IEEE ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT REVIEW, VOL. 46, NO.

1, FIRST QUARTER, MARCH 2018 117

Organizational Green Supply Chain

Management Capability
Assessment: A Hybrid Group
Decision Making Model Application
—JUN SUN
Wuxi Vocational Institute of Commerce
—QINGYUN ZHU
Foisie Business School
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
IEEE DOI 10.1109/EMR.2018.2809907
Abstract—Green supply chain management (GSCM) is a strategic issue
in organizations; it is even more critical and complex in emerging economies.
GSCM decision support tools can greatly advance the strategic notion of
GSCM. Having a systemic, flexible and user-friendly tool can be beneficial
to organizations and support the adoption of this tool. A relatively intuitive and
user-friendly hybrid group decision making model that integrates fuzzy-grey
tools can help evaluate an organization’s GSCM capability. To show the utility
of the tool, a small case study from the Chinese automotive industry is
completed. Seven Chinese automotive enterprises are used in the case
illustration. The tool is easy to use so that managers can replicate and apply
it to many aspects of real-world problem solving as well as for benchmarking
and prioritization purposes.

Key words: Hybrid group decision making method (HGDMM), green supply
chain management (GSCM), GSCM capability, grey relation analysis (GRA),
multi-criteria assessment, case study

1 INTRODUCTION effectiveness (Mishra et al., 2017).

C OUNTRIES are facing severe
environmental issues as economies
grow and standards of living increase.
With this economic growth and
affluence come high resource
consumption, low efficiencies, and
high pollution emissions. These
issues are evident in many regions of
the world in both developed and
developing nations. Greening
production and the supply chain is
necessary to help decouple economic
growth from environmental
degradation (Deif, 2011).
Green Supply Chain Management
(GSCM) is an emergent
organizational managerial innovation
for enterprises to minimize their
environmental risk, establish
business reputation, increase profits,
enlarge market share, all the while
enhancing overall ecological
GSCM has been integrated into
various global policies including the
United Nations’ sustainable
development goals; and one of the
“extraordinary tools” for Made in
China 2025 (Wu €bbeke et al., 2016).
Given this greater emphasis on
corporate environmental
consciousness, enterprises are
requested to implement GSCM
practices by their business and
supply chain partners. Greening
issues can permeate the organization
and its partners from product design
to post-sales customer maintenance
across inter-sectoral supply chains.
However, GSCM is still in its early
stages of development and adoption.
With extended producer responsibility
(EPR) for products and service-
embedded manufacturing (SEM),
manufacturers play a central role
in GSCM implementation.
118
Green operations and supply chain
assessments can be used to
encourage ecological and socially-
responsible organizational
behaviours. GSCM performance
assessment, not to mention a
practical assessment tools, are
relatively scarce. Effective greening
assessment in supply chains requires
the participation of important supply
chain members. Developing a
decision support tool to help in
assessment can help advance the
green strategic perspective and
capabilities of organizations and their
supply chains.
This paper seeks to establish a more
scientific, comprehensive, dynamic
and executable assessment system
for GSCM. The purpose is to help
organizational managers and
decision makers facilitate the
evaluation processes of green
operations and production
performance over the supply chain.
The analytical hierarchy process
(AHP) may be used to frame the
decision goal, criteria, indicators,
and sub-indicators. A hybrid group
decision making model (HGDMM) is
constructed with integration of grey
relationship analysis, an entropy
method and fuzzy numbers tool.
A case study from the Chinese
automatic industry is utilized to
illustrate a practical model
application. The feasibility and
effectiveness of the proposed
model is then discussed.
2 BACKGROUND
GSCM is often used interchangeably
with sustainable supply chains,
although sustainability does imply
social dimensions as well (Ashby
et al., 2012; Zhu and Sarkis, 2016;
Sarkis and Zhu, 2017) and closed
loop supply chains (Shaharudin et al.,
2017). GSCM includes managerial
practices such as green design,
green purchase, total quality
environmental management (TQEM),
IEEE ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT REVIEW, VOL. 46, NO. 1, FIRST QUARTER, MARCH 2018
environmentally friendly associated environmentally sound
transportation and packaging, and strategic and operational decisions.
product end-of-life practices such as
3Rs (i.e.: reuse, reduce and recycle) Yet the complexity and fuzziness of
(Dubey et al., 2017; Hervani et al., GSCM decisions makes integrating
2005). decision support and evaluation
systems in EMS a non-trivial issue.
GSCM has also included many other Existing studies have utilized multi-
dimensions including corporate criteria decision making methods
environmental engagement with (MCDM) to construct assessment
suppliers and customers; integration systems for GSCM performance
and collaboration of internal and evaluation (Brandenburg et al., 2014).
external green practices is the key for
GSCM; and incorporating the internal
and external operations and reverse
3 METHODOLOGY
logistics. A hybrid group decision making
model is proposed to help
Reputation, trust, information managers evaluate green supply
confidentiality and coordination within chain performance. The general
different economic, social and mathematical notation is described
political contexts make GSCM as follows:
critical as well as complex (Ahi et al.,
2013). Pressure, key driving forces, Assuming that U ¼ ðA; C; P; vÞ is a
factors and obstacles of GSCM HGGDM evaluation system, and
implementation arise from many A ¼ fak ; k ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; lg is the set of
different sources (Drohomeretski l decision makers, C ¼ fci ; i ¼ 1;
et al., 2014; Dubey et al., 2015; 2; . . . ; mg represents m criteria,
Govindan et al., 2015; Wang et al., P ¼ fpj ; j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; ng represents n
2016). Seeking internal green supply objectives,
P v ¼ fv1 ; v2 ; . . . ; vm g
chain performance helps motivate ð m i¼1 i v ¼ 1; vi  0Þ expresses the
manufacturers to enforce their GSCM index weight, and the evaluation
efforts (De Giovanni et al., 2012). matrix given by kth evaluator is as
External green cooperation between follows:
manufacturers and their supply chain
partners can positively affect p1 p2 ... pn
2 ðkÞ ðkÞ ðkÞ
3
environmental practices, strategic c1 u11 u12 ... u1n v
6 ðkÞ 7 1
management and corporate UðkÞ ¼ c2 6u ðkÞ
u22 ... u2n 7
ðkÞ v2
6 21 7
reputation (Zhu et al., 2017; Lun et al., ... 6 7 ...
4 5
2015; Brandenburg et al., 2014). cm ðkÞ ðkÞ ðkÞ vm
um1 um1 ... umn
Studies on GSCM evaluation
ðkÞ
mainly focus on supplier selection, Where, uij represents the score of
monitoring, and evaluation object pj on criteria ci evaluated by
(Fahimnia et al., 2015). Corporate decision-maker ak. Given the multiple
environmental management systems decision makers and/or expert
(EMS) applications have expanded inputs, the framework can best be
GSCM evaluation to broader aspects generically categorized as a multiple
including green (ecological) design, criteria group decision model
green procurement, green (MCGDM)
transportation, green logistics,
reverse logistics, recycling, as well as The proposed multi-criteria
environmental management. A critical assessment framework includes
dimension of these modern EMS is to six criteria by synthesizing
integrate decision support models assessment matrix data obtained
and tools to help managers make from surveys and expert evaluation.
ORGANIZATIONAL GREEN SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT: A HYBRID GROUP DECISION MAKING MODEL APPLICATION
The methodology is applied to
a GSCM evaluation study for
real-world case studies in the
Chinese automotive manufacturing
industry. Before setting up the case
application environment and the
computations required in section 4;
a general exposition of the
core multicriteria assessment
system structure, factors, and
evaluation levels is presented in
this section.
3.1 Construction of the GSCM
Multi-Criteria Assessment
System There are two major
structural aspects that form the hybrid
group decision making model
(HGDMM). These include what
criteria groupings, their indices and
indicators (metrics/measures), to
include in the model; and also what
values are assigned to the indices
and factors by the decision makers.
Each of these is reviewed for the case
of greening organizations and their
supply chains.
3.1.1 Criteria, Indices, and Indicators
for HGDMM for GSCM:
GSCM assessment framework is
described with respect to criterion
groupings, indices that are the
sub-factors for each criterion; and
example indicators, which are
metrics or measures that can be
used to evaluate the indices.
Table 1. GSCM Assessment Framework
Green procurement (u1 )
Green manufacturing (u2 )
GSCM capability of 3
Green logistics (u )
focal firm/buyer
and its supply
chain (U)
Green service (u4 )
Green benefits (u5 )
Green growth (u6 )
The decision criteria groupings
and indices are selected according
to five principles:
(1) Comprehensiveness and
conciseness. For example, when
constructing the integrated
criteria/index framework for
product lifecycle management,
both qualitative and quantitative
factors are included;
(2) Coordination and independence.
Although the indicators may be
closely interrelated, they should
be mutually or relatively
independent;
(3) Stability and dynamics. The
indicators are used not only to
evaluate the supply chain green
level but can also be to describe
the process and future
orientation of GSCM;
(4) Systematic and hierarchical.
The evaluation index framework
is a system that reflects the
performance of a broader,
holistic, supply chain;
(5) Practical and accessible.
The selected evaluation indexes
should be understandable,
accessible and applicable.
The criteria, indices, and indicator
metrics are derived from GSCM
performance monitoring, evaluation,
and scale development systems in
the literature (e.g., Awasthi et al.,
(2016); Govindan et al., (2015);
Green supplier (u1 )
Green purchasing management (u2 )
Green manufacturer (u3 )
Ecological Design (u4 )
Cleaning Production (u5 )
Green product (u6 )
Green logistics provider (u7 )
Green logistics equipment and Technology (u8 )
Green logistics management (u9 )
Customer service (u10 )
Manufacturing service (u11 )
Ecological benefit (u12 )
Social benefit (u13 )
Economic benefit (u14 )
Green culture (u15 )
Employee growth (u16 )
Green diffusion (u17 )
119
Sarkis and Dou, (2017); Uygun &
Dede, (2016)).
Six criteria groupings are included in
the green assessment model to be
utilized for the automobile industry in
the case study below. Many of these
are manufacturing oriented. There
might be some minor differences
between these and other
manufacturing or service industrial
sectors. Overall, the general criteria
categories would be applicable
across industries. These general
criteria groupings include green
procurement, green manufacturing,
green logistics, green service, green
benefits and green growth.
These criteria, although initially from
the literature, were further refined and
elaborated with industry expert input
through repeated discussion within
group workshops. The first four
criteria are used to evaluate green
functions and practices at each stage
of green manufacturing supply chains
in terms of equipment, technology,
management, and innovation. The
green benefits demonstrate the
present capacity of the evaluated
GSCM including ecological, social
and economic benefits. Green growth
represents an integration of cultural
formation, employee growth and
green diffusion, indicating the future
GSCM potential of the manufacturer.
The criteria groupings, indices and
indicators of the assessment
framework are summarized in
Table 1. Each criterion and its related
index is now overviewed.
(i) Green procurement (u1 )
Green procurement includes two
indices, respectively green supplier
(u1 ) and green purchase
management (u2 ). The green supplier
management index may include two
indicator aspects: one is the greening
level of suppliers, such as whether
they have ISO14000 certification, an
environmental management system
120
(EMS) or meet related industrial
ecological standards. The
certification ratio, percentage, of all
green suppliers is typically a
quantitative indicator measurement.
Green supplier management also
include cooperation for meeting green
targets between buyers and
suppliers. Examples include whether
green suppliers are selected
according to some environmentally
oriented standard; and whether the
buyer develops a green cooperation
arrangement with suppliers. These
cooperation agreements should
promote suppliers enhancing their
greening consciousness and
practice.
The green purchasing or
procurement management index
focuses on inspecting and auditing
green control of raw materials and
components, and the implementation
of green purchasing activities.
The proportion of green raw material
or components purchased may
be indicator measures for this
index and are typically quantitative.
(ii) Green manufacturing (u2 )
One of the key functions for GSCM is
green manufacturing, the second
criterion grouping; which in this
decision system, includes four indices
green manufacturer (u3 ), ecological
design (u4 ), clean production (u5 ) and
green products (u6 ).
u3 is mainly used to evaluate the
relevant environmental quality of
manufacturer and may include self-
diagnosis actions and capabilities
indicators. In terms of u4 , green
factory design, green R&D
investment, and environmentally
conscious design are some indicators
from important identified topics
covering products and supply chain-
wide activities. Average green R&D
investment per year is an specific
indicator example, which is
considered a quantitative measure
for this index.
IEEE ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT REVIEW, VOL. 46, NO. 1, FIRST QUARTER, MARCH 2018
Clean production (u5 ) is introduced
and can have indicators to appraise
the greenness of equipment, the
adoption of a hybrid manufacture or
remanufacture system, and capacity
for recycling and reuse; as examples.
Green products (u6 ) may include
indicators such as green labels,
certification of environmental
protection and industry awards of
products. China’s situation would
include indicators on whether
products are in product catalogs for
industrial energy conservation and
environmental protection (such as
Application Engineering of
Recommended Catalog for Energy
Saving and New Energy Automobile).
(iii) Green logistics (u3 )
Green logistics is a critical activity to
evaluate within a GSCM assessment.
We introduce three indices for this
criteria: 1) green logistic providers
(u7 ), 2) green logistics equipment&
technology (u8 ), and 3) green logistics
management (u9 ). Similar to the
green supplier management index,
index u7 is used to estimate the
greening level of the logistics
providers and the green cooperation
between manufacturer and logistic
providers; which would be example
indicators. u8 may include indicators
to estimate the third party logistics or
self-operating logistics including
transportation equipment and
technology, warehousing, packaging
intelligence, automation, energy
conservation and emissions
reduction, informatization,
standardization and mechanization.
u9 may include indicators to measure
the efficiency of transportation,
warehousing and packaging.
(iv) Green services (u4 )
Green services contains two indices:
customer service (u10 ) and
manufacturing service (u11 ).
Customer service represents the
service level of helping downstream
distributors and end consumers.
Such services, and indicators, may
include manufacturing guidance and
customer training. One of the key
approaches to increase the value of
this index is through communication
and cooperation with end-consumers
with regard to product eco-design and
green purchasing and consumption.
Customer satisfaction is an indicator
that is typically a quantitative variable.
Buyers in the supply chain can also
provide their supply chain partners
(customers and suppliers) with
financial support and information
services; a possible indicator for
performance on this index.
(v) Green benefits (u5 )
Green benefits include some of the
triple bottom line indices including
ecological benefits (u12 ), social
benefits (u13 ) and economic benefits
(u14 ). Ecological benefits can include
indicators of resource-saving and
energy-saving ratios. Example ratios
might include (in the case of Chinese
automobile industry) two numerical
items, value-added energy
consumption per 10000 yuan and
SO2 and CO2 emissions per unit of
revenue generated. Social benefits
mainly are assessed by approval and
support from stakeholders and
manufacturer’s green image and
reputation. It is measured by the rank
of development index of social
responsibility issued by social
authoritative organizations. Green
economic benefits are estimated by
the growth of sales volume and sales
growth rate of the selected green
products.
(vi) Green growth (u6 )
Green growth represents the
potential of the supply chain green
development. It consists of three
indices: 1) green culture (u15 ), 2) staff
growth (u16 ) and 3) green diffusion
(u17 ). Green culture stands for an
organization’s awareness of
green issues and its reflection in
organizational culture (both possible
ORGANIZATIONAL GREEN SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT: A HYBRID GROUP DECISION MAKING MODEL APPLICATION
indicators). Staff growth stands for the
growing green awareness from the
employees. Employee training level
may be one example indicator. Green
diffusion demonstrates the immersion
level of green initiatives. It can be
calculated through public reports
such as corporate social
responsibility report.
3.2 Data Valuation
Approaches Different types of
data, and their multi-objective
characteristics make evaluation for
social and economic systems
complex. Given the variety of data
including precise or imprecise,
interval, or subjective data need to be
standardized before they can be
aggregated and used for comparative
purposes. Some of these steps are
needed before assessment.
In multi-criteria group decision
making situations, especially
interactive ones with input from
decision maker and experts, weights
are typically obtained by subjective
estimations rather than hard
numerical valuations. Fuzzy
approaches can transform those
individual judgemental data including
linguistic data and interval data into
deterministic, precise values.
In this situation, linguistic values are
used to represent those expert
familiarity or preference for indices
and potential decision alternatives.
Expert familiarity valuations are used
to provide greater or lesser input
weighting for a group of experts when
aggregating their experience or
Table 2. 7-Scale Triangle Fuzzy Number for Linguistic Data and Interval Data
Linguistic data
Level
Expert familiarity
1 Very familiar
2 Familiar
3 Moderately familiar
4 Medium
5 Moderately Unfamiliar
6 Unfamiliar
7 Very Unfamiliar
knowledge on a given topic. If the
expert is not as familiar with a topic or
criteria, then their evaluation should
probably not carry as much weight
when compared to more
knowledgeable experts. All the
survey data and the experts’
judgemental valuation data, in this
decision support system is, converted
to 7-scale triangle fuzzy number
(Lu et al., 2008) as shown in Table 2.
These are example transformations;
and may vary depending on further
study and development of scales and
outcomes.
Index values are calculated by
arithmetic mean based on the
normalized survey data. All evaluated
data given by experts are 7-scale
linguistic values according to their
expertise and familiarity on each
index. For the index weights, entropy
value a popular approach in objective
weighting methods, when
quantitative, tangible, and/or archival
index data exists. Subjective multiple
criteria methods, such as AHP, may
be used to determine individual’s
personal judgement when perceptual
or subjective information is needed,
especially in cases when archival,
tangible data is non-existent.
Previous research shows that any
weighing method has its advantages
and disadvantages, thus scientifically
mixing and modifying qualitative and
quantitative methods might be more
effective in practical decision making.
Thus, a novel hybrid weighting
method combining these approaches
with the Theil index and grey
Interval Triangle fuzzy
data number
Assessment variable Mðl; m; uÞ
Very strong/Good [10,9) (9,10,10)
Strong/Good [9,7) (7,9,10)
Medium strong/good [7,5) (5,7,9)
Fair/Medium [5,3.5) (3,5,7)
Medium weak/poor [3.5,2) (1,3,5)
Weak/Poor [2,1) (0,1,3)
Very weak/poor [1,0) (0,0,1)
121
relational analysis (GRA) (Kuo et al.,
2008) is proposed to determine the
indicator weights.
The Theil uneven index is one type of
entropy methods dealing with
inequality amongst distributions
(Theil, 1967). Weights determined by
the Theil index don’t represent the
importance of the index itself, but the
relative competitive importance
amongst other indices (Zhang et al.,
2011). The relative importance of
each index in MCDM can be
measured by the means of a Theil
index (which originated to determine
income distribution inequities in
economics).
Multi-criteria assessment system is
comprehensive and more precise in
evaluation but exposed to the
correlation amongst indices concerns
(Yuan et al., 2012). To avoid correlation
amongst indices and the deviations in
subjective evaluation results, a grey
correlation differential approach is
used in deriving index weights based
on group decision-making method (Liu
et al., 2010). Taking comprehensive
group evaluation for all objects as the
reference sequence and the group
evaluation index for all objectives as
the comparative sequence, the
correlation degree of the latter can
be calculated by the GRA correlation
method.
The multiplicative aggregation
method is adopted for mixing the
weight of evaluation indices. The final
scores and rankings can be obtained
after calculating a weighted hybrid
value for each objective. The case
study will show how these
calculations are made and are
summarized in a framework. The
technique can be completed on an
Excel spreadsheet with some minor
spreadsheet development
The framework application flow chart
for the case study and supporting
expressions for calculations are
summarized in Fig. 1.
122
The following sections demonstrate
the framework application on a
step-by-step basis using a case
study environment in the Chinese
automotive industry.
4 CASE STUDY OF EVALUATING
GSCM IN THE CHINESE
AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
To date, GSCM has gained
increasing attention from Chinese
government. Regulations such as
Cleaner Production Promotion Law
Fig. 1. Proposed model application flow chart and model calculations.
IEEE ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT REVIEW, VOL. 46, NO. 1, FIRST QUARTER, MARCH 2018
(enacted in 2003), Made in China
2025 strategy, Implementation Guide
for Green Manufacturing Engineering
(2016-2020) policy all incorporate
with environmental laws and
regulations with an emphasis in green
manufacturing. The auto-industry has
some of the greatest potential for
environmental improvement through
greener manufacturing principles.
Auto manufacturing is one of the pilot
green industries in the Made in China
2025 policy. Auto industry greening
will have a profound impact on all of
China’s manufacturing sectors. This
impact is not limited only to green
products, but also development of
green plants, green manufacturing
and automotive green supply chains.
The Automobile Industrial
Association, Wuxi Province, China,
helped identify seven Chinese
auto manufacturers to evaluate
the proposed model. These
organizations include the FAW Group
Corporation (state-owned enterprise),
Dongfeng Motor Corporation
(state-owned enterprise), SAIC Motor
ORGANIZATIONAL GREEN SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT: A HYBRID GROUP DECISION MAKING MODEL APPLICATION 123

(state-owned enterprise), GAC An example set of substeps are u11 ¼ fð7; 9; ð5; 7; ð9; 10; ð9; 10;
Group (state-owned enterprise), now described with the necessary ð7; 9; ð5; 7; ð5; 7g
BYD Automobile (private company), calculations to complete the first u12 ¼ fStrong; MediumStrong;
Chery Automobile (private company), major step.
and Changan Automobile (private Strong; Strong; Strong;
company). Take factor u1 as an example to MediumStrong; Strongg
illustrate the formation process of
4.1 Model Application Steps The data matrix. Step1.1 Convert the survey data into
evaluation procedure is based on the fuzzy numbers using a conversion set
flow chart in Fig. 1. The general steps u1 have two indicators. of values.
include:
The greening level of suppliers u11 u11 ¼ fð7; 9; 10Þ; ð5; 7; 9Þ; ð9; 10; 10Þ;
Step 1 Standardize information and with seven indicator levels, ð9; 10; 10Þ; ð7; 9; 10Þ; ð5; 7; 9Þ;
data collected. The major data source
ð5; 7; 9Þg
were annual reports (2013-2016) fð9; 10; ð7; 9; ð5; 7; ð3:5; 5; ð2; 3:5;
and the annual social responsibility u12 ¼ fð7; 9; 10Þ; ð5; 7; 9Þ; ð7; 9; 10Þ;
ð1; 2; ð0; 1g
reports (2013-2016) released by the ð7; 9; 10Þ; ð7; 9; 10Þ; ð5; 7; 9Þ;
auto companies. In addition, websites ð5; 7; 9Þg
and the Green supplier management
of all evaluated enterprises and their
u12 with seven indicator levels of:
partners (mainly their suppliers and
Step1.2 Crisp fuzzy data to exact
logistic providers) were identified and
fVeryStrong; Stong; MediumStrong; Fair; data; using a conversion equation
used to inform expert opinions. Web
MediumWeak; Weak; VeryWeakg:
(see Fig. 1 Step 1).
resources include Marklines global
auto information platform, the u11 ¼ f8:750; 7:000; 9:750; 9:750;
Chinese commercial vehicle website, These levels are assigned by
8:750; 7:000; 7:000g
and auto channels of Sohu.net and knowledgeable experts in each
Xinhua.net. Supplementary category after reading the u12 ¼ f8:750; 7:000; 8:750; 8:750;
information for sub-indexes are documentation offered from 8:750; 7:000; 7:000g
conducted through one-on-one secondary sources.
personal interview communication
Step1.3 calculate value u1 of seven
with associated managers of The calculations for Table 3 are as
auto companies from u11 and u12
cross-functional teams, including follows:
by a simple arithmetic mean method:
quality, procurement, logistics,
administration, marketing, and First, the assigned scored indicator u1 ¼ f8:750; 7:000; 9:250; 9:250;
customer service. The survey rough data obtained for each of the
response rate is 100% owing seven auto companies for each factor 8:750; 7:000; 7:000g
to “Guanxi” relationships. are assigned as:
These values are shownins the first
row in Table 3. In the same way, the
Table 3. Normalized Data Matrix
normalized research value of u2  u17
Indicator SAIC FAW Dongfeng GAC BYD Chery Changan in Table 3 can be obtained.
Motor Group Motor Group Automobile Automobile Automobile
u1 8.750 7.000 9.250 9.250 8.750 7.000 7.000
u2 9.250 6.000 7.000 7.875 8.750 6.000 6.000 Step 2 Standardize experts’
u3 8.750 7.875 9.250 7.875 9.250 7.875 6.875 evaluation data Experts who
u4 6.438 8.035 5.868 7.090 6.036 6.386 5.191 participated in this investigation
u5 8.313 7.438 7.875 7.438 7.188 7.375 6.500
u6 8.750 7.000 8.750 8.750 9.750 7.000 7.000 included both academics and industry
u7 9.277 8.535 8.206 8.020 5.802 8.610 7.949 practitioners whose expertise is
u8 9.750 9.250 6.000 8.750 8.375 7.875 8.750 in the automobile industry. Three
u9 8.893 7.465 9.112 9.241 6.803 6.271 8.988
u10 8.547 9.311 9.853 9.306 8.173 9.160 8.939 academics completed the analysis;
u11 8.986 6.743 8.062 8.802 6.989 6.873 7.435 two management executives,
u12 4.555 5.581 8.581 7.694 3.568 2.728 6.828 and four senior technicians were
u13 8.249 5.458 10.355 8.333 7.438 4.586 5.189
u14 8.521 8.783 8.985 6.703 9.881 7.589 9.404 also involved. Each of them had
u15 7.614 7.857 8.175 7.088 8.031 6.817 7.445 several years of experience in the
u16 4.109 4.166 4.142 3.319 6.556 3.811 4.847 industry and were well versed in
u17 4.643 3.457 4.287 4.321 3.903 1.064 1.310
the state-of-the art practices.
124 IEEE ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT REVIEW, VOL. 46, NO. 1, FIRST QUARTER, MARCH 2018

The industry representatives who
participated in this evaluation
processes are from competitive auto
companies including Toyota and FAW
Taihu.
Four sub-steps are used to help form
group decision-making matrix. Firstly,
we combine and standardize two
de-fuzzified matrices about expected
familiarity with indices and objects,
into an expert weight matrix. Secondly,
an evaluation matrix from each expert
is obtained using normalized original
evaluation data. Thirdly, a weighted
evaluation matrix of each expert is
calculated. Finally, group decision
making matrix is formed. The
normalized experts’ evaluation data
matrix is shown on Table 4.
Step 3 Determine hybrid evaluation
matrix. See columns 3-10 in Table 5
for a summary of the respondent
evaluations for each factor averaged
across all companies.
Step 4 Process indicator objective
weight. The combined objective
weight vector of the indicators in the
example problems is as follows:
tc ¼ ð0:048; 0:048; 0:048; 0:070;
0:096; 0:024; 0:048; 0:048; 0:072;
0:049; 0:072; 0:069; 0:092;
0:024; 0:072; 0:048; 0:069Þ
Step 5 Process indicator subjective
weight determinations. Initially a
comprehensive evaluation value of
each evaluation item (the reference
sequence) is calculated; second, a
comprehensive evaluation value by
removing data from each item (the
comparative sequence) is calculated.
Third, we calculate a Deng correlation
degree by comparing the comparative
sequence with the reference
sequence for coefficient  ¼ 0:5.
Finally, the combined subjective
weight vector modified from Grey
correlation factor weights is
determined:
ac ¼ ð0:056; 0:042; 0:041; 0:070;
0:100; 0:027; 0:053; 0:068;
0:061; 0:059; 0:096; 0:039;
0:075; 0:021; 0:078; 0:046; 0:069Þ

Table 4. Normalized Experts’ Evaluation Data Matrix

Step 6 Determine hybrid indicator
weights. Subjective and objective
Indicator SAIC FAW Dongfeng GAC BYD Chery Changan
Motor Group Motor Group Automobile Automobile Automobile weights are assembled into hybrid
u1 4.561 4.702 5.634 3.597 3.952 3.650 4.726 indicator weights by using the
u2 4.235 3.518 6.671 3.258 4.554 2.202 2.877 multiplicative synthesis formula
u3 5.932 5.875 4.084 3.527 4.373 3.770 5.462 (see Fig. 1):
u4 5.267 3.756 4.598 2.101 3.903 3.488 4.068
u5 5.898 4.552 5.412 4.309 3.473 3.380 3.792
u6 6.363 3.823 4.905 2.807 4.022 4.697 5.227 v ¼ ð0:042; 0:031; 0:031; 0:076; 0:149;
u7 5.963 4.115 5.368 2.730 3.548 4.359 5.181
0:010; 0:039; 0:051; 0:068; 0:044;
u8 5.912 5.703 4.424 3.821 3.898 4.559 5.152
u9 5.277 5.050 5.180 4.323 3.916 4.435 5.062 0:108; 0:042; 0:107; 0:008; 0:087;
u10 4.155 5.023 5.069 4.348 3.466 4.507 4.324
u11 3.878 4.372 4.831 4.664 2.574 3.123 4.878 0:034; 0:073Þ
u12 6.406 3.990 5.314 2.727 5.083 3.841 4.561
u13 4.810 4.108 4.632 3.385 3.547 3.047 3.471 The hybrid indicator weights are used
u14 4.042 2.255 4.786 3.319 2.169 3.038 2.625
u15 5.391 4.360 5.893 5.355 3.736 2.974 3.937 to weigh the relative
u16 3.766 3.709 5.108 4.556 2.194 3.189 3.028
u17 4.524 4.385 4.880 2.994 3.356 2.936 4.310 Step 7 Evaluate and rank objects
(companies). Calculate a supply
chain greenness level of each
Table 5. Hybrid Evaluation Matrix
automotive enterprise. The ranking
Indicator SAIC FAW Dongfeng GAC BYD Chery Changan
Motor Group Motor Group Automobile Automobile Automobile
amongst them is shown as follows
u1 6.656 5.851 7.442 6.424 6.351 5.325 5.863
(p stands for manufacturers under
u2 6.743 4.759 6.835 5.567 6.652 4.101 4.438 evaluation):
u3 7.341 6.875 6.667 5.701 6.811 5.822 6.169
u4 5.853 5.896 5.233 4.595 4.969 4.937 4.630
u5 7.105 5.995 6.644 5.873 5.330 5.377 5.146 p3 > p1 > p4 > p2 > p7 > p5 > p6 ;
u6 7.557 5.412 6.827 5.778 6.886 5.848 6.113
u7 7.620 6.325 6.787 5.375 4.675 6.484 6.565 which is detailed in Table 6.
u8 7.831 7.476 5.212 6.285 6.136 6.217 6.951
u9 7.085 6.257 7.146 6.782 5.359 5.353 7.025
u10 6.351 7.167 7.461 6.827 5.820 6.834 6.632 4.2 Findings The ranking for seven
u11 6.432 5.558 6.447 6.733 4.782 4.998 6.156 evaluated auto enterprises in terms of
u12 5.480 4.786 6.948 5.210 4.325 3.284 5.694
the green level of supply chains from
u13 6.530 4.783 7.494 5.859 5.492 3.817 4.330
u14 6.281 5.519 6.886 5.011 6.025 5.313 6.015 high to low are: Dongfeng, SAIC,
u15 6.503 6.109 7.034 6.221 5.883 4.896 5.691 GAC, FAW, Changan, BYD, and
u16 3.938 3.938 4.625 3.938 4.375 3.500 3.938
Chery. From the perspective of the
u17 4.583 3.921 4.583 3.657 3.630 2.000 2.810
corporate type, the supply chain
ORGANIZATIONAL GREEN SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT: A HYBRID GROUP DECISION MAKING MODEL APPLICATION 125

of the state-owned auto-makers HGDMM is perceived to be practical is needed to improve their positioning
are greener than that of private for managers to use in facilitating their amongst its competitors.
companies. From the perspective green supply chain management
of evaluation index, ten indices for decisions. 5 CONCLUSION AND
Dongfeng automobile are ranked the
first place, and six indices of SAIC list Additionally, the tool can be used for
MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS
first place, FAW and GAC ranked first a variety of other purposes; e.g., Green supply chain management is
once each. ranking research and development strategic and critical in organizations.
projects, selecting or ranking Managerial decisions on improving
One of the reason might be the suppliers, or other multiple criteria green performance and increasing
environmental pressures from decision making characteristics. green capacity is even more complex.
stakeholders vary across In this situation, the ranking is Industries will benefit from a
different corporate types. Green completed as a benchmarking construction of a systematic and
consciousness of private auto exercise to determine how well user-friendly tool that could facilitate
manufacturers are increasing and automotive organizations are green supply chain associated
enhancing over the decade. The competing on various greening decision making performance and
increasing green consciousness efforts. The measures could have benchmarking evaluation. This paper
helps to promote a number of green been based on performance such as introduced a hybrid group decision
initiatives such as new energy cost or quality business metrics that making model (HGDMM) tool and
vehicles of BYD, green plant of are both tangible or intangible. example application for managerial
Chery, so on and so forth. There implementation.
will be a time delay before the green Managers who might use this
initiatives to take effect, but from approach for benchmarking purposes The tool incorporates both objective
a long term perspective, green need to realize that there are and subjective factors selected from
effectiveness will reveal and be significant areas for subjectivity and green supply chain management
reflected in the overall organizational there are margin’s of error. Although literature, and is applied to evaluate
performance especially supply chain the final scores are quantified, GSCM capabilities of Chinese auto
dimensions. managers should be aware of the manufacturers. The case study helps
amount of subjectivity involved. What- validate the tool’s usability. Also,
The proposed HGDMM evaluation if analyses or sensitivity analyses can results reveal the fact that with current
method is user-friendly and effective be carried out by varying weights or domestic and global industrial
inn generating the results. The idea even scales. This additional analysis development trends, it is the right time
“hybrid” guides the whole evaluation can help provide managers with an to mobilize Chinese manufacturing
process for weakening the subjective idea of the solution robustness. It can enterprises to motivate their upstream
randomness and objective rigidity. also help managers determine what suppliers, distributers /retailers,
manufacturing service providers and
Table 6. Ranking of Green Supply Chain for Auto Manufacturers
downstream supply chain, to
implement green manufacturing and
Indicator Indicator SAIC FAW Dongfeng GAC BYD Chery Changan
weight Motor Group Motor Group Automobile Automobile Automobile supply chain practices. A ranking and
u1 0.042 6.656 5.851 7.442 6.424 6.351 5.325 5.863 benchmarking tool and method, such
u2 0.031 6.743 4.759 6.835 5.567 6.652 4.101 4.438 as the one proposed in this paper can
u3 0.031 7.341 6.875 6.667 5.701 6.811 5.822 6.169
greatly improve GSCM in Chinese
u4 0.076 5.853 5.896 5.233 4.595 4.969 4.937 4.630
u5 0.149 7.105 5.995 6.644 5.873 5.330 5.377 5.146 and other country organizations. The
u6 0.010 7.557 5.412 6.827 5.778 6.886 5.848 6.113 tool can evaluate other supply chain
u7 0.039 7.620 6.325 6.787 5.375 4.675 6.484 6.565
partners and help identify the
u8 0.051 7.831 7.476 5.212 6.285 6.136 6.217 6.951
u9 0.068 7.085 6.257 7.146 6.782 5.359 5.353 7.025 drawbacks of each party and help in
u10 0.044 6.351 7.167 7.461 6.827 5.820 6.834 6.632 continuous improvement initiatives
u11 0.108 6.432 5.558 6.447 6.733 4.782 4.998 6.156
to increase overall green level
u12 0.042 5.480 4.786 6.948 5.210 4.325 3.284 5.694
u13 0.107 6.530 4.783 7.494 5.859 5.492 3.817 4.330 of the entire supply chains. Policy
u14 0.008 6.281 5.519 6.886 5.011 6.025 5.313 6.015 makers can also utilize the tool for
u15 0.087 6.503 6.109 7.034 6.221 5.883 4.896 5.691
evaluation processes that can
u16 0.034 3.938 3.938 4.625 3.938 4.375 3.500 3.938
u17 0.073 4.583 3.921 4.583 3.657 3.630 2.000 2.810 eventually lead to industry or
Green Value 6.460 5.679 6.479 5.747 5.299 4.820 5.383
nationwide socio-ecological and
environmental development in a
Ranking 2 4 1 3 6 7 5
more sustainable way.
126 IEEE ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT REVIEW, VOL. 46, NO. 1, FIRST QUARTER, MARCH 2018

The auto mobile industry case study is
an exemplary application of the
proposed model. This practice is not
limited to certain industries. The
application of this proposed tool could
also help managers from other
industries to use in their green supply
chain management decision making
processes. Besides, the application in
China can be extended to other
countries. The model is designed with
extensive applicability beyond culture,
industry, organizations and decision
makers. It is simple, yet robust. Many
tweaks can also be utilized depending
on company and decision maker
goals. But, care must be taken to also
realize, that like any other modelling
approach, the model is limited by the
quality of data, and the analysis
utilized to make eventual decision.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This paper was supported in part by
the Research Project of 333 High
Level Talents Training Project of
Fifth Phase in Jiangsu Province,
China (BRA2017481), in part the
philosophy and social science fund
project of colleges and universities
in Jiangsu Province, China
(2017SJB0844), and in part the
Doctoral Research Startup Fund
within Institute of Supply Chain
Studies of Wuxi Vocational Institute
of Commerce.

REFERENCES
Ahi, P., & Searcy, C. (2013). A comparative literature analysis of definitions for green
and sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 52,
329–341.
Ashby, A., Leat, M., & Hudson-Smith, M. (2012). Making connections: A review of
supply chain management and sustainability literature. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, 17(5), 497–516.
Awasthi, A., & Kannan, G. (2016). Green supplier development program selection
using NGT and VIKOR under fuzzy environment. Computers & Industrial
Engineering, 91, 100–108. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
cie.2015.11.011.
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.
De Giovanni, P., & Vinzi, V. E. (2012). Covariance versus component-based
estimations of performance in green supply chain management. International
Journal of Production Economics, 135(2), 907–916.
Deif, A. M. (2011). A system model for green manufacturing. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 19(14), 1553–1559.
Drohomeretski, E., Gouvea da Costa, S., & Pinheiro de Lima, E. (2014). Green
supply chain management: Drivers, barriers and practices within the Brazilian
automotive industry. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 25(8),
1105–1134.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S. J., & Fosso Wamba, S. (2017). World class
sustainable supply chain management: Critical review and further research
directions. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 28(2), 332–362.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Papadopoulos, T., & Childe, S. J. (2015). Green supply
chain management enablers: Mixed methods research. Sustainable Production
and Consumption, 4, 72–88.
Fahimnia, B., Sarkis, J., & Davarzani, H. (2015). Green supply chain management:
A review and bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Production
Economics, 162, 101–114. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijpe.2015.01.003.
Govindan, K., Rajendran, S., Sarkis, J., & Murugesan, P. (2015). Multi criteria
decision making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: a
literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 98, 66–83.
Hervani, A. A., Helms, M. M., & Sarkis, J. (2005). Performance measurement for green
supply chain management. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 12(4), 330–353.
ORGANIZATIONAL GREEN SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT: A HYBRID GROUP DECISION MAKING MODEL APPLICATION 127

Kuo, Y., Yang, T., & Huang, G. W. (2008). The use of grey relational analysis in
solving multiple attribute decision-making problems. Computers & Industrial
Engineering, 55(1), 80–93.
Liu, S., Dang, Y., Fang, Z., & Xie, N. M. (2004). Grey system theory and its
application. Beijing, China: Science Press.
Lun, Y. V., Lai, K. H., Wong, C. W., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2015). Greening propensity
and performance implications for logistics service providers. Transportation
Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 74, 50–62.
Mangan, J., & Lalwani, C. (2016). Global logistics and supply chain management.
Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley.
Mishra, D., Gunasekaran, A., Papadopoulos, T., & Hazen, B. (2017). Green supply
chain performance measures: A review and bibliometric analysis. Sustainable
Production and Consumption, 10, 85–99.
Sarkis, J., & Dou, Y. (2017). Green supply chain management: A concise
introduction. Abingdon, U.K.: Routledge.
Sarkis, J., & Zhu, Q. (2017). Environmental sustainability and production:
Taking the road less travelled. International Journal of Production Research,
55, 1–17.
Shaharudin, M. R., Govindan, K., Zailani, S., Tan, K. C., & Iranmanesh, M. (2017).
Product return management: Linking product returns, closed-loop supply chain
activities and the effectiveness of the reverse supply chains. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 149, 1144–1156.
Theil, H., & Theil, H. (1967). Economics and information theory. Amsterdam,
The Netherlands.
Ubeda, S., Arcelus, F. J., & Faulin, J. (2011). Green logistics at Eroski: A case study.
International Journal of Production Economics, 131(1), 44–51. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.04.041
€ & Dede, A. (2016). Performance evaluation of green supply chain
Uygun, O.,
management using integrated fuzzy multi-criteria decision making techniques.
Computers & Industrial Engineering, 102, 502–511.
Van Bommel, H. W. (2011). A conceptual framework for analyzing sustainability
strategies in industrial supply networks from an innovation perspective. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 19(8), 895–904.
Wang, Z., Mathiyazhagan, K., Xu, L., & Diabat, A. (2016). A decision making trial
and evaluation laboratory approach to analyze the barriers to Green Supply Chain
Management adoption in a food packaging company. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 117, 19–28.
Wu€bbeke, J., Meissner, M., Zenglein, M. J., Ives, J., & Conrad, B. (2016). Made in
China 2025. Mercator Institute for China Studies, (2), 14–41.
Yuan, Y., Li, Y. J., & Jiang, W. (2012). Study of regional economic competitiveness
based on correlation coefficients standard deviation model for multiple attribute
evaluation method. Operations Research and Management Science, 21(2),
249–255.
Zhang, S. Y., Xu, J. C., & Li, D. J. (2011). Grey evaluation on corporate venture
capital project based on the Theil index. Systems Engineering–Theory &
Practice, 31(11), 2052–2059.
Zhu, Q., Feng, Y., & Choi, S. B. (2017). The role of customer relational governance
in environmental and economic performance improvement through green supply
chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 155, 46–53.
Zhu, Q., & Sarkis, J. (2016). Green marketing and consumerism as social change in
China: Analyzing the literature. International Journal of Production Economics,
181, 289–302.