 90(9–12):2413–2427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amindoust A, Ahmed S, Saghafinia A, Bahreininejad A (2012) Sustainable supplier selection: a ranking model based on fuzzy inference system. Appl Soft Comput 12(6):1668–1677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Awasthi A, Chauhan SS, Goyal SK (2010) A fuzzy multicriteria approach for evaluating environmental performance of suppliers. Int J Prod Econ 126(2):370–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Awasthi A, Kannan G (2016) Green supplier development program selection using NGT and VIKOR under fuzzy environment. Comput Ind Eng 91:100–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Azadi M, Farzipoor Saen R (2011) A new chance-constrained data envelopment analysis for selecting third-party reverse logistics providers in the existence of dual-role factors. Expert Syst Appl 38(10):12231–12236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Azadi M, Jafarian M, Saen RF, Mirhedayatian SM (2015) A new fuzzy DEA model for evaluation of efficiency and effectiveness of suppliers in sustainable supply chain management context. Comput Oper Res 54:274–285MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Blome C, Hollos D, Paulraj A (2014) Green procurement and green supplier development: antecedents and effects on supplier performance. Int J Prod Res 52(1):32–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brandenburg M, Govindan K, Sarkis J, Seuring S (2014) Quantitative models for sustainable supply chain management: developments and directions. Eur J Oper Res 233(2):299–312MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boudaghi, E., & Saen, R. F. (2017). Developing a novel model of data envelopment analysis–discriminant analysis for predicting group membership of suppliers in sustainable supply chain. Computers & Operations ResearchGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Büyüközkan G, Çifçi G (2011) A novel fuzzy multi-criteria decision framework for sustainable supplier selection with incomplete information. Comput Ind 62(2):164–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Büyüközkan G, Çifçi G (2012) A novel hybrid MCDM approach based on fuzzy DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS to evaluate green suppliers. Expert Syst Appl 39(3):3000–3011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Caniëls MC, Gehrsitz MH, Semeijn J (2013) Participation of suppliers in greening supply chains: an empirical analysis of German automotive suppliers. J Purch Supply Manag 19(3):134–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1978) Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 2(6):429–444MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chen Y, Zhu J (2004) Measuring information technology’s indirect impact on firm performance. Inf Technol Manag 5(1):9–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chen C, Zhu J, Yu JY, Noori H (2012) A new methodology for evaluating sustainable product design performance with two-stage network data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res 221(2):348–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chiouy CY, Chou SH, Yeh CY (2011) Using fuzzy AHP in selecting and prioritizing sustainable supplier on CSR for Taiwan’s electronics industry. J Inf Optim Sci 32(5):1135–1153Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chu XN, Tso SK, Zhang WJ, Li Q (2002) Partnership synthesis for virtual enterprises. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 19(5):384–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cooper WW, Seiford LM, Tone K (2007) Data envelopment analysis: a comprehensive text with models, applications, references and DEA-solver software, second edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Da Silveira Guimarães JL, Salomon VAP (2015) ANP applied to the evaluation of performance indicators of reverse logistics in footwear industry. Procedia Comput Sci 55:139–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dai J, Blackhurst J (2012) A four-phase AHP–QFD approach for supplier assessment: a sustainability perspective. Int J Prod Res 50(19):5474–5490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Efendigil T, Onut S, Kongar E (2008) A holistic approach for selecting a third-party reverse logistics provider in the presence of vagueness. Comput Ind Eng 54(2):269–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fallahian-Najafabadi A, Kazemi S, Latifi I, Soltanmohammad N (2013) A green managerial criteria pyramid model and key criteria for green supplier evaluation. Advances in Environmental Biology 7(11):3505–3516Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fallahpour A, Olugu EU, Musa SN, Wong KY, Noori S (2017) A decision support model for sustainable supplier selection in sustainable supply chain management. Comput Ind Eng 105:391–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Farzipoor Saen R (2010) Developing a new data envelopment analysis methodology for supplier selection in the presence of both undesirable outputs and imprecise data. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 51(9–12):1243–1250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Favero CA, Papi L (1995) Technical efficiency and scale efficiency in the Italian banking sector: a non-parametric approach. Appl Econ 27(4):385–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fazlollahtabar H (2016) An integration between fuzzy PROMETHEE and fuzzy linear program for supplier selection problem: case study. J Appl Math Model Computing 1(1)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Frostenson M, Prenkert F (2015) Sustainable supply chain management when focal firms are complex: a network perspective. J Clean Prod 107:85–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fu X, Zhu Q, Sarkis J (2012) Evaluating green supplier development programs at a telecommunications systems provider. Int J Prod Econ 140(1):357–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ghadimi P, Heavey C (2014) Sustainable supplier selection in medical device industry: toward sustainable manufacturing. Procedia CIRP 15:165–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ghadimi P, Toosi FG, Heavey C (2017) A multi-agent systems approach for sustainable supplier selection and order allocation in a partnership supply chain. Eur J Oper ResGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Guo C, Shureshjani RA, Foroughi AA, Zhu J (2017) Decomposition weights and overall efficiency in two-stage additive network DEA. Eur J Oper Res 257(3):896–906MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Govindan K (2009) Fuzzy approach for the selection of third party reverse logistics provider. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 21(3):397–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Govindan K, Khodaverdi R, Jafarian A (2013a) A fuzzy multi criteria approach for measuring sustainability performance of a supplier based on triple bottom line approach. J Clean Prod 47:345–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Govindan K, Sarkis J, Palaniappan M (2013b) An analytic network process-based multicriteria decision making model for a reverse supply chain. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 68(1–4):863–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Govindan K, Palaniappan M, Zhu Q, Kannan D (2012) Analysis of third party reverse logistics provider using interpretive structural modeling. Int J Prod Econ 140(1):204–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gupta P, Govindan K, Mehlawat MK, Kumar S (2016) A weighted possibilistic programming approach for sustainable vendor selection and order allocation in fuzzy environment. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 86(5–8):1785–1804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Genovese A, Lenny Koh SC, Bruno G, Esposito E (2013) Greener supplier selection: state of the art and some empirical evidence. Int J Prod Res 51(10):2868–2886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hatami-Marbini A, Agrell PJ, Tavana M, Khoshnevis P (2017) A flexible cross-efficiency fuzzy data envelopment analysis model for sustainable sourcing. J Clean Prod 142:2761–2779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Henri JF, Journeault M (2008) Environmental performance indicators: an empirical study of Canadian manufacturing firms. J Environ Manag 87(1):165–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hsu CW, Hu AH (2009) Applying hazardous substance management to supplier selection using analytic network process. J Clean Prod 17(2):255–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Izadikhah M, Saen RF, Ahmadi K (2017) How to assess sustainability of suppliers in volume discount context? A new data envelopment analysis approach. Transp Res Part D: Transp Environ 51:102–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Izadikhah M, Saen RF (2017) Assessing sustainability of supply chains by chance-constrained two-stage DEA model in the presence of undesirable factors. Computers & Operations Research. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2017.10.002. In PressMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Jahanshahloo GR, Lotfi FH, Shoja N, Tohidi G, Razavyan S (2005) Undesirable inputs and outputs in DEA models. Appl Math Comput 169(2):917–925MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Jauhar SK, Pant M, Abraham A (2014) A novel approach for sustainable supplier selection using differential evolution: a case on pulp and paper industry. In Intelligent Data analysis and its Applications, Volume II (pp. 105-117). Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Jauhar, S. K., & Pant, M. (2017). Integrating DEA with DE and MODE for sustainable supplier selection. Journal of Computational Science Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kannan D (2017) Role of multiple stakeholders and the critical success factor theory for the sustainable supplier selection process. Int J Prod EconGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    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 47:355–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kannan D, de Sousa Jabbour ABL, Jabbour CJC (2014) Selecting green suppliers based on GSCM practices: using fuzzy TOPSIS applied to a Brazilian electronics company. Eur J Oper Res 233(2):432–447MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kaur H, Singh SP, Glardon R (2016) An integer linear program for integrated supplier selection: a sustainable flexible framework. Glob J Flex Syst Manag 17(2):113–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Khatri JB, Srivastava M (2015) Sustainable supplier selection: a case of Indian SME. In Managing in Recovering Markets (pp. 441-452). Springer, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kuo RJ, Lin YJ (2012) Supplier selection using analytic network process and data envelopment analysis. Int J Prod Res 50(11):2852–2863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Larson PD, Rogers DS (1998) Supply chain management: definition, growth and approaches. J Mark Theory Pract 6(4):1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Lee AH, Kang HY, Hsu CF, Hung HC (2009) A green supplier selection model for high-tech industry. Expert Syst Appl 36(4):7917–7927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Lemaréchal C (2007) The omnipresence of Lagrange. Ann Oper Res 153(1):9–27MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Li Q, Zhang WJ, Chen L (2001) Design for control—a concurrent engineering approach for mechatronic systems design. IEEE/ASME transactions on mechatronics 6(2):161–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Luthra S, Govindan K, Mangla SK (2017a) Structural model for sustainable consumption and production adoption—a grey-DEMATEL based approach. Resour Conserv Recycl 125:198–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Luthra S, Govindan K, Kannan D, Mangla SK, Garg CP (2017b) An integrated framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains. J Clean Prod 140:1686–1698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Mahdiloo M, Saen RF, Lee KH (2015) Technical, environmental and eco-efficiency measurement for supplier selection: an extension and application of data envelopment analysis. Int J Prod Econ 168:279–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Mahdiloo M, Jafarzadeh AH, Saen RF, Tatham P, Fisher R (2016) A multiple criteria approach to two-stage data envelopment analysis. Transp Res Part D: Transp Environ 46:317–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Maria Vanalle R, Blanco Santos L (2014) Green supply chain management in Brazilian automotive sector. Manage Environ Qual: An Int J 25(5):523–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Pego-Guerra M, Zhang WJ, Ip WH (2010a) Robust Management of Virtual Enterprise. ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Montreal. Canada, August, pp 22–26Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Mavi RK, Kazemi S, Najafabadi AF, Mousaabadi HB (2013) Identification and assessment of logistical factors to evaluate a green supplier using the fuzzy logic DEMATEL method. Pol J Environ Stud 22(2)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Mavi RK, Saen RF, Goh M (2018) Joint analysis of eco-efficiency and eco-innovation with common weights in two-stage network. A big data approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, DEA.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.01.035. In Press
  64. 64.
    Mavi RK, Goh M, Zarbakhshnia N (2017) Sustainable third-party reverse logistic provider selection with fuzzy SWARA and fuzzy MOORA in plastic industry. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 91(5–8):2401–2418.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-016-9880-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Mirhedayatian SM, Azadi M, Saen RF (2014) A novel network data envelopment analysis model for evaluating green supply chain management. Int J Prod Econ 147:544–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Mishra N, Kumar V, Chan FT (2012) A multi-agent architecture for reverse logistics in a green supply chain. Int J Prod Res 50(9):2396–2406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Morana J (2013) Sustainable supply chain management. John Wiley & Sons, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Onu PU, Quan X, Xu L, Orji J, Onu E (2017) Evaluation of sustainable acid rain control options utilizing a fuzzy TOPSIS multi-criteria decision analysis model frame work. J Clean Prod 141:612–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Orji IJ, Wei S (2015) An innovative integration of fuzzy-logic and systems dynamics in sustainable supplier selection: a case on manufacturing industry. Comput Ind Eng 88:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Pego-Guerra MA, Zhang WJ, Ip WH (2010b) Robust management of virtual enterprises. In ASME 2010 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (pp. 299–306). American Society of Mechanical EngineersGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Prakash C, Barua MK (2016) An analysis of integrated robust hybrid model for third-party reverse logistics partner selection under fuzzy environment. Resour Conserv Recycl 108:63–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Raut RD, Kamble SS, Kharat MG, Joshi H, Singhal C, Kamble SJ (2017) A hybrid approach using data envelopment analysis and artificial neural network for optimising 3PL supplier selection. Int J Logist Syst Manage 26(2):203–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Reuter C, Goebel P, Foerstl K (2012) The impact of stakeholder orientation on sustainability and cost prevalence in supplier selection decisions. J Purch Supply Manag 18(4):270–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Sarkis J, Dhavale DG (2015) Supplier selection for sustainable operations: a triple-bottom-line approach using a Bayesian framework. Int J Prod Econ 166:177–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Sasikumar P, Haq AN (2011) Integration of closed loop distribution supply chain network and 3PRLP selection for the case of battery recycling. Int J Prod Res 49(11):3363–3385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Seiford LM, Zhu J (1999) Profitability and marketability of the top 55 US commercial banks. Manag Sci 45(9):1270–1288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Seuring S (2011) Supply chain management for sustainable products—insights from research applying mixed methodologies. Bus Strateg Environ 20(7):471–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Shen L, Olfat L, Govindan K, Khodaverdi R, Diabat A (2013) A fuzzy multi criteria approach for evaluating green supplier's performance in green supply chain with linguistic preferences. Resour Conserv Recycl 74:170–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Shi P, Yan B, Shi S, Ke C (2015) A decision support system to select suppliers for a sustainable supply chain based on a systematic DEA approach. Inf Technol Manag 16(1):39–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Song W, Xu Z, Liu HC (2017) Developing sustainable supplier selection criteria for solar air-conditioner manufacturer: an integrated approach. Renew Sust Energ Rev 79:1461–1471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Su CM, Horng DJ, Tseng ML, Chiu AS, Wu KJ, Chen HP (2016) Improving sustainable supply chain management using a novel hierarchical grey-DEMATEL approach. J Clean Prod 134:469–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Sunaga T (1958) Theory of interval algebra and its application to numerical analysis. RAAG memoirs 2(29–46):209zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Tan W, Chai Y, Liu Y (2011) A message-driving formalism for modeling and simulation of multi-agent supply chain systems. J Syst Sci Syst Eng 20(4):385–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Tavana M, Shabanpour H, Yousefi S, Saen RF (2016a) A hybrid goal programming and dynamic data envelopment analysis framework for sustainable supplier evaluation. Neural Comput & Applic:1–14Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Tavana M, Zareinejad M, Santos-Arteaga FJ, Kaviani MA (2016b) A conceptual analytic network model for evaluating and selecting third-party reverse logistics providers. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 86(5–8):1705–1721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Tsai WH, Chou WC (2009) Selecting management systems for sustainable development in SMEs: a novel hybrid model based on DEMATEL, ANP, and ZOGP. Expert Syst Appl 36(2):1444–1458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Tsai WH, Hung SJ (2009) A fuzzy goal programming approach for green supply chain optimisation under activity-based costing and performance evaluation with a value-chain structure. Int J Prod Res 47(18):4991–5017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Tseng ML, Chiang JH, Lan LW (2009) Selection of optimal supplier in supply chain management strategy with analytic network process and choquet integral. Comput Ind Eng 57(1):330–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Verdecho MJ, Alfaro-Saiz JJ, Rodríguez-Rodríguez R (2010) An approach to select suppliers for sustainable collaborative networks. In Working Conference on Virtual Enterprises (pp. 304–311). Springer, Berlin, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Wang JW, Ip WH, Muddada RR, Huang JL, Zhang WJ (2013) On petri net implementation of proactive resilient holistic supply chain networks. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 69(1–4):427–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Wang J, Dou R, Muddada RR, Zhang W (2017) Management of a holistic supply chain network for proactive resilience: theory and case study. Computers & Industrial EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Wang WK, Lu WM, Liu PY (2014) A fuzzy multi-objective two-stage DEA model for evaluating the performance of US bank holding companies. Expert Syst Appl 41(9):4290–4297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Wen UP, Chi JM (2010) Developing green supplier selection procedure: a DEA approach. In Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IE&EM), 2010 IEEE 17Th International Conference on (pp. 70–74). IEEEGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Yang CL, Lin SP, Chan YH, Sheu C (2010) Mediated effect of environmental management on manufacturing competitiveness: an empirical study. Int J Prod Econ 123(1):210–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Yazdani M, Chatterjee P, Zavadskas EK, Zolfani SH (2017) Integrated QFD-MCDM framework for green supplier selection. J Clean Prod 142:3728–3740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Yousefi S, Shabanpour H, Fisher R, Saen RF (2016) Evaluating and ranking sustainable suppliers by robust dynamic data envelopment analysis. Measurement 83:72–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Zarbakhshnia N, Soleimani H, Ghaderi H (2018) Sustainable third-party reverse logistics provider evaluation and selection using fuzzy SWARA and developed fuzzy COPRAS in the presence of risk criteria. Appl Soft Comput 65:307–319.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2018.01.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Zhou X, Pedrycz W, Kuang Y, Zhang Z (2016) Type-2 fuzzy multi-objective DEA model: an application to sustainable supplier evaluation. Appl Soft Comput 46:424–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Young Researchers and Elites ClubIslamic Azad University (IAU)QazvinIran
  2. 2.Faculty of Management and Accounting, Chalus BranchIslamic Azad University (IAU)ChalusIran

Personalised recommendations