Evaluation of Green Manufacturing Practices Using A Hybrid MCDM Model Combining DANP With PROMETHEE

This article was downloaded by: [Syracuse University Library]
On: 26 May 2014, At: 15:52

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Production Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tprs20
Evaluation of green manufacturing practices using a

hybrid MCDM model combining DANP with PROMETHEE
a b a
Kannan Govindan , Devika Kannan & Madan Shankar
a
Department of Business and Economics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense,
Denmark
b
Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Aalborg University,
Copenhagen, Denmark
Published online: 26 Mar 2014.
To cite this article: Kannan Govindan, Devika Kannan & Madan Shankar (2014): Evaluation of green manufacturing
practices using a hybrid MCDM model combining DANP with PROMETHEE, International Journal of Production Research, DOI:
10.1080/00207543.2014.898865
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.898865
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
International Journal of Production Research, 2014
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.898865
Evaluation of green manufacturing practices using a hybrid MCDM model combining DANP
with PROMETHEE
Kannan Govindana*, Devika Kannanb and Madan Shankara
a
Department of Business and Economics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark; bDepartment of Mechanical and
Manufacturing Engineering, Aalborg University, Copenhagen, Denmark
(Received 10 October 2013; accepted 10 February 2014)
The advent of increasing industrialisation and globalisation has put pressure on Indian enterprises to increase the integra-
tion of environmentally conscious manufacturing practices into their operations. Numerous studies have explored this
strategy but there are significant gaps in the existing literature, particularly in environmental practices specific to India.
Downloaded by [Syracuse University Library] at 15:52 26 May 2014
In this connection, there is a need to explore green manufacturing practices (GMP) in an Indian context. The purpose of
this article is to select the best GMP based on dimensions and relevant criteria with the assistance of a hybrid multi-cri-
teria decision-making model combining DEMATEL based on ANP (DANP) with Preference Ranking Organisation
METHod for Enrichment Evaluations. A methodological framework is proposed to evaluate GMP and the same is vali-
dated within a particular single case industry situated in the southern part of India, who is the leading manufacturer of
rubber tyres and tubes. By virtue of these findings, industries can identify the best GM practice to adopt in order to
increase the chances of profit and performance throughout their systems. This study concludes by successfully identify-
ing the best GM practice for this case industry, and it provides some important managerial implications. This research
explores some future trends to make the study more reliable in changing real life scenarios.
Keywords: green manufacturing practices; hybrid MCDM
1. Introduction
In contemporary business environments, producers are interested in achieving sustainable manufacturing (SM) practices,
not only to fulfil their liability requirements, but also to prioritise them in their competitive markets (Allen et al. 2002;
Linke, Huang, and Dornfeld 2012). As a result, while producers seek to integrate many sustainable strategies in their
manufacturing processes, green manufacturing (GM) garners more attention than other approaches due to its momentous
effects on organisational performance. Researchers define GM from their own perspectives, but one of the more effec-
tive definitions, cited by many studies, is the definition offered by Melngk and Smith (1996):
a system that integrates product and process design issues with issues of manufacturing planning and control in such a manner
as to identify, quantify, assess, and manage the flow of environmental waste with the goal of reducing and ultimately minimis-
ing environmental impact while also trying to maximise resource efficiency.
In addition to the impact on organisational performance, GM leads the organisation to gain full support from various
stakeholders including the customers, NGOs and the government. GM compensates and balances the environmental deg-
radation which has become an undeniable global issue, due to significant population growth (Despeisse, Oates, and Ball
2012; Holdren and Ehrlich 1974). Existing studies confirm that the ultimate aim of GM is to reduce and to minimise
environmental impact and resource consumption during a product’s life cycle that covers both ‘cradle to cradle’ and
‘cradle to grave’ time domains (Liu, Zheng, and Cheng 1999; Melngk and Smith 1996; Tan et al. 2002). All of the
above issues have pressured industries to implement GM and, as a result, it is now a mandatory process for virtually all
manufacturing organisations. Among the drivers of GM, ISO 14001 plays a vital role, because, after the introduction of
this certification, many industries integrated green practices into their manufacturing activities. The last decade has seen
an increased debate on green strategies, and, as a result, recent studies have explored cleaner productions and environ-
mental management practices (Coelho, Castro, and Gobbo 2011: Daily, Bishop, and Massoud 2012; Diabat and
Govindan 2011; Govindan and Cheng 2011; Jabbour 2013; Kannan et al. 2012; Murillo-Luna, Garcés-Ayerbe, and
Rivera-Torres 2011; Zhu, Sarkis, and Lai 2011).
*Corresponding author. Email: gov@sam.sdu.dk
© 2014 Taylor & Francis

2 K. Govindan et al.
These studies explore and track several green manufacturing practices (GMP) and Environmental Management Sys-
tem (EMS) standards throughout industries worldwide (Hui, Chan, and Pun 2001; Subhash 1996). The majority of these
studies focus on industries in developed countries, or they examine practices being sought in developing markets such
as the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China). Currently, both the BRIC countries and the MIKT (Mexico,
Indonesia, South Korea and Turkey) countries are considered prominent emerging economies. All these nations integrate
environmentally conscious practices into their manufacturing operations through benchmarking from models in devel-
oped nations such as EU and US. Even though the above-mentioned eight nations fall under the group of emerging eco-
nomics, still their diversity, cultures, profiles, peoples, government, and external and internal factors differ significantly
from one another. This diversity makes it difficult, if not impossible, for them to adopt the same tactics for solving their
common problems of sustainability.
Considering all the emerging economies according to their environmental impacts, China and India lead the list,
respectively. To be specific, according to the Global Carbon Project Report Card (2012), China and India capture the
leading place in the Co2 emissions table. A more recent report by the Trends in Global Co2Emissions (2013) confirms a
similar ranking, which places China in first position, followed by India in 4th, Russia in 5th, South Korea in 8th, Indo-
nesia in 10th, Mexico in 11th and Brazil in13th place. From these reports, it is evident that attention is needed in China
and India to upgrade their environmental activities once they are compared to other emerging markets. Another reason
these two nations demand a significant restructuring for their sustainable issues is due to their high populations. China
and India are striving hard to integrate green practices into their manufacturing operations through a variety of motiva-
tional strategies. One such strategy is that investments in green activities play a vital role in both nations. This strategy
differentiates the effectiveness of GM in both nations. For any sustainable system, investments are required for effective
implementation, and from that perspective, China is more involved in green investments than India. According to the
report of Global trends in Renewable Energy Investment (2012), China ranks at the top of the table in the investment of
green energy through renewable energy sources; India is in fourth position and Brazil is in ninth position.
India’s economies of GM are still evolving but need long-term commitments in order to work (Manufacturing
Matters 2011). Generally, in India, GM is promoted through three main activities: green energy, green products and
green processes. Hence, there is a vital need to explore a nation like India which differs from other developing nations.
This study attempts to evaluate effective GMP in an Indian scenario and will explore the positive effects and importance
of GM. This study Supplements the available literature by evaluating the best GMP via the identification of dimensions
and criteria. This study provides some unique contributions on both methodological and scientific concerns. Generally,
Preference Ranking Organisation METHod for Enrichment Evaluations (PROMETHEE) is a Multi-Criteria Decision
Making (MCDM) method introduced by Brans which is used to identify interrelationships between two or more factors
based on the mathematics and sociology. It has wide variety of real life applications in various fields such as logistics,
education, industry, manufacturing, marketing, management and health care, and it is also applied as a strategy to mea-
sure choice, prioritisation, resource allocation, ranking and conflict resolution. Hence, we have chosen to utilise PROM-
ETHEE as a tool by which to select the best alternative among various choices. In this manner, the new methodological
contribution of this study serves to enhance and extend current scientific literature; we analyse GMP in an Indian con-
text which is an approach that other literature has failed to analyse.
The rest of the paper is organised as follows. Section 2 offers a literature review to identify the prominent research
already conducted on this paper’s central objective, and we also reveal gaps in the existing literature with some interest-
ing research highlights. Our proposed framework is explained in Section 3. Section 4 provides the solution methodology
for solving the problem, and the proposed framework is illustrated in Section 5. Sections 6 and 7 provide the detailed
discussions with managerial implications and our conclusion.
2. Literature review
The literature review is organised into four different subsections. The first provides an overview of the various concepts
and details of current attempts made by researchers in the field of GM. The second subsection explores GMP and strate-
gies formulated within the evidence of existing studies. The third subsection discusses the use of MCDM in green strat-
egies, and the fourth subsection analyses and identifies the research gap and provides the highlights of the study. These
four categories ensure a better understanding of the concepts that underscore this paper.
2.1 Green manufacturing

In the early 1990s, some corporations began to implement environmental policies because of the evolution of standards,
particularly in Britain, which resulted in a growing concern for GMP. ‘Green’ manufacturing is entirely different from
International Journal of Production Research 3
conventional manufacturing because it aims ‘to reduce the amount of natural resources needed to produce finished gods
through more energy, and materials efficient manufacturing processes that also reduce the negative externalities associ-
ated with waste and pollution’ (CII 2011). After the introduction of ISO 14001 in 1996, more and more firms began to
implement GMP. As a result, the GM field grew rapidly, and researchers began to examine these strategies. In addition
to the motivating force of ISO 14001, there are other drivers which pressured the implementation of GM. Agan, Acar,
and Borodin (2013) explored these drivers of the environmental process and their impact on firm performance in their
analysis of Turkish small- and medium-scale enterprises. In earlier studies, GM was called Environmentally Conscious
Manufacturing (EMS); Richards (1994) discussed the challenges and obstacles of EMS with other interesting insights
such as life cycle analysis (LCA) and design guidance. Zhang (1999) integrated the life cycle approach and life cycle
costing in quality function deployment to improve GM as illustrated with an example of engine filters. Reich-Weiser
et al. (2013) discussed the metrics for GM with multiple considerations, including ecological, social and economic met-
rics. Rao (2011) explored the advantage of GM in managing risks such as technological, organisational, financial and
circumstantial risks. Mittal and Sangwan (2013) developed a model and explored the effective barrier of environmen-
tally conscious manufacturing/GM using statistical analysis (structural equation modelling); they found that internal bar-
riers comprise the most difficult barriers to GM and that they need to be eradicated first. Jian (2013) defined the basic
concepts of GM and the factors required to improve green activities in manufacturing sectors by encouraging energy
efficiency with low carbon emissions.

GM is one of the more successful SM strategies, so there is a need to review such strategies in order to better under-
stand the linkage between those two aspects (GM and SM). Existing studies also defined the implementation of SM
with a case study; for instance, Seidel, Shahbazpour, and Oudshoorn (2006) discussed the SM implementation with a
case study examining a New Zealand furniture manufacturing firm. Their discussion included an application of tools
such as LCA, stakeholder analysis and SWOT analysis. Chun and Bidanda (2013) reviewed over 50 years of papers
related to the concept of SM published in the International Journal of Applied Research; they examined existing
approaches, tools, techniques and strategies used in the SM context. Rehman and Shrivastava (2013a) reviewed state of
the art methods in GM with the assistance of 123 papers from 73 reputable journals over past 15 years. They revealed
several challenging issues related to GM and established that there is no reliable framework on which to build a unified
comprehensive GM plan. The study by Rehman and Shrivastava (2013b) focused on GM in the Vidharba region of
Maharashtra (India) by their survey instrument; they found that GM is in a very initial stage and needs more work to
establish the GM concepts.
Along with these different insights, authors have started to explore the financial aspects of GM systems. Tsai, Chen,
Leu et al. (2013) justified the investments for GM with activity-based costing which includes direct performance and
intangible benefits of GM adoption as defined by an investment decision model. Farouk, Cherian, and Jacob (2012)
looked at green accounting in developing countries by reviewing the existing literatures and providing a better under-
standing of the requirements for green accounting within SM industries. They proposed a conceptual model for environ-
mental accounting and reporting, and they argued that GM accounting promotes environmental performance by
including support for decision-making through cost assessment. GM is an extension of lean manufacturing, so debates
established the connection of ‘lean and green’ in organisational performance. Hajmohammad et al. (2013) proposed a
conceptual model to indicate the relationship between lean manufacturing and supply chain management; they examined
environmental performance with survey data collected from Canadian manufacturing plants. Diaz-Elsayed et al. (2013)
attempted to incorporate the ‘lean and green’ strategies in manufacturing and their combined results reduced production
costs through an automotive case study by approximately 10.8%. Pampanelli, Found, and Bernardes (forthcoming) pro-
posed a new model called a ‘lean and green’ model that promoted environmental sustainability in lean management with
the application of the Kaizen approach. Their findings stipulated that their model can reduce resource use from 30 to
50% and cut the total mass and energy by 5% to 10%. Gutowski et al. (2005) compared the status of GM in Japan, Eur-
ope and the United States, and they provided some interesting suggestions from their benchmark study. Deif (2011) pro-
moted a new green design model to make green processes even more eco-efficient; his model was illustrated in the
firm’s case study. Only a few GM studies exist in an Indian scenario; Sangwan (2011) made an empirical study which
exhibits the quantitative and qualitative benefits of GM within the Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) context. He
surveyed 198 Indian SMEs and the sample was manipulated with the SPSS statistical tool. Digalwar, Tagalpallewar, and
Sunnapwar (2013) evaluated the performance measures of GMP in Indian scenario. In this study, they validated 12 per-
formance measures of GM: top management commitment, knowledge management, employee training, green product
and process design, employee empowerment, environmental health and safety, suppliers and materials management, pro-
duction planning and control, quality, cost, customer environment performance requirement, and customer responsive-
ness and company growth.
2.2 GM practices
After globalisation, many firms integrated GMP into their operations, and due to this impact, numerous GMP were
introduced and explored. Existing studies explored GMP with their corresponding implementation techniques. Hui,
Chan, and Pun (2001) explored GMP in Hong Kong and identified their implementation and benefits. They argued that
GM primarily depends upon factors such as operational costs, company image, market trends, company performance
and environmental conservation, and their study confirmed that GMP strengthen customer loyalty, improve profitability,
enhance company image and stimulate staff morale as important business benefits. Vachon (2007) explored the status of
green supply chain practices with both suppliers and customers. He concluded that the impact of green practices is
lower with customers than with suppliers. Sroufe (2003) discussed the relationship between GM and the firm’s opera-
tional performance; this study considered both direct and indirect effects of various environmental practices, and he
argued that there is a positive relationship between GM and operational performance measures. Lun (2011) investigated
the elements of the GMP and their impact in the firm’s performance with the assistance of GMP models and perfor-
mance indicators. They illustrated this model through a study of ‘Hutchison port holding’ (a container terminal), and
revealed that cooperation with supply chain partners, environmentally friendly operations and internal management sup-
port are the key elements of GMP. Pirraglia and Saloni (2012) proposed a positioning index which measures the envi-
ronmental image of the firm using the concept of environmental performance. They designed a model and validated
their index with technical software. Rusinko (2007) discussed the relationship between environmentally sustainable prac-
tices and their specific competitive outcomes; they revealed that environmental practices are positively associated with
the firm’s outcomes based on a survey on US carpet market industries. Li et al. (2010) proposed a methodology to assist
an enterprise with the implementation of GMP with less investment by evaluating the six major objectives (cost, quality,
time, service, resource consumption and environmental impact); they illustrated their proposed methodology with an
example.
Owing to the increase in importance of GM, literature started to explore the strategies of GM. Stinchfield, Li, and
Du (2009) explored the contact between strategies of SM and organisational performance in Chinese firms. They per-
formed multiple regressions, cluster analysis and ANNOVA to prove that there is a positive impact of SM strategies on
organisational performance based on data collected from 88 Chinese managers. Existing studies emerged in GM that
pursued new strategies such as 3-Dimensional Concurrent Engineering (3-DCE). Ellram, Tate, and Carter (2008) inte-
grated the 3-DCE approach in environmentally responsible manufacturing. They discussed 3-DCE with New Product
Development and Environmentally Responsible Manufacturing within a proposed framework. This 3-DCE approach
integrated product design, process design and supply chain design to perform green product development; they argued
the outcomes of 3-DCE include reduced cost and waste, decreased time to market and improved customer satisfaction.
Many GM problems are engaged with machining systems in current firms. In this regard, some researchers explored
GMP in machining processes. For example, Yin, Cao, and He (2005) classified GM problems in machining processes as a
minimisation of resource consumption, minimisation of environmental discharge and a synthesised minimisation of both of
them. They investigated and practised GM and concluded with a proposed GM framework for machining processes that
includes material input for machining, control, final product and environmental discharge; their framework indicated the
increase on machining performance via green practices. Tan et al. (2002) selected the best cutting fluid which improves the
green efficiency in the hobbing process with the assistance of decision-making framework model where quality, cost and
environmental impact served as selection criteria. In addition to the above cost-based literatures, Tsai, Chen, Liu et al.
(2013) discussed green product mix technologies with the assistance of a mixed integral programming model which
explained the integration of activity-based accounting and a theory of constraints on the automotive industry as a numerical
example. Abbas and Yusoff (2012) discussed the electrical discharge machining process with GM perspectives in Malay-
sian industries and suggested an important possible change by using distilled water instead of kerosene.
Studies extended with work on innovation in GM, Zeng et al. (2014) investigated Chinese firms within a theoretical
framework to explore the pressures of stakeholders who insist on green innovation practices. They surveyed 791 private
manufacturing firms and revealed that the political capital, regulations, suppliers, consumers and competitors are the
main pressures for green innovations. To improve and promote GMP within an organisation, Jabbour (2013) provided a
future scope for environmental training in organisations by reviewing relevant literatures. He explored the current status
and provided some future suggestions for better implementation of green training.
2.3 MCDM in green strategies

Researchers integrated MCDM tools in their problem studies, especially in green strategies. Most of the MCDM appli-
cations only exist in green supply chain management practices such as green sourcing, green supplier selection, green
purchasing, vendor selection, etc. Some literatures exist with a MCDM approach that mainly focuses on green practices
and manufacturing environments. For example, Rao and Patel (2010) integrated the ANP and PROMETHEE to solve a
multi-alternative problem in the manufacturing context which faced a wide range of alternative issues. Rao (2013)
applied some improved multi-attribute decision-making methods to solve decision-making problems in manufacturing
environments. Some studies integrated MCDM tools in green product design. Lin (2011) selected the green product
design by considering various factors in the manufacturing industry. He constructed the analytic structure and used
applied Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) to identify the interrelationships between factors
and to determine the weight of the criteria, which are then evaluated through ANP. Following this study, Chan et al.
(2013) evaluated green products with the aid of fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (AHP) with LCA as a base. Recy-
cling is one of the strategies of GM. Vinodh and Jayakrishna (2013) selected the best tyre recycling process with the
assistance of AHP and VIKOR in a fuzzy environment; the same was discussed with a real life case study. Sangwan
(2013) evaluated manufacturing systems with the perspectives that consider the environmental aspects by a MCDM
model which he validated in the Indian manufacturing sector. Tseng et al. (2013) evaluated green innovation practices
within managerial, process, product and technology innovations with the assistance of analytical network process based
on the green innovation aspects and criteria. From their findings, they argued that green innovation practices increased
the performance of operation management research and provided other company benefits. Tseng and Chiu (2012) inte-
grated multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques like grey theory, ANP and entropy weight with the evaluation
of green innovation practices, and they demonstrated their approach with a study involving a printed circuit board man-
ufacturing firm. Tseng et al. (2011) evaluated the green performance by integrating a balance score card with fuzzy
ANP and with an Importance Performance Analysis. They considered 34 green performance criteria to evaluate the
green performance of a Taiwan firm. Chan, Yu, and Yung (2010) reviewed the decision tools which are integrated in the
GM that includes decision support systems, expert systems and designs for environments. Büyüközkan and Cifci (2012)
examined the elements of green supply chain practices in the Ford Otoson in Turkey and those components are strategi-
cally assessed and evaluated through ANP in fuzzy environment to reduce the vagueness and biases of the results.
2.4 Research gap and highlights

From our review of existing literatures, it is confirmed that there is no previous work which discusses the concept of
GMP in an Indian scenario. While some studies explore GMP in general, their studies tend to be limited and often fail
to evaluate the best GMP among common alternatives. PROMETHEE has been used by many researchers for specific
purposes when there is no research given to identify best alternatives. Therefore to fill this gap, this study investigates
the best GMP in an Indian context using a hybrid MCDM tool (DANP + PROMETHEE) with the aid of the following
proposed framework. This research paper features some highlights which are listed below:
Identify dimensions and criteria of GM from literature review and from industrial and field experts.
Propose a framework to evaluate the best GMP in Indian scenario with the aid of a hybrid MCDM tool.
Validate the proposed framework with a case study from an Indian rubber industry. The results we obtained are
then compared with existing literature.
3. Framework for the study

The framework of the study is shown in Figure 1.
4. Solution methodology
In this study, a two-phased solution methodology model is used. The DANP is utilised to analyse the dimensions and
criteria which are overviewed in Phase I. The selection of the best alternative is done through PROMETHEE which is
shown in Phase II.
4.1 Phase I: DEMATEL – analytic network process (DANP)

ANP is the extension of AHP which was proposed by Saaty (1996). Many researchers (Karsak, Sozer, and Alptekin
2003; Lee and Kim 2001; Meade and Presley 2002; Momoh and Zhu 2003) applied ANP very successfully in their
studies. This step by step methodology for analysing the factors and sub-factors is adapted from Hsu, Wang, and Tzeng
(2012). In this study, we combine the DEMATEL and ANP to avoid the irrational weighted super matrix which is
Goal
Find the best green manufacturing practice
Step 1
Frame the factors (Dimensions) and sub factors (Criteria) of GM based on the aid of literatures, industrial and
field experts
Step 2
The pair-wise comparison was made between the attributes based on the replies from industrial mangers and field
experts
Step 3
The dimensions and criteria were analyzed through DANP (DEMATEL + ANP)
Step 4
Based on the DANP results the best alternative was selected through PROMETHEE
Result
Best green manufacturing practices was identified and prioritized with relevant importance
Figure 1. Proposed framework for identifying the best GMP.
obtained by an assumption of equal weight for each cluster (Yang et al. 2008). DEMATEL is a MCDM tool which was
practised at Battelle Memorial Institute through the Geneva Research Centre (Fontela and Gabus 1974), and it was first
illustrated by Warfield (1976). Following Warfield, many studies (Chiu et al. 2006; Hori and Shimizu 1999; Lin and Wu
2008; Liou, Tzeng, and Chang 2007; Wu and Lee 2007) successfully applied DEMATEL in their problems. The step by
step methodology for DANP mentioned below is adapted from Hsu, Wang, and Tzeng (2012).
Step 1: Calculate the initial relationship matrix ‘A’
The first step of DANP is to calculate the initial relationship matrix ‘A’ based on the replies from the industrial and
field experts based on the scale ranging from 0 to 4 where 0 is ‘no influence’, 1 is ‘very low influence’, 2 is ‘low influ-
ence’, 3 is ‘high influence’ and 4 is ‘very high influence’.
2 3
1 a 12 a 13 . . . a 1ðn 1Þ a 1n
6 a 21 1 a 23 . . . a 2ðn 1Þ a 2n 7
6 7
6 ... ... ... ... ... ... 7
~ ¼6
A 7 (1)
6 ... ... ... ... ... ... 7
6 7
4 a ðn 1Þ1 a ðn 1Þ2 a ðn 2Þ3 . . . 1 a ðn 1Þn 5
a n1 a n2 a n3 . . . a nðn 1Þ 1
Step 2: Calculate the normalised direct-relationship matrix ‘X’
The initial matrix which is obtained from step 1 is normalised through the equations
1 X
n
K¼ aij (2)
max1 i n j¼1
X ¼K A (3)
Step 3: Calculate the total-influence matrix ‘T’
The next step is identifying the total-influence matrix. It is obtained with the aid of ‘X’ which is calculated in the
previous step through Equation (4) in where ‘I’ implies the identity matrix.
T ¼ X þ X 2 þ þ X h ¼ X ðI X Þ1 ; when lim X h ¼ ½0nn : (4)
h!1
Explanation,
T ¼ X þ X 2 þ þ X h ¼ X ðI þ X þ X 2 þ þ X h1 ÞðI X ÞðI X Þ1 ¼ X ðI X h ÞðI X Þ1
then,
T ¼ X ðI X Þ1 ; when h ! 1:
Step 4: Calculate the sum of rows and columns
‘r’ and ‘s’ denote the sum of rows and columns. It is obtained through Equations (5) and (6).
" # " #0
Xn X
n
r ¼ ½ri n1 ¼ tij ; s ¼ ½sj n1 ¼ tij (5)
j¼1 n1 i¼1 1n
T ¼ ½tij ; i; j ¼ 1; 2; . . .; n; (6)
Step 5: Set up causal influence diagram
If ri is the sum of the ith row in matrix T, then ri shows the sum of influence of factor i on the other factors. If sj is
the column sum of the jth column of matrix T, then sj shows the sum of influence of factor j on the other factors. With
the assistance of ‘r’ and ‘s’, we need to set up the causal influence diagram.
Step 6: Calculate an unweighted supermatrix ‘W’
The total-influence matrix of criteria and dimensions is denoted as TC and TD. TC is obtained which is shown in
Equation (7)
The total-influence matrix TC is normalised by dimensions, and the normalised matrix is denoted as T ac which is
shown in Equation (8).
Normalisation T a11
c is explained in detail which is shown as Equations (9)–(10), and other T ann
c values are as above.
X
m1
dci11 ¼ 11
tcij ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . .; m1
j¼1
2 3
11
tc11 =dc111
11
tc1j =dc111
11
tc1m =dc111
6 7
1
6 .. .. .. 7
6 . . . 7
6 11 11 11 7
T a11 ¼ 6 tci1 =dci 11
tcij =dci11 tcim1 =dci 7
11
(9)
c
6 7
6 .. .. .. 7
4 . . . 5
11
tcm 11
=d 11
cm1 tcm
11
1J
=d 11
cm1 11
tcm 1 m1
=d 11
cm1
2 a11 a11 a11

3
tc11 tc1j tc1m
6 . .. 7
1
6 .. ..
6 . . 7 7
6 a11 a11 a11 7
¼ 6 tci1 tcij tcim1 7 (10)
6 7
6 .. .. .. 7
4 . . . 5
a11 a11 a11
tcm 11
tcm 1J
tcm1 m1
An unweighted supermatrix is the total-influence matrix which needs to match and which fills in the interdependence
shown in Equation (11). This process is done by transposing the normalised influence matrix T ac by dimensions (clus-
ters), i.e.
(11)
If the matrix between the clusters or criteria is independent and with no interdependence, then it is confirmed that
the matrix W11 is blank or 0 which is shown in Equation (12) and the other W nn values are as above.
(12)
Step 7: Calculate the weighted supermatrix

To obtain the weighted supermatrix, there is a need for normalisation which derives from the sum of each column
as shown in Equation (13).
2 11 3
tD tD1j tD1n
6 . .. .. 7
6 .. . . 7
6 7
TD ¼ 66 tD
i1
tDij in 7
tD 7 (13)
6 . .. .. 7
4 .. . . 5
tDn1 tDnj tDnn
We normalised the total-influence matrix T D , and obtained a new matrix T aD , as shown as Equation (14) (where
tDaij ¼ tDij =di ).
2 3 2 a11 3
tD11 =d1 tD1j =d1 tD1n =d1 tD tDa1j tDa1n
6 . .. .. 7 6 . .. .. 7
6 .. . . 7 6 . . 7
6 7 6 . . 7
TD ¼ 6
a
6 tD =di
i1
tDij =di in 7
tD =di 7 ¼ 6
6 tD
ai1
tDaij ain 7
tD 7 (14)
6 . .. 7 6
.. 5 4 .. .. .. 7
4 .. . . . . . 5
tDn1 =dn tDnj =dn tDnn =dn tDan1 tDanj tDann
The normalised total-influence matrix T aD

needs to be multiplied by the unweighted supermatrix to obtain the weighted
supermatrix which is shown in Equation (15):
2 a11 3
tD W 11 tDai1 W i1 tDan1 W n1
6 .. .. .. 7
6 . . . 7
6 7
a a 6
W ¼ T D W ¼ 6 tD Wa1j 1j aij
tD W ij
tD W 7
anj nj (15)
7
6 .. .. .. 7
4 . . . 5
tDa1n W 1n tDain W in tDann W nn
Step 8: Limit the weighted supermatrix

By increasing it to an adequately large power k then we need to limit the weighted supermatrix, until it has converged
and become a stable supermatrix needed to obtain the global priority scores, which is called as DANP (DEMATEL-based
ANP) influential weights, such as limg!1 ðW / Þg where g represents any number of powers (Yang et al. 2008).
4.2 Phase II: PROMETHEE

PROMETHEE is an outranking method which was proposed by Brans, Vincke, and Mareschal (1986). If a finite set of
alternatives is to be ranked, then the best suited method is PROMETHEE (Albadvi, Chaharsooghi, and Esfahanipour
2007; Dağdeviren 2008).
4.2.1 PROMETHEE rankings Brans, Vincke, and Mareschal (1986):

The rankings depend upon their flow, namely: leaving, entering and net flow, which is elaborated as follows.
Leaving flow is defined as the sum of values of arc leaving node ‘a’ and it is shown in Equation (16).
X
;þ ðaÞ ¼ IIða; bÞ (16)
b2k
Entering flow measures the outranked character of ‘a’, which is shown in Equation (17).
X
; ðaÞ ¼ IIðb; aÞ (17)
b2k
Therefore, Net Flow is

;ðaÞ ¼ ;þ ðaÞ ; ðaÞ (18)
4.2.2 PROMETHEE I
The PROMETHEE I is the partial preorder of (P1, I1, R) which is obtained by considering the intersection of two preor-
ders, and it is confirmed only by the partial preorder which is mentioned below in Equation (19). In PROMETHEE, the
leaving and entering flows will be identified.
aP1 b ða outranks bÞ if aPþ b and aP b;
Or aPþ b and ap b;
Or aPþ b and ap b;
(19)
aI 1 b ða is different to bÞ if aI þ b and aI b;
aRb ða and b are incomparableÞ if aI þ b and aI b;
otherwise.
4.2.2 PROMETHEE II
PROMETHEE II provides the complete preorder and is induced by the net flow. The complete preorder is shown in
Equation (20):
aP11 b ða outranks bÞ if ; ðaÞ [ ; ðbÞ
(20)
aI 11 b ða is indifferent to bÞ if ; ðaÞ ¼ ; ðbÞ
5. Application of hybrid MCDM for evaluation of GMP

In order to illustrate the proposed framework, we consulted an Indian rubber manufacturing company (ISO certified)
and approached their industrial mangers for their kind assistance. While we appreciate their willingness to participate in
our study, these managers expressed their interest in and concern for our study due to the pressures and the heavy
responsibilities they face from their various stakeholders. Rubber products industries face significant green issues, with a
primary one being how to manage their scraps. This industry produces rubber tubes and tyres in three shifts involving
Table 1. Dimensions and criteria for selecting best GMP.
S. No. Dimensions Criteria References
1 Environmental Green design (C1) Gutowski et al. (2005), Min and Galle (1997), Sarkis (2003), Hui
drivers (D1) Chan, and Pun (2001), Gabzdylova, Raffensperger, and Castka
Green purchasing (C2) (2009), Urban (2009), Routroy (2009), Rehman and Srivastava
Environmental conservation (C3) (2011)
Optimised usage of resources (C4)
Green innovation (C5)
2 Potential Financial benefit (C6) Urban (2009), Stevels (2002), Rao and Holt (2005), Purba (2002),
drivers (D2) Chien and shih (2007), Wang, Tian, and Wu (2005), Routroy (2009),
Supply chain requirements (C7) Massoud et al. (2010), Rehman and Srivastava (2011)
Reverse SC (C8)
Potential use of energy resources
(C9)
Improved business performance
(C10)
Export barrier overcome (C11)
Productivity benefit (C12)
3 Regulatory Compliance with regulations Zhu and Sarkis (2006), Henriques and Sadorsky (1996), Desrochers
drivers (D3) (C13) (2008), Lilly (2008), Kulwiec (2002), Purba (2002), Agan, Acar, and
Pre-emption of future regulations Borodin (2013), Gabzdylova, Raffensperger, and Castka (2009),
(C14) Ammenberg and Sundin (2005), Massoud et al. (2010), Rehman and
Extended producer responsibility Srivastava (2011)
(C15)
Tax exemption for certified firms
(C16)
Liability risks (C17)
4 Internal drivers Employee demands (C18) Cairncross (1995), Gilley, Worrell, and El-Jelly (2000), Howes,
(D4) Skea, and Whelan (1997), Stead and Stead (1992), Gabzdylova,
Personal satisfactions (C19) Raffensperger, and Castka (2009), Singh and Kant (2008), Zhu and
Improve documentation (C20) Sarkis (2007), Ramakrishnan (2006), Allen et al. (2002), Rehman
Internal motivations (C21) and Srivastava (2011)
5 External Stakeholders (C22) Chien and Shih (2007), Henriques and Sadorsky (1996), Ray and
drivers (D5) Richardson (2009), Wu and Wirkkela (2009), Sandhu et al. (2012),
Customers (C23) Wee and Quazi (2005), Richards (1994), Mackillop (2009), Sarkis
Competitors (C24) (1999), Berry and Rondinelli (1998), Lilly (2008), Gutowski et al.
Media (C25) (2005), Marilyn (2009), Agan, Acar, and Bordin (2013), Lin (2007),
Market trend (C26) Hui, Chan, and Pun (2001), Gabzdylova, Raffensperger, and Castka
Company image (C27) (2009), Rehman and Srivastava (2011)
Company performance (C28)
Auditors (C29)
Banks (C30)
Community groups (C31)
the efforts of 4000 direct and indirect labours; they dispatch approximately 12,000 rubber tyres per day and three times
that amount of rubber tubes. During their processes, they need to consider many factors for balancing their green strate-
gies. They are currently practising four GMP, namely: environmental emission control and impact remediation (GMP 1);
reducing, reusing and recycling (GMP 2); green supply chain practices (GMP 3); and optimal use of natural resources
(GMP 4). Under the environmental emission control and impact remediation (GMP 1) practice, they are striving hard to
reduce the carbon and other hazardous gas emissions through the assistance of their technical department, which has
sound knowledge in material metallurgy and chemical engineering. This department is responsible for including the
appropriate additives with the tyre and tube raw mix in order to reduce hazardous emissions during production. Then,
this appropriate mix is transferred to the production department for tyre and tube production. The research and develop-
ment team have explored new techniques of manufacturing to implement environmental awareness and have analysed
the life cycle for those techniques. Reducing, reusing and recycling (GMP 2) is an important existing practice. They
maintain lean manufacturing techniques throughout their operations by using the motto ‘zero waste’. In addition, they
repair damaged tyres during production if possible; otherwise, they send these scraps to an appropriate recycling centre.
Besides the flow of scrap tyres to recycling centres, this firm selects suppliers, traders and partners who practice and
integrate green criteria. They are committed to green global sourcing strategies and green design practices (GMP 3).
Under the optimal use of natural resources (GMP 4) practice, they made several surveys to determine their water and
energy footprints throughout the entire life cycle in order to reduce their consumption of these scare and high demand
resources. Beyond performing these important green practices, they still need to learn the best GMP from the alterna-
tives to enjoy even more efficient GM. Hence, in order to identify the best GM practice, our team aids them with our
proposed framework (Figure 1). Steps for identifying the GMP are discussed below.
Step 1: Frame the factors for identifying the best GM practice
The first step is to frame the factors for selecting the best GM practice from the alternatives. The factors are framed
through the assistance of the literature review, experts’ opinions and industrial managers’ guidance. From this assistance,
factors and sub-factors are identified and are listed in Table 1. The factors are mentioned as dimensions, and sub-factors
are denoted as criteria. Here, we have considered five dimensions and 31 criteria for the GM practice evaluation. Based
on the factors and industry facts, the problem is segregated into the hierarchical chart shown in Figure 2.
Step 2: Questionnaire development and pair-wise comparison
Goal Best green manufacturing

practices
Dimensions Environmental Drivers Potential Drivers Regulatory Drivers Internal Drivers External Drivers
(D1) (D2) (D3) (D4) (D5)
Stakeholders (C22)
Financial benefits (C6)
Customers (C23)
SC requirement (C7) Compliance with
Green Design (C1) regulations (C13) Employee demands
Competitors (C24)
Reverse SC (C8) (C18)
Green Purchasing (C2) Pre-emption of future
Media (C25)
Potential use of energy regulations (C14) Personal satisfaction
Criteria Environmental resources (C9) (C19)
Market trend (C26)
Conservation (C3) Extended producer
Improved business responsibility (C15) Improve documentation
Company image (C27)
Optimized usage of performance (C10) (C20)
resources (C4) Tax exemption for
Company performance
Export barrier overcome certified firms (C16) Internal motivations
(C28)
Green Innovation (C5) (C11) (C21)
Liability Risks (C17)
Auditors (C29)
Productivity benefit
(C12) Banks (C30)
Community groups (C31)
Alternatives….. GMP (1) GMP (2) GMP (3) GMP (n)
Figure 2. The hierarchy model for selecting GMP.

12
Table 2. Initial influence matrix for criteria ‘AC’.
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 C18 C19 C20 C21 C22 C23 C24 C25 C26 C27 C28 C29 C30 C31
C1 0 3 4 3 4 3 0 0 3 0 2 2 3 3 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 0 0 2
C2 2 0 3 3 4 3 0 0 3 0 2 2 3 3 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 0 0 2
C3 3 3 0 4 4 4 3 0 2 3 3 4 4 4 3 2 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 2 3
C4 3 3 4 0 3 3 0 0 3 2 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3
C5 3 3 4 4 0 3 0 0 3 2 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3
C6 2 2 2 3 2 0 0 3 3 4 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2
C7 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 2 3 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
C8 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
C9 3 3 4 3 3 3 0 0 0 2 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3
C10 3 3 3 3 2 3 1 1 2 0 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 2
C11 2 3 2 1 3 1 3 3 2 1 0 2 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
C12 2 2 2 3 2 0 0 3 3 4 1 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2
C13 3 3 4 3 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 0 3 3 1 3 1 1 3 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1
C14 3 3 4 3 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 0 3 1 3 1 1 3 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1
C15 3 3 3 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 4 3 0 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
C16 3 3 3 3 4 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 0 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1
C17 3 4 4 3 4 2 1 1 2 3 2 1 3 3 2 3 0 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
K. Govindan et al.
C18 2 2 2 2 2 1 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
C19 2 2 2 2 2 1 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
C20 0 0 2 2 0 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
C21 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1
C22 3 3 4 3 3 3 2 2 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 1 3 2 2 2 1 0 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 1 2
C23 3 3 4 4 4 1 2 3 4 1 1 1 4 4 4 1 3 2 2 1 1 3 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 3
C24 2 3 3 2 3 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 0 2 2 2 1 1 1 2
C25 2 3 3 2 3 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 0 2 3 1 1 1 2
C26 2 3 3 2 3 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 0 2 1 1 1 2
C27 2 3 3 2 3 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 3 0 1 1 1 2
C28 3 3 3 3 2 3 1 1 2 0 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 2
C29 2 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 3 2 1 3 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 1
C30 2 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 3 2 1 3 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 1
C31 3 3 4 3 4 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 4 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 0
The next step is to develop the generalised questionnaire, circulated to the field and industrial experts for their
replies, which consists of those dimensions and criteria rating, ranging from ‘no influence’ to ‘very high influence.’ Our
research team arranged a two-day long workshop, in which the importance of the study is explained to the four (case)
industrial and five field experts who were invited through direct request, telephonic and mail approaches. After several
rounds of discussion, the drivers of GM were categorised under appropriate dimensions. Under these categorisations, we
requested the experts to answer questions that resemble the pair-wise comparisons of drivers and GMP. For instance,
‘Does the Green design have an influence on Green purchasing?’, ‘Does the environmental emission control and impact
remediation practice (GMP 1) have an influence on reducing, reusing and recycling?’ (GMP 2). Likewise, we framed
the questionnaires corresponding to each individual criterion and their alternatives. Finally, the pair-wise comparison
was made with the assistance of those replies and to the satisfaction of all experts.
Step 3: Analysis of dimensions and criteria using DANP
To evaluate the GMP, first we need to analyse the dimensions and their relevant criteria using DANP. As discussed
in the earlier section, analysing the criteria with DANP is done through some steps which are as follows:
(a) Calculate the initial relationship matrix ‘A’
Based on the replies from the industrial managers and experts, the initial relationship matrix for criteria and dimen-
sions was formed which is in the form of Equation (1) and shown in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. However, the same
procedures are followed to identify the influenced factors in both dimensions and criteria; hence, in this paper, we only
show the calculation steps for the criteria.
(b) Calculate the normalised direct-relationship matrix ‘X’
The initial relationship matrix is normalised through Equations (2) and (3) to form the normalised direct-relationship
matrix ‘X’ which is shown in Table 4.
(c) Calculate the total-influence matrix ‘T’
The normalised direct relationship matrix is applied through Equation (4) to get the total-influence matrix ‘T’ which
is shown in Table 5.
(d) Calculate the sum of rows and columns
From the total-influence matrix, we need to calculate the sum of rows and sum of columns; the sum of rows is men-
tioned as ‘ri’ and the sum of columns is denoted as ‘si’ with the assistance of the Equations (5) and (6) for both criteria
and dimensions which is shown in Tables 6 and 7, respectively.
(e) Set up causal influence diagram
The causal influence diagram is made up of two axes, one is formed by ri + si and other is ri − si which acts as x
and y axis, respectively. The factor which is at the top of the graph is the most influencing factor among the others.
The factor which is at the bottom of the graph is the least influencing factor among the others. The causal influence dia-
gram for both dimensions and criteria is shown in Figures 3–8.
(f) Develop an unweighted supermatrix and weighted supermatrix
The unweighted supermatrix ‘W’ (Table 8) is obtained by using Equations (7), (8) and (11). Then the new dimension
normalised matrix T aD (Table 9) and weighted supermatrix ‘Wα’ (Table 10) is obtained by using Equations (13)–(15).
(g) Limit the weighted supermatrix
The last step of DANP is to limit the weighted supermatrix which is shown in Table 11 and denoted as
limg!1 ðW / Þg
Step 4: Evaluating the best GM practice using PROMETHEE
Based on the DANP results, the best GM practice is evaluated through PROMETHEE and is shown in Table 12.
The PROMETHEE I and PROMETHEE II flow results are shown in Figures 9 and 10, respectively.
Table 3. Initial influence matrix for dimensions ‘AD’.
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5
D1 0 1 2 3 2
D2 3 0 1 2 2
D3 4 1 0 2 4
D4 3 2 3 0 2
D5 3 4 4 2 0
14
Table 4. Normalised direct influence matrix (X) for criteria.
C1 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02
C2 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02
C3 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03
C4 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03
C5 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03
C6 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
C7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
C8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
C9 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03
C10 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02
C11 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01
C12 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
C13 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01
C14 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01
C15 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01
C16 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01
C17 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02
K. Govindan et al.
C18 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
C19 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
C20 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
C21 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01
C22 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.02
C23 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.03
C24 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02
C25 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02
C26 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02
C27 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02
C28 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02
C29 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.01
C30 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01
C31 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00
Table 5. Total-influence matrix ‘T’ for criteria.
C1 0.05 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.10 0.07 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.05 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.06
C2 0.07 0.05 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.07 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.05 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.06
C3 0.10 0.11 0.09 0.11 0.12 0.09 0.06 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.07 0.10 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.08
C4 0.09 0.10 0.12 0.07 0.10 0.08 0.03 0.03 0.09 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.07 0.09 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.08
C5 0.09 0.10 0.12 0.11 0.07 0.08 0.03 0.03 0.09 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.07 0.09 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.08
C6 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.06
C7 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
C8 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
C9 0.09 0.10 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.07 0.09 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.08
C10 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.05
C11 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.04
C12 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.06
C13 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.07 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.04
C14 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.07 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.08 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.04
C15 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.04
C16 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
C17 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.08 0.10 0.06 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.06
C18 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.04
C19 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.04
C20 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03
C21 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.04
C22 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.09 0.10 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.05 0.09 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.06
C23 0.08 0.09 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.08 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.07
C24 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.05
C25 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.05
C26 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.05
C27 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.05
C28 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.05
C29 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.04
C30 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.04
C31 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.04 0.09 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.04
15
Table 6. Sum of influences given and received on criteria.
ri si ri + si ri – si
C1 1.838891 2.046908 3.885798 −0.20802

C2 1.771168 2.249307 4.020475 −0.47814
C3 2.730214 2.62573 5.355944 0.104485
C4 2.431018 2.225158 4.656175 0.20586
C5 2.466389 2.38266 4.849049 0.083729
C6 1.827665 1.613482 3.441146 0.214183
C7 1.121628 1.04514 2.166768 0.076489
C8 1.157 1.189754 2.346754 −0.03275
C9 2.431018 1.865185 4.296203 0.565833
C10 1.655952 1.434335 3.090287 0.221617
C11 1.716237 1.505412 3.221649 0.210826
C12 1.768755 1.593802 3.362556 0.174953
C13 1.671719 2.434907 4.106626 −0.76319
C14 1.644176 2.442438 4.086613 −0.79826
C15 1.746158 2.438656 4.184814 −0.6925
C16 1.567809 1.372246 2.940055 0.195562

C17 1.915577 2.06618 3.981757 −0.1506
C18 1.323584 1.395829 2.719413 −0.07225
C19 1.347788 1.276834 2.624621 0.070954
C20 0.983509 1.390263 2.373772 −0.40675
C21 1.542253 1.121974 2.664227 0.420278
C22 2.245103 1.788145 4.033248 0.456959
C23 2.085359 1.988814 4.074173 0.096545
C24 1.580369 1.784394 3.364763 −0.20403
C25 1.60781 1.657681 3.265492 −0.04987
C26 1.607247 1.677742 3.28499 −0.07049
C27 1.634406 1.692043 3.32645 −0.05764
C28 1.573809 1.527238 3.101048 0.046571
C29 1.482108 1.248717 2.730825 0.233392
C30 1.482108 1.079133 2.561241 0.402975
C31 1.817123 1.613844 3.430967 0.203279
6. Discussion and managerial implications

The factors and sub-factors were analysed through DEMATEL and results are shown in Figures 3–8. Figure 3 shows
the influence between the dimensions and reveals that D2 (Potential drivers) and D5 (External drivers) reside in the
same level of influence which influenced other drivers in GM implementation. However, in the Indian scenario, it is
common for firms to look only for economic profit. In most of the SMEs, the GM is a zero net sum practice, so they
are forced only by these economic benefits to implement GM. External drivers, such as pressures from stakeholders,
customers and other general bodies help determine the level of GM implementation in the context of developing coun-
tries. The priorities of dimensions are as follows: D2, D5 > D4 > D1 > D3. Along with these dimensions, each and every
criterion was explored to reveal its influence on GM implementation. By virtue of findings through DEMATEL, the cal-
culations are followed with ANP and PROMETHEE. Table 12 reveals the GMP net flow scores as −0.08, 0.34, 0.15
and −0.41, respectively. The reducing, recycling and reusing (GMP 2) gained more scores (0.34) and was established as
the best green manufacturing practice. The priorities of GMP are summarised as follows: GMP 2 > GMP 3 > GMP 1 >
Table 7. Sum of influences given and received on dimensions.
Dimensions ri si ri + si ri – si
D1 0.37 0.37 0.73 0.00

D2 0.27 0.24 0.51 0.03
D3 0.28 0.35 0.63 −0.06
D4 0.22 0.21 0.42 0.01
D5 0.28 0.26 0.54 0.03
Figure 3. Causal influence diagram for dimensions.
Figure 4. Causal influence diagram for criteria under D1.



Table 8. The unweighted supermatrix ‘W’.
C1 0.115 0.174 0.188 0.193 0.189 0.179 0.178 0.178 0.181 0.192 0.179 0.179 0.181 0.181 0.191 0.182 0.173 0.186 0.186 0.138 0.180 0.182 0.174 0.169 0.169 0.169 0.169 0.192 0.179 0.179 0.177
C2 0.202 0.132 0.201 0.205 0.201 0.191 0.198 0.198 0.193 0.202 0.220 0.191 0.191 0.191 0.202 0.191 0.205 0.197 0.197 0.150 0.191 0.193 0.184 0.208 0.208 0.208 0.208 0.202 0.190 0.190 0.188
C3 0.246 0.234 0.165 0.249 0.244 0.214 0.228 0.228 0.234 0.222 0.213 0.214 0.237 0.237 0.222 0.210 0.225 0.217 0.217 0.290 0.242 0.234 0.226 0.228 0.228 0.228 0.228 0.222 0.244 0.244 0.230
C4 0.200 0.211 0.219 0.139 0.219 0.217 0.190 0.190 0.191 0.202 0.160 0.217 0.192 0.192 0.175 0.191 0.183 0.195 0.195 0.264 0.189 0.192 0.204 0.178 0.178 0.178 0.178 0.202 0.190 0.190 0.186
C5 0.236 0.249 0.228 0.214 0.147 0.198 0.206 0.206 0.201 0.183 0.228 0.198 0.199 0.199 0.210 0.225 0.214 0.205 0.205 0.158 0.198 0.200 0.213 0.217 0.217 0.217 0.217 0.183 0.198 0.198 0.219
C6 0.201 0.202 0.176 0.175 0.175 0.100 0.163 0.157 0.189 0.194 0.131 0.106 0.147 0.147 0.132 0.176 0.163 0.142 0.142 0.184 0.162 0.152 0.133 0.143 0.143 0.143 0.143 0.194 0.155 0.155 0.138
C7 0.070 0.070 0.121 0.069 0.069 0.064 0.061 0.176 0.074 0.092 0.158 0.068 0.103 0.103 0.126 0.132 0.094 0.062 0.062 0.106 0.125 0.097 0.117 0.142 0.142 0.142 0.142 0.092 0.113 0.113 0.096
C8 0.080 0.080 0.074 0.078 0.078 0.156 0.195 0.070 0.084 0.102 0.166 0.166 0.108 0.108 0.163 0.105 0.100 0.070 0.070 0.114 0.132 0.105 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.102 0.120 0.120 0.162
C9 0.220 0.221 0.156 0.195 0.195 0.200 0.097 0.133 0.135 0.178 0.176 0.212 0.230 0.230 0.148 0.189 0.180 0.200 0.200 0.199 0.176 0.166 0.225 0.161 0.161 0.161 0.161 0.178 0.173 0.173 0.213
C10 0.096 0.095 0.147 0.141 0.141 0.202 0.159 0.152 0.151 0.087 0.118 0.215 0.130 0.130 0.148 0.126 0.175 0.170 0.170 0.130 0.153 0.162 0.118 0.129 0.129 0.129 0.129 0.087 0.141 0.141 0.124
C11 0.161 0.162 0.150 0.167 0.167 0.122 0.201 0.193 0.179 0.154 0.093 0.129 0.137 0.137 0.125 0.133 0.154 0.174 0.174 0.131 0.124 0.145 0.126 0.136 0.136 0.136 0.136 0.154 0.146 0.146 0.131
C12 0.171 0.171 0.176 0.176 0.176 0.157 0.123 0.119 0.189 0.193 0.159 0.104 0.144 0.144 0.159 0.139 0.134 0.182 0.182 0.136 0.129 0.172 0.131 0.141 0.141 0.141 0.141 0.193 0.153 0.153 0.136
C13 0.222 0.222 0.233 0.224 0.224 0.200 0.274 0.272 0.224 0.197 0.229 0.200 0.155 0.226 0.272 0.233 0.240 0.215 0.215 0.247 0.228 0.239 0.235 0.236 0.236 0.236 0.236 0.197 0.229 0.229 0.222
C14 0.223 0.222 0.234 0.225 0.225 0.201 0.221 0.221 0.225 0.233 0.229 0.201 0.251 0.160 0.243 0.233 0.241 0.216 0.216 0.248 0.228 0.240 0.236 0.236 0.236 0.236 0.236 0.233 0.229 0.229 0.222
C15 0.249 0.249 0.215 0.225 0.225 0.232 0.220 0.220 0.225 0.233 0.228 0.232 0.249 0.257 0.152 0.234 0.214 0.217 0.217 0.195 0.227 0.218 0.235 0.236 0.236 0.236 0.236 0.233 0.227 0.227 0.221
C16 0.135 0.135 0.128 0.143 0.143 0.160 0.088 0.090 0.143 0.130 0.137 0.160 0.121 0.125 0.145 0.093 0.174 0.158 0.158 0.134 0.110 0.109 0.105 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.130 0.108 0.108 0.109
C17 0.172 0.172 0.191 0.183 0.183 0.207 0.197 0.197 0.183 0.207 0.177 0.207 0.224 0.232 0.188 0.207 0.131 0.194 0.194 0.176 0.207 0.195 0.190 0.182 0.182 0.182 0.182 0.207 0.207 0.207 0.225
C18 0.265 0.265 0.285 0.251 0.251 0.261 0.261 0.261 0.251 0.245 0.229 0.261 0.230 0.230 0.261 0.312 0.307 0.165 0.365 0.289 0.337 0.271 0.288 0.263 0.263 0.263 0.263 0.245 0.275 0.275 0.348
C19 0.250 0.251 0.240 0.279 0.279 0.249 0.243 0.244 0.279 0.232 0.218 0.249 0.219 0.219 0.248 0.232 0.234 0.306 0.143 0.275 0.326 0.259 0.275 0.248 0.248 0.248 0.248 0.232 0.201 0.201 0.221
C20 0.267 0.267 0.252 0.251 0.251 0.259 0.267 0.267 0.251 0.311 0.293 0.259 0.354 0.354 0.266 0.245 0.248 0.241 0.224 0.181 0.213 0.277 0.236 0.263 0.263 0.263 0.263 0.311 0.341 0.341 0.231
C21 0.218 0.218 0.223 0.219 0.219 0.230 0.229 0.229 0.219 0.212 0.260 0.230 0.198 0.198 0.225 0.211 0.211 0.287 0.267 0.255 0.125 0.193 0.200 0.226 0.226 0.226 0.226 0.212 0.183 0.183 0.200
C22 0.104 0.104 0.105 0.110 0.110 0.121 0.106 0.106 0.110 0.116 0.113 0.121 0.121 0.121 0.111 0.101 0.131 0.109 0.109 0.108 0.138 0.079 0.133 0.096 0.094 0.094 0.092 0.124 0.129 0.129 0.125
C23 0.132 0.132 0.124 0.118 0.118 0.111 0.112 0.112 0.118 0.124 0.122 0.111 0.130 0.130 0.139 0.110 0.140 0.117 0.117 0.115 0.121 0.106 0.088 0.150 0.147 0.147 0.144 0.132 0.137 0.137 0.114
C24 0.124 0.124 0.105 0.110 0.110 0.103 0.105 0.105 0.110 0.094 0.114 0.103 0.121 0.121 0.112 0.124 0.132 0.109 0.109 0.107 0.112 0.113 0.098 0.074 0.117 0.138 0.135 0.101 0.103 0.103 0.106
C25 0.118 0.118 0.111 0.105 0.105 0.099 0.101 0.101 0.105 0.111 0.108 0.099 0.094 0.094 0.106 0.096 0.090 0.103 0.103 0.101 0.105 0.108 0.092 0.113 0.068 0.111 0.109 0.119 0.097 0.097 0.099
C26 0.119 0.120 0.101 0.106 0.106 0.117 0.102 0.102 0.106 0.091 0.109 0.117 0.094 0.094 0.106 0.097 0.090 0.103 0.103 0.102 0.106 0.108 0.092 0.114 0.112 0.068 0.130 0.098 0.097 0.097 0.120
C27 0.120 0.120 0.113 0.106 0.106 0.100 0.102 0.102 0.106 0.092 0.110 0.100 0.096 0.096 0.108 0.097 0.091 0.104 0.104 0.103 0.107 0.109 0.111 0.116 0.134 0.113 0.069 0.098 0.099 0.099 0.121
C28 0.094 0.094 0.094 0.099 0.099 0.094 0.097 0.097 0.099 0.127 0.103 0.094 0.088 0.088 0.101 0.090 0.085 0.097 0.097 0.097 0.100 0.119 0.104 0.085 0.083 0.083 0.082 0.066 0.092 0.092 0.092
C29 0.048 0.048 0.084 0.075 0.075 0.082 0.090 0.090 0.075 0.072 0.071 0.082 0.097 0.097 0.070 0.100 0.071 0.083 0.083 0.088 0.059 0.089 0.091 0.074 0.072 0.072 0.071 0.077 0.055 0.105 0.078
C30 0.041 0.041 0.065 0.068 0.068 0.076 0.085 0.084 0.068 0.065 0.064 0.076 0.067 0.067 0.062 0.093 0.063 0.076 0.076 0.080 0.051 0.064 0.065 0.066 0.065 0.065 0.063 0.069 0.097 0.046 0.070
C31 0.099 0.099 0.098 0.103 0.103 0.097 0.100 0.101 0.103 0.109 0.086 0.097 0.092 0.092 0.085 0.093 0.106 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.103 0.105 0.125 0.112 0.109 0.109 0.107 0.116 0.095 0.095 0.074
19
Table 9. New matrix obtained by normalising in dimensions T aD .
Dimensions D1 D2 D3 D4 D5
D1 0.251 0.241 0.288 0.253 0.271

D2 0.163 0.173 0.162 0.173 0.163
D3 0.252 0.231 0.231 0.252 0.251
D4 0.140 0.156 0.143 0.158 0.144
D5 0.194 0.199 0.176 0.164 0.172
GMP 4. There are two stages involved in PROMETHEE – I and II – which was already discussed in previous sections;
the results of both stages of PROMETHEE are shown in Figures 9 and 10, denoted as partial ranking and complete
ranking of the GMP, respectively.
Our results found that reducing, recycling and reusing (GMP 2) is the best practice among other alternatives, and
most of the literatures correlate with our findings. For instance, Hui, Chan, and Pun (2001) provided five GM assess-
ment factors in which waste reduction, waste reuse and waste recycle captured the first three places, followed by waste
treatment and use of sustainable resources. The study made by Kannan, Jabbour, and Jabbour (2014) in Brazilian sce-
nario of green supply chain practices revealed that the ‘reduce, reuse and recycle or reclaim materials’ is one of the
highest influencing criteria. Even in an Indian scenario, the mandatory drivers such as codes of conduct, governmental
regulations, etc. are the efficient drivers of GM. In this connection, carbon emission and pollution prevention can be
monitored by the external stakeholders but the recycling, reusing, reducing cannot be monitored because those practices
occur inside the workplace. Improving the (GMP 2) practice increases both economic and environmental value of the
firm, whereas the pollution and emissions issues are concentrated only with environmental factors. Researcher Rusinko
(2007) argued that pollution prevention practices are the best practices to have a direct impact on a firm’s performance
in both economic and environmental arenas. If we further explore the conflict in these results it should be noted that Ru-
sinko’s study considered the carpet industry but our study looked at a rubber tubes and tyres firm. Consequently, we
affirm that the value of GMP may change from one sector to another sector.
A highly populated developing nation like India faces huge scarcity in resources in many applications due to the fre-
quent exploitation of those resources due simply to a lack of awareness. A study by Digalwar, Tagalpallewar, and
Sunnapwar (2013) found that in India, the awareness of GM is not even in an effective initial stage. With all the above
merits, the chosen green practices also serve as eco-efficient strategies for all organisations.
Our team discussed the results we obtained with the industrial managers, and from their perspective, our study
revealed that D2 and D5 are the essential drivers. Until now, they did not focus much on issues such as drivers, and this
lack of attention to potential solutions may have resulted in poor GM implementation. After such practices are imple-
mented in their organisation, the ultimate success of our study may be confirmed. Managers may accept that this study
will help them promote useful GM strategies. After two months, we contacted the industrial managers to get their feed-
back on our findings in GMP. They enthusiastically accepted that their performance of GM was increased by addressing
issues such as scrap management and EOL (end of life) products, through selected GMP (i.e. GMP 2). It is accounted
that it major plays.
This study offers some interesting managerial implications for the GMP evaluation process.
Selecting the best GMP is a tough job for any industrial manager because the poor selection of GMP leads to
burden the firm in both economic and environmental perspectives. This study assists the industrial managers in
selecting the best GM practice based on its factors, where the drivers of GM are considered as factors. Some
essential steps forward include not only selecting the best practice but also motivating the industrial managers
by revealing the benefits of GM to top level management.
From these results, they can concentrate more on (GMP 2) practices, so they can improve the efficiency of their
GM strategies which will help in their firm’s reputation, customer satisfaction, worker satisfaction, etc.
Along with selecting the best green manufacturing practice, this study also provides the benefits of GM, espe-
cially in developing nations (BRIC and MIKT) with the identification of differences in GMP among them. The
findings of this study cannot precisely benefit other developing countries and manufacturers, because as we
have mentioned, every nation has its own culture, diversity, people, government and unique requirements. How-
ever, this study still may be considered a pioneering approach for selecting best GMP; other nations can bench-
mark this study and implement its findings with their own native realities. This study also reveals that
investments made by emerging markets in GM strengthen their position towards a beneficial GM path.
Table 10. The weighted supermatrix ‘Wα’.
C1 0.029 0.044 0.047 0.048 0.047 0.043 0.043 0.043 0.044 0.046 0.043 0.043 0.052 0.052 0.055 0.052 0.050 0.047 0.047 0.035 0.046 0.049 0.047 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.052 0.049 0.049 0.048
C2 0.051 0.033 0.050 0.052 0.050 0.046 0.048 0.048 0.046 0.049 0.053 0.046 0.055 0.055 0.058 0.055 0.059 0.050 0.050 0.038 0.048 0.052 0.050 0.056 0.056 0.056 0.056 0.055 0.051 0.051 0.051
C3 0.062 0.059 0.042 0.063 0.061 0.051 0.055 0.055 0.056 0.053 0.051 0.051 0.068 0.068 0.064 0.061 0.065 0.055 0.055 0.073 0.061 0.063 0.061 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.060 0.066 0.066 0.062
C4 0.050 0.053 0.055 0.035 0.055 0.052 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.049 0.039 0.052 0.055 0.055 0.050 0.055 0.053 0.049 0.049 0.067 0.048 0.052 0.055 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.055 0.051 0.051 0.050
C5 0.059 0.062 0.057 0.054 0.037 0.048 0.050 0.049 0.048 0.044 0.055 0.048 0.057 0.057 0.060 0.065 0.062 0.052 0.052 0.040 0.050 0.054 0.058 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.049 0.054 0.054 0.059
C6 0.033 0.033 0.029 0.029 0.029 0.017 0.028 0.027 0.033 0.034 0.023 0.018 0.024 0.024 0.021 0.028 0.027 0.025 0.025 0.032 0.028 0.025 0.022 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.031 0.025 0.025 0.022
C7 0.011 0.011 0.020 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.030 0.013 0.016 0.027 0.012 0.017 0.017 0.020 0.021 0.015 0.011 0.011 0.018 0.022 0.016 0.019 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.015 0.018 0.018 0.016
C8 0.013 0.013 0.012 0.013 0.013 0.027 0.034 0.012 0.014 0.018 0.029 0.029 0.018 0.018 0.026 0.017 0.016 0.012 0.012 0.020 0.023 0.017 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.017 0.020 0.020 0.026
C9 0.036 0.036 0.025 0.032 0.032 0.035 0.017 0.023 0.023 0.031 0.030 0.037 0.037 0.037 0.024 0.031 0.029 0.035 0.035 0.034 0.031 0.027 0.037 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.029 0.028 0.028 0.035
C10 0.016 0.015 0.024 0.023 0.023 0.035 0.027 0.026 0.026 0.015 0.020 0.037 0.021 0.021 0.024 0.020 0.028 0.029 0.029 0.023 0.026 0.026 0.019 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.014 0.023 0.023 0.020
C11 0.026 0.026 0.024 0.027 0.027 0.021 0.035 0.033 0.031 0.027 0.016 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.020 0.022 0.025 0.030 0.030 0.023 0.021 0.024 0.020 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.025 0.024 0.024 0.021
C12 0.028 0.028 0.029 0.029 0.029 0.027 0.021 0.021 0.033 0.033 0.027 0.018 0.023 0.023 0.026 0.023 0.022 0.032 0.032 0.024 0.022 0.028 0.021 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.031 0.025 0.025 0.022
C13 0.056 0.056 0.059 0.056 0.056 0.046 0.063 0.063 0.052 0.045 0.053 0.046 0.036 0.052 0.063 0.054 0.056 0.054 0.054 0.062 0.057 0.060 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.049 0.057 0.057 0.056
C14 0.056 0.056 0.059 0.057 0.057 0.046 0.051 0.051 0.052 0.054 0.053 0.046 0.058 0.037 0.056 0.054 0.056 0.055 0.055 0.063 0.057 0.060 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.058 0.057 0.057 0.056
C15 0.063 0.063 0.054 0.057 0.057 0.054 0.051 0.051 0.052 0.054 0.053 0.054 0.058 0.060 0.035 0.054 0.049 0.055 0.055 0.049 0.057 0.055 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.057 0.057 0.055
C16 0.034 0.034 0.032 0.036 0.036 0.037 0.020 0.021 0.033 0.030 0.032 0.037 0.028 0.029 0.034 0.022 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.034 0.028 0.027 0.026 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.033 0.027 0.027 0.027
C17 0.043 0.043 0.048 0.046 0.046 0.048 0.045 0.045 0.042 0.048 0.041 0.048 0.052 0.054 0.044 0.048 0.030 0.049 0.049 0.044 0.052 0.049 0.048 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.057
C18 0.037 0.037 0.040 0.035 0.035 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.039 0.038 0.036 0.041 0.033 0.033 0.037 0.044 0.044 0.026 0.058 0.046 0.053 0.039 0.041 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.035 0.040 0.040 0.050
C19 0.035 0.035 0.034 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.038 0.038 0.044 0.036 0.034 0.039 0.031 0.031 0.035 0.033 0.033 0.048 0.023 0.043 0.051 0.037 0.040 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.033 0.029 0.029 0.032
C20 0.037 0.037 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.041 0.042 0.042 0.039 0.049 0.046 0.041 0.050 0.050 0.038 0.035 0.035 0.038 0.035 0.029 0.034 0.040 0.034 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.045 0.049 0.049 0.033
C21 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.034 0.033 0.041 0.036 0.028 0.028 0.032 0.030 0.030 0.045 0.042 0.040 0.020 0.028 0.029 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.030 0.026 0.026 0.029
C22 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.021 0.021 0.024 0.021 0.021 0.022 0.023 0.022 0.024 0.021 0.021 0.019 0.018 0.023 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.022 0.014 0.023 0.017 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.021 0.022 0.022 0.021
C23 0.026 0.026 0.024 0.023 0.023 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.023 0.025 0.024 0.022 0.023 0.023 0.024 0.019 0.025 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.020 0.018 0.015 0.026 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.023 0.024 0.024 0.020
C24 0.024 0.024 0.020 0.021 0.021 0.020 0.021 0.021 0.022 0.019 0.023 0.020 0.021 0.021 0.020 0.022 0.023 0.018 0.018 0.017 0.018 0.019 0.017 0.013 0.020 0.024 0.023 0.017 0.018 0.018 0.018
C25 0.023 0.023 0.022 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.021 0.022 0.022 0.020 0.017 0.017 0.019 0.017 0.016 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.019 0.016 0.019 0.012 0.019 0.019 0.020 0.017 0.017 0.017
C26 0.023 0.023 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.023 0.020 0.020 0.021 0.018 0.022 0.023 0.017 0.017 0.019 0.017 0.016 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.019 0.016 0.020 0.019 0.012 0.022 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.021
C27 0.023 0.023 0.022 0.021 0.021 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.021 0.018 0.022 0.020 0.017 0.017 0.019 0.017 0.016 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.019 0.019 0.020 0.023 0.019 0.012 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.021
C28 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.020 0.025 0.020 0.019 0.015 0.015 0.018 0.016 0.015 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.020 0.018 0.015 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.011 0.016 0.016 0.016
C29 0.009 0.009 0.016 0.015 0.015 0.016 0.018 0.018 0.015 0.014 0.014 0.016 0.017 0.017 0.012 0.018 0.013 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.010 0.015 0.016 0.013 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.013 0.009 0.018 0.013
C30 0.008 0.008 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.015 0.017 0.017 0.014 0.013 0.013 0.015 0.012 0.012 0.011 0.016 0.011 0.012 0.012 0.013 0.008 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.012 0.017 0.008 0.012
C31 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.020 0.020 0.019 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.022 0.017 0.019 0.016 0.016 0.015 0.016 0.019 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.017 0.018 0.021 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.018 0.020 0.016 0.016 0.013
21
22
Table 11. Limit the supermatrix limg!1 ðW / Þg :
C1 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046
C2 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051
C3 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060
C4 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.051
C5 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054
C6 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026
C7 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016
C8 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018
C9 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031
C10 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023
C11 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025
C12 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.026
C13 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055
C14 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055
C15 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055
C16 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032
C17 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.047
C18 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039
K. Govindan et al.
C19 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036
C20 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039
C21 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032
C22 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020
C23 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023
C24 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020
C25 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019
C26 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019
C27 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019
C28 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017
C29 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014
C30 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012
C31 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018
Table 12. Evaluation of best GMP from alternatives using PROMETHEE.
GMP 1 GMP 2 GMP 3 GMP 4
Leaving flow 1.12 1.22 1.03 0.89

Entering flow 1.19 0.88 0.88 1.30
Net flow −0.08 0.34 0.15 −0.41
PROMETHEE II rank 3 1 2 4
Figure 9. PROMETHEE I – Partial ranking.
Figure 10. PROMETHEE II – Complete ranking.
This study reveals the status of GM in an Indian context and digs out the importance of GM implementation
under those circumstances and helps the academic literature by shedding light on GMP involved in the context
of developing nations.
Furthermore, this study reveals the most influential driver among common drivers which helps the industrial
managers to stimulate that particular driver to get better GM adoption. On the whole, this study implicates both
academic and virtual concepts of GM.
7. Conclusion
Due to the impact of GM in firm performance, it has become a more popular debate over recent years. Developing
countries generally lag significantly far behind in innovative sustainable strategies as compared to developed nations.
Although developed nations are already secure in their position regarding environmental concerns, developing countries
will still make an impact on our total global environment. Hence, there is a great need to address green issues and sus-
tainable innovations in developing countries. In this regard, this study examines GMP in an Indian context in order to
select the best GM practice among alternatives to optimise the use of efficient and valuable green strategies. This study
used a hybrid MCDM tool to solve the problem. First, the factors (dimensions) and sub-factors (criteria) of GM were
identified from the combined sources of literature reviews and managerial and industrial experts’ opinions and insights.
These factors and sub-factors were analysed through DANP and, based on that analysis; an evaluation of the best GM
practice was made with the aid of PROMETHEE. This study concludes that the best GM practice is 3R (reducing, reus-
ing and recycling) for the case industry. Using this proposed framework, the industrial managers can choose the best
GM practice from numerous alternatives to implement in their company. As is the case with other studies, this research
has its own limitations. For instance, this study was conducted in the rubber industry and the results are shown above.
But these results are neither parallel nor equivalent for other types of industries or applications; the proposed framework
is generalised for any specific sector applications. This proposed model does not provide an in-depth analysis of the
impact of each factor and sub-factor in GM implementation. There are many household industries in developing coun-
tries such as India, and a number of these manufacturing operations have not yet adopted green practices. This study
can be extended with statistical data from collected samples to validate the results with the assistance of modelling tools
like structural equation modelling. In addition, this study could be extended by employing additional hybrid MCDM
tools in different applications.
Funding
This research was supported by a Grant from Forsknings-og Innovationsstyrelsen for project 12-132697.
References
Abbas, N. M., and N. Yusoff. 2012. “Electrical Discharge Machining (EDM): Practices in Malaysian Industries and Possible Change
Towards Green Manufacturing.” Procedia Engineering 41: 1684–1688.
Agan, Y., M. F. Acar, and A. Borodin. 2013. “Drivers of Environmental Processes and Their Impact on Performance: A Study of
Turkish SMEs.” Journal of Cleaner Production 51: 23–33.
Albadvi, A., S. K. Chaharsooghi, and A. Esfahanipour. 2007. “Decision Making in Stock Trading: An Application of PROM-
ETHEE.” European Journal of Operational Research 177: 673–683.
Allen, D., D. Bauer, B. Bras, T. Gutowski, C. Murphy, T. Piwonka, P. Sheng, J. Sutherland, D. Thurston, and E. Wolff. 2002. “Envi-
ronmentally Benign Manufacturing: Trends in Europe, Japan, and the USA.” Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineer-
ing 124: 908–920.
Ammenberg, J., and E. Sundin. 2005. “Products in Environmental Management Systems: Drivers, Barriers and Experiences.” Journal
of Cleaner Production 13: 405–415.
Berry, M. A., and D. A. Rondinelli. 1998. “Proactive Corporate Environment Management: A New Industrial Revolution.” Journal of
Environmental Protection 12 (2): 38.
Brans, J. P., P. Vincke, and B. Mareschal. 1986. “How to Select and How to Rank Projects: The PROMETHEE Method.” European
Journal of Operational Research 24 (2): 228–238.
Büyüközkan, G., and G. Cifci. 2012. “Evaluation of the Green Supply Chain Management Practices: A Fuzzy ANP Approach.” Pro-
duction Planning & Control 23 (6): 405–418.
Cairncross, F. 1995. Green Inc.: A Guide to Business and the Environment. London: Earthscan.
Chan, C. C., K. M. Yu, and K. L. Yung. 2010. “Green Manufacturing Using Integrated Decision Tools.” In 2010 IEEE International
Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM), 2287–2291. Macao: IEEE, December 7–10.
Chan, H. K., X. Wang, G. R. T. White, and N. Yip. 2013. “An Extended Fuzzy-AHP Approach for the Evaluation of Green Product
Designs.” Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions 60 (2): 327–339.
Chien, M. K., and L. H. Shih. 2007. “An Empirical Study of the Implementation of Green Supply Chain Management Practices in
the Electrical and Electronic Industry and Their Relation to Organizational Performances.” International Journal of Environ-
mental Science and Technology 4 (3): 383–394.
Chiu, Y. J., H. C. Chen, G. H. Tzeng, and J. Z. Shyu. 2006. “Marketing Strategy Based on Customer Behaviour for the LCD-TV.”
International Journal of Management and Decision Making 7 (2/3): 143–165.
Chun, Y., and B. Bidanda. 2013. “Sustainable Manufacturing and the Role of the International Journal of Production Research.” Inter-
national Journal of Production Research 51: 23–24.
CII. 2011. “Energy, Products and Processes”. Accessed December 26, 2013. http://www.cii.in/webcms/Upload/BCG-CII%20Green%
20Mfg%20Report.pdf
Coelho, T. M., R. Castro, and J. A. Gobbo. 2011. “PET Containers in Brazil: Opportunities and Challenges of a Logistics Model for
Post-consumer Waste Recycling.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55 (3): 291–299.
Dağdeviren, M. 2008. “Decision Making in Equipment Selection: An Integrated Approach with AHP and PROMETHEE.” Journal of
Intelligent Manufacturing 19 (4): 397–406.
Daily, B. F., J. W. Bishop, and J. A. Massoud. 2012. “The Role of Training and Empowerment in Environmental Performance: A
Study of the Mexican Maquiladora Industry.” International Journal of Operations & Production Management 32 (5): 631–647.
Deif, A. M. 2011. “A System Model for Green Manufacturing.” Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (14): 1553–1559.
Despeisse, M., M. R. Oates, and P. D. Ball. 2012. “Sustainable Manufacturing Tactics and Cross-functional Factory Modeling.” Jour-
nal of Cleaner Production 42: 31–41.
Desrochers, P. 2008. “Did the Invisible Hand Need a Regulatory Glove to Develop a Green Thumb? Some Historical Perspective on
Market Incentives, Win-Win Innovations and the Porter Hypothesis.” Journal of Environmental & Resource Economics 41 (4):
519–539.
Diabat, A., and K. Govindan. 2011. “An Analysis of the Drivers Affecting the Implementation of Green Supply Chain Management.”
Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55: 659–667.
Diaz-Elsayed, N., A. Jondral, S. Greinacher, D. Dornfeld, and G. Lanza. 2013. “Assessment of Lean and Green Strategies by Simula-
tion of Manufacturing Systems in Discrete Production Environments.” CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology 62 (1): 475–
478.
Digalwar, A. K., A. R. Tagalpallewar, and V. K. Sunnapwar. 2013. “Green Manufacturing Performance Measures: An Empirical
Investigation from Indian Manufacturing Industries.” Measuring Business Excellence 17 (4): 1–1.
Ellram, Lisa M., W. Tate, and Craig R. Carter. 2008. “Applying 3DCE to Environmentally Responsible Manufacturing Practices.”
Journal of Cleaner Production 16: 1620–1631.
Farouk, S., J. Cherian, and J. Jacob. 2012. “Green Accounting and Management for Sustainable Manufacturing in Developing Coun-
tries.” International Journal of Business and Management 7 (20): p. 36.
Fontela, E., and A. Gabus. 1974. “DEMATEL, Innovative Methods.” Report no. 2, Structural Analysis of the World Problematique.
Columbus, OH: Battelle Geneva Research Institute.
Gabzdylova, B., J. F. Raffensperger, and P. Castka. 2009. “Sustainability in the New Zealand Wine Industry: Drivers, Stakeholders
and Practices.” Journal of Cleaner Production 17: 992–998.
Gilley, K. M., D. L. Worrell, and A. El-Jelly. 2000. “Corporate Environmental Initiatives and Anticipated Firm Performance: The Dif-
ferential Effects of Process-Driven versus Product- Driven Greening Initiatives.” Journal of Management 26 (6): 199–216.
Global Carbon Project Report Card. 2012. Accessed December 20, 2013. http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/12/02/climate-emissions-
india-china-idINDEE8B107B20121202
Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment. 2012. Frankfurt School of Finance and Management. Accessed December 22, 2013.
https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDIQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffs-
unep-centre.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fpublications%2Fglobaltrendsreport2012.pdf&ei=psPYUsLqLMKXrgfh9oGY-
CQ&usg=AFQjCNE8c1pHJ31AdO7lsUwBoBfX5mXn_A&sig2=b6T94aORqn7hi9rKHlUj6A
Govindan, K., and T. C. Cheng. 2011. “Environmental Supply Chain Management.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55 (6):
557–558.
Gutowski, T., C. Murphy, D. Allen, D. Bauer, B. Bras, T. Piwonka, P. Sheng, J. Sutherland, D. Thurston, and E. Wolff. 2005. “Envi-
ronmentally Benign Manufacturing: Observations from Japan, Europe and the United States.” Journal of Cleaner Production
13 (1): 1–17.
Hajmohammad, S., S. Vachon, R. D. Klassen, and I. Gavronski. 2013. “Lean Management and Supply Management: Their Role in
Green Practices and Performance.” Journal of Cleaner Production 39: 312–320.
Henriques, I., and Perr Sadorsky. 1996. “The Determinants of an Environmentally Responsive Firm: an Empirical Approach.” Journal
of Environmental Economics and Management 30 (3): 381–395.
Holdren, J. P., and P. R. Ehrlich. 1974. “Human Population and the Global Environment.” American Scientist 62 (3): 282–292.
Hori, S., and Y. Shimizu. 1999. “Designing Methods of Human Interface for Supervisory Control Systems.” Control Engineering
Practice 7: 1413–1419.
Howes, R., J. Skea, and B. Whelan. 1997. Clean and Competitive. London: Earthscan.
Hsu, C. H., F. K. Wang, and G. H. Tzeng. 2012. “The Best Vendor Selection for Conducting the Recycled Material Based on a
Hybrid MCDM Model Combining DANP with VIKOR.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 66: 95–111.
Hui, I. K., A. H. Chan, and K. F. Pun. 2001. “A Study of the Environmental Management System Implementation Practices.” Journal
of Cleaner Production 9 (3): 269–276.
Jabbour, C. J. C. 2013. “Environmental Training in Organisations: From a Literature Review to a Framework for Future Research.”
Resources, Conservation and Recycling 74: 144–155.
Jian, C. Y. 2013. The Role of Green Manufacturing in Reducing Carbon Dioxide Emissions. In Measuring Technology and Mecha-
tronics Automation (ICMTMA), 2013 Fifth International Conference, 1223–1226. IEEE.
Kannan, D., A. Diabat, M. Alrefaei, K. Govindan, and Geng Yong. 2012. “A Carbon Footprint Based Reverse Logistics Network
Design Model.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 67: 75–79.
Kannan, D., A. B. L. D. S. Jabbour, and C. J. C. Jabbour. 2014. “Selecting Green Suppliers Based on GSCM Practices: Using Fuzzy
TOPSIS Applied to a Brazilian Electronics Company.” European Journal of Operational Research 233 (2): 432–447.
Karsak, E. E., S. Sozer, and S. E. Alptekin. 2003. “Product Planning in Quality Function Deployment Using a Combined Analytic
Network Process and Goal Programming Approach.” Computers & Industrial Engineering 44 (1): 171–190.
Kulwiec, R. A. 2002. Reverse Logistics – The Green Approach. Journal of Material Handling Industry of America (MHOVE), 02
(04): 1–2. http//www.mhia.org/eMhove.
Lee, J. W., and S. H. Kim. 2001. “An Integrated Approach for Interdependent Information System Project Selection.” International
Journal of Project Management 19 (2): 111–118.
Li, C., F. Liu, X. Tan, and Y. Du. 2010. “A Methodology for Selecting a Green Technology Portfolio Based on Synergy.” Interna-
tional Journal of Production Research 48 (24): 7289–7302. December 15, 2010.
Lilly, M. 2008. “‘Sustainable Manufacturing–Manufacturing for Sustainability,’ Manufacturing Skills Australia’s Report”. Accessed
July 20, 2013. http://www.mskills.com.au/DownloadManager/Downloads/Sustainable%20manufacturing%20report.pdf
Lin, C. Y. 2007. “Adoption of Green Supply Chain Practices in Taiwan’s Logistics Industry.” Journal of International Management
Studies 2: 90–98.
Lin, W. R. 2011. “Application of Multi-criteria Decision Making in Green Product Selection.” Doctoral dissertation, Jhongli.
Lin, C.-J., and W.-W. Wu. 2008. “A Causal Analytical Method for Group Decision-making under Fuzzy Environment.” Expert Sys-
tems with Applications 34 (1): 205–213.
Linke, B., Y. C. Huang, and D. Dornfeld. 2012. “Establishing Greener Products and Manufacturing Processes.” International Journal
of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing 13 (7): 1029–1036.
Liou, J. J. H., G.-H. Tzeng, and H.-C. Chang. 2007. “Airline Safety Measurement Using a Hybrid Model.” Journal of Air Transport
Management 13 (4): 243–249.
Liu, F., H. Zhang, and X. H. Cheng. 1999. “A Decision Making Framework Model for Green Manufacturing and the Case Study.”
Journal of Mechanical Engineering 35 (5): 11–15. (in Chinese).
Lun, Y. H. 2011. “Green Management Practices and Firm Performance: A Case of Container Terminal Operations.” Resources, Con-
servation and Recycling 55 (6): 559–566.
MacKillop, K. 2009. “‘Going Green is a Great Way to Market Your Business Start-up,’ EzineArticles.Com.” Accessed April 18,
2013. http://ezinearticles.com/?Going-Green-is-a-Great-Wayto-Market-Your-Business-Startup&id
Manufacturing Matters. 2011. Accessed December 28, 2013. http://www.cii.in/webcms/Upload/Manufacturing%20Matters.pdf
Marilyn. 2009. “What Does a ‘Green Manufacturing Process?,’ Mean.” Accessed July 24, 2013. http://ezinearticles.com/.
Massoud, M. A., R. Fayad, M. El-Fadel, and R. Kamleh. 2010. “Drivers, Barriers and Incentives to Implementing Environmental
Management Systems in the Food Industry: A Case of Lebanon.” Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (3): 200–209.
Meade, L. M., and A. Presley. 2002. “R&D Project Selection Using the Analytic Network Process.” IEEE Transactions on Engineer-
ing Management 49 (1): 59–66.
Melngk, S. A., and R. T. Smith. 1996. Green Manufacturing. Dearborn, MI: Society of Manufacturing Engineers.
Min, H., and W. P. Galle. 1997. “Green Purchasing Strategies: Trends and Implications.” International Journal of Purchasing and
Materials Management 33 (2): 10–17.
Mittal, V. K., and K. S. Sangwan. 2013. “Development of a Model of Barriers to Environmentally Conscious Manufacturing Imple-
mentation.” International Journal of Production Research. 1–11. (ahead-of-print).
Momoh, J. A., and J. Zhu. 2003. “Optimal Generation Scheduling Based on AHP/ANP.” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics, Part B: Cybernetics 33 (3): 531–535.
Murillo-Luna, J. L., C. Garcés-Ayerbe, and P. Rivera-Torres. 2011. “Barriers to the Adoption of Proactive Environmental Strategies.”
Journal of Cleaner Production 19: 1417–1425.
Pampanelli, A. B., P. Found, and A. M. Bernardes. Forthcoming. A Lean & Green Model for a Production Cell. Journal of Cleaner
Production. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.014
Pirraglia, A., and D. E. Saloni. 2012. “Measuring Environmental Improvements Image in Companies Implementing Green Manufac-
turing, by Means of a Fuzzy Logic Model for Decision-making Purposes.” The International Journal of Advanced Manufactur-
ing Technology 61 (5–8): 703–711.
Purba, R. 2002. “Greening the Supply Chain a New Initiative in South East.” International Journal of Operations & Production Man-
agement 22 (6): 632–655.
Ramakrishnan, L. 2006. “Green Manufacturing and Management in Electronic Industries.” Accessed June 6, 2013. http://www.igp-
n.org/workshop/pdf/PhilipsGreenMfgring.pdf
Rao, R. V. 2011. “Environmental Aspects of Manufacturing Processes.” Chap. 6 in Advanced Modeling and Optimization of Manu-
facturing Processes, 339–360. London: Springer.
Rao, R. V. 2013. Applications of Improved MADM Methods to the Decision Making Problems of Manufacturing Environment.
In Decision Making in Manufacturing Environment Using Graph Theory and Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making Meth-
ods, 41–135. London: Springer.
Rao, P., and D. Holt. 2005. “Do Green Supply Chains Lead to Competitiveness and Economic Performance?” International Journal
of Operations & Production Management 25 (9): 898–916.
Rao, R. V., and B. K. Patel. 2010. “Decision Making in the Manufacturing Environment Using an Improved PROMETHEE Method.”
International Journal of Production Research 48 (16): 4665–4682.
Ray, C., and E. Richardson. 2009. “Green Manufacturing: How Efficiently Do You Operate?” Accessed May 8, 2013. http://
www.burnsidenews.com/index.cfm?sid=275670&sc=400
Rehman, M. A. A., and R. L. Shrivastava. 2011. “An Innovative Approach to Evaluate Green Supply Chain Management (Gscm)
Drivers by Using Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM).” International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management 8
(02): 315–336.
Rehman, M. A., and R. L. Shrivastava. 2013a. “Green Manufacturing (GM): Past, Present and Future (A State of Art Review).”
World Review of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development 10 (1/2/3): 17–55.
Rehman, M. A. A., and R. L. Shrivastava. 2013b. “Development and Validation of Performance Measures for Green Manufacturing
(GM) Practices in Medium and Small Scale Industries in Vidharbha Region, India.” International Journal of Society Systems
Science 5 (1): 62–81.
Reich-Weiser, C., R. Simon, T. Fleschutz, C. Yuan, A. Vijayaraghavan, and H. Onsrud. 2013. “Metrics for Green Manufacturing.” In
Green Manufacturing, edited by David A. Dornfeld, 49–81. New York: Springer.
Richards, D. J. 1994. “Environmentally Conscious Manufacturing.” World Class Design to Manufacture 1 (3): 15–22.
Routroy, S. 2009. “Antecedents and Drivers for Green Supply Chain Management Implementation in Manufacturing Environment.”
ICFAI Journal of Supply Chain Management 6 (1): 20–35.
Rusinko, C. A. 2007. “Green Manufacturing: An Evaluation of Environmentally Sustainable Manufacturing Practices and Their
Impact on Competitive Outcomes.” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 54 (3): 445–454.
Saaty, T. L. 1996. The Analytic Network Process-decision Making with Dependence and Feedback. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publica-
tions.
Sandhu, S., C. Smallman, L. K. Ozanne, and R. Cullen. 2012. “Corporate Environmental Responsiveness in India: Lessons from a
Developing Country.” Journal of Cleaner Production 35: 203–213.
Sangwan, K. S. 2011. “Quantitative and Qualitative Benefits of Green Manufacturing: An Empirical Study of Indian Small and Med-
ium Enterprises”. In Globalized Solutions for Sustainability in Manufacturing, edited by Jürgen Hesselbach and Christoph Herr-
mann, 371–376. Berlin: Springer.
Sangwan, K. S. 2013. “Evaluation of Manufacturing Systems Based on Environmental Aspects Using a Multi-criteria Decision
Model.” International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering 14 (1): 40–57.

Sarkis, J. 1999. “How Green is the Supply Chain? Practice and Research.” Accessed June 5, 2013. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
papers.cfm?abstractid=956620
Sarkis, J. 2003. “A Strategic Decision Framework for Green Supply Chain Management.” Journal of Cleaner Production 11 (4):
397–409.
Seidel, R., Shahbazpour, M., and Oudshoorn, M. 2006. “Implementation of Sustainable Manufacturing Practices in SMEs – Case
Study of a New Zealand Furniture Manufacturer”. In LCE 2006, 13th CIRP International Conference on Life Cycle Engineer-
ing. Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
Singh, M. D., and R. Kant. 2008. “Knowledge Management Barriers: An Interpretive Structural Modeling Approach.” International
Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management 3 (2): 141–150.
Sroufe, R. 2003. “Effects of Environmental Management Systems on Environmental Management Practices and Operations.” Produc-
tion and Operations Management 12 (3): 416–431.
Stead, W. E., and J. G. Stead. 1992. Management for a Small Planet: Strategic Decision Making for the Environment. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Stevels, A. 2002. “Green Supply Chain Management Much More than Questionnaires and ISO 14.001.” Electronics and the Environ-
ment, 2002 IEEE International Symposium, 96–100. San Francisco, CA.
Stinchfield, T. B., H. Li, and J. Du. 2009. “Sustainable Manufacturing Strategies and Organizational Performance in China.” Interna-
tional Journal of Business Research 9 (6): 46–57.
Subhash, C. 1996. Stepping up to ISO 14000 – Integrating Environment Quality with ISO 9000 and TQM. Portland, ME: Productivity
Press.
Tan, X. C., F. Liu, H. J. Cao, and H. Zhang. 2002. “A Decision-making Framework Model of Cutting Fluid Selection for Green Man-
ufacturing and a Case Study.” Journal of Materials Processing Technology 129 (1–3): 467–470.
Trends in Global Co2 Emissions: 2013 report. 2013. Accessed December 22, 2013. http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/
publicaties/pbl-2013-trends-in-global-co2-emissions-2013-report-1148.pdf
Tsai, W. H., H. C. Chen, J. D. Leu, Y. C. Chang, and T. W. Lin. 2013. “A Product-mix Decision Model Using Green Manufacturing
Technologies Under Activity-based Costing.” Journal of Cleaner Production 57: 178–187.
Tsai, W. H., H. C. Chen, J. Y. Liu, S. P. Chen, and Y. S. Shen. 2013. “Using Activity-based Costing to Evaluate Capital Investments
for Green Manufacturing Systems.” International Journal of Production Research 49 (24): 7275–7292.
Tseng, M. L., and A. S. Chiu. 2012. “Grey-entropy Analytical Network Process for Green Innovation Practices.” Procedia – Social
and Behavioral Sciences 57: 10–21.
Tseng, M. L., L. W. Lan, R. Wang, A. Chiu, and H. P. Cheng. 2011. “Using Hybrid Method to Evaluate the Green Performance in
Uncertainty.” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 175 (1–4): 367–385.
Tseng, M. L., R. Wang, A. S. Chiu, Y. Geng, and Y. H. Lin. 2013. “Improving Performance of Green Innovation Practices under
Uncertainty.” Journal of Cleaner Production 40: 71–82.
Urban, R. 2009. “Innovating Green How to Beat the Competition.” Accessed March 10. http://ezinearticles.com/?Innovating-Green–
How-to-Beat-the-Competition-in-an-Uncertain-World&id=1816886
Vachon, S. 2007. “Green Supply Chain Practices and the Selection of Environmental Technologies.” International Journal of Produc-
tion Research 45 (18–19): 4357–4379.
Vinodh, S., and K. Jayakrishna. 2013. “Application of Hybrid MCDM Approach for Selecting the Best Tyre Recycling Process.” In
Green Manufacturing Processes and Systems, edited by J. Paulo Davim, 103–123. Berlin: Springer.
Wang, D., Y. Tian, and Y. Hu. 2005. “Empirical Study of Supplier Selection Practices in Supply Chain Management in Manufacturing
Companies.” International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management 02 (04): 391–409.
Warfield, J. N., ed. 1976. Societal Systems, Planning, Policy and Complexity. New York: Wiley.
Wee, Y. S., and H. A. Quazi. 2005. “Development and Validation of Critical Factors of Environmental Management.” Industrial Man-
agement & Data Systems 105 (1): 96–114.
Wu, W.-W., and Y.-T. Lee. 2007. “Developing Global managers’ Competencies Using the Fuzzy DEMATEL Method.” Expert Systems
with Applications 32 (2): 499–507.
Wu, J., and M. T. Wirkkala. 2009. “Firms’ Motivations for Environmental Overcompliance.” Review of Law and Economics 5 (1):
400–433.
Yang, Y. P. O., H. M. Shieh, J. D. Leu, and G. H. Tzeng. 2008. “A Novel Hybrid MCDM Model Combined with DEMATEL and
ANP with Applications.” International Journal of Operations Research 5 (3): 160–168.
Yin, J. X., H. J. Cao, and Y. He. 2005. “Investigations and Practices on Green Manufacturing in Machining Systems.” Journal of
Central South University of Technology 12 (2): 18–24.
Zeng, S. X., H. Lin, H. Y. Ma, G. Y. Qi, and V. W. Tam. 2014. “Can Political Capital Drive Corporate Green Innovation? Lessons
from China.” Journal of Cleaner Production 64: 63–72.
Zhang, Y. 1999. “Green QFD-II: A Life Cycle Approach for Environmentally Conscious Manufacturing by Integrating LCA and
LCC into QFD Matrices.” International Journal of Production Research 37 (5): 1075–1091.
Zhu, Q., and J. Sarkis. 2006. “An Inter-sectoral Comparison of Green Supply Chain Management in China: Drivers and Practices.”
Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (5): 472–486.

Zhu, Q., and J. Sarkis. 2007. “The Moderating Effects of Institutional Pressures on Emergent Green Supply Chain Practices and Per-
formance.” International Journal of Production Research 45 (18–19): 4333–4355.
Zhu, Q., J. Sarkis, and K. H. Lai. 2011. “An Institutional Theoretic Investigation on the Links between Internationalization of Chinese
Manufacturers and Their Environmental Supply Chain Management.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55 (6): 623–630.

Evaluation of Green Manufacturing Practices Using A Hybrid MCDM Model Combining DANP With PROMETHEE

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluation of Green Manufacturing Practices Using A Hybrid MCDM Model Combining DANP With PROMETHEE

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Syracuse University Library]

On: 26 May 2014, At: 15:52

International Journal of Production Research

Evaluation of green manufacturing practices using a

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.898865

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

*Corresponding author. Email: gov@sam.sdu.dk

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

2.1 Green manufacturing

efﬁciency with low carbon emissions.

2.3 MCDM in green strategies

2.4 Research gap and highlights

3. Framework for the study

4.1 Phase I: DEMATEL – analytic network process (DANP)

Find the best green manufacturing practice

Figure 1. Proposed framework for identifying the best GMP.

2 a11 a11 a11

Step 7: Calculate the weighted supermatrix

The normalised total-inﬂuence matrix T aD

Step 8: Limit the weighted supermatrix

4.2 Phase II: PROMETHEE

4.2.1 PROMETHEE rankings Brans, Vincke, and Mareschal (1986):

Therefore, Net Flow is

5. Application of hybrid MCDM for evaluation of GMP

Table 1. Dimensions and criteria for selecting best GMP.

S. No. Dimensions Criteria References

Goal Best green manufacturing

Community groups (C31)

Alternatives….. GMP (1) GMP (2) GMP (3) GMP (n)

Figure 2. The hierarchy model for selecting GMP.

Table 2. Initial inﬂuence matrix for criteria ‘AC’.

Table 3. Initial inﬂuence matrix for dimensions ‘AD’.

Table 4. Normalised direct inﬂuence matrix (X) for criteria.

Table 5. Total-inﬂuence matrix ‘T’ for criteria.

Table 6. Sum of inﬂuences given and received on criteria.

C1 1.838891 2.046908 3.885798 −0.20802

C16 1.567809 1.372246 2.940055 0.195562

6. Discussion and managerial implications

Table 7. Sum of inﬂuences given and received on dimensions.

D1 0.37 0.37 0.73 0.00

Figure 3. Causal inﬂuence diagram for dimensions.

Figure 4. Causal inﬂuence diagram for criteria under D1.

Figure 5. Causal inﬂuence diagram for criteria under D2.

Figure 6. Causal inﬂuence diagram for criteria under D3.

Figure 7. Causal inﬂuence diagram for criteria under D4.

Figure 8. Causal inﬂuence diagram for criteria under D5.

Table 8. The unweighted supermatrix ‘W’.

Table 9. New matrix obtained by normalising in dimensions T aD .

D1 0.251 0.241 0.288 0.253 0.271

Table 10. The weighted supermatrix ‘Wα’.

Table 11. Limit the supermatrix limg!1 ðW / Þg :

Table 12. Evaluation of best GMP from alternatives using PROMETHEE.

GMP 1 GMP 2 GMP 3 GMP 4

Leaving ﬂow 1.12 1.22 1.03 0.89

Figure 9. PROMETHEE I – Partial ranking.

Figure 10. PROMETHEE II – Complete ranking.

Model.” International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering 14 (1): 40–57.

Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (5): 472–486.

You might also like