Int J Adv Manuf Technol
DOI 10.1007/s00170-016-9518-z
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Integrating sustainability into supplier selection with analytical
hierarchy process and improved grey relational analysis: a case
of telecom industry
Hadi Badri Ahmadi 1 & Seyed Hamid Hashemi Petrudi 2 & Xuping Wang 1,3
Received: 27 June 2016 / Accepted: 21 September 2016
# Springer-Verlag London 2016
Abstract Supplier selection is one of the critical problems in
supply chain systems. Within the last decades, by the emer-
gence of sustainability concept, companies have been moti-
vated to enhance their supplier’s sustainability and move to-
ward sustainable development. This paper proposes a struc-
tured and integrated decision model for evaluating sustainable
suppliers in the context of telecom industry by combining
analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and improved grey rela-
tional analysis (IGRA) approaches. The proposed model em-
ploys AHP for calculating sustainability criteria weights and
IGRA for ranking suppliers. Moreover, a sensitivity analysis
is also performed to demonstrate the robustness of the model.
In this research, the sustainable supplier selection problem of
the telecom industry in the southern part of Iran was investi-
gated, showing the effectiveness and applicability of this pro-
posed integrated approach.
Keywords Sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) .
Supplier selection . Analytical hierarchy process (AHP) . Grey
relational analysis (GRA)
* Seyed Hamid Hashemi Petrudi
s.hamidhashemi@ut.ac.ir
1
School of Management Science and Engineering, Dalian University
of Technology, No. 2 Linggong Road, Ganjingzi District,
Dalian, Liaoning Province 116023, People’s Republic of China
2
Department of Industrial Management, Faculty of Management,
University of Tehran, Jalal Al-e-Ahmad Ave., Nasr Bridge,
Tehran, Iran
3
School of Business, Dalian University of Technology,
Panjin, Liaoning Province 124221, People’s Republic of China
1 Introduction
One of the considerable elements in every supply chain
network is the supplier, who provides raw materials, prod-
ucts, and services to the upstream supply chain. Suppliers
have a significant impact on the supply chain performance
and make the supplier selection process a strategic issue
in the field of supply chain management (SCM).
Traditionally, different qualitative and quantitative criteria
such as price, technical capability, delivery performance,
quality, and flexibility affect the supplier selection prob-
lem [1]. Outsourcing and globalization have affected this
competitive burden where selection of suppliers has be-
come a more significant partnering issue. For maintaining
the competitive advantage, companies require suppliers to
provide their firms with the necessary products, compo-
nents, and materials in a timely and effective manner.
Supplier relationships based on price and commodity are
no longer acceptable for companies that try to introduce
innovative supply chain management issues, particularly
those that focus on social and environmental dimensions
(sustainability). These sustainability and strategic ele-
ments play a considerable role for the long term and sta-
ble supply chain resiliency [2, 3]. By the emergence of
sustainability during the past years and increasing interest
among academia, practitioners, and stakeholders, firms
have been motivated to integrate sustainability in their
processes in order to enhance their overall sustainability
level. Considering the importance of suppliers in any
manufacturing supply chain, sustainable supplier selection
is a critical decision in sustainable supply chain manage-
ment. Nowadays, sustainability issues play a significant
role for the long-term supply chain success. In addition,
an increasing number of companies has evaluated the sus-
tainability performance of their suppliers which results

from the sustainable supply chain initiatives adoption [4].
Most of the research in sustainable supplier selection area
has developed hypothetical examples instead of introduc-
ing a real-world application. Moreover, this issue is al-
ways taken into account by the authors as one of the
major limitations of this field of research [5, 6].
Up to now, several sustainable supplier selection decision
frameworks have been proposed to help in evaluating,
selecting, and monitoring the potential sustainable suppliers
in many industries, but very few researchers have tried to
assess the sustainable suppliers with telecom industry char-
acteristics, whereas many of them did not take into consid-
eration all three dimensions of sustainability or empirical
analysis. Therefore, in order to address the mentioned prob-
lems, this research intends to integrate sustainability into the
traditional supplier selection problem by developing a grey-
based sustainable supplier selection model in the context of
telecom industry by integrating two approaches: analytical
hierarchy process (AHP) and improved grey relational anal-
ysis (IGRA). Complicated decision-making problems are
dealt with AHP, which contains a large number of variables
and subjectivity. Moreover, supplier selection problems con-
tain uncertain and vague information. Grey system theory
mainly focuses on solving uncertain problems with un-
known and obscure information. Researchers found that
grey system theory is preferable in the systems mathematical
analysis with obscure and unknown information compared
to other approaches [5]. In this research, we applied AHP to
compute the evaluation criteria relative weights.
Furthermore, for better handling the vagueness in supplier
selection decisions and interval problems, the traditional
GRA has been improved. The scope of this research is lim-
ited to telecom industry; nevertheless, it can be useful for all
industrial managers, researchers, and practitioners who in-
tend to improve their supply chain sustainability. A case
study at one of the Iranian’s biggest telecom companies is
employed to validate the developed model. This paper con-
tributes to the literature on sustainable supply chain manage-
ment by (1) developing a framework for sustainable supplier
selection in telecom industry and (2) proposing an integrated
AHP–IGRA methodology for sustainable supplier selection
which have not previously applied in this area.
The rest of the paper is as follows. Section 2 reviews
the literature of sustainable supplier selection by
reviewing sustainable supply chain management, evalua-
tion approaches, and sustainability criteria that have sig-
nificant impact on the telecom company’s purchasing de-
cisions; in Sect. 3, we propose the research methodology
including AHP and improved GRA. Section 4 represents
the proposed approach. In Sect. 5, we present a real case
company example which is followed by the results and
sensitivity analysis. In Sect. 6, conclusion and possible
future studies are presented.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
2 Literature review
2.1 Sustainable supply chain management
Integrating different dimensions of social and environ-
mental sustainability into supply chain management can
be described as sustainable supply chain management
(SSCM) [6]. Governmental regulations, increasing public
awareness and market pressure, have encouraged compa-
nies to integrate sustainability initiatives in their supply
chain operations in order to enhance their sustainability
performance and retain their competitive edges [7].
Further researches demonstrate that supply chain sustain-
ability level can be increased by collaboration with sus-
tainable focused suppliers [4]. Elkington [8] proposed the
triple-bottom-line (TBL) approach as the sustainability
and sustainable development extension, in which econom-
ic, environmental, and social dimensions of sustainability
are simultaneously taken into consideration. Sustainability
can be described as consuming resources today without
compromising the future generations’ needs and through
integrating TBL concept into the organizational decision
making [9]. As a result, sustainability and sustainable de-
velopment are often considered as a combination of eco-
nomic, environmental, and social development, a TBL
approach [10]. By balancing firm’s strategies, culture,
and information technology with sustainable supply chain
management, companies can be efficiently protected
against environmental risks and market [11].
2.2 Sustainable supplier selection, criteria,
and approaches
Sustainable supplier selection can be described as a supplier
selection problem in which, among conventional criteria, en-
vironmental and social criteria are considered in order to select
and monitor the supplier’s performance. In other words, in
addition to traditional criteria, sustainability criteria should
be considered in the supplier selection problem [12]. Despite
the increasing global need for telecommunication services to
support global developmental issues and reduce the “global
ecological footprint,” there are few studies of the telecommu-
nication industries (both fixed and mobile telecom operators)
regarding the sustainable supplier selection problem [13, 14].
Therefore, it places much more significance on the integration
of the telecom industry characteristics into the design of sus-
tainable supplier selection decision framework to aid in eval-
uating suppliers and their sustainability performances. In this
paper, 10 criteria for sustainable supplier selection were de-
veloped through extensive literature review and inputs from
telecom industry experts. Table 1 shows the proposed sustain-
ability criteria for this study.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
Table 1 Sustainable supplier selection criteria
No. Criteria Sub-criteria
1 Environmental Green corporate social image (GCSI)
2 sustainability Eco-design (ED)
3 Environmental management system (EMS)
4 End-of-pipe (EOP)
5 Social sustainability Work safety and labor health (WSLH)
6 Training education and community
influence (TECI)
7 Contractual stakeholders influence (CSI)
8 Economic Cost (C)
9 sustainability Quality (Q)
10 Service (S)
Sources: [15–33]
2.2.1 Environmental criteria
In traditional supplier selection research, environmental and
social sustainability factors have not been investigated [13].
With environmental awareness, increasing the number of re-
searchers has been motivated to study supplier selection in the
light of environmental dimensions [14–16]. In this section,
four environmental sustainability criteria are comprehensively
discussed. Green corporate social image (GCSI) refers to ac-
tivities that help organizations reduce their environmental im-
pacts and build social agreement to improve corporate image
or reputation [14, 15]. Promoting environmental and societal
care through key stakeholder relationship and engagement is
one of the ways that can assist the telecom companies to ob-
tain this objective. This can help telecom firms to address the
public concern and environmental and social issues and can
improve the company’s corporate social image (CSR) [14].
Enhanced corporate social image through socio-
environmental performance can enable green core competen-
cy and further creates customer’s purchase retention, which
can result in more sales and higher green market and cus-
tomers share [15]. Eco-design criteria refers to the application
of novel and proactive environmental management practices
to industrial products, processes, and services to eliminate
environmental impact throughout the life cycle [16].
Telecom companies can develop and implement policies
that can help them decrease environmental impacts along their
entire supply chain activities [17]. Some possibilities are
adopting proactive approaches to minimize potential supply
chain environmental impact through reduced involvement of
hazardous materials and products from the beginning of their
operational process [18]. In addition, they can minimize waste
creation in their operational processes by consuming less re-
source which results in less hazardous waste emission and
automatically simplifies recycling and improves the final dis-
posal [19]. Telecom industry can eliminate waste from source
by cooperating with suppliers in environmental friendly prac-
tices such as the purchase (green purchasing) and use of envi-
ronmental friendly or non-toxic materials and components
[20, 21]. Telecom companies can also use cleaner and high
performing technologies or equipment which will produce
better operational performance and create less emission and
waste to replace the low performing and “dirty” technologies
t h a t c o n s i d e r a b l y p o l l u t e t h e e n v i r o n m e n t [ 20 ].
Environmental management system (EMS) is a well-
structured model that helps firms to better address the envi-
ronmental impact from their operational process to show re-
sponsible and environmental management. The prerequisite to
EMS implementation by telecom companies is the high cor-
porate commitment toward continuous environmental perfor-
mance improvement, compliance with relevant national envi-
ronmental legislation, and the existence of written environ-
mental policy [21]. Telecom companies need to employ envi-
ronmental manager or specialist and his team to act as a
change agent to help formulate environmental policy and de-
velop environmental management program and practices to-
ward environmental management program. Telecom compa-
nies can adopt EMS as a tool to integrate their corporate en-
vironmental protection policy, programs, and practices as a
comprehensive environmental impact response strategy [22].
End-of-pipe (EOP) practices or technologies are pollution or
emission–control investments that rely on external recycling
and waste recovery [23]. Firms implement EOP to enable
them comply with environmental requirements [24]. These
EOP practices usually are products or component recovery
initiatives that should be jointly partaken between the telecom
companies and the manufacturers or suppliers by collecting
the product or component that have reached their economic or
useful lives for remanufacturing [25]. Telecom companies
may collect cellular phones that have reached their useful life
from their customers (with a kind of reward) and return to their
suppliers or manufacturers for remanufacture to “a good qual-
ity state” and provide them as part of their customer service
package.
2.2.2 Social criteria
Stakeholders, particularly customers, can cooperate with cor-
porations that are more responsible in terms of social perspec-
tive and reward these companies [26]. In spite of increased
government and various kinds of stakeholders’ pressure for
integrating social responsibility issues in supplier selection, a
small number of scholars have addressed social responsibility
elements in the supplier selection process [27]. Environmental
and economic dimensions of sustainability were studied by
large number of researchers who are in the sustainable suppli-
er selection field. According to Bai and Sarkis [28],
manufacturing corporations have acknowledged safety and
social themes including human rights and worker health.

These issues should be taken into account in their agenda
particularly when suppliers are selected. According to a re-
search carried out by Azadnia et al. [29], occupation, systems
of health and safety management, and stakeholder’s rights
were specified as social factors alongside economic and envi-
ronmental factors for supplier selection problem. According to
Govindan et al. [30], methods of employment, health and
safety, contractual stakeholders’ influences, and local commu-
nity influences were identified as the social factors for supplier
selection decision. In this paper, work safety and labor health
(WSLH), training education and community influence
(TECI), and contractual stakeholders influence (CSI) were
employed as social sustainability criteria.
2.2.3 Economic criteria
Several studies have been conducted to determine the most
significant economic criteria for supplier selection decision.
Economic criteria have been taken into account for evaluating
the suppliers in conventional supplier selection methods.
Dickson [31] found 23 criteria containing on-time delivery,
history of suppliers’ performance, and product quality as the
main criteria for supplier selection problem. Weber et al. [32]
reviewed 74 research papers published between 1966 and
1990. According to their findings, price, delivery perfor-
mance, quality, and technical capability were identified as
the most significant elements to be considered for dealing with
the supplier selection problem. Ho et al. [33] found that deliv-
ery, price, and cost are the most applied criteria for assessing
the suppliers’ performance.
2.2.4 Supplier selection approaches
During the last years, various kinds of decision making tech-
niques for dealing with the supplier selection have been de-
veloped, such as analytic hierarchy process (AHP), analytic
network process (ANP), data envelopment analysis (DEA),
fuzzy set theory (FST), artificial neural networks (ANN),
case-based reasoning (CBR), genetic algorithm (GA), mathe-
matical programming (MP), the simple multi-attribute rating
technique (SMART), grey relational analysis (GRA), and their
hybrids. A comprehensive review of supplier selection ap-
proaches can be read in [33, 34]. Asadabadi [34] combined
ANP and quality function deployment (QFD) as a hybrid
method to address the supplier selection problem. First studies
of supplier evaluation contained some mathematical modeling
formulation such as linear programming (LP), non-linear pro-
gramming (NLP), and mixed integer programming. A re-
search conducted by Ghodsypour and O’Brien [35] indicates
some examples of mathematical programming application in
the supplier evaluation and selection process such as mixed
integer non-linear programming. Nevertheless, application of
mathematical programming is complicated for many
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
operational managers. Moreover, supplier selection problems
generally contain both qualitative and quantitative criteria
[36]. Considering only environmental aspect of sustainability
in the supplier selection process is called green supplier selec-
tion. Table 2 shows a review on green and sustainable supplier
selection area.
According to Saaty [44], approaches such as AHP are
preferred in such situations. AHP is capable of helping the
decision maker to identify preferences and make the best
decision by decreasing complex decisions to pairwise
comparisons series and afterward synthesizing the results.
AHP can classify elements of a system to specify levels
and categorize similar parts in each level based on natural
human brain priorities. A number of AHP applications in
supplier selection and decision making can be found in
Table 3. Deng [45] introduced the grey theory by integrat-
ing system, control, and space theory. Obscurities and
uncertainties produced from vague human decisions can
be handled by grey system methodology [5, 45, 46].
Moreover, other decision-making techniques can be suc-
cessfully combined with grey theory, so the judgment
quality can be improved [46]. Grey-based methods have
the capability to handle both complete and obscure infor-
mation, which is more effective in environments with
poor data [28]. According to Fu et al. [47], one of the
main advantages of grey system theory is that it can pro-
duce satisfactory results using a relatively small amount
of data or with great variability in elements. Ambiguous
and unclear relationships among one major element and
all other elements in a system are evaluated by grey rela-
tional analysis (GRA) [48]. Different decision-making en-
vironments relevant to industry and engineering have ap-
plied grey theory. According to Tsai et al. [49], GRA can
be successfully applied in supplier selection decisions.
Baskaran et al. [36] investigated the supplier’s sustainabil-
ity in a textile manufacturing company using GRA ap-
proach. Li et al. [5] proposed a grey-based decision-mak-
ing technique to traditional supplier selection process.
They took into account the primary attributes for supplier
selection and computed grey possibility values for selec-
tion of suppliers. Golmohammadi and Mellat-Parast [50]
employed hybrid fuzzy pairwise comparison and GRA to
propose a supplier selection model using traditional fac-
tors including price, quality, delivery, transportation cost,
and technology. A number of grey-based applications in
the field of supplier selection and decision making can be
seen in Table 4.
AHP has been widely utilized in the supplier selection field.
The criteria weights can be simply acquired by this technique.
But it is unable to handle uncertainty, which is inherent in these
kinds of problems. To solve this issue, in this study, we
employed the IGRA approach in order to consider the uncertain-
ty and ranking the sustainable suppliers. By integrating AHP and
Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Table 2 Literature on green/

sustainable supplier selection Solution approach Economic Environmental Social Author(s)

FTOPSIS * * * [30]
Grey approach * * [28]
FAHP and multi-objective programming * * [37]
FAHP, FTOPSIS, and multi-objective programming * * [7]
Fuzzy inference * * * [38]
Multi-objective programming and GA * * [39]
FTOPSIS * [40]
AHP * [41]
Multi-objective decision analysis * [19]
Multi-objective programming * * [42]
Rough set theory * * [13]
Rough set theory and grey system * * * [28]
Structural equation modeling and FAHP * * * [43]

improved GRA, the ambiguity of the problem can be handled
and the reliability and quality of the results is enhanced.
3 Methods
3.1 AHP
AHP was introduced by Saaty [44]. It is a methodology for
multi-criteria decision-making problems. AHP assigns
weights to several alternatives using pairwise comparison
principle. Several decision-making methods have been creat-
ed through inspiration by AHP and its use of pairwise com-
parisons [65, 66]. The compatibility of AHP to supplier selec-
tion problem can be identified by some main characteristics
such as capability to consider both tangible and intangible
factors, capability to structure the problems in a hierarchical
manner, capability to monitor the consistency with which a
decision maker makes a judgment, and capability to produce a
synthetic score for each supplier [65]. In a corporate environ-
ment, AHP is one of the most effective tools for the evaluation
of suppliers. Generally, goal, criteria, and alternatives

Table 3 AHP applications in supplier selection and decision making

Approach Main objective Author(s)

AHP, TOPSIS To present an integrated AHP–TOPSIS as a decision framework for supplier selection [51]
AHP, QFD To develop a four-phase AHP–QFD approach for sustainable supplier assessment [52]
AHP To implement an AHP technique to three case studies as a decision support model to help managers [41]
understand the trade-offs between environmental dimensions
AHP To propose a method called chain of interaction to solve the problems associated with the dynamic [53]
nature of supply chain management with application of AHP and a numerical example
AHP, LP To develop an integrated AHP and linear programming for choosing the best suppliers and placing [35]
the optimum order quantities among them such that the total value of purchasing (TVP) becomes maximum
AHP To propose a model for evaluating green suppliers in high tech industry under fuzzy environment [19]
AHP To analyze the importance of seven criteria for selecting the best supplier under corporate social [54]
responsibility (CSR) environment
AHP To present AHP in an internal benchmarking process to identify improvement areas when firms [55]
attempt to adopt green initiatives with a supply chain perspective
AHP, ANP To develop a multi-step process to select a third-party reverse logistic provider (3PRLP) using AHP [30]
and ANP
AHP To employ AHP for socially sustainable supplier selection through social parameters and to demonstrate [56]
the development of social sustainability indicators, including equity, health, safety, wages, education,
philanthropy, child, and bonded labor, which were validated by experts and manufacturers of electrical,
automotive, and cement industries
AHP To apply AHP as a multi-criteria evaluation approach by integrating the geographic information system. [57]
Port Dickson district was selected as the study area where the site suitability was applied to determine
suitable land for tourism resort
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Table 4 Grey-based applications in supplier selection and decision making

Approach Main objective Author(s)

GRA To propose a framework for prioritizing six potential suppliers in electronic resilient supply chain [58]
Grey theory To develop a new grey-based approach in order to deal with the supplier selection problem [5]
Grey-based DEMATEL To develop a framework for companies to help evaluate their green supplier development programs [47]
and their relationships with each other
GRA, fuzzy pairwise To present a decision-making approach for supplier selection problem based on GRA [50]
comparison matrix
Grey theory To evaluate sustainable suppliers within textile manufacturing industry using grey approach [36]
AHP, GRA To integrate AHP and GRA for optimal selection of 17 full scale tannery effluent treatment plants [59]
Linguistic preferences, GRA To present a perception approach to deal with supplier evaluation of environmental knowledge [60]
management capacities (EKMC) with uncertainty and lack of information
Grey theory To develop a grey-based group decision-making methodology for the selection of the best [61]
renewable energy technology (12 hydrogen production technologies) using a life cycle
sustainability perspective
GRA To present the GRA and compare the results with another two popular MADM methods, namely [62]
TOPSIS and operational competitiveness rating method (OCRA)
GRA, QFD To apply GRA to quality function deployment (QFD) to identify service improvement techniques [63]
for an academic library. Top 5 reader needs and service improvement techniques were determined
by one case study
FAHP, GRA To evaluate suppliers within an electroplating industry by combining the FAHP and GRA, [64]
considering the qualitative and partially known information in the decision model using
the fuzzy set theory

construct the hierarchy levels. For the supplier selection deci-
sion, goal is to select the best potential supplier. The criteria
can be quality, environmental sustainability, cost, etc. The
alternatives are the various proposals supplied by the suppliers
[66]. AHP is a decision-making technique which has been
extensively employed for evaluating and ranking of suppliers.
AHP helps the decision makers to structure a complex prob-
lem into a simple hierarchy [67]. AHP has been applied to
weight the supplier selection criteria and rank the potential
suppliers in a hierarchical manner [35]. According to a review
carried out by Chai et al. [68], AHP has been extensively
applied between 2008 and 2012 for supplier evaluation and
selection. Generally, the major steps of AHP method can be
described as follows:
pairwise comparison fundamental scale between two factors
was employed based on Saaty [69]. These preferences can be
quantified and pairwise comparison matrix can be constructed.
In the next stage, the criteria relative importance or weights and
the consistency ratio (CR) can be computed [70].
3.1.2 Consistency checking
Values acquired from the industry decision makers formulate
the pairwise comparison matrix. Hence, it is important to en-
sure that the data obtained are accepted values by the literature
and experts. To check the consistency, the CR can be comput-
ed using Eq. (1):

Step 1: Constructing the problem hierarchical structure CI

CR ¼ ð1Þ
Step 2: Identifying weights of criteria and sub criteria using RI
pairwise comparisons
Step 3: Determining alternative pairwise comparisons with where CI is the consistency index which is defined using
regard to each criterion Eq. (2), and RI is the random index for criteria size n:
Step 4: Specifying each alternative overall score
ðϒ max −N Þ
CI ¼ ð2Þ
ðN −1Þ

3.1.1 Pairwise comparisons
Once the criteria are determined, the decision makers evaluate
different criteria by comparing them to one another a pair of
criteria at a time. By applying pairwise comparison among the
criteria, the priorities can be asked from the experts. The
Saaty [44] proposed the random average indicator (RI) for
different ns demonstrating the criteria number in a pairwise
comparison matrix. If CR ≤ 0.1, then the pairwise comparison
matrix is consistent and decision is acceptable. If else, pairwise
comparison should be repeated to clarify the error. It should be
a cyclic process until closure to establish consistency.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
 
3.2 Improved grey rational analysis minm g k
i¼1
̅ ij ð9Þ
⊗ykij ¼ ; j ¼ 1; 2; :::; n∈ cost criteria
GRA is part of the grey system theory, mainly involving am- ⊗g kij
biguous or uncertain problems and situations with discrete
data and incomplete information [45]. The traditional GRA All performance values are scaled into [0, 1], after normal-
addresses uncertainty and vagueness by taking into account izing the decision matrix. In the next step, we describe the
deterministic numbers [60, 71, 72]. This paper presents an reference set regarding each criteria. Therefore, it means that
improved GRA with the ability to address interval numbers each expert’s grey decision matrix should be normalized
based on the research conducted by [73]. In this improved individually.
version, namely IGRA, the whitening of grey numbers has
been postponed to the last step. Furthermore, the proposed Step 2: Establishing the reference alternative. The reference
method integrates the expert’s opinions in the form of grey alternative can be acquired by Eqs. (10) and (11):
numbers. Generally, a grey number is written as ⊗g ¼ ½g; g, n o
where g is the lower bound and g the upper bound. Let ⊗g1 yk;0 ¼ y1k;0 ; y2k;0 ; :::; ynk;0 ð10Þ
and ⊗g2 be two grey numbers and a a crisp number, then the k
m ̅
major operations required for IGRA are as follows (all param- ⊗yk;0
j ¼ maxi¼1 y ij ; j ¼ 1; 2; :::; n ð11Þ
eters are greater than zero) [6]:

 where yk;0
j is the reference value in relation to the jth
̅
⊗g 1 þ ⊗g 2 ¼ g1 þ g2 ; g 1 þ g 2 ̅ ð3Þ criterion, k belongs to kth expert, and zero in super-
̅ ̅
script is a sign of reference. In other words, reference


alternatives represent the ideal set by which one can
⊗g 1 −⊗g2 ¼ g1 −g̅2 ; ̅
g 1 −g2 ð4Þ calculate each alternative’s distance from them. After
̅ ̅
this step, reference values of each expert’s normalized
2 3
g1 grey decision matrix would be recognized.
⊗g 1 4̅ g̅1 5
¼ ; ð5Þ
a a a Step 3: Calculating the difference between the alternatives
and the reference alternative and obtaining the dif-


̅
ference matrix as displayed by Eqs. (12) and (13):
a ⊗g1 ¼ ag1 ; ag̅1 ð6Þ
̅
2 3
Suppose that there are m alternatives characterized by n ⊗δk11 ⊗δk12 … ⊗δk1n
6 ⊗δk ⊗δk22 ⋯ ⊗δk2n 7
criteria, and the grey decision-making matrix G given by the ⊗Δk ¼ 6
4 ⋮
21 7 ð12Þ
kth expert is demonstrated in Eq. (7): ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ 5
2 3 ⊗δkm1 ⊗δkm2 … ⊗δkmn
⊗gk11 ⊗gk12 … ⊗gk1n
6 ⊗gk ⊗gk22 ⋯ ⊗gk2n 7

⊗Gk ¼ 6 4 ⋮
21 7 ð7Þ
⋮ 5
k k;0
⋮ ⋱ ⊗δkij ¼ yk;0 ̅
j −y ij ; y j −yij
k
; i ¼ 1; 2; :::; m; j ¼ 1; 2; :::; n ð13Þ
̅
⊗gkm1 ⊗g km2 … ⊗g kmn

where ⊗gkij demonstrates the jth criterion value of the ith al- As it is mentioned before, difference matrix shows each
ternative assessed by the kth expert. The proposed improved alternative’s distance from ideal set of alternatives.
GRA technique includes seven steps as follows:
Step 4: Computing the grey relational coefficient for all
Step 1: Decision-making matrix normalization. In order to alternatives according to Eqs. (14)–(16) as follows:
normalize the benefit (larger better) and cost (small-
er better) types criteria, Eqs. (8) and (9) are applied,

k
respectively: ⊗φkij ¼ ̅
φij k ; φ ð14Þ
ij
̅

k
i¼1 min j¼1 δ þ ρ  maxi¼1 max j¼1 δ ij
k n ̅
⊗g kij minm n m
⊗ykij ¼  k
; j ¼ 1; 2; :::; n∈ benefit criteria ð8Þ ̅ ij
φk ¼ ð15Þ
maxm ̅
g ̅ ij k n ̅k
i¼1 ij δ ij
̅ þρ i¼1 max j¼1 δ ij
maxm
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

k
the prioritized sustainable supplier selection criteria and
i¼1 min j¼1 δ þ ρ  maxi¼1 max j¼1 δ ij
k n ̅
minm n m

̅
k ̅ ij IGRA to select and rank the sustainable suppliers in
φ ij ¼ ð16Þ
δ k þ ρ  maxm
k context of telecom industry. Our proposed approach
i¼1 max j¼1 δ ij
n ̅
̅ ij for sustainable supplier selection includes five steps as
illustrated in Fig. 1. Identifying and preselecting sup-
̅k pliers according to environmental management systems
where ⊗φ ij is the grey relational coefficient, ρ displays the
is the first step of our proposed approach. This pre-
distinguishing coefficient, and ρ = 0.5 is generally used.
selection could help us to ensure that all suppliers
passed minimum requirements. In the second step, rele-
Step 5: Calculating the grey relational degree for each al-
vant criteria for sustainable supplier selection were spec-
ternative by kth expert. A grey relational degree is a
ified based on literature review and interviewing ex-
weighted sum of the grey relational coefficients, as
perts. In this paper, experts were asked to fill out a
indicated in Eq. (17):
semi-closed questionnaire to approve and choose the
X
n related criteria according to those offered in the litera-
⊗γ ki ¼ ⊗φkij  w j ð17Þ ture. A questionnaire was designed and sent to experts
j¼1 in order to make sure that all selected criteria were
related to the case company. Experts gave their opinions
h i
on whether criteria were appropriate or not, inserting
⊗γ ki ¼ γ k ; 
γ ki ð18Þ
i number 1 if related and 0 if not-related. Afterward,
those criteria which obtained unanimous agreement and
where wj indicates the weight of the jth criterion as determined approval of all experts were taken into account as
by the AHP. related and selected for more analysis. Eventually, using
AHP, we could calculate the criteria weights by
Step 6: Conducting group decision making. The integrated conducting pairwise comparisons in order to identify
lower and upper relational degrees of alternatives their relative importance. After acquiring the criteria
can be computed based on Eqs. (19) and (20) as weights in the fourth step, the decision matrix would
follows: be fulfilled. Finally, by acquiring the opinions of ex-
!1=L perts in the form of linguistic variables, the final scores
L
of the sustainable suppliers were computed using IGRA
γi ¼ ∏ γi k ð19Þ method.
̅ k¼1 ̅

L
!1=L
k
γ̅i ¼ ∏ γ̅ i ð20Þ Preselect suppliers based on the
k¼1
implementation of environmental management
systems

Step 7: Whitening the grey relational degrees. In the final

Review the literature and conducting interviews
step, the whitening relational degree can be comput-
with experts in order to identify and select
ed by Eq. (21), and ranking of alternatives can be relevant criteria
obtained based on the rule that the bigger the inte-
grated whiten relational degree, the better the corre-
sponding alternative. Conduct pairwise comparisons based on
experts’ opinions

γi þ γ̅ i AHP
̅
γi ¼ ð21Þ
2 Calculate weights of the criteria and
constructing the decision matrix

IGRA

4 Proposed methodology Use experts’ opinions for evaluating and

ranking suppliers according to selected criteria
In this research, the two-staged sustainable supplier se-
lection approach employs AHP to determine and weight Fig. 1 Sustainable supplier selection framework
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
5 Case illustration
Over the past two decades, a large number of organiza-
tions have been taking advantage of globalization,
outsourcing, and communication technology develop-
ments to enter new markets and compete wherever and
whenever possible. Telecom organizations are among
those corporations that endeavor most to enhance their
social, economic, and environmental developments glob-
ally. Telecom industry is expected to grow on a world-
wide basis to $2.7 trillion in 2017 [74]. Many companies
have adopted sustainable development strategies that pri-
oritize the modernization of their organizations’ supply
chain systems in terms of sustainability perspectives (eco-
nomic, social, and environmental). Asian telecom firms
are no exception [75]. Iran has one of the largest and most
interesting telecommunication markets in the Middle East.
Highest telecom network growth rate in the district belong
to Iran with increased influence in fixed and mobile
phones. In this study, the case of ABC Telecom
Company is presented to test and show the applicability
and efficacy of our developed model. Within the last
years, ABC has been responsible for the country telecom-
munication network. ABC has established the latest tele-
communication technologies including fiber optic digital
switch, mobile, information networks, satellite services,
and also special phone services. More than 60 % of the
required equipment of the communication network in Iran
has been produced by this firm [76]. Recently, ABC in-
tends to evaluate its suppliers’ sustainability by
implementing a sustainable supplier selection project.
The firm has shortlisted four suppliers for supply of a
particular component used in fiber optic digital switch
according to their past supplier information. Five supply
chain experts were determined as a committee in order to
evaluate the potential alternative suppliers of digital
switch materials. The specialists who took part in this
study were the purchasing manager (E1), the logistic man-
ager (E2), the health and safety manager (E3), the re-
search and development manager (E4), and the production
planning manager (E5), with more than 10 years of work-
ing experience in telecom industry supply chains. To
eliminate the obscurity and vagueness of the information,
the analysts represented their decisions for evaluating the
suppliers in linguistic terms. Figure 2 illustrates the pro-
posed framework for this study.
5.1 Stage I: computation of weights using AHP
The evaluation criteria considered in this research are
the following environmental sustainability criteria: green
corporate social image (GCSI), eco-design practices
(EDP), environmental management system (EMS), and
end-of-pipe practices (EPP); social sustainability criteria:
work safety and labor health (WSLH), training educa-
tion and community influence (TECI), and contractual
stakeholders influence (CSI); and economic criteria: cost
(C), quality (Q), and service (S). Table 5 shows the
pairwise comparisons and the relative weights of the
evaluation criteria. After calculating the criteria weights
according to expert’s judgments, the consistency ratio
(CR) is checked using Eq. (1).
The degree of consistency for pairwise comparisons in the
decision criteria preference matrix (CR) was computed as
0.0979 which is less than 0.1. Hence, the degree of consisten-
cy is satisfactory and acceptable.
5.2 Stage II: determining the performance of sustainable
suppliers
In this paper, for evaluating the performance of supplies
based on the various criteria, the linguistic terms of
very poor, poor, medium, good, and very good have
been employed, as displayed in Table 6. Evaluation of
suppliers was carried out by experts according to their
experience and judgments. In this stage, evaluators were
asked to construct the decision matrix by comparing the
alternatives under each criterion. Table 7 demonstrates
the results of the survey conducted by five experts.
Table 8 shows the whitening relational degrees and the
ranks of the sustainable suppliers as specified by the
experts. Microsoft Excel was employed in order to ac-
complish all calculations.
5.3 Results
The final results of the hybrid AHP and improved GRA ap-
proach are summarized in Tables 8 and 9. By using Eqs. (8)
and (9) normalized grey decision matrix of each expert is
obtained and shown in Table 8. Other tables are removed for
the reason of brevity (for more details on calculation please
contact the corresponding author).
According to the white grey relational degrees as shown in
Table 9, the ranking order of suppliers is as follows:
Supplier 1 > supplier 2 > supplier 4 > supplier 3
Hence, we can conclude that supplier 1 has the best sus-
tainability performance based on the experts’ opinions.
We have just displayed the results of supplier’s anal-
ysis given a situation where all the sustainability criteria
and decision makers are taken into account. In the next
section, we will consider several conditions, identifying
the solutions sensitivity when the number of criteria and
decision makers are changed.
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Fig. 2 Proposed framework Selection of sustainable

suppliers in the telecom
industry supply chain

Defining sustainability
criteria
AHP

Environmental criteria Social criteria Economic criteria

E1 E2 E3 E4 S1 S2 S3 C1 C2 C3

IGRA

Supplier Supplier Supplier Supplier

1 2 3 4

5.4 Discussion sustainable supplier evaluation, corporations can specify

The proposed methodology and framework in this re-
search contain environmental, economic, and social
standards that can be employed to establish an evalua-
tion platform for sustainable performance of telecommu-
nication firms and their suppliers. The framework can
particularly assist the telecom supply chain managers
and decision makers in developing countries to increase
their perception regarding the application of sustainable
practices. Also, relevant industries’ decision makers can
apply the proposed approach to assess their sustainable
suppliers or to choose the best sustainable supplier for
cooperation. According to the implementation of
and prioritize opportunities for improvement which may
result to significant reduction of the negative environ-
mental and social impacts of their operational activities
and moving toward sustainable development, resulting
in considerable resources and cost saving. In addition,
corporations can apply the proposed method to bench-
mark and improve feasibility of selection and to in-
crease sustainable processes and better products.
Generally, managers can decide in three different condi-
tions, namely to continue working with a certain group
of suppliers, to ask their suppliers for improving certain
defects, and to stop working with some suppliers.
Moreover, the results can help managers to perform

Table 5 Pairwise comparisons of the different criteria with relative weight

Criteria GCSI ED EMS EOP WSLH TECI CSI C Q S Relative weights

GCSI 1.000 4.000 3.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 3.000 5.000 3.000 5.000 0.213
ED 0.250 1.000 2.000 0.333 0.200 0.500 0.333 2.000 3.000 2.000 0.074
EMS 0.333 0.500 1.000 2.000 2.000 3.000 2.000 3.000 2.000 4.000 0.142
EOP 0.500 3.000 0.500 1.000 3.000 2.000 2.000 3.000 2.000 4.000 0.142
WSLH 0.500 5.000 0.500 0.333 1.000 2.000 2.000 4.000 5.000 3.000 0.136
TECI 0.500 2.000 0.333 0.500 0.500 1.000 2.000 2.000 3.000 2.000 0.088
CSI 0.333 3.000 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 1.000 2.000 2.000 3.000 0.079
C 0.200 0.500 0.333 0.333 0.250 0.500 0.500 1.000 3.000 2.000 0.049
Q 0.333 0.333 0.500 0.500 0.200 0.333 0.500 0.333 1.000 2.000 0.042
S 0.200 0.500 0.250 0.250 0.333 0.500 0.333 0.500 0.500 1.000 0.031
Sum 4.150 19.833 8.917 7.750 9.983 12.333 13.667 22.833 24.500 28.000 1
Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Table 6 Grey numbers illustrates a graphical representation of these results. For

scale for evaluation of Performance Grey number scale
example, the second scenario considers only social criteria
alternatives
Very poor (VP) (1.5, 3.0) with decision makers (E1, E2, E3, E4, and E5). According
Poor (P) (3.0, 4.5) to this sensitivity analysis, the ranking order of S3 and S4
Medium (M) (4.5, 6.0) was replaced compared to initial condition. According to
Good (G) (6.0, 7.5) Table 10 and Fig. 3, the results of the sensitivity analysis
Very good (VG) (7.5, 9.0) demonstrate that although there were no significant
changes in the ranking order of S1, considerable changes
were observed in the ranking orders of other suppliers.

sensitivity analyses in ways that allow them to specify

the stability of their observations.
6 Conclusion and future researches

5.5 Sensitivity analysis
The goal of sensitivity analysis is to take into consider-
ation what happens to a supplier’s ranking when different
decision maker or different criteria are selected. In this
work, a sensitivity analysis was performed based on a
research carried out by [73]. We investigated the sensitiv-
ity of results by making changes to both the sets of
criteria and decision makers. The details of eight addition-
al scenarios are presented in Table 10, and Fig. 3
Sustainable supply chain initiatives such as supplier envi-
ronmental and social collaboration can play a consider-
able role in attaining the triple-bottom-line benefits and
contributing to the society sustainable development.
Firms can determine and prioritize opportunities for im-
proving their sustainability performances, which can lead
to decrease in negative environmental and social impacts
of their operations according to sustainable supplier eval-
uation implementation. In this study, we developed a two-
phase methodology based on combined AHP and

Table 7 Suppliers linguistic evaluation according to experts’ judgments

Criteria Suppliers Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert 4 Expert 5

Green corporate social image (GCSI) S1 P M G P VG

S2 M G P P P
S3 VP M M M P
S4 G P VP M M
Eco-design (ED) S1 P G P G G
S2 M G P P G
S3 G M M M M
S4 M M G VG M
Environmental management system (EMS) S1 M M G M G
S2 M M VP M P
S3 G P VG M P
S4 VP G M G VP
End-of-pipe (EOP) S1 G M G G M
S2 VG G M P G
S3 VP P M M G
S4 M VG M VP G
Work safety and labor health (WSLH) S1 P P G P M
S2 VG P G G VP
S3 M G P M M
S4 P VG VP VP P
Training education and community influence (TECI) S1 M M M M G
S2 M P P P VP
S3 G P P VP M
S4 P VP P VG M
Contractual stakeholders influence (CSI) S1 P VG VG M G
S2 G P M M G
S3 G M M P P
S4 M G P G M
Cost (C) S1 M P VP M VP
S2 M P G VP M
S3 VP M M M G
S4 P VP M G M
Quality (Q) S1 VG M M P P
S2 G G G P M
S3 G P P M M
S4 M G P M VP
Service (S) S1 P M M G G
S2 G G P M VG
S3 VP P G VP M
S4 M VP VG G VP
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Table 8 Normalized grey decision matrix of experts

Experts Alternatives Environmental Social Economic

GCSI EDP EMS EPP WSLH TECI CSI CP Q S

φk φkij φk φkij φk k
φ φk k
φ φk k
φ φk k
φ φk φkij φk k
φ φk k
φ φk k
φ
ij ij ij ij
ij ij
ij ij
ij ij
ij ij ij
ij ij
ij ij

Expert 1 S1 0.50 0.60 0.50 0.60 0.75 0.80 0.80 0.83 0.40 0.50 0.75 0.80 0.50 0.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.60
S2 0.75 0.80 0.75 0.80 0.75 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.83 1.00 1.00
S3 0.25 0.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.20 0.33 0.60 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.50 0.80 0.83 0.25 0.40
S4 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.80 0.25 0.40 0.60 0.67 0.40 0.50 0.50 0.60 0.75 0.80 0.67 0.75 0.60 0.67 0.75 0.80
Expert 2 S1 0.75 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.80 0.60 0.67 0.40 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.75 0.75 0.80 0.75 0.80
S2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.80 0.80 0.83 0.40 0.50 0.67 0.75 0.40 0.50 0.67 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
S3 0.75 0.80 0.75 0.80 0.50 0.60 0.40 0.50 0.80 0.83 0.67 0.75 0.60 0.67 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.60 0.50 0.60
S4 0.50 0.60 0.75 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.50 0.80 0.83 0.33 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.25 0.40
Expert 3 S1 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.60 0.80 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 0.40 0.75 0.80 0.60 0.67
S2 0.50 0.60 0.50 0.60 0.20 0.33 0.75 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.75 0.60 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.40 0.50
S3 0.75 0.80 0.75 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.80 0.50 0.60 0.67 0.75 0.60 0.67 0.75 0.80 0.50 0.60 0.80 0.83
S4 0.25 0.40 1.00 1.00 0.60 0.67 0.75 0.80 0.25 0.40 0.67 0.75 0.40 0.50 0.75 0.80 0.50 0.60 1.00 1.00
Expert 4 S1 0.67 0.75 0.80 0.83 0.75 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.60 0.60 0.67 0.75 0.80 0.75 0.80 0.67 0.75 1.00 1.00
S2 0.67 0.75 0.40 0.50 0.75 0.80 0.50 0.60 1.00 1.00 0.40 0.50 0.75 0.80 0.25 0.40 0.67 0.75 0.75 0.80
S3 0.33 0.50 0.60 0.67 0.75 0.80 0.75 0.80 0.75 0.80 0.20 0.33 0.50 0.60 0.75 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.25 0.40
S4 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 0.40 0.25 0.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Expert 5 S1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 0.40 0.67 0.75 0.80 0.83
S2 0.40 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.60 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.50 0.25 0.40 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
S3 0.40 0.50 0.75 0.80 0.50 0.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.80 0.50 0.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.60 0.67
S4 0.60 0.67 0.75 0.80 0.25 0.40 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.75 0.75 0.80 0.75 0.80 0.75 0.80 0.33 0.50 0.20 0.33

Table 9 Suppliers’ grey and whitening relational degrees

  γi Ranks
⊗γ ki γ ;
γ
i i

Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert 4 Expert 5

Supplier 1 (0.561, 0.606) (0.647, 0.686) (0.847, 0.863) (0.634, 0.681) (0.883, 0.897) (0.703, 0.738) 0.721 1
Supplier 2 (0.786, 0.814) (0.696, 0.728) (0.592, 0.632) (0.577, 0.626) (0.631, 0.665) (0.652, 0.690) 0.671 2
Supplier 3 (0.632, 0.662) (0.544, 0.592) (0.626, 0.671) (0.525, 0.577) (0.671, 0.702) (0.597, 0.639) 0.618 4
Supplier 4 (0.590, 0.630) (0.712, 0.742) (0.515, 0.562) (0.818, 0.833) (0.579, 0.625) (0.634, 0.672) 0.653 3

improved GRA to evaluate and select the best sustainable of all, the related sustainability criteria were specified
supplier in the context of telecom industry by taking into based on the literature and experts’ opinions. Then, AHP
account economic, social, and environmental criteria. First was utilized to weight the selected criteria. Moreover, we

Table 10 Results of sensitivity

analysis for different sustainable Scenario Decision criteria Decision makers Supplier ranking
supplier selection scenarios
Initial condition All criteria E1, E2, E3, E4, E5 1 > 2 > 4 > 3
Scenario 1 Economic criteria only E1, E2, E3, E4, E5 4 > 1 > 2 > 3
Scenario 2 Social criteria only E1, E2, E3, E4, E5 1 > 2 > 3 > 4
Scenario 3 Environmental criteria only E1, E2, E3, E4, E5 1 > 3 > 4 > 2
Scenario 4 All criteria E1 4 > 1 > 2 > 3
Scenario 5 All criteria E2 3 > 2 > 4 > 1
Scenario 6 All criteria E3 1 > 3 > 2 > 4
Scenario 7 All criteria E4 2 > 3 > 4 > 1
Scenario 8 All criteria E5 1 > 3 > 2 > 4
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
Fig. 3 Sensitivity analysis
employed an improved GRA in order to rank the suppliers
based on their sustainability performance. The applicabil-
ity and efficiency of the proposed framework were clari-
fied with an empirical study of telecom industry. Finally,
sensitivity analysis was conducted on the decision param-
eters to investigate changes in the suppliers’ orders when
various scenarios are imposed. The main advantage of this
work is that it can be applied for both qualitative and
quantitative criteria. Also, in IGRA approach, the grey
relational degrees whitening process was postponed to
the last step, ensuring that obscurity and ambiguity was
maintained in all calculation stages [73]. IGRA is a pow-
erful method that deals with fuzziness by the interval
numbers application. In addition, expert’s opinions can
be acquired separately and then combined in to the model.
It makes this technique more flexible compared to the
other decision making tools including TOPSIS, in which
opinions should be incorporated at the beginning of the
process.
One of the limitations of this study is that the information
and data required for the application of the methodology
should be available. One possible solution in order to address
this issue would be to encourage the supply chain managers to
retain this type of information not only for usage of this meth-
odology but also for the general future management of their
company. For the possible future researches, there could be
some potential studies for order quantity allocation, after rank-
ing all suppliers in a sustainable supply chain. In addition,
further research could investigate the sustainable supplier se-
lection problem and order allocation in which the uncertainty
and dynamic nature of some parameters are considered.
Furthermore, prospective studies could focus on sustainable
supplier’s impact on telecom industry supply chain sustain-
ability performance. We suggest that telecom industry sustain-
ability criteria causal relationships could be statistically eval-
uated, and after approval, ANP can be also used instead of
AHP. Further, fuzzy and grey AHP and ANP can be employed
to encounter uncertainty issue in weighting criteria, and finally
the results of these new approaches can be compared together.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the anonymous
reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions. In addition,
the first and third authors are supported by a grant from the National
Natural Science Foundation of China (No.71471025 and 71531002).
References
1. Önüt S, Kara I (2009) Long term supplier selection using a com-
bined fuzzy MCDM approach: a case study for a telecommunica-
tion company. Expert Syst Appl 36(2, Part 2):3887–3895
2. Ciliberti F, Pontrandolfo S (2008) Logistics social responsibility:
standard adoption and practices in Italian companies. Int J Prod
Econ 113(1):88–106
3. Seuring S, Müller M (2008) From a literature review to a concep-
tual framework for sustainable supply chain management. J Clean
Prod 16(15):1699–1710
4. Büyüközkan G, Çifçi (2012) A novel hybrid MCDM approach
based on fuzzy DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS to eval-
uate green suppliers. Expert Syst Appl 39(3):3000–3011
5. Li G, Yamaguchi D, Nagai M (2007) A grey-based decision-mak-
ing approach to the supplier selection problem. Math Comput
Model 46(3–4):573–581
6. Ahi P, Searcy C (2013) A comparative literature analysis of defini-
tions for green and sustainable supply chain management. J Clean
Prod 52:329–341
7. Kannan D, Khodaverdi R, Olfat L, Jafarian A, Diabat A (2013)
Integrated fuzzy multi criteria decision making method and multi-
objective programming approach for supplier selection and order
allocation in a green supply chain. J Clean Prod 47:355–367
8. Elkington J (1997) Cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of
21st century business. Capstone, UK
9. Norman W, MacDonald C (2004) Getting to the bottom of “triple
bottom line. Bus Ethics Q 14(02):243–262
10. Gauthier C (2005) Measuring corporate social and environmental
performance: the extended life-cycle assessment. J Bus Ethics
59(1/2):199–206
11. Zailani S, Jeyaraman K, Vengadasan G, Premkumar R (2012)
Sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) in Malaysia: a sur-
vey. Int J Prod Econ 140(1):330–340
12. Genovese A, Lenny Koh S, Bruno G, Esposito E (2013) Greener
supplier selection: state of the art and some empirical evidence. Int J
Prod Res 51(10):2868–2886
13. Bai C, Sarkis J (2010) Green supplier development: analytical eval-
uation using rough set theory. J Clean Prod 18(12):1200–1210

14. Chinander R (2001) Aligning accuntability and awareness for en-
vironmental performance in operations. Prod Oper Manag 10(3):
276–291
15. Chen Y (2008) The driver of green innovation and green image—
green core competence. J Bus Ethics 81(3):531–543
16. Sollish, F, Semanik J (2011) Strategic global sourcing: best
practices. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Wiley
17. Sarkis J (2001) Manufacturing’s role in corporate environmental
sustainability—concerns for the new millennium. Int J Oper Prod
Manag 21(5/6):666–686
18. Kuo RJ, Wang YC, Tien FC (2010) Integration of artificial neural
network and MADA methods for green supplier selection. J Clean
Prod 18(12):1161–1170
19. Lee AHI, Kang HY, Hsu CF, Hung HC (2009) A green supplier
selection model for high-tech industry. Expert Syst Appl 36(4):
7917–7927
20. Azevedo SaC, Elizabeth AaG, Antonio a C, Helena a C, Machado
V (2012) The influence of eco-innovation supply chain practices on
business eco-efficiency. Available from: https://mpra.ub.uni-
muenchen.de/id/eprint/42704.
21. Darnall N, Edwards D (2006) Predicting the cost of environmental
management system adoption: the role of capabilities, resources
and ownership structure. Strateg Manag J 27(4):301–320
22. Morrow D, Rondinelli D (2002) Adopting corporate environmental
management systems: motivations and results of ISO 14001 and
EMAS Certification. Eur Manag J 20(2):159–171
23. Sarkis J, Cordeiro JJ (2001) An empirical evaluation of environ-
mental efficiencies and firm performance: pollution prevention ver-
sus end-of-pipe practice. Eur J Oper Res 135(1):102–113
24. Vachon S (2007) Green supply chain practices and the selection of
environmental technologies. Int J Prod Res 45(18–19):4357–4379
25. Hasanov P, Jaber MY, Zolfaghari S (2012) Production,
remanufacturing and waste disposal models for the cases of pure
and partial backordering. Appl Math Model 36(11):5249–5261
26. Hsu KT (2012) The advertising effects of corporate social respon-
sibility on corporate reputation and brand equity: evidence from the
life insurance industry in Taiwan. J Bus Ethics 109(2):189–201
27. Azadnia AH, Saman MZM, Wong KY (2015) Sustainable supplier
selection and order lot-sizing: an integrated multi-objective deci-
sion-making process. Int J Prod Res 53(2):383–408
28. Bai C, Sarkis J (2010) Integrating sustainability into supplier selec-
tion with grey system and rough set methodologies. Int J Prod Econ
124(1):252–264
29. Azadnia AH, Saman MZM, Ghadimi P, Zakuan N (2012)
Sustainable supplier selection based on self-organizing map neural
network and multi criteria decision making approaches. Procedia—
Soc Behav Sci 65:879–884
30. 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. J Clean Prod 47:
345–354
31. Dickson GW (1966) An analysis of vendor selection systems and
decisions. J Purch 2(1):5–17
32. Weber CA, Current JR, Benton WC (1991) Vendor selection
criteria and methods. Eur J Oper Res 50(1):2–18
33. Ho W, Xu X, Dey PK (2010) Multi-criteria decision making ap-
proaches for supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review.
Eur J Oper Res 202(1):16–24
34. Asadabadi M (2014) A hybrid QFD-based approach in addressing
suppler selection problem in product improvement process. Int J
Ind Eng Comput 5(4):543–560
35. Ghodsypour SH, O’Brien C (1998) A decision support system for
supplier selection using an integrated analytic hierarchy process and
linear programming. Int J Prod Econ 56–57:199–212
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
36. Baskaran V, Nachiappan S, Rahman S (2012) Indian textile sup-
pliers’ sustainability evaluation using the grey approach. Int J Prod
Econ 135(2):647–658
37. Shaw K, Shankar R, Yadav SS, Thakur LS (2012) Supplier selec-
tion using fuzzy AHP and fuzzy multi-objective linear program-
ming for developing low carbon supply chain. Expert Syst Appl
39(9):8182–8192
38. Amindoust A, Ahmed S, Saghafinia A, Bahreininejad A (2012)
Sustainable supplier selection: a ranking model based on fuzzy
inference system. Appl Soft Comput 12(6):1668–1677
39. Zhang Y, Tao F, Laili Y, Hou B, Lv L, Zhang L (2013) Green
partner selection in virtual enterprise based on Pareto genetic algo-
rithms. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 67(9):2109–2125
40. Shen L, Olfat L, Govindan K, Khodaverdi R, Diabat A (2013) A
fuzzy multi criteria approach for evaluating green supplier’s perfor-
mance in green supply chain with linguistic preferences. Resour
Conserv Recycl 74:170–179
41. Handfield R, Walton SV, Sroufe R, Melnyk SA (2002) Applying
environmental criteria to supplier assessment: a study in the applica-
tion of the analytical hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 141(1):70–87
42. Tsai WH, Hung SJ (2009) Treatment and recycling system optimi-
sation with activity-based costing in WEEE reverse logistics man-
agement: an environmental supply chain perspective. Int J Prod Res
47(19):5391–5420
43. Ng WL (2008) An efficient and simple model for multiple criteria
supplier selection problem. Eur J Oper Res 186(3):1059–1067
44. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. New York:
McGraw-Hill
45. Deng (1989) Introduction to grey system theory. Grey system
46. Tseng ML, Chiang JH, Lan LW (2009) Selection of optimal sup-
plier in supply chain management strategy with analytic network
process and choquet integral. Comput Ind Eng 57(1):330–340
47. Fu X, Zhu Q, Sarkis J (2012) Evaluating green supplier develop-
ment programs at a telecommunications systems provider. Int J
Prod Econ 140(1):357–367
48. Liang RH (1999) Application of grey relation analysis to hydro-
electric generation scheduling. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst
21(5):357–364
49. Tsai CH, Chang CL, Chen L (2003) Applying grey relational anal-
ysis to the vendor evaluation model. Int J Comput Internet Manag
11(3):45–53
50. Golmohammadi D, Mellat-Parast M (2012) Developing a grey-
based decision-making model for supplier selection. Int J Prod
Econ 137(2):191–200
51. Vijayvagy L (2012) Decision framework for supplier selection
through multi criteria evaluation models in supply chain. Int J
Manag Innov 4(2):16–28
52. Dai J, Blackhurst J (2011) A four-phase AHP–QFD approach for
supplier assessment: a sustainability perspective. Int J Prod Res
50(19):5474–5490
53. Chan FTS (2003) Interactive selection model for supplier selection
process: an analytical hierarchy process approach. Int J Prod Res
41(15):3549–3579
54. Xu L, Kumar DT, Shankar KM, Kannan D, Chen G (2013)
Analyzing criteria and sub-criteria for the corporate social
responsibility-based supplier selection process using AHP. Int J
Adv Manuf Technol 68(1):907–916
55. Sarmiento R, Thomas A (2010) Identifying improvement areas
when implementing green initiatives using a multitier AHP ap-
proach. Benchmark: An Int J 17(3):452–463
56. Mani V, Agrawal R, Sharma V (2014) Supplier selection using
social sustainability: AHP based approach in India. Int Strateg
Manag Rev 2(2):98–112
57. Dan DY, Liaghat M, Shahabi H, Deilami BR, Ardabili FS, Seyedi
SN, Badri H (2013) 4th International Conference on Environmental
Science and Development—ICESD 2013A multi-criteria
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
evaluation using the analytic hierarchy process technique to analyze
coastal tourism sites. APCBEE Procedia 5:479–485
58. Rajesh R, Ravi V (2015) Supplier selection in resilient supply chains:
a grey relational analysis approach. J Clean Prod 86:343–359
59. Pophali GR, Chelani AB, Dhodapkar RS (2011) Optimal selection
of full scale tannery effluent treatment alternative using integrated
AHP and GRA approach. Expert Syst Appl 38(9):10889–10895
60. Tseng ML (2010) Using linguistic preferences and grey relational
analysis to evaluate the environmental knowledge management ca-
pacity. Expert Syst Appl 37(1):70–81
61. Manzardo A, Ren J, Mazzi A, Scipioni A (2012) A grey-based
group decision-making methodology for the selection of hydrogen
technologies in life cycle sustainability perspective. Int J Hydrog
Energy 37(23):17663–17670
62. Wu HH (2002) A comparative study of using grey relational anal-
ysis in multiple attribute decision making problems. Qual Eng
15(2):209–217
63. Chen YT, Chou TY (2011) Applying GRA and QFD to improve
library service quality. J Acad Librariansh 37(3):237–245
64. Pitchipoo P, Venkumar P, Rajakarunakaran S (2013) Fuzzy hybrid
decision model for supplier evaluation and selection. Int J Prod Res
51(13):3903–3919
65. Chan FTS, Chan HK (2004) Development of the supplier selection
model—a case study in the advanced technology industry. J Eng
Manuf 218(12):1807–1824
66. Bruno G, Esposito E, Genovese A, Passaro R (2012) AHP-based
approaches for supplier evaluation: problems and perspectives. J
Purch Supply Manag 18(3):159–172
67. Sharma S, Dubey D (2010) Multiple sourcing decisions using inte-
grated AHP and knapsack model: a case on carton sourcing. Int J
Adv Manuf Technol 51(9):1171–1178
68. Chai J, Liu JNK, Ngai EWT (2013) Application of decision-
making techniques in supplier selection: a systematic review of
literature. Expert Syst Appl 40(10):3872–3885
69. Saaty TL (2000) Fundamentals of decision making and priority
theory with the analytic hierarchy process .Analytic Hierarchy
Process Series, Vol. 6
70. Anderson D, Sweeney D, Williams T, Jeffrey DC, R KM (1994) An
introduction to management science: quantitative approaches to
decision making. New York: West Publishing Company
71. Kuo Y, Yang T, Huang GW (2008) The use of grey relational
analysis in solving multiple attribute decision-making problems.
Comput Ind Eng 55(1):80–93
72. Lee WS, Lin YC (2011) Evaluating and ranking energy perfor-
mance of office buildings using grey relational analysis. Energy
36(5):2551–2556
73. Hashemi SH, Karimi A, Tavana M (2015) An integrated green
supplier selection approach with analytic network process and im-
proved grey relation analysis. Int J Prod Econ 159:178–191
74. Copeland MV (2006) The mighty micro-multinational, in Business
2.0: 106–114
75. Pradhan RP, Arvin MB, Hall JH (2016) Economic growth, devel-
opment of telecommunications infrastructure, and financial devel-
opment in Asia, 1991–2012. Q Rev Econ Financ 59:25–38
76. Sadjadi SJ, Omrani H (2010) A bootstrapped robust data envelop-
ment analysis model for efficiency estimating of telecommunica-
tion companies in Iran. Telecommun Policy 34(4):221–232