Accepted Manuscript

An integrated framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply

chains

Sunil Luthra, Kannan Govindan, Devika Kannan, Sachin Kumar Mangla, Chandra
Prakash Garg

PII: S0959-6526(16)31419-6
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.078
Reference: JCLP 8038

To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 17 December 2015

Revised Date: 18 August 2016
Accepted Date: 12 September 2016

Please cite this article as: Luthra S, Govindan K, Kannan D, Mangla SK, Garg CP, An integrated
framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains, Journal of Cleaner
Production (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.078.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Graphical Abstract

Phase 1
Formation of a decision group (Experts from Industry
and Academia)

PT
Recognize and select the criteria and sub-criteria for
analysis (SSS criteria and sub-criteria)

RI
Literature
Survey
Finalize the alternatives (Sustainable suppliers to be

SC
selected from list)

U
Establishing hierarchical structure
AN
No
Approval of hierarchical
M

structure?

Phase 2:
D

AHP application
TE

Computing the criteria and sub-criteria weights

EP

No
Approval of criteria
weights?
C

Phase 3:
Yes
AC

VIKOR application

Evaluating the alternatives

Distinguish the final rank and select the most efficient

sustainable supplier among alternatives
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

An integrated framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in

supply chains
Sunil Luthra
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Government Engineering College, Nilokheri, Haryana, India
Kannan Govindan
Professor and Head, Centre for Engineering Operations Management,
Department of Technology and Innovation, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.

PT
Devika Kannan1
Centre for Engineering Operations Management,
Department of Technology and Innovation, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.

RI
Sachin Kumar Mangla
Department of Mechanical Engineering Graphic Era University, Dehradun-248002, Uttarakhand, India.
Chandra Prakash Garg
Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee-247667, Uttarakhand, India.

U SC
Abstract: Due to increased customer knowledge and ecological pressures from markets and various
AN
stakeholders, business organizations have emphasized the importance of greening and sustainability in their
supply chain through supplier selection. Therefore, a systematic and sustainability-focused evaluation system
for supplier selection is needed from an organizational supply chain perspective. This work proposes a
M

framework to evaluate sustainable supplier selection by using an integrated Analytical Hierarchy Process
(AHP), ViseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR), a multi-criteria optimization and
D

compromise solution approach. Initially, 22 sustainable supplier selection criteria and three dimensions of
criteria (economic, environmental, and social) have been identified through literature and experts’ opinions.
TE

A real world example of an automobile company in India is discussed to demonstrate the proposed
framework applicability. According to the findings, ‘Environmental costs,’ ‘Quality of product,’ ‘Price of
product,’ ‘Occupational health and safety systems,’ and ‘Environmental competencies’ have been ranked as
EP

the top five sustainable supplier selection criteria. In addition, out of the five sustainable supplier’s
alternatives, supplier number ‘three’ got the highest rank. The work presented in this paper may help
C

managers and business professionals not only to distinguish the important supplier selection criteria but also
to evaluate the most efficient supplier for sustainability in supply chain, while remaining competitive in the
AC

market. Sensitivity analysis is also conducted to test the proposed framework robustness.
Keywords: Sustainable Supplier Selection; Supply Chains; Sustainability; AHP; VIKOR; Indian
automobile industry.

1
corresponding author (deka@iti.sdu.dk)

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1. Introduction

Due to the growing worldwide awareness of environment and sustainability, stringent government
directions, and increasing community knowledge, organizations cannot neglect sustainability

PT
concerns in business (Gaziulusoy et al., 2015; Govindan et al., 2016). In order to increase business
performance and competitive advantage, green and sustainability-focused supplier selection is a
crucial decision in industrial supply chains (Govindan et al., 2013; Grimm et al., 2014). The

RI
sustainability-focused supply chain is an extension of the green supply chain in that it considers
social criteria along with economic and green criteria from a supply chain context (Mangla et al.,

SC
2014). Notably, green and/or sustainable practices (from here onwards, “green” and “sustainable”
will be used interchangeably) are becoming an integral part of the planning process of modern

U
manufacturing organizations to improve supply chain performance (Rostamzadeh et al., 2015). The
AN
incorporation of ecological, economic, and societal aspects to ensure sustainable development is a
foremost strategic task for business organizations in recent years (Benn et al., 2014). Suppliers may
play an important role in implementing sustainable supply chain initiatives and in achieving social,
M

environmental, and economic gains (Shen et al., 2013; Govindan et al., 2013). Thus, sustainable
supplier selection (SSS) is a key strategic decision in the management of a sustainability-focused
D

supply chain (Amindoust et al., 2012), and needs to be explored methodically to implement
TE

sustainable initiatives in supply chains (Grimm et al., 2016).

In this sense, this research work has the following objectives:
• To understand and identify evaluation criteria for SSS from a supply chain context;
EP

• To distinguish the relative importance weights of the SSS evaluation criteria for supply
chains;
C

• To select the most efficient sustainable supplier from a set of alternatives in supply chain;
•
AC

To put forward managerial and practical implications of the study.

To achieve the above-mentioned objectives, an Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)-

VIseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR) based integrated approach is
used for evaluation and selection of the sustainable suppliers in supply chain. This work is an initial
effort that proposes an AHP-VIKOR approach to identify and prioritize the SSS evaluation criteria
and to select the most efficient supplier from a set of alternatives for sustainability in the supply

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

chain. AHP is a decision analysis technique that helps to prioritize the evaluation criteria of supplier
selection for sustainability. The VIKOR method (Akman, 2015; Sivakumar et al., 2015;
Rostamzadeh et al., 2015) is used to select the most efficient sustainable supplier from a set of
alternatives in the supply chain.
In order to reveal the application of the proposed framework, a case example of an Indian

PT
automobile industry is discussed in this work. It is noted that this Indian automobile industry is one
of the leading players in the world and has also been pushed by competition, regulation, and
communal pressures to move towards sustainable business development (Luthra et al., 2016a).

RI
Further, the case company recognizes the benefits of employing effective SSS evaluation criteria
and wants to develop a structural framework in order to select and evaluate the most efficient

SC
sustainable suppliers from a set of alternatives in the supply chain.
The reminder of this article is structured in the following way. A review of the existing literature

U
relevant to this study is included in Section 2. The solution methodology is detailed in Section 3.
AN
Section 4 explains the proposed research framework. The proposed framework applicability is
presented in Section 5. A discussion of research findings with managerial and practical implications
comprises Section 6. Section 7 presents the sensitivity analysis. Section 8 offers concluding
M

remarks, limitations, and suggests scope for future work.

D

2. Review of Literature
TE

This study includes a review of several relevant papers. The responsible criteria chosen for this
review are detailed as follows:
EP

1. Selected articles should include environmental, ecological, and social sustainability adoption in
the supply chain, and sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in the context of the supply
C

chain. The following keywords used for article collection include “Supply Chain Management,”
“Environmental and Economic and Social and Sustainability,” “Environmental and Economic and
AC

Social and Sustainability and Supply Chain Management,” “Sustainable Supplier Selection and
Evaluation,” “Supplier Selection and Evaluation and Sustainability,” and “Supplier Selection and
Evaluation and Sustainability and Supply Chain Management.”
2. Collected literature resources were then investigated for final inclusion. The literature search was
conducted using the above-mentioned keywords. The Google Scholar search tool was used to
survey various databases such as Scopus; Ebscohost; Web of Science; Proquest, etc. These

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

keywords were investigated in the abstract and main text of published works. Therefore, relevant
articles were analyzed for their contributions in this work.

2.1 Supplier selection and sustainability

There has been substantial discussion in supplier selection studies related to the enhancement of

PT
supplier capabilities in terms of improving their environmental performance, either by having
necessary certifications or by introducing sustainable aspects (Govindan et al., 2013). Supplier
selection has an important role in helping a business to achieve maximum ecological-economic

RI
benefits (Hsu and Hu, 2009; Shaw et al., 2012; Kannan et al., 2014).
Managing the supplier selection criteria and implementation practices is significant to support a

SC
company’s legitimacy and public image from an industrial standpoint (Bai and Sarkis, 2010; Lin,
2013; Hsu et al., 2013). It is also recognized that managing supply chains with a focus on a

U
sustainable approach is a significant concern for business firms (Seuring, 2013; Grimm et al., 2014;
AN
Kumar et al., 2016). Several literature studies have been conducted that address the various aspects
of green and sustainability-focused supplier decisions in supply chain management. For instance,
Walton et al. (1998) analyzed five furniture companies with respect to green tactics in their supply
M

chains. According to the findings, the companies mostly implemented ecological dimensions into
their supplier selection process, a step that was considered fundamental to the designing of any
D

supply chain network. Hsu and Hu (2009) suggested hazardous substance management to lessen
TE

environmental degradation in their supplier selection process. Lee et al. (2009) proposed a model
that evaluates the factors used to select a green supplier based on performance. Shaw et al. (2012)
suggested a model to analyze supplier selection decisions related to carbon emissions. Hsu et al.
EP

(2013) proposed a model to analyze the performance of the supplier considering carbon
management issues; they listed thirteen important supplier carbon management criteria categorized
C

into three dimensions. The criteria of ‘carbon information’ and ‘training related to carbon
management’ were the two most influencing criteria in supplier selection. Shen et al. (2013)
AC

evaluated green suppliers with respect to their environmental performance. Nine green supplier
evaluation criteria were identified in their study. Akman (2015) proposed a two-step supplier
evaluation framework (performance criteria and green criteria) to evaluate green supplier
development programs.
Bai and Sarkis (2010) analyzed supplier selection decisions by incorporating sustainability factors
in their model. Further, Büyüközkan and Çifçi (2011) proposed a decision making model for an

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

effective sustainable supplier evaluation based upon five criteria, namely: service quality, financial
performance, organization, technology and social responsibility, and environment competencies.
Amindoust et al. (2012) evaluated the supplier selection in a sustainable supply chain context. Their
suggested ranking model considered three criteria and eight sub criteria but their research did not
capture all relevant criteria to sustainable supplier selection. Govindan et al. (2013) presented a

PT
model for evaluating performance of a supplier under consideration of sustainability criteria. They
advised that organizations may recognize and rank opportunities of their supply chain activities in
the implementation of sustainability. Grimm et al. (2014) investigated the management of sub-

RI
suppliers’ compliance with corporate sustainability standards (SCCSS). Their study findings
suggest that the participation of strategic business partners has a positive effect on managing

SC
SCCSS.
Sarkis and Dhavale (2015) recommended that supplier selection is crucial for sustainable supply

U
chain partnership development and they noted that complexities occur when evaluating multiple
AN
suppliers. They proposed a framework for supplier evaluation and selection taking a triple bottom
line approach. The results suggested that the utility of developed framework is evident and the
acceptance by management is important as well. Mahdiloo et al. (2015) suggested a model to
M

measure technical, environmental, and eco-efficiency standards of suppliers. Su et al. (2015)

analyzed aspects and criteria structure for supplier prioritization to improve sustainable supply
D

chain management (SSCM); their results suggested that the recycle/reuse/reduce option has been
TE

identified as the top criterion for supplier selection.

Grimm et al. (2016) addressed the sub-suppliers’ management from a sustainability viewpoint.
They proposed a research framework to determine how well sub-suppliers’ management is at
EP

attaining compliance with sustainability standards. Their research suggested that measuring sub-
suppliers' compliance with a focal business organization's corporate sustainability standards is very
C

difficult for a quantitative study perspective. Trapp and Sarkis (2016) developed an optimization
model that simultaneously addresses supplier selection, supplier development, and sustainability
AC

considerations. They advocated that supplier selection decisions are difficult in an organizational
supply chain context and that the incorporation of sustainability issues into the chain makes the
decision even more complex; thus; decisions need to be addressed efficiently for improving the
overall performance of the supply chain.

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2.2 Methodologies/techniques used in supplier selection towards green and sustainable

practices
Various models in the area of supplier selection towards green and sustainable practices have been
developed through a variety of methodologies/techniques suggested by different researchers. A
brief summary of the methodologies/techniques by various researchers and practitioners in supplier

PT
selection towards green and sustainable practices is given in Table 1.
Table 1: Summary of the methodologies/techniques by various researchers and practitioners in
supplier selection towards green and sustainable practices

RI
Researcher Methodologies/techniques used Issues addressed
(Year)

SC
Kannan et al. Interpretive structural modeling and Analyzed green suppliers
(2008) AHP
Hsu and Hu Analytic Network Process (ANP) Supplier selection incorporating
(2009) hazardous substance management

U
Lee et al. (2009) Fuzzy AHP Green supplier selection
Bai and Sarkis Grey system and Rough set Sustainability into supplier selection
AN
(2010)
Büyüközkan and Fuzzy AHP Sustainable supplier selection with
Çifçi (2011) incomplete information
M

Amindoust et al. Fuzzy inference system Sustainable supplier selection

(2012)
Shaw et al. Fuzz AHP and Fuzzy Multi-Objective Supplier selection for developing low
D

(2012) Linear Programming (MOLP) carbon supply chain

Govindan et al. Fuzzy TOPSIS Measurement of supplier
(2013) performances on the basis of
TE

sustainability
Hsu et al. (2013) DEMATEL Supplier selection based on carbon
management model in GSCM
EP

Shen et al. Fuzzy TOPSIS Evaluation of green supplier’s

(2013) performance in GSC
Bai and Sarkis Rough set theory and Data Sustainability focused performance
(2014) Envelopment Analysis (DEA) evaluation for suppliers
C

Dou et al. (2014) Grey ANP Evaluation of green supplier

development programs
AC

Grimm et al. Field study in two food supply chains Critical factors for sub-supplier
(2014) management
Kannan et al. Fuzzy TOPSIS Green supplier’s selection based on
(2014) GSCM practices
Akman (2015) Fuzzy c means and VIKOR Evaluation of green supplier
development programs
Azadi et al. DEA Sustainable supplier performance
(2015) evaluation and selection
Hashemi et al. ANP and improved Grey relational Green supplier selection
(2015) analysis
6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Kannan et al. Fuzzy axiomatic design approach Green supplier selection

(2015)

Mahdiloo et al. DEA Supplier selection considering

(2015) technical, environment and eco-
efficiency
Sarkis and Bayesian framework and Monte Carlo Supplier selection for sustainable
Dhavale (2015) Markov Chain (MCMC) operations

PT
Sivakumar et al. AHP and Taguchi loss functions Vendor evaluation model
(2015)
Su et al. (2015) Grey DEMATEL Improving SSCM via supplier related

RI
decisions
Grimm et al. Case study research Sub-suppliers' compliance with
(2016) corporate sustainability standards

SC
Trapp and Sarkis Integer programming Optimization model for supplier
(2016) selection and development taking
sustainability considerations.

U
Researchers and practitioners have employed various decision approaches for analyzing the
AN
green/sustainable supplier related problems. However, most researchers focused mainly on green
supplier problems. Only a few researchers focused on sustainable supplier selection and evaluation
M

decisions. Further, most researchers utilized a particular decision analysis technique to address their
research problem. The rising trend for integrated approaches has been noticed in recent years.
D

2.3 Sustainable supplier selection evaluation criteria

TE

The important criteria for SSS evaluation in SC have been identified through extensive literature
resources and experts’ inputs. A total of 22 SSS evaluation criteria were identified through
EP

extensive literature support (for details, see Table 2 and Table 3). Further, the 22 significant SSS
evaluation criteria identified were validated with the help of experts’ inputs and categorized into
three dimensions of sustainability (for details, see Section 5.1).
C
AC

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 2: Sustainable supplier selection evaluation criteria along with their description and sources
S. Sustainability SSS evaluation criteria Brief description
No. Dimensions
1 Price of product (PP) Capability of supplying the products at reasonable price

PT
2 Profit on product (PR) Generating a reasonable profit from product
3 Quality of product (QP) Providing a significant quality level
4 Flexibility (FL) Supplier should be flexible enough to handle market variations

RI
5 Economic Technological & financial capability It deals with the technological and financial aspects associated with the supplier domain
(Eco) (TC)

SC
6 Production facilities and capacity It deals with the production facilities and capacity requirements for a product
(PC)
7 Delivery and Service of product (DP)It ensures the right delivery and service of the product

U
8 Lead time required (LR) Capability of supplying the products at marginal lead time
9 Transportation cost (TRC) The tendency of shipping the products at minimum transportation cost

AN
10 Environmental Environment management systems The structure, planning and implementing of supplier’s policies for environmental
(Env) (EM) protection
11 Green design and purchasing(GDP) Incorporating eco-friendly practices at the design and purchasing stages

M
12 Green manufacturing (GM) The consumption of raw material and energy should be minimum while producing the
product
13 Green management (GRM) The capability of product to maximize the environmental performance and management

D
14 Green packing and labeling (GL) The capability of suppliers to take environmental considerations for packaging and
labeling

TE
15 Waste management and pollution The raw material is such that wastage and pollution should be minimum while producing
prevention (WM) the product
16 Environmental costs (EC) The raw material and product should add minimum costs and damage to the environment
EP
17 Environmental competencies (ENC) Supplier's capability of using environmentally friendly materials, implementing clean
technologies, and reducing pollution effects
18 Green R & D and Innovation (GRD) The capability of suppliers to provide efforts on research and development activities to
C

innovate new cleaner technologies, processes, practices, and methods

19 Social Occupational health & safety It is concerned with the safety, health and welfare of the people engaged at supplier’s
AC

(Soc) systems (OS) workplace

20 The interests & rights of employees Concerns with the employees’ related factors and requirements to achieve sustainable
(IE) effectiveness in the long term
21 The rights of stakeholders (RS) Concerns with the moral rights of society having stakes in the business
22 Information Disclosure (IS) Providing information to their customers and stakeholders regarding material used,
carbon emissions and toxins released during production, etc.

8
 Rajesh and Ravi (2015)
*

*
*
*

*
*

Sarkis and Dhavale (2015)

*

*
*
*

Hashemi et al. (2015)

*

*
*
*

*
*
*

*
*

Tahriri et al. (2014)

*

*
*
*

Grimm et al., 2014

*

*
*

*
*

*
*

Kannan et al. (2014)

*
*
*
*
*
*

Dou et al. (2014)

*

*
*

Bai and Sarkis (2014)

*

*
*
*

*
*

*
*

PT
Shen et al. (2013)
*
*
*
*
*

RI
Kilic (2013)
*

Junior et al. (2013)

SC
*

*
*
*

Govindan et al. (2013) U

*

*
*
*
*
*

*
*
*
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Wang et al. (2012)

AN
*

*
*

*
*

*
*
Table 3: Sustainable supplier selection evaluation criteria and their sources

Baskaran et al. (2012)

*

*
*

*
*
*
Azadnia et al. (2012)
M
*

*
*

9
D
Amindoust et al. (2012)
TE
*
*

*
*

*
*
Ageron et al. (2012)
*

*
*

*
*

*
Tseng (2011) EP
*
*
*
*

*
*
*

*
Mafakheri et al. (2011)
C
*

*
*

*
*

*
*

*
*
Büyüközkan and Çifçi AC
*

*
*
*

*
*
*

*
(2011)
Sanayei et al. (2010)
*

*
*
*

*
Kuo et al. (2010)
*

*
*

*
*

*
*
*
Bai and Sarkis. (2010)
*

*
*
*

*
*
*
Lee et al. (2009)
*
*
*
*
*

*
*
*
Lin and Juang (2008)

*
*
*
Hutchins and Sutherland

*
*
*
(2008)
evaluation
criteria

GRM

GRD
ENC
GDP
TRC

WM
SSS

GM
EM
FL

GL
QP

DP

OS
TC

EC
LR
PR

PC

RS
PP

IE

IS
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2.4 Research gaps and highlights

Supplier selection is a significant practice affecting the successive stages towards achieving
sustainability in supply chains (Kumar et al., 2014a). The sustainability-focused supply chain
should include traditional economic objectives as well as ecological and societal aspects (Ageron
et al., 2012). In addition, evaluating and selecting appropriate suppliers in the sustainability-

PT
focused supply chain is extremely important because an organization’s success depends on the
part played by suppliers (Hsu et al., 2013). In general, business organizations consider

RI
conventional criteria such as quality, flexibility, and price in evaluating the overall performance
of their suppliers. However, the supplier evaluation process becomes more complex when

SC
sustainability criteria are included in addition to conventional qualities (Brandenburg et al., 2014;
Azadi et al. (2015).

U
Notably, many works have pursued issues relative to economic-environmental focused supplier
selection decisions in developed countries (Amindoust et al., 2012; Hsu et al., 2013), but there is
AN
still limited literature on supplier selection towards sustainability in the context of developing
countries (Govindan et al., 2013; Grimm et al., 2014). A significant lack of knowledge and
M

awareness in the area of SSS (economic-ecological-social dimensions) exists in a developing

country like India (Luthra et al., 2016a). In addition, sustainability criteria are likely to vary
D

from the point of view of developing nations because customers may not be willing to pay more
for sustainable products (Gandhi et al., 2016). Further, there are several gaps linked to SSS that
TE

can be explored (Anisul Huq et al., 2014; Grimm et al., 2016). For instance, existing literature
fails to identify that the proper SSCM criteria should align with supplier selection criteria within
EP

a hierarchical structure (Su et al., 2015). In addition, literature suggests that a wide range of work
exists on green focused supplier selection (Akman, 2015; Kannan et al., 2015). Yet, researchers
C

have neglected the social dimensions in supplier selection decision making (Mahdiloo et al.
2015). In line with this, Seuring and Müller (2008) reported that there is an obvious deficit in
AC

supply chain management and purchasing literature on the incorporation of all three dimensions
of sustainable development in supply chains. Thus, the concept of sustainability-focused supplier
selection and evaluation is becoming an important consideration for business organizations.
Hence, it is noted that there is a clear gap in research in the sphere of SSS and evaluation in the
supply chain. It is also noted that applied techniques in the area of SSS are mostly fuzzy-based
single model approaches and are not integrative in nature (Shaw et al., 2012; Shen et al., 2013).

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

In addition, Govindan et al. (2015a) explored the literature on MCDM approaches for green
supplier evaluation. Their review suggested that AHP is the most commonly used MCDM
technique for evaluating the green supplier decisions, but integrating AHP with other approaches
may be required to address the problem more efficiently and flexibly. Thus, the need arises to
develop a framework to identify SSS criteria and to evaluate the most efficient supplier decisions

PT
from a supply chain context. In this sense, an attempt is made to identify relevant criteria that
include sustainability-oriented (ecological, economic, and societal) aspects for supplier selection

RI
initiatives. Further, this work uses an integrated AHP–VIKOR framework for evaluating the SSS
related identified criteria. From the best of our knowledge, this paper is an original effort in

SC
evaluating the SSS in supply chain using the integrated AHP–VIKOR approach.

U
3. Solution Methodology AN
This work proposes to use an integrated AHP-VIKOR approach as a solution methodology to
evaluate the SSS decisions from a supply chain context. AHP obtains the weights of SSS
M

dimensions and their respective criteria, and then those weights obtained through AHP technique
are used to select the most efficient sustainable suppliers by VIKOR. AHP helps decision makers
D

to analyze the relative importance of considered elements in a decision making situation (Saaty,
1980; Saaty, 2000). AHP, compared to ANP, is found to be more useful due to its ease of
TE

applicability and the lower number of pair-wise comparisons. Although decision making may be
made by AHP itself, the MCDM process often achieves superior results by integrating AHP with
EP

other decision support tools (Kang and Park, 2014; Mangla et al., 2016). Further, generating
alternatives is a typical process due to human involvement. The VIKOR method, a compromise
C

solution method, has been identified as an effective decision tool to evaluate alternatives; it is
especially suitable in those circumstances when experts are not capable or do not know how to
AC

communicate their ratings for the decision-making processes initially (Athawale et al., 2012;
Rostamzadeh et al., 2015). Regarding the evaluation of alternatives, TOPSIS may also be used;
however, a limited acceptance has been observed among practitioners in its application
(Harputlugil et al., 2011). In addition, the VIKOR method is very helpful when criteria are
conflicting in nature and it can determine weight stability intervals (Opricovic, 2011). Weight
stability analysis may also be conducted using additive MCDM methods, including outranking

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

methods such as PROMETHEE (Mareschal et al., 1984; Olson, 2001). In VIKOR, the ranking
index is derived by considering both the maximum group utility and minimum individual regret
of the opponent (Jerry et al., 2011), factors which are not possible through PROMETHEE.
The reasons for combining AHP–VIKOR (Parameshwaran et al., 2015; Prakash and Barua 2016)
in this study include:

PT

AHP can evaluate the decision problems linearly, while the VIKOR approach can
effectively evaluate experts’ preferences at an initial level of decision making.

RI

This integration is important due to the capability of dual-disciplinary approaches of
VIKOR to AHP.

SC

This integration with multi-faceted decision analysis systems can deal with complex
decision making processes more easily and efficiently.

U

This integrated approach may provide a sensible, logical, and effective solution in
decision making situations.
AN
The integrated AHP-VIKOR approach is used by several researchers and professionals in
M

different disciplines, including robot selection (Parameshwaran et al., 2015), firm’s performance
evaluation (Rezaie et al., 2014), conservation priority assessment (Pourebrahim et al., 2014), and
D

product development partner selection (Büyüközkan and Görener, 2015). The detailed
procedures for AHP and VIKOR methods are given as follows.
TE

3.1 AHP: Step-wise procedure

EP

The AHP approach is based on three basic principles: firstly, building a hierarchical structure;
secondly, judging comparatively activities or variables; and thirdly, synthesizing the priorities
C

(Dey and Cheffi, 2013; Luthra et al., 2013). The use of AHP methodology has been reported in
several decision making situations in wide-ranging fields such as SCM, engineering/design,
AC

education, management, energy, and so forth (Ordoobadi, 2010; Bao et al., 2013; Luthra et al.,
2015). The AHP methodology follows these steps (Saaty 1980; Govindan et al., 2014):
Step 1: Defining the research problem. The research problem is to evaluate the SSS criteria in
SCs. Thus, the SSS evaluation criteria are identified and a hierarchy prioritization model is
structured.

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Step 2: Constructing a questionnaire to collect the data. In this step, decision-makers are asked
to make pair-wise comparisons between SSS decision dimensions and criteria under each
dimension using a nine-point scale given by Saaty (1980).
Step 3: Determining of normalized weights for SSS dimensions and criteria. Based upon
normalized weights, ranking for dimensions and criteria have been made.

PT
Step 4: Evaluating the consistency of achieved solution. The consistency ratio (CR) is calculated
to ensure the consistency of pair-wise comparisons. It was calculated using mathematical

RI
expressions given as CR = CI/RI (Madaan and Mangla, 2015; Luthra et al., 2016b). The CR
value is used to assess the consistency and reliability of the decision makers.

SC
3.2 VIKOR: Step-wise procedure

U
MCDM methods are the most commonly used techniques for resolving conflict between various
engineering and management issues (Deng and Chan, 2011). VIKOR method is a compromise
AN
ranking technique to optimize the decision making process. VIKOR technique focuses on
ranking and choosing from a given set of alternatives in the existence of contradictory criteria
M

(Opricovic, 2011; Kang and Park, 2014). Therefore, the VIKOR method is found as an
appropriate and very useful decision approach (Akman, 2015; Sivakumar et al., 2015). The
D

VIKOR method has the following steps (Rostamzadeh et al., 2015):

Step 1: Assigning rate values for the linguistic variables in relation to sustainable supplier
TE

alternatives. The linguistic scale used to develop pair-wise comparisons among alternatives and
criteria is given in Table 4. Based on this, the matrix for alternatives with respect to each
EP

criterion was constructed.

Table 4: The linguistic scale used to develop pair-wise comparisons
C

Importance Intensity Linguistic Variables

1 Equally Important (EI)
AC

2 Moderately Important (MI)

3 Strongly Important (SI)
4 Very Strongly Important (VSI)
5 Extremely Important (EXI)

Step 2: Developing a decision matrix. The aggregated ratings of sustainable supplier

(alternatives) are derived from experts’ ratings, and a decision matrix is formed by Eq. (1).


A = ∑
A (1)


13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

-
Step 3: Determining the best f* and the worst f values of the all criterion ratings, b = 1, 2,……n.
-
The best f* and the worst f values of the all criterion ratings are given in Eq. (2) and Eq. (3).
f* = Max (f  ) (2)
-
f = Min (f  ) (3)

PT
-
Where f* is the positive ideal solution for the bth criterion and f is the negative ideal solution for
the bth criterion.

RI
Step 4: Calculating the values ofS , and R for a= 1, 2,……m using Eqs. (4-5).
* -
S = ∑
W  * 

SC
-
(4)
 -

* -
R = Max W  * -
 (5)

U
 -

Where S indicates the rate of distance of ath alternative to the positive ideal solution, i.e.
AN
maximum “group utility of majority”; R indicates the rate of distance of ath alternative to the
negative ideal solution, i.e. minimum “individual regret of opponent” in the compromise
M

programming method which helps to determine compromise solutions based on negotiated

preferences of decision makers; and W indicates the weight of the each criterion calculated by
D

AHP.
Step 5: Determining the aggregating index, i.e. final compromise solution Q for a= 1, 2,…. m
TE

using Eq. (6) and the alternative that has minimum Q is the best alternative. This compromise
solution must be stable within a decision-making process.
EP

 -* -
Q =v
*
+(1-v) (6)
- -* -- *

Where S - = Max S S - , S* = Min S S* , R- = Max R R- ,R* = Min R R* and the solutions

C

obtained from max S show the “maximum group majority” and the solutions obtained from min
AC

R demonstrate the “minimum individual regret” of the alternative. The weight of the course of
action or maximum set utility is represented by # and (1 − #) indicates the weight of the
individual regret. In this case the value of v is taken as 0.5.
Step 6: Ranking the alternatives on the basis of Q values.
Step 7: Finding the minimum value of Q.
The minimum value of Q is suggested as the optimal compromise solution when these two

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

conditions are satisfied concurrently. The conditions are given as:

Condition 1: If Q (A(2)) - Q(A(1)) ≥1/n -1 then the alternative Q (A(1)) demonstrates an
acceptable advantage where A(1) and A(1) are the alternatives and n is the number of
alternatives.
Condition 2: The alternative Q (A (1)) is constant and stable in decision making when it is also

PT
best ranked in S andR .
Step 8: Distinguishing the best alternative by selecting (A (m)) as a best compromise solution

RI
with the minimum value of Q with regards to the above-mentioned conditionswhere m
represents the selection alternatives i.e. S1, S2....S5.

SC
4. Proposed Research Framework

U
The proposed research framework for evaluation of supplier selection for sustainability in supply
AN
chain, based on the integrated AHP-VIKOR approach, consists of three phases as shown in
Fig.1. The proposed framework can assist managers and decision analysts in terms of:
M

i) Understanding and determining the proposed criteria for supplier selection for
sustainability.
D

ii) Determining the relative importance weights of listed supplier selection criteria for
sustainability.
TE

iii) Ranking the suppliers and selecting the most efficient sustainable supplier among
alternatives.
EP

The other details for the proposed framework are given in the subsequent sub-sections.
C
AC

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Phase 1
Formation of a decision group (Experts from Industry
and Academia)

Recognize and select the criteria and sub-criteria for

PT
analysis (SSS criteria and sub-criteria)

Literature
Survey

RI
Finalize the alternatives (Sustainable suppliers to be
selected from list)

SC
Establishing hierarchical structure

U
AN
No
Approval of hierarchical
structure?
M

Phase 2:
AHP application
D

Computing the criteria and sub-criteria weights

TE

No
Approval of criteria
EP

weights?

Phase 3:
Yes
C

VIKOR application

Evaluating the alternatives

AC

Distinguish the final rank and select the most efficient

sustainable supplier among alternatives

Fig. 1. Proposed research framework to evaluate supplier selection for sustainability in supply
chain

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

4.1 Phase I: Identify and finalize the sustainable supplier related evaluation criteria, sub-
criteria and alternatives
The identification and finalization of the sustainable supplier related criteria, sub-criteria and
alternatives is the first phase of the proposed framework. These evaluation criteria should cover

PT
the company’s requirements, priorities, and operating strategies. To fulfill this objective, a
decision group is formed at the case company. The sustainable supplier-related evaluation

RI
criteria have been compiled through relevant literature and input from experts. Further, these
identified 22 criteria have been categorized into dimensions of sustainability with the help of

SC
brainstorming sessions with experts. After finalizing the SSS dimensions, criteria, and
alternatives, a hierarchical structural is framed.

U
4.2 Phase II: AHP Application: Compute sustainable supplier related evaluation criteria,
AN
sub-criteria and dimensions weights
Once the hierarchical structure is approved, the decision group is asked to assign ratings to
M

calculate the weights of the SSS main dimensions, criteria, and sub-criteria by using AHP. The
needed pair-wise comparisons were made using experts’ judgments and, hence, weights are
D

obtained.
TE

4.3 Phase III: VIKOR Application: Select the most efficient sustainable suppliers among
alternatives
EP

After approval of SSS dimensions and criteria weights, the decision group is asked for ratings to
select the most efficient sustainable supplier.As a result, the alternatives are evaluated and the
C

most efficient sustainable supplier is selected among alternatives by using the VIKOR technique.
AC

5. An Application Example of Proposed Work

To show the application of the proposed framework, this study identifies an automotive company
in India. The company under study (named here as XYZ) was established in 1985. At present,
the company has annual revenues of 1000 million rupees. It is a market leader in India and has a
strong presence in the Asia Pacific region. The company under study is one of the world's largest

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

manufacturers of two-wheelers (various models of scooters and bikes) and distribution of their
spare parts. The case company manufacturers are part of a project called ‘Green Supply Chain
Management.’
The case company has the desire to develop a green and sustainability-focused culture through
sustainable supplier selection and evaluation program. Basically, the case company seeks to

PT
select and evaluate sustainability through supplier selection in its supply chain. It also wishes to
reduce its environmental and societal business impact. The company managers were facing some

RI
difficulties in selecting sustainable suppliers and in managing related practices in the supply
chain. Thus, the company is seeking to adopt a comprehensive approach for understanding the

SC
SSS evaluation criteria, which will be helpful in implementing sustainability in their business.
The managers also wish to prioritize the SSS evaluation criteria and to decide on the most

U
efficient sustainable supplier from alternatives according to their priority. Thus, to help the
managers, the AHP-VIKOR integrated framework is applied; the other details are given in the
AN
following sub-sections.
M

5.1 Phase 1: Identify and finalize the sustainable supplier related evaluation criteria, sub-
criteria, and alternatives
D

In this phase, a decision group was formed that consists of five experts (two academicians and
three senior level managers from the case company’s Purchasing, Production, and Marketing
TE

departments). The chosen experts were proficient in decision-making and have a working
experience of almost twelve years. The inputs of the decision group and a literature analysis are
EP

used to select the three main dimensions and 22 evaluation criteria of SSS for sustainability in
supply chain. Further, five suppliers (S1, S2, S3, S4, and S5) were available as alternatives (from
C

data available from the company) to select the most efficient sustainable supplier among them by
using experts’ inputs. Then, a structural hierarchy is formed as shown in Fig. 2.
AC

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Evaluating the Supplier Selection for Sustainability in Supply Chain

Economic Environmental Social

Dimension (ECO) Dimension (ENV) Dimension (SOC)

PT
Price of Product (PP) Environment
Management Systems Occupational
(EM) Health & Safety

RI
Systems (OS)
Profit on Product (PR)
Green Design and
purchasing (GDP)

SC
Quality of Product
(QP) Green The interests &
Manufacturing (GM) rights of

U
employees (IE)
Flexibility (FL)
Green
AN
Management (GRM)
Technological and
Financial Capability
Green
The rights of
M

(TC)
Packing & Labeling
stakeholders (RS)
(GL)
Production Facilities
D

and Capacity (PC) Waste Management &

Pollution Prevention
TE

(WM)
Delivery and Service Information
of Product (DP) Disclosure (IS)
Environmental Costs
EP

(EC)
Lead Time Required
(LR)
Environmental
C

competencies (ENC)
Transportation Cost
(TRC)
AC

Green R & D (GRD)

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5

Fig. 2. Framework of evaluation criteria of SSS for Indian automobile industry understudy
S1-S5: Sustainable suppliers’ alternatives 1-5 (data available from the case company)

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 2 includes four levels: goal, dimensions of evaluation criteria, sub-criteria, and alternatives
for determining the most efficient sustainable supplier. The primary goal for the present research
is to evaluate the sustainable supplier selection. In the second level, three dimensions of criteria
(Economic, Environmental, and Social) are identified and have been checked for inclusion in the
hierarchy. In the next level, criteria under each dimension have been checked. In the last level, a

PT
selection of the most efficient sustainable supplier among alternatives (five sustainable suppliers)
in supply chain has been made.

RI
5.2 Phase II: AHP Application: Compute sustainable supplier related evaluation criteria,

SC
sub-criteria, and dimensions weights
Here, the decision group assigned the pair-wise comparisons for the dimensions and criteria of

U
SSS. The experts’ judgments in terms of pair-wise comparison matrices were aggregated using
geometric mean method (Saaty, 2008). Thus, the weights of each SSS dimension and respective
AN
criteria are determined (see Table 5).
Table 5: The priority weights and ranking of main dimensions of sustainable selection for
M

sustainability
Maximum Eigen Value= 3.0183; C.I. =0.00915
D

Dimensions of SS Pair-wise comparisons Importance Ranking

towards sustainability Eco Env Soc weights
TE

Economic (Eco) 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.3874 2

Environment (Env) 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.4434 1
Social (Soc) 0.5 0.333 1.00 0.1692 3
EP

From the analytical results shown in Table 5, ‘Environment dimension (0.4434)’ is found as the
most highly important criterion, followed by ‘Economic dimension (0.3874),’ and then ‘Social
C

dimension (0.1692).’ In the next level, all criteria are ranked for each dimension. Priority weights
AC

of criteria to select supplier towards sustainability have been summarized in Table 6.

Table 6: The priority weights and ranking of the sustainable selection criteria for sustainability
Dimension of Criteria of Relative Relative Global Global
SSS SSS weights ranking weights ranking
Eco PP 0.2065 2nd 0.0800 3rd
PR 0.1251 4th 0.0485 10th
QP 0.2147 1st 0.0832 2nd
FL 0.0986 5th 0.0382 12th

20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

TC 0.0419 9th 0.0162 22th

PC 0.0459 8th 0.0178 21th
DP 0.1456 3rd 0.0564 7th
LR 0.0498 7th 0.0193 20th
TRC 0.0720 6th 0.0279 16th
Env EM 0.1548 3rd 0.0686 6th
GDP 0.0570 9th 0.0253 18th

PT
GM 0.0753 7th 0.0334 14th
GRM 0.0853 6th 0.0378 13th
GL 0.0592 8th 0.0262 17th

RI
WM 0.0956 5th 0.0424 11th
EC 0.1969 1st 0.0873 1st
ENC 0.1594 2nd 0.0707 5th

SC
GRD 0.1165 4th 0.0517 8th
Soc OS 0.4197 1st 0.0709 4th
IE 0.1233 4th 0.0209 19th

U
RS 0.2892 2nd 0.0489 9th
IS 0.1678 3rd 0.0284 15th
AN
Table 6 shows that ‘Quality of product (0.2147)’ has been found as the most important criterion
under economic dimension, followed by ‘Price of product (0.2065),’ ‘Delivery and service of
M

Product (0.1456),’ ‘Profit of the product (0.1251),’ ‘Flexibility (0.0986),’ ‘Transportation cost
(0.0720),’ ‘Lead time required (0.0498),’ ‘Production facilities and capacity (0.0459),’ and
D

‘Technological and financial capability (0.0419).’ ‘Environmental costs (0.1969)’ has been
TE

ranked as the most important criterion and ‘Green design and purchasing (0.0570)’ as the least
important criterion under environment dimension. ‘Occupational health & safety systems
(0.419719)’ has been identified as the most important criterion and ‘The interests & rights of
EP

employees’ as least important criterion in social dimension.

The consistency ratio values are well below the acceptable range for all criteria ensuring
C

decision-maker consistency (Kumar et al., 2015).

AC

5.3 Phase III: VIKOR application: Select the most efficient sustainable supplier among
alternatives
The most efficient sustainable supplier among alternatives is selected using VIKOR analysis.
Evaluation matrix of the alternatives is constructed by using a scale mentioned in Table 4. Here,
only one expert’s evaluation matrix is given due to space constraints (see Table 7).

21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 7: Evaluation matrix of the ratings for the alternatives (Expert 1)

Criteria PP PR QP … … IE RS IS
Alternatives
S1 2 4 3 .. .. 3 2 2
S2 1 3 2 .. .. 3 1 4
S3 2 1 4 .. .. 1 2 2

PT
S4 4 4 5 .. .. 2 1 3
S5 2 1 1 .. .. 2 3 3

RI
Next, the aggregate matrix for the weights of the alternatives is formed using Eq. (1) and shown
-
in Table 8. The best f* and the worst f values of all criteria ratings are determined by using Eqs.

SC
(2-3).
Table 8: Aggregate decision matrix ratings for the alternatives

U
Sub-criteria PP PR QP … … IE RS IS
Alternatives
AN
S1 2.5 2.75 2.25 .. .. 2.5 2 2.75
S2 1.75 2 2 .. .. 3 2.25 4.25
S3 3.5 3.25 4.25 .. .. 2.5 1.5 2.75
S4 1.75 2.5 2.5 .. .. 2 2.75 2.5
M

S5 3 3.66 2.33 .. .. 3.66 3 3.33

&∗' 3.5 3.66 4.25 3.66 3 4.25
&)' 1.75 2 2 2 1.5 2.5
D

Where S =∑ S* , R =∑ R * and Q = Qa. The values of S and R are calculated using Eqs. (4 - 5) and
TE

are given in Table 9. To calculate the values of S and R, the weights of each criterion are
multiplied (as calculated by AHP). Now the values of Q for all alternatives are calculated by
EP

considering the weight of maximum group utilityv = 0.5 , which is also given in Table 9.
Table 9: Values of S, R and Q for the alternatives
C

Alternatives S R ./
S1 0.5446 0.074 0.5615
AC

S2 0.7428 0.0873 1
S3 0.2975 0.0564 0
S4 0.6255 0.08 0.7501
S5 0.4264 0.0709 0.3789
0 = 0.7428
)
5 ) = 0.0873
0 ∗ = 0.2975 5 ∗ = 0.0564

22
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The final ranking of the alternatives based on S, R, and Q in descending order is further
evaluated for finalization. According to Q values (final compromise solution), the selection of
the most efficient sustainable suppliers has been done and is depicted in Table 10.
Table 10: Ranking of the alternatives according to values of S, R, and Q
Alternatives S Rank R Rank Q Rank

PT
S1 0.5446 3 0.074 3 0.5615 3
S2 0.7428 5 0.0873 5 1 5
S3 0.2975 1 0.0564 1 0 1

RI
S4 0.6255 4 0.08 4 0.7501 4
S5 0.4264 2 0.0709 2 0.3789 2

SC
Since ‘S’ represents the positive ideal solution, ‘R’ indicates the negative ideal solution, and ‘Q’
represents the optimal compromise solution, the decision making can be done by arranging

U
optimal compromise solution values in descending order. Based on the crisp Q index values, the
ranking of the alternatives in descending order is determined as S3 > S5 > S1 > S4 > S2. The
AN
most efficient alternative is found to be sustainable supplier 3 (i.e., S3). Also, both C1 and C2
conditions are satisfied, which means Q (S3)-Q (S2) ≥ 1/5-1 and, similarly, S3 is highly ranked
M

by R and S, which ensures the stability of decision making.

D

6. Discussions of Findings
TE

From Table 5, the ranking of main dimensions of SSS evaluation criteria is given as: Env/
Eco/Soc. In addition, the ranking of the SSS evaluation criteria with reference to their main
EP

dimensions is also computed (see Table 5). The global ranking for the criteria, based on their
respective global weights, is also determined. The global weights for the criteria are calculated
C

by multiplying their relative weights with importance weights of their respective dimension.
Based on Table 5, ‘Environmental costs’ ranks first with the highest weight value (0.0873) and
AC

‘Technological and financial capability’ occupies the last rank with lowest weight value (0.0162)
in all evaluation criteria. ‘Environmental costs,’ ‘Quality of product,’ ‘Price of product,’
‘Occupational health & safety systems,’ and ‘Environmental competencies’ criteria have been
ranked as top five criteria to SSS in supply chain.
The Environmental (Env) dimension holds first rank, and it is clear that environmental
dimensions stand as one of the most vital aspects in today’s business scenario. This dimension

23
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

deals with shielding the environment from the hazards caused by industrialization and other
technological advancements. There are nine criteria exhibited in this grouping. Among them,
Environmental costs (EC) obtains the highest rank. It suggests that sustainable supplier selection
identifies the maximum potential suppliers for meeting the case company’s requirements at an
acceptable cost (Büyüközkan and Çifçi, 2011). The criterion of Environmental competency

PT
(ENC) is ranked after EC. This criterion establishes that a significant need is recognized for the
case company to manage their suppliers’ environmental competencies in improving sustainable

RI
production (Lee et al., 2009). Büyüközkan and Çifçi (2011) reported that environmental
competencies criteria differentiate from traditional supplier evaluation system. The Environment

SC
management system (EMS) comes next in accordance with the ranking order. The adoption of
EMS may help in reducing the ecological impacts in the automotive company supply chain

U
(Luthra et al., 2014). Next is Green R & D and innovation (GRD). It means that green R & D and
innovation will help the case company to develop new or customized techniques, practices,
AN
processes, systems, and products to reduce environmental pollution (De Marchi, 2012). Waste
Management & Pollution Prevention (WM) comes after GRD according to their rank order,
M

which will help the case company managers to initiate waste management and pollution
prevention activities (recycling, reuse and redesign manufacturing processes) during
D

manufacturing. Then, Green Management (GRM) appears next as per the ranking list. Green
management will help the case organization to enhance environmental and economic
TE

performances in the supply chain (Zhu et al., 2012). Next is the Green Manufacturing (GM)
criterion, followed by Green Packing & Labeling (GL) in the ranking list. GM will help the case
EP

company to enhance their financial benefits by effective use of materials, reducing waste and
reducing pollution etc. (Govindan et al., 2015b). Similarly, green packing & labeling will help
C

the case company to make green marketing strategies and also to increase their competitiveness
(Mangla et al., 2013). Finally, Green Design and purchasing criteria rank last in the list.
AC

The Economic (Eco) dimension holds second rank in the priority list. Economic dimension is a
basic motivation for any organization because no supply chain will exist in the long run without
realizing economic benefits (Muduli and Barve, 2013). This dimension has nine criteria. Quality
of product (QP) criterion attains the utmost importance. Conventionally, supplier selection in
SCM was based on a supplier’s ability to meet delivery schedules, to offer lower prices, better
services, and quality requirements (Hsu and Hu, 2009). However, in contemporary management,

24
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

environmental and social factors must also be considered with conventional economic criteria for
a sustainable supplier working in an automotive supply chain context. Following this, there is the
Price of product (PP) criterion in the list. An organization desires to choose suppliers for lower
product prices for their sustainability actions with competitive advantages (Büyüközkan and
Çifçi, 2011; Kannan et al., 2014). The next criterion is Delivery and service of product (DP),

PT
which shows that delivery and after sale service are important criteria for SSS. The Profit of the
product (PR) criterion comes next in terms of priority. Flexibility (FL) plays a great role; it

RI
obtains the next rank after PR. The next ranked criterion is Transportation cost (TRC), because
clearly transportation costs play a significant role in SSS. Further, Lead time required (LR)

SC
follows TRC, and it depicts that the case company needs to manage suppliers so that they are
provided with high quality, low cost, and short lead times (Falatoonitoosi et al., 2014).

U
Production facilities and capacity (PC) comes next in the ranking list. Lastly, Technological and
financial capability (TC) criterion completes the ranking sequence.
AN
The Social (S) dimension holds third place in the ranking list. Human beings are depleting
resources and causing damage to nature to satisfy their own needs. There are four criteria within
M

this particular dimension. The Occupational health & safety system (OS) criterion is ranked first.
The rights of stakeholders (RS) appears next. Employment compensation, health and safety
D

committees at work, and associating with the local community and NGOs are a few of the social
criteria that must be considered in SSS (Govindan et al., 2013). The next criterion, Information
TE

Disclosure (IS), indicates that the case company is looking for ways to improve the social
impacts of their suppliers on GHG emissions, the materials, processes, and techniques used, and
EP

toxins released during production. Monitoring these activities are important steps towards
reducing harmful environmental and social effects during production (Hsu et al., 2013) and
C

sustainable development in a supply chain (Gualandris et al., 2015). The next place of
importance is attained by ‘The interests & rights of employees’ (IE) criterion. It is necessary for
AC

the case company to focus on employees’ needs in order to achieve success in the long term
(Muduli and Barve, 2013).
It is difficult to determine which of the evaluation criteria for SSS is more important, but
evaluating them through the suggested framework makes the supplier selection process more
logical. AHP estimates the ranks of the criteria, and VIKOR provides the most efficient
sustainable supplier. According to the VIKOR method, the ranking of the sustainable supplier in

25
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

descending order is S3 - S5 - S1 - S4 - S2. By using this proposed integrated framework, the

automotive supply chain decision makers can evaluate supplier selection decisions to achieve
sustainability in business.

6.1 Managerial and practical implications of the research

PT
The research findings were discussed with experts to analyze the issues related to sustainability-
focused supplier selection initiatives. They seem to show good agreement with the findings. This

RI
study has highlighted several challenges/barriers and benefits of applying SSS in the supply
chain. In this sense, this study has several beneficial managerial and practical implications, as

SC
follows:
• Revealing the challenges/barriers in applying and selecting the supplier selection for

U
sustainability. This study reveals several challenges in selecting and evaluating SSS
criteria from the organizational viewpoints. Sustainable supplier decisions have become
AN
necessary as organizations increasingly compete on environmental, economic, and social
supply chain capabilities. To fulfill this, case company managers need to understand
M

various challenges/barriers related to implement sustainability-focused supplier

assessment systems in the supply chain. The present study is an initial attempt that has
D

considered ecological, economic, and social criteria to evaluate SSS and their
implications in supply chains. Based on quantitative and qualitative data, important
TE

criteria and dimensions of criteria related to SSS have been recognized. The proper
understanding of these criteria and dimensions can help in managing the
EP

challenges/barriers in developing sustainability-focused supplier selection criteria and

evaluation decisions. The various criteria listed in the study are Price, Profit, and Quality
C

of the product, Technological & financial capability, and Occupational health & safety
systems. All these criteria are helpful in managing various challenges among
AC

organizations in developing sustainability aspects in supplier related decisions. The

present research work plays a vital role in understanding various criteria and their
rankings to select the most efficient sustainable supplier from the industrial context. The
proposed framework may help the automotive case company managers/practitioners and
policymakers to achieve better performance results and to prepare courses of action

26
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

regarding the elimination of possible barriers/challenges for successful decisions about

sustainable supplier decisions in the organization.
• Revealing the benefits in applying and selecting the supplier selection for
sustainability. The study offers a hierarchical model for SSS and evaluation as shown in
Fig. 2. This paper has also presented a benchmarking framework (Fig. 1) with a focus on

PT
sustainable initiatives to make complicated decisions to select suppliers to achieve
economic, environmental, as well as social benefits. In that way, it is recommended that

RI
automotive supply chain professionals, practitioners, and related business organizations
may use the suggested model of synthesizing judgments to solve the sustainable supplier

SC
selection or evaluation problems. Further, from the case company’s point of view, the
framework proposed in the study may provide a scientific means to improve the

U
complicated options of selection and to develop sustainable products and processes as
well. The other important benefit of this work is the development of SSS evaluation
AN
criteria using literature and experts’ feedback. These criteria will help automobile case
company managers to select and evaluate suppliers for sustainability in the supply chain,
M

while still remaining competitive in the market.

D

7. Sensitivity analysis
TE

Sensitivity analysis helps in testing the stability of the proposed framework. Sensitivity analysis
also assists in determining the changes in final ranking of the alternatives on a slight variation in
EP

the criteria relative weights (Prakash and Barua, 2016). In this work, the sustainable supplier
evaluation dimension and criteria weights are computed using human inputs. Thus, we suggest
C

testing the final ranking of the alternatives by assigning different weights of the criteria. This
also helps to check the consistency in decision making. Findings of the sensitivity analysis
AC

suggest that S3 has the highest priority among all alternatives when # varies from 0.1 to 1.0; the
corresponding ranking order for the sustainable supplier alternatives is S3 > S5 > S1 > S4 > S2
(see Table 11). The ranking remains consistent in the sensitivity run and indicates stability of the
alternatives’ ranking in this study.
Table 11: Ranking of alternatives in sensitivity runs when # varies from 0.1 to 1.0
Alternatives 9 = :. ; Rank 9 = :. < Rank 9 = :. = Rank 9 = :. > Rank 9 = :. ? Rank

27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

S1 0.5668 3 0.5655 3 0.5641 3 0.5628 3 0.5615 3

S2 1.0000 5 1.0000 5 1.0000 5 1.0000 5 1.0000 5
S3 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1
S4 0.7610 4 0.7583 4 0.7556 4 0.7528 4 0.7501 4
S5 0.4505 2 0.4326 2 0.4147 2 0.3968 2 0.3789 2
Alternatives 9 = :. @ Rank 9 = :. A Rank 9 = :. B Rank 9 = :. C Rank 9 = ;. : Rank
S1 0.5601 3 0.5588 3 0.5575 3 0.5561 3 0.5548 3

PT
S2 1.0000 5 1.0000 5 1.0000 5 1.0000 5 1.0000 5
S3 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1
S4 0.7474 4 0.7447 4 0.7419 4 0.7392 4 0.7365 4

RI
S5 0.3610 2 0.3431 2 0.3252 2 0.3073 2 0.2894 2

SC
From Table 11, suppliers S3 and S5 are highly ranked and may obtain the choices of selection by
the decision makers (see Fig. 3). At the end, the sensitivity analysis may be meaningful to
evaluate the alternatives for sustainable supplier selection in supply chains.

U
0.1
AN
5
1 4 0.2 S1

3
M

S2
2
0.9 0.3
1
S3
D

0
TE

0.8 0.4 S4

S5
EP

0.7 0.5

0.6
C

Fig. 3. Results of sensitivity analysis

AC

8. Conclusions, Limitations, and Future Work

Due to an increased awareness of ecological protection and resulting stringent legislations, the
adoption of sustainable practices has become an important consideration for business
organizations with regard to their supply chains. These considerations can help them to
determine their growth and sustainability over the long term. Supplier selection is very important

28
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

in improving supply chain performance. Thus, a systematic and sustainability focused evaluation
system for supplier selection is needed among business organizations.
This research work provides a scientific model that provides comprehensive insights on supplier
selection for sustainability using an integrated AHP-VIKOR approach. The AHP technique has
been utilized for evaluating the SSS criteria relative importance weights and the VIKOR

PT
technique has been used for selecting the most efficient sustainable supplier. The SSS evaluation
criteria weights obtained through AHP have been utilized as input in VIKOR for selecting best

RI
alternative sustainable supplier among the alternatives.
From managerial perspectives, the credibility of the proposed integrated framework is shown by

SC
taking a case study of an Indian automobile industry. Initially, 22 SSS evaluation criteria and
three main dimensions of sustainability, including economic, environmental, and social, were

U
identified from an extensive literature review and experts’ inputs. The AHP method finds that
“Environmental dimension” achieves maximum priority weight. Further, the overall ranking of
AN
all criteria has also been made by assigning global weights. ‘Environmental costs’ received the
highest rank and VIKOR results indicated the ranking of sustainable suppliers in descending
M

order as S3 > S5 > S1 > S4 > S2.A sensitivity analysis was also conducted to test the proposed
framework robustness.
D

This work has some limitations as well. 22 important supplier selection criteria for sustainability
in supply chain have been identified and ranked. Other criteria and dimensions have not been
TE

identified. The AHP and VIKOR based framework is used to evaluate SSS criteria and to select
the most efficient sustainable supplier among alternatives. The necessary computations were
EP

performed by taking the experts’ inputs into consideration. Hence, it is suggested to perform
these computations in a careful manner. The study findings are based on a single case study;
C

thus, the findings cannot be generalized. The fuzziness in the data has also not been considered
in this work; therefore, a fuzzy based decision approach may be applied in future work. Further,
AC

different techniques and MCDM tools (such as ISM, TISM, and DEMATEL) may be applied to
analyze the interrelationships and strength of relationships between or among SSS in the supply
chain. In future studies, TOPSIS and PROMETHEE may also be used for selecting suppliers
towards sustainability and those results may be compared with the present study. Finally, an
Interpretive Ranking Process (IRP) may also be applied to rank the SSS evaluation criteria
relating to performance measures in supply chains.

29
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Acknowledgements
The authors are very thankful to the Editors and anonymous reviewers for their constructive
suggestions/critical remarks to improve the quality of the paper; their help has undoubtedly
increased the understanding of the authors on the subject.

PT
References

RI
Ageron, B., Gunasekaran, A., & Spalanzani, A. (2012). Sustainable supply management: An empirical study.
International Journal of Production Economics, 140(1), 168-182.

SC
Akman, G. (2015). Evaluating suppliers to include green supplier development programs via fuzzy c-means and VIKOR
methods. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 86, 69-82.
Amindoust, A., Ahmed, S., Saghafinia, A., & Bahreininejad, A. (2012). Sustainable supplier selection: A ranking model

U
based on fuzzy inference system. Applied Soft Computing, 12(6), 1668-1677.
Anisul Huq, F., Stevenson, M., & Zorzini, M. (2014). Social sustainability in developing country suppliers: An
AN
exploratory study in the readymade garments industry of Bangladesh. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 34(5), 610-638.
Athawale, V. M., Chatterjee, P., & Chakraborty, S. (2012). Selection of industrial robots using compromise ranking
M

method. International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, 11(1), 3-15.

Azadi, M., Jafarian, M., Saen, R. F., & Mirhedayatian, S. M. (2015). A new fuzzy DEA model for evaluation of
D

efficiency and effectiveness of suppliers in sustainable supply chain management context. Computers & Operations
Research, 54, 274-285.
TE

Azadnia, A. H., Saman, M. Z. M., Wong, K. Y., Ghadimi, P., & Zakuan, N. (2012). Sustainable supplier selection based
on self-organizing map neural network and multi criteria decision making approaches. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 65, 879-884.
EP

Bai, C. A., & Sarkis, J. (2010). Integrating sustainability into supplier selection with grey system and rough set
methodologies. International Journal of Production Economics, 124(1), 252-264.
Bai, C. A., & Sarkis, J. (2014). Determining and applying sustainable supplier key performance indicators. Supply Chain
C

Management: An International Journal, 19(3), 275-291.

AC

Bao, P. N., Aramaki, T., & Hanaki, K. (2013). Assessment of stakeholders’ preferences towards sustainable sanitation
scenarios. Water and Environment Journal, 27(1), 58-70.
Baskaran, V., Nachiappan, S., & Rahman, S. (2012). Indian textile suppliers' sustainability evaluation using the grey
approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 135(2), 647-658.
Benn, S., Dunphy, D., & Griffiths, A. (2014). Organizational change for corporate sustainability. Routledge
Publication.
Brandenburg, M., Govindan, K., Sarkis, J., & Seuring, S. (2014). Quantitative models for sustainable supply chain
management: Developments and directions. European Journal of Operational Research, 233(2), 299-312.

30
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Büyüközkan, G., & Çifçi, G. (2011). A novel fuzzy multi-criteria decision framework for sustainable supplier selection
with incomplete information. Computers in Industry, 62(2), 164-174.
Büyüközkan, G., & Görener, A. (2015). Evaluation of product development partners using an integrated AHP-VIKOR
model. Kybernetes, 44(2), 220-237.
De Marchi, V. (2012). Environmental innovation and R&D cooperation: Empirical evidence from Spanish
manufacturing firms. Research Policy, 41(3), 614-623.

PT
Deng, Y., & Chan, F. T. (2011). A new fuzzy dempster MCDM method and its application in supplier selection. Expert
Systems with Applications, 38(8), 9854-9861.

RI
Dey, P. K., & Cheffi, W. (2013). Green supply chain performance measurement using the analytic hierarchy process: a
comparative analysis of manufacturing organizations. Production Planning & Control, 24(8-9), 702-720.
Dou, Y., Zhu, Q., & Sarkis, J. (2014). Evaluating green supplier development programs with a grey-analytical network

SC
process-based methodology. European Journal of Operational Research, 233(2), 420-431.
Falatoonitoosi, E., Ahmed, S., & Sorooshian, S. (2014, March). A multi criteria framework to evaluate supplier’s
greenness. InAbstract and Applied Analysis, Hindawi Publishing Corporation. Online available at:

U
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/396923 (accessed on: December 12, 2014).
AN
Gandhi, S., Mangla, S. K., Kumar, P., & Kumar, D. (2016). A combined approach using AHP and DEMATEL for
evaluating success factors in implementation of green supply chain management in Indian manufacturing
industries. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 1-25.
M

Gaziulusoy, A. I. (2015). A critical review of approaches available for design and innovation teams through the
perspective of sustainability science and system innovation theories. Journal of Cleaner Production, 107, 366-377.
Govindan, K., Diabat, A., & Shankar, K. M. (2015b). Analyzing the drivers of green manufacturing with fuzzy
D

approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 96, 182-193.

TE

Govindan, K., Kaliyan, M., Kannan, D., & Haq A. N. (2014). Barriers analysis for green supply chain management
implementation in Indian industries using analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Production
Economics, 147, 555-568.
EP

Govindan, K., Khodaverdi, R., & Jafarian, A. (2013). A fuzzy multi criteria approach for measuring sustainability
performance of a supplier based on triple bottom line approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 47, 345-354.
Govindan, K., Rajendran, S., Sarkis, J., & Murugesan, P. (2015a). Multi criteria decision making approaches for green
C

supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 98, 66-83.
Govindan, K., Seuring, S., Zhu, Q., & Azevedo, S. G. (2016). Accelerating the transition towards sustainability
AC

dynamics into supply chain relationship management and governance structures. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 112, 1813-1823.
Grimm, J. H., Hofstetter, J. S., & Sarkis, J. (2014). Critical factors for sub-supplier management: A sustainable food
supply chains perspective. International Journal of Production Economics, 152, 159-173.
Grimm, J. H., Hofstetter, J. S., & Sarkis, J. (2016). Exploring sub-suppliers' compliance with corporate sustainability
standards. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 1971-1984.

31
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Gualandris, J., Klassen, R. D., Vachon, S., & Kalchschmidt, M. (2015). Sustainable evaluation and verification in supply
chains: Aligning and leveraging accountability to stakeholders. Journal of Operations Management, 38, 1-13.
Harputlugil, T. İ. M. U. Ç. İ. N., Prins, M. A. T. T. H. I. J. S., & Gultekin, A. T. (2011). Conceptual framework for
potential implementations of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) methods for design quality assessment.
Management and Innovation for a Sustainable Built Environment, Amsterdam, June, 20-23, The Netherlands.
Hashemi, S. H., Karimi, A., & Tavana, M. (2015). An integrated green supplier selection approach with analytic network

PT
process and improved Grey relational analysis. International Journal of Production Economics, 159, 178-191.
Hsu, C. W., & Hu, A. H. (2009). Applying hazardous substance management to supplier selection using analytic network

RI
process. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(2), 255-264.
Hsu, C. W., Kuo, T. C., Chen, S. H., & Hu, A. H. (2013). Using DEMATEL to develop a carbon management model of
supplier selection in green supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 56, 164-172.

SC
Hutchins, M. J., & Sutherland, J. W. (2008). An exploration of measures of social sustainability and their application to
supply chain decisions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15), 1688-1698.
Jerry Ho, W. R., Tsai, C. L., Tzeng, G. H., & Fang, S. K. (2011). Combined DEMATEL technique with a novel MCDM

U
model for exploring portfolio selection based on CAPM. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(1), 16-25.
AN
Jia, P., Govindan, K., Choi, T. M., & Rajendran, S. (2015). Supplier selection problems in fashion business operations
with sustainability considerations. Sustainability, 7(2), 1603-1619.
Junior, F. R. L., Osiro, L., & Carpinetti, L. C. R. (2013). A fuzzy inference and categorization approach for supplier
M

selection using compensatory and non-compensatory decision rules. Applied Soft Computing, 13(10), 4133-4147.
Kang, D., & Park, Y. (2014). Review-based measurement of customer satisfaction in mobile service: Sentiment analysis
and VIKOR approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(4), 1041-1050.
D

Kannan, D., Govindan, K., & Rajendran, S. (2015). Fuzzy axiomatic design approach based green supplier selection: a
TE

case study from Singapore. Journal of Cleaner Production, 96, 194-208.

Kannan, D., Jabbour, A. B. L. D. S., & Jabbour, C. J. C. (2014). Selecting green suppliers based on GSCM practices:
Using fuzzy TOPSIS applied to a Brazilian electronics company. European Journal of Operational
EP

Research, 233(2), 432-447.

Kannan, G., Haq, A. N., Sasikumar, P., & Arunachalam, S. (2008). Analysis and selection of green suppliers using
interpretative structural modelling and analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Management and
C

Decision Making, 9(2), 163-182.

Kilic, H. S. (2013). An integrated approach for supplier selection in multi-item/multi-supplier environment. Applied
AC

Mathematical Modelling, 37(14-15), 7752-7763.

Kumar, A., Jain, V., & Kumar, S. (2014a). A comprehensive environment friendly approach for supplier
selection. Omega, 42(1), 109-123.
Kumar, D. T., Palaniappan, M., Kannan, D., & Shankar, K. M. (2014b).Analyzing the CSR issues behind the supplier
selection process using ISM approach. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 92, 268-278.
Kumar, S., Luthra, S., & Haleem, A. (2015). Benchmarking supply chains by analyzing technology transfer critical
barriers using AHP approach. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 22(4), 538-558.

32
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Kumar, S., Luthra, S., Govindan, K., Kumar, N., & Haleem, A. (2016). Barriers in green lean six sigma product
development process: an ISM approach. Production Planning & Control, 27(7-8), 604-620.
Kuo, R. J., Wang, Y. C., & Tien, F. C. (2010). Integration of artificial neural network and MADA methods for green
supplier selection. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(12), 1161-1170.
Lee, A. H., Kang, H. Y., Hsu, C. F. &Hung, H. C. (2009). A green supplier selection model for high-tech industry.
Expert Systems with Applications, 36(4), 7917-7927.

PT
Lin, R. J. (2013). Using fuzzy DEMATEL to evaluate the green supply chain management practices. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 40, 32-39.

RI
Lin, S. S., & Juang, Y. S. (2008). Selecting green suppliers with analytic hierarchy process for biotechnology industry.
Journal Operations and Supply Chain Management, 1(2), 115-129.
Luthra, S., Garg, D., & Haleem, A. (2013). Identifying and ranking of strategies to implement green supply chain

SC
management in Indian manufacturing industry using Analytical Hierarchy Process. Journal of Industrial
Engineering and Management, 6(4), 930-962.
Luthra, S., Garg, D., & Haleem, A. (2014). Empirical analysis of green supply chain management practices in Indian

U
automobile industry. Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series C, 95(2), 119-126.
AN
Luthra, S., Mangla, S. K., & Kharb, R. K. (2015). Sustainable assessment in energy planning and management in Indian
perspective. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 47, 58-73.
Luthra, S., Garg, D., & Haleem, A. (2016a). The impacts of critical success factors for implementing green supply chain
M

management towards sustainability: an empirical investigation of Indian automobile industry.Journal of Cleaner

Production, 121, 142-158.
Luthra, S., Mangla, S. K., Xu, L., & Diabat, A. (2016b). Using AHP to evaluate barriers in adopting sustainable
D

consumption and production initiatives in a supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics,
TE

doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.04.001.
Madaan, J., & Mangla, S. (2015). Decision modeling approach for eco-driven flexible green supply chain. In Systemic
Flexibility and Business Agility, Springer India, 343-364.
EP

Mafakheri, F., Breton, M., &Ghoniem, A. (2011). Supplier selection-order allocation: A two-stage multiple criteria
dynamic programming approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 132(1), 52-57.
Mahdiloo, M., Saen, R. F., & Lee, K. H. (2015). Technical, environmental and eco-efficiency measurement for supplier
C

selection: An extension and application of data envelopment analysis. International Journal of Production
Economics, 168, 279-289.
AC

Mangla, S. K., Govindan, K., & Luthra, S. (2016). Critical success factors for reverse logistics in Indian industries: a
structural model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 129, 608-621.
Mangla, S. K., Kumar, P., & Barua, M. K. (2014). Flexible decision approach for analyzing performance of sustainable
supply chains under risks/uncertainty. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 15(2), 113-130.
Mangla, S., Madaan, J., & Chan, F. T. (2013). Analysis of flexible decision strategies for sustainability-focused green
product recovery system. International Journal of Production Research, 51(11), 3428-3442.

33
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Mareschal, B., Brans, J. P., & Vincke, P. (1984). PROMETHEE: A new family of outranking methods in multicriteria
analysis (No. 2013/9305). ULB—UniversiteLibre de Bruxelles.
Muduli, K., & Barve, A. (2013). Sustainable development practices in mining sector: a GSCM approach. International
Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development, 12(3), 222-243.
Olson, D. L. (2001). Comparison of three multicriteria methods to predict known outcomes. European Journal of
Operational Research, 130(3), 576-587.

PT
Opricovic, S. (2011). Fuzzy VIKOR with an application to water resources planning. Expert Systems with
Applications, 38(10), 12983-12990.

RI
Ordoobadi, S. M. (2010). Application of AHP and taguchi loss functions in supply chain. Industrial Management &
Data Systems, 110(8), 1251-1269.
Parameshwaran, R., Kumar, S. P., & Saravanakumar, K. (2015). An integrated fuzzy MCDM based approach for robot

SC
selection considering objective and subjective criteria. Applied Soft Computing, 26, 31-41.
Pourebrahim, S., Hadipour, M., Mokhtar, M. B., & Taghavi, S. (2014). Application of VIKOR and fuzzy AHP for
conservation priority assessment in coastal areas: Case of Khuzestan district, Iran. Ocean & Coastal Management,

U
98, 20-26.
AN
Prakash, C., & Barua, M. K. (2016). A combined MCDM approach for evaluation and selection of third-party reverse
logistics partner for Indian electronics industry. Sustainable Production and Consumption. Online available at:
doi:10.1016/j.spc.2016.04.001
M

Rajesh, R., & Ravi, V. (2015). Supplier selection in resilient supply chains: a grey relational analysis approach. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 86, 343-359.
Rezaie, K., Ramiyani, S. S., Nazari-Shirkouhi, S., & Badizadeh, A. (2014). Evaluating performance of Iranian cement
D

firms using an integrated fuzzy AHP–VIKOR method. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 38(21), 5033-5046.
TE

Rostamzadeh, R., Govindan, K., Esmaeili, A., & Sabaghi, M. (2015). Application of fuzzy VIKOR for evaluation of
green supply chain management practices. Ecological Indicators, 49, 188-203.
Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process.International Journal of Services
EP

Sciences, 1(1), 83-98.

Saaty, T.L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.
Saaty, T.L. (2000). Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory.2nd edition, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PA.
C

Sanayei, A., FaridMousavi, S., & Yazdankhah, A. (2010). Group decision making process for supplier selection with
VIKOR under fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(1), 24-30.
AC

Sarkis, J., & Dhavale, D. G. (2015). Supplier selection for sustainable operations: A triple-bottom-line approach using a
Bayesian framework. International Journal of Production Economics, 166, 177-191.
Seuring, S. (2013). A review of modeling approaches for sustainable supply chain management. Decision Support
Systems, 54(4), 1513-1520.
Seuring, S., & Müller, M. (2008). From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain
management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15), 1699-1710.

34
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Shaw, K., Shankar, R., Yadav, S. S., & Thakur, L. S. (2012). Supplier selection using fuzzy AHP and fuzzy multi-
objective linear programming for developing low carbon supply chain. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(9),
8182-8192.
Shen, L., Olfat, L., Govindan, K., Khodaverdi, R., & Diabat, A. (2013). A fuzzy multi criteria approach for evaluating
green supplier's performance in green supply chain with linguistic preferences. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, 74, 170-179.

PT
Sivakumar, R., Kannan, D., & Murugesan, P. (2015). Green vendor evaluation and selection using AHP and Taguchi
loss functions in production outsourcing in mining industry. Resources Policy, 46, 64-75.

RI
Su, C. M., Horng, D. J., Tseng, M. L., Chiu, A. S., Wu, K. J., & Chen, H. P. (2015). Improving sustainable supply chain
management using a novel hierarchical grey-DEMATEL approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, available at:
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.080

SC
Tahriri, F., Mousavi, M., Haghighi, S. H., & Dawal, S. Z. M. (2014). The application of fuzzy Delphi and fuzzy
inference system in supplier ranking and selection. Journal of Industrial Engineering International, 10(3), 1-16.
Trapp, A. C., & Sarkis, J. (2016). Identifying robust portfolios of suppliers: a sustainability selection and development

U
perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 2088-2100.
AN
Tseng, M. L. (2011). Green supply chain management with linguistic preferences and incomplete information. Applied
Soft Computing, 11(8), 4894-4903.
Walton, S.V., Handfield, R.B., & Melnyk, S.A. (1998). The green supply chain: Integrating suppliers into environmental
M

management processes. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, 34(2), 2-11.
Wang, X., Chan, H. K., Yee, R. W., & Diaz-Rainey, I. (2012). A two-stage fuzzy-AHP model for risk assessment of
implementing green initiatives in the fashion supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 135(2),
D

595-606.
TE

Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., & Lai, K. H. (2012). Examining the effects of green supply chain management practices and their
mediations on performance improvements. International Journal of Production Research, 50(5), 1377-1394.
C EP
AC

35