Green Government Procurement: Decision-Making with Rough Set, TOPSIS, and VIKOR Methodologies

  • Chunguang BaiEmail author
  • Joseph Sarkis
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 20)


Public and private organizations have started to respond to various stakeholder and market pressures to improve their environmental and social sustainability performance. Government agencies represent one of the most pertinent stakeholders. Government stakeholder pressures to encourage greater organizational sustainability include coercive measures such as penalties, fines, and removal of license to operate if organizations are unable to meet specific regulatory requirements. Yet, noncoercive approaches are also available to government agencies and regulators for encouraging the greening of organizations and markets.


Fuzzy Number Compromise Solution Green Supply Chain Management Relative Closeness Conditional Attribute 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China Project (71102090, 71472031); Program for Liaoning Excellent Talents in University (WJQ2014029).


  1. Amann M, Roehrich J, Eßig M, Harland C (2014) Driving sustainable supply chain management in the public sector: the importance of public procurement in the European Union. Supply Chain Manage 19(3):351–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arora S, Cason TN (1995) An experiment in voluntary environmental regulation: participation in EPA’s 33/50 program. J Environ Econ Manage 28(3):271–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bai C, Sarkis J (2010a) Integrating sustainability into supplier selection with grey system and rough set methodologies. Int J Prod Econ 124(1):252–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bai C, Sarkis J (2010b) Green supplier development: analytical evaluation using rough set theory. J Clean Prod 18(12):1200–1210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bai C, Sarkis J (2011) Evaluating supplier development programs with a grey based rough set methodology. Expert Syst Appl 38(11):13505–13517Google Scholar
  6. Bai C, Sarkis J (2013a) Flexibility in reverse logistics: a framework and evaluation approach. J Clean Prod 47:306–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bai C, Sarkis J (2013b) Green information technology strategic justification and evaluation. Inf Syst Front 15(5):831–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bai C, Sarkis J (2014) Determining and applying sustainable supplier key performance indicators. Supply Chain Manage 19(3):275–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bai C, Dhavale D, Sarkis J (2014) Integrating Fuzzy C-Means and TOPSIS for performance evaluation: an application and comparative analysis. Expert Syst Appl 41(9):4186–4196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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):299–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. CECNA/FWI (2003) Green procurement: good environmental stories for North Americans. Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North American/Five Winds International. Accessed 10 Oct 2006
  12. Chen MF, Tzeng GH (2004) Combining grey relation and TOPSIS concepts for selecting an expatriate host country. Math Comput Model 40(13):1473–1490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chen SJJ, Hwang CL, Beckmann MJ, Krelle W (1992) Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chu MT, Shyu J, Tzeng GH, Khosla R (2007) Comparison among three analytical methods for knowledge communities group-decision analysis. Expert Syst Appl 33(4):1011–1024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Day C (2005) Buying green: the crucial role of public authorities. Local Environ 10(2):201–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Deltas G, Harrington DR, Khanna M (2014) Green management and the nature of pollution prevention innovation. Appl Econ 46(5):465–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dou Y, Sarkis J, Bai C, Dou Y, Sarkis J, Bai C (2014) Government green procurement: a Fuzzy-DEMATEL analysis of barriers. In: Supply chain management under fuzziness, vol 333. Springer, Berlin, pp 567–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dubois D, Prade H (1980) Systems of linear fuzzy constraints. Fuzzy Set Syst 3(1):37–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. European Commission (EC) (2004) Buying green!—a handbook on environmental public procurement. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
  20. Geng Y, Doberstein B (2008) Developing the circular economy in China: challenges and opportunities for achieving ‘leapfrog development’. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 15(3):231–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Govindan K, Rajendran S, Sarkis J, Murugesan P (2015) Multi criteria decision making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review. J Clean Prod 98:66–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ho LW, Dickinson NM, Chan G (2010) Green procurement in the Asian public sector and the Hong Kong private sector. Nat Resour Forum 34(1):24–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications: a state of the art survey. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Krohling RA, Campanharo VC (2011) Fuzzy TOPSIS for group decision making: a case study for accidents with oil spill in the sea. Expert Syst Appl 38(4):4190–4197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kunzlik P (2003) International procurement regimes and the scope for the inclusion of environmental factors in public procurement. In: OECD (ed) The environmental performance of public procurement, p 157Google Scholar
  26. Li DF (2012) A fast approach to compute fuzzy values of matrix games with payoffs of triangular fuzzy numbers. Eur J Oper Res 223(2):421–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Liang J, Shi Z (2004) The information entropy, rough entropy and knowledge granulation in rough set theory. Int J Uncertainty Fuzziness Knowl Based Syst 12(1):37–46Google Scholar
  28. Liang J, Shi Z, Li D (2006) Information entropy, rough entropy and knowledge granulation in incomplete information systems. Int J Gen Syst 35(6):641–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Liang J, Wang F, Dang C, Qian Y (2012) An efficient rough feature selection algorithm with a multi-granulation view. Int J Approx Reason 53(6):912–926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Marron DB (1997) Buying green: government procurement as an instrument of environmental policy. Public Finan Rev 25(3):285–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McMurray AJ, Islam MM, Siwar C, Fien J (2014) Sustainable procurement in Malaysian organizations: practices, barriers and opportunities. J Purch Supply Manage 20(3):195–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Michelsen O, de Boer L (2009) Green procurement in Norway: a survey of practices at the municipal and county level. J Environ Manage 91(1):160–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mosgaard M, Riisgaard H, Huulgaard RD (2013) Greening non-product-related procurement—when policy meets reality. J Clean Prod 39:137–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. New S, Green K, Morton B (2002) An analysis of private versus public sector responses to the environmental challenges of the supply chain. J Public Procurement 2(1):93–105Google Scholar
  35. Nissinen A, Parikka-Alhola K, Rita H (2009) Environmental criteria in the public purchases above the EU threshold values by three Nordic countries: 2003 and 2005. Ecol Econ 68(6):1838–1849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Norberg-Bohm V (1999) Stimulating ‘green’ technological innovation: an analysis of alternative policy mechanisms. Policy Sci 32(1):13–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. OECD (2006) OECD Factbook. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  38. Opricovic S, Tzeng GH (2002) Multicriteria planning of post‐earthquake sustainable reconstruction. Comput Aided Civil Infrastruct Eng 17(3):211–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Opricovic S, Tzeng GH (2004) Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur J Oper Res 156(2):445–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Opricovic S, Tzeng GH (2007) Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods. Eur J Oper Res 178(2):514–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Parikka-Alhola K (2008) Promoting environmentally sound furniture by green public procurement. Ecol Econ 68(1):472–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pawlak Z (1982) Rough sets. Int J Comput Inf Sci 11(5):341–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Preuss L (2009) Addressing sustainable development through public procurement: the case of local government. Supply Chain Manage 14(3):213–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Seuring S (2013) A review of modeling approaches for sustainable supply chain management. Decis Support Syst 54(4):1513–1520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shyng JY, Wang FK, Tzeng GH, Wu KS (2007) Rough set theory in analyzing the attributes of combination values for the insurance market. Expert Syst Appl 32(1):56–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Swanson M, Weissman A, Davis G, Socolof ML, Davis K (2005) Developing priorities for greener state government purchasing: a California case study. J Clean Prod 13(7):669–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tzeng GH, Lin CW, Opricovic S (2005) Multi-criteria analysis of alternative-fuel buses for public transportation. Energy Policy 33(11):1373–1383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Walker H, Brammer S (2009) Sustainable procurement in the United Kingdom public sector. Supply Chain Manage 14(2):128–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Yu PL (1973) A class of solutions for group decision problems. Manage Sci 19(8):936–946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zhu Q, Sarkis J, Lai KH (2012) Green supply chain management innovation diffusion and its relationship to organizational improvement: an ecological modernization perspective. J Eng Technol Manage 29(1):168–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zhu Q, Geng Y, Sarkis J (2013) Motivating green public procurement in China: an individual level perspective. J Environ Manage 126:85–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Management Science and Engineering, Dongbei University of Finance and EconomicsDalianP.R. China
  2. 2.School of Business, Worcester Polytechnic InstituteWorcesterUSA

Personalised recommendations