Using Differential Evolution to Develop a Carbon-Integrated Model for Performance Evaluation and Selection of Sustainable Suppliers in Indian Automobile Supply Chain

  • Sunil Kumar JauharEmail author
  • Millie Pant
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 437)


Automobile industries worldwide are unified in opinion, that successful management of sustainable supply chains is the most important driver to improve both their economic and ecological performances. The significance of sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) is a critical corporate matter in the automobile industries that offers incredible potential for achieving better environmental performance, consumer fulfillment, pull down operating expenditures, reducing inventory investments in addition to achieving better fixed asset usage. The environment concerns, climatic changes, and additional ecological concerns in automobile industries are not only articulated by campaigners or researchers, but also by the common man as well, which has motivated the industries to focus on sustainability. The present research focuses on a DEA-based mathematical model and employs differential evolution to select the competent suppliers providing the utmost fulfillment for the sustainable criteria determined. This study aims to examine the sustainable supplier evaluation and selection practices likely to be adopted by the Indian automobile industry for their products.


Sustainable supplier selection Differential evolution Data envelopment analysis Multi-criteria decision-making Sustainable supply chain management Automobile industry 


  1. 1.
    Jayal, A.D., Badurdeen, F., Dillon, Jr., O.W., Jawahir, I.S.: Sustainable manufacturing: Modeling and optimization challenges at the product, process and system levels. CIRP J. Manufact. Sci. Technol. 2(3), 144–152 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Floridi, M., Pagni, S., Falorni, S., Luzzati, T.: An exercise in composite indicators construction: Assessing the sustainability of Italian regions. Ecol. Econ. 70(8), 1440–1447 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Luthe, T., Schuckert, M.: Socially responsible investing–implications for leveraging sustainable development. In: Trends and Issues in Global Tourism 2011 (pp. 315–321). Springer Berlin Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Paoletti, M.G., Gomiero, T., Pimentel, D.: Introduction to the special issue: towards a more sustainable agriculture. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 30(1–2), 2–5 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Büyüközkan, G., Çifçi, G.: A novel fuzzy multi-criteria decision framework for sustainable supplier selection with incomplete information. Comput. Ind. 62(2), 164–174 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Genovese, A., Koh, S.L., Bruno, G., Bruno, P.: Green supplier selection: a literature review and a critical perspective. In: 8th International Conference on Supply Chain Management and Information Systems (SCMIS), 2010 pp. 1–6. IEEE, Oct 2010Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Purdy, L., Safayeni, F.: Strategies for supplier evaluation: a framework for potential advantages and limitations. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 47(4), 435–443 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Storn, R., Price, K.: Differential evolution-a simple and efficient adaptive scheme for global optimization over continuous spaces. Berkeley: ICSI, CA, Technical Report TR-95-012 (1995)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Plagianakos, V.P., Tasoulis, D.K., Vrahatis, M.N.: A review of major application areas of differential evolution. In: Advances in Differential Evolution, pp. 197–238. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wang, F., Jang, H.J.: Parameter estimation of a bioreaction model by hybrid differential evolution. In: Proceedings of the 2000 Congress on Evolutionary Computation, 2000, vol. 1, pp. 410–417. IEEE (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Joshi, R., Sanderson, A.C.: Minimal representation multisensor fusion using differential evolution. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A Syst. Hum. 29(1), 63–76 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ilonen, J., Kamarainen, J.K., Lampinen, J.: Differential evolution training algorithm for feed-forward neural networks. Neural Process. Lett. 17(1), 93–105 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ali, M., Siarry, P., Pant, M.: An efficient differential evolution based algorithm for solving multi-objective optimization problems. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 217(2), 404–416 (2012)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jauhar, S., Pant, M., Deep, A.: Differential evolution for supplier selection problem: a DEA based approach. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Soft Computing for Problem Solving, pp. 343–353. Springer India, Jan 2014Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Parker, P.: Environmental initiatives among japanese automakers: new technology, EMS, recycling and lifecycle approaches. Environ.: J. interdiscip. Stud. 29(3) (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kearney, A.T.: Building world class supply chain in India, Conference on Auto Supply Chain Management, 2013. Accessed 23 Nov 2014
  17. 17.
    SIAM India—Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers (SIAM). Accessed 18 Jan 2014
  18. 18.
    Bhattacharya, S., Mukhopadhyay, D., Giri, S.: Supply chain management in indian automotive industry: complexities, challenges and way ahead. Int. J. Managing Value Supply Chains 5(2) (2014)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nieuwenhuis, P., Wells, P.: The Automotive Industry and The Environment: A Technical, Business and Social Future, Woodhead, Cambridge. 2003, Elsevier (2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Agarwal, P., Sahai, M., Mishra, V., Bag, M., Singh, V.: A review of multi-criteria decision making techniques for supplier evaluation and selection. Int. J. Ind. Eng. Comput. 2(4), 801–810 (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weber, C.A., Current, J.R., Benton, W.C.: Vendor selection criteria and methods. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 50(1), 2–18 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Degraeve, Z., Labro, E., Roodhooft, F.: An evaluation of vendor selection models from a total cost of ownership perspective. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 125(1), 34–58 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jauha, S.K., Pant, M.: Recent trends in supply chain management: a soft computing approach. In: Proceedings of Seventh International Conference on Bio-Inspired Computing: Theories and Applications (BIC-TA 2012), pp. 465–478. Springer India, Jan 2013Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    De Boer, L., Labro, E., Morlacchi, P.: A review of methods supporting supplier selection. Eur. J. Purchasing Supply Manage. 7(2), 75–89 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Holt, G.D.: Which contractor selection methodology? Int. J. Project Manage. 16(3), 153–164 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Aamer, A.M., Sawhney, R.: Review of suppliers selection from a production perspective. In: Proceedings of the IIE Annual Conference and Exhibition, pp. 2135–2140 (2004)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ho, W., Xu, X., Dey, P.K.: Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 202(1), 16–24 (2010)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tahriri, F., Osman, M.R., Ali, A., Yusuff, R.M.: A review of supplier selection methods in manufacturing industries. Suranaree J. Sci. Technol. 15(3), 201–208 (2008)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jauhar, S.K., Pant, M.: Genetic algorithms, a nature-inspired tool: review of applications in supply chain management. In: Proceedings of Fourth International Conference on Soft Computing for Problem Solving, pp. 71–86. Springer India, Jan 2015Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cheraghi, S.H., Dadashzadeh, M., Subramanian, M.: Critical success factors for supplier selection: an update. J. Appl. Bus. Res. (JABR) 20(2) (2011)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Noci, G.: Designing ‘green’vendor rating systems for the assessment of a supplier’s environmental performance. Eur. J. Purchasing Supply Manage. 3(2), 103–114 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zhu, Q., Geng, Y.: Integrating environmental issues into supplier selection and management. Greener Manage. Int. 2001(35), 26–40 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jauhar, S.K., Pant, M., Deep, A.: An approach to solve multi-criteria supplier selection while considering environmental aspects using differential evolution. In: Swarm, Evolutionary, and Memetic Computing, pp. 199–208. Springer International Publishing (2013)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lai, Y.F.: Green supplier evaluation in green supply chain management—examples of printed circuit board suppliers. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Resource Engineering, National Cheng-Kung University, Taiwan (in Chinese) (2004)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Seuring, S., Müller, M.: Core issues in sustainable supply chain management—a Delphi study. Bus. Strategy Environ. 17(8), 455–466 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Awasthi, A., Chauhan, S.S., Goyal, S.K.: A fuzzy multicriteria approach for evaluating environmental performance of suppliers. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 126(2), 370–378 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jauhar, S.K., Pant, M., Abraham, A.: A novel approach for sustainable supplier selection using differential evolution: a case on pulp and paper industry. In: Intelligent Data analysis and its Applications, vol. II, pp. 105–117. Springer International Publishing (2014)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Buyukozkan, G., Çifci, G.: A novel hybrid MCDM approach based on fuzzy DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS to evaluate green suppliers. Expert Syst. Appl. 39, 3000–3011 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kannan, D., Khodaverdi, R., Olfat, L., Jafarian, A., Diabat, A.: 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, 355–367 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Falatoonitoosi, E., Ahmed, S., Sorooshian, S.: A multicriteria framework to evaluate supplier’s greenness. In: Abstract and Applied Analysis, vol. 2014. Hindawi Publishing Corporation, March 2014Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Yazdani, M.: An integrated MCDM approach to green supplier selection. Int. J. Ind. Eng. Comput. 5(3), 443–458 (2014)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Jalhar, S.K., Pant, M., Nagar, M.C.: Differential evolution for sustainable supplier selection in pulp and paper industry: a DEA based approach. Comput. Methods Mater. Sci. 15 (2015)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Simpson, D.F., Power, D.J.: Use the supply relationship to develop lean and green suppliers. Int. J. Supply chain manage. 10(1), 60–68 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lee, S.Y., Klassen, R.D.: Drivers and Enablers That Foster Environmental Management Capabilities in Small-and Medium-Sized Suppliers in Supply Chains. Prod. Oper. Manage. 17(6), 573–586 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Weele, A.J.: Purchasing and Supply Chain Management. Cengage Learning EMEA, Andover, UK (2010)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Scannell, T.V., Vickery, S.K., Droge, C.L.: (2000). Upstream supply chain management and competitive performance in the automotive supply industry. J. Bus. Logistics 21(1)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Awaysheh, A., Klassen, R.D.: The impact of supply chain structure on the use of supplier socially responsible practices. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage. 30(12), 1246–1268 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Geffen, C.A., Rothenberg, S.: Suppliers and environmental innovation: the automotive paint process. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage. 20(2), 166–186 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Klassen, R.D., Vachon, S.: Collaboration and evaluation in the supply chain: the impact on plant-level environmental investment. Prod. Oper. Manage. 12(3), 336–352 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Despotis, D.K., Stamati, L.V., Smirlis, Y.G.: Data envelopment analysis with nonlinear virtual inputs and outputs. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 202(2), 604–613 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ramanathan, R. (ed.): A Tool for Performance Measurement. Sage Publication Ltd., New Delhi (2003)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Wen, U.P., Chi, J.M.: Developing green supplier selection procedure: a DEA approach. In: 17th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IE&EM), 2010 IEEE, pp. 70, 74, 29–31 Oct 2010. doi: 10.1109/ICIEEM.2010.5646615
  53. 53.
    Dobos, I., Vörösmarty, G.: Supplier selection and evaluation decision considering environmental aspects. sz. Mőhelytanulmány, HU ISSN 1786–3031, Oct 2012Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Kumar, P., Mogha, S.K., Pant, M.: Differential evolution for data envelopment analysis. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Soft Computing for Problem Solving (SocProS 2011) Dec 20–22, 2011, pp. 311–319, Springer India, Jan 2012Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Srinivas, T.: Data envelopment analysis: models and extensions. In: Production/Operation Management Decision Line, pp. 8–11 (2000)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., Rhodes, E.: Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2(6), 429–444 (1978)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Banker, R.D., Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W.: Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Manage. Sci. 30(9), 1078–1092 (1984)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Rogalsky, T., Derksen, R.W., Kocabiyik, S.: Differential evolution in aerodynamic optimization. In: Proceedings of 46th Annual Conference, Canadian Aeronautics Space Institute, pp. 29–36 (1999)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Joshi, R., Sanderson, A.C.: Minimal representation multi-sensor fusion using differential evolution. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybernetics. Part A 29, 63–76 (1999)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Ray, T., Kang, T., Chye, S.K.: An evolutionary algorithm for constrained optimization. In: Whitley, D., Goldberg, D., Cantu-Paz, E., Spector, L., Parmee, I., Beyer, H.G. (eds.) Proceeding of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO 2000), pp. 771–777 (2000)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Shirouyehzad, H., Lotfi, F.H., Dabestani, R.: A data envelopment analysis approach based on the service qualtiy concept for vendor selection. In: International Conference on Computers & Industrial Engineering, 2009. CIE 2009, pp. 426–430. IEEE, July 2009Google Scholar
  62. 62.
  63. 63.
    Cooper, W.W., Seiford, L.M., Tone, K.: Data envelopment analysis: a comprehensive text with models, applications, references and DEA-Solver Software. Second editions. Springer (2007). ISBN: 387452818, 490Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Ansari, I.A, Pant, M., Neri, F.: Analysis of gray scale watermark in RGB host using SVD and PSO. In: IEEE Computational Intelligence for Multimedia, Signal and Vision Processing (CIMSIVP), pp. 1–7 (2014)Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Zaheer, H., Pant, M., Kumar, S., Monakhov, O., Monakhova, E., Deep, K.: A new guiding force strategy for differential evolution. Int. J. Syst. Assur. Eng. Manag. 1–14 (2015), doi: 10.1007/s13198-014-0322-6
  66. 66.
    Ansari, I.A., Pant, A., Ahn, C.W.: SVD based fragile watermarking scheme for tamper localization and self-recovery. Int. J. Mach. Learn. Cyber. 1–15 (2015), doi: 10.1007/s13042-015-0455-1
  67. 67.
    Zaheer, H., Pant, M.: A differential evolution approach for solving integer programming problems. In: Proceedings of Fourth International Conference on Soft Computing for Problem Solving, pp. 413–424. Springer India (2015)Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Ansari, I.A., Pant, A., Ahn, C.W.: Robust and false positive free watermarking in IWT domain using SVD and ABC. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 49, 114–125 (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Indian Institute of Technology RoorkeeRoorkeeIndia

Personalised recommendations