The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Environmental principles applicable to green supplier evaluation by using multi-objective decision analysis
Abstract
The recent shift from buying products to purchasing sets of services makes the re-use of recovered materials, parts and products desirable. In response to heightened governmental regulations and rising public awareness of the effect of industrial production on the environment, many organizations are now undertaking major initiatives to transform their supply chain processes. In contrast with the reverse logistic models, the green supply chain (GSC) is a broad concept that refers to a variety of methods by which companies work with their suppliers to improve the environmental performance of their products or manufacturing processes of the suppliers, customers or both. Two primary goals of GSC include: (1) consistently meeting specified environmental performance criteria among the participants in the supply chain, and promoting responsible corporate environmental behaviour among all the players in the chain of products and services, and (2) helping suppliers to recognize the importance of resolving environmental issues and support them in installing their own improvement initiatives. The emergence of GSC is one of the most significant environmental developments in the past decade, offering the opportunity for companies to align their supply chains in accordance with environmental and sustainability goals. GSC provides information and technical assistance to small- and medium-sized businesses that lack the resources of large companies, and can monitor and measure progress to facilitate environmental enhancement. The number of products produced entirely of recyclable materials will increase in the future, and organizations will have to make supply chain decisions within the context of growing environmental concerns and responsibilities. This study presents an innovative method using simple and efficient procedures to evaluate the effectiveness of projects supplying GSC concept. Specifically, a multi-objective decision making process for GSC management (GSCM) is presented to help the supply chain manager in measuring and evaluating suppliers’ performance based on an analytical hierarchy process (AHP) decision-making method. In addition, to reduce subjective bias in designing a weighting system, a fuzzy logic process is used to modify the AHP.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Green supply chain management: A review and bibliometric analysis
Fahimnia, B., Sarkis, J., & Davarzani, H. (2015) · International Journal of Production Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.01.003 · Cited by 2,131
Design of sustainable supply chains under the emission trading scheme
Chaabane, A., Ramudhin, A., & Paquet, M. (2012) · International Journal of Production Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.10.025 · Cited by 813
Zimmer, K., Fröhling, M., & Schultmann, F. (2016) · International Journal of Production Research · doi:10.1080/00207543.2015.1079340 · Cited by 445
de Oliveira, U. R., Espindola, L. S., da Silva, I. R., da Silva, I. N., & Rocha, H. M. (2018) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.083 · Cited by 341
Effect of consumption values on customers’ green purchase intention: a mediating role of green trust
Amin, S., & Tarun, M. T. (2021) · Social Responsibility Journal · doi:10.1108/srj-05-2020-0191 · Cited by 259
Metadata
- Authors
- Lu, L. Y. Y., Wu, C. H., & Kuo, T.-C.
- Venue
- International Journal of Production Research
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2007-09-15
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 18-19
- Pages
- 4317-4331
- ISSN
- 0020-7543 (ISSN-L)
- 1366-588X
- OpenAlex
- W2127202982
- Cited by
- 361
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 24.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Environmental principles applicable to green supplier evaluation by using multi-objective decision analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/00207540701472694
- The paper
- Lu, L. Y. Y., Wu, C. H., & Kuo, T.-C. (2007). Environmental principles applicable to green supplier evaluation by using multi-objective decision analysis. International Journal of Production Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540701472694
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.