Identifying improvement areas when implementing green initiatives using a multitier AHP approach

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to discuss research gaps and the potential applications of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in an internal benchmarking process used to identify improvement areas when firms attempt to adopt green initiatives with a supply chain perspective. Design/methodology/approach -By means of a detailed literature review, the paper distinguishes several gaps in previous studies that have investigated green supply chains, supply chain management and benchmarking issues. Findings -Past research that analyses the challenges firms encounter when implementing green initiatives are lacking in scope and also in focus. Thus, the paper synthesises those findings, and proposes a novel framework and approach to apply AHP to examine various potential challenges firms and supply chains might be faced with when adopting green initiatives.Research limitations/implications -The investigation is conceptual in nature. Practical implications -Despite the limitations of the paper, its findings and proposals can be applied directly to advise future research and practice, especially when firms are confronted with the prospects of implementing environmentally-friendly business practices. Originality/value -The application of AHP to study the various themes mentioned above is not new. Nevertheless, no previous investigation has identified the limitations in those studies. Furthermore, no previous paper has proposed a multitier AHP approach to analyse the problems firms taking part in a supply chain might encounter when implementing green initiatives.

Using fuzzy DEMATEL to evaluate the green supply chain management practices

“…Rao and Holt (2005) consider it as innovative supply chain management in terms of green purchasing, green manufacturing, green packaging, and reverse logistics. The success of GSCM initiatives depends on proactivity and coordination among supply chain members to ensure the environmental impact minimization of the manufacturing and delivery of products and services (Hervani et al, 2005;Linton et al, 2007;Zhu and Sarkis, 2006;Vachon and Klassen, 2008;Sarmiento, 2010). Srivastava (2007) and Walker et al (2008) further proposes that the practices include product design, material purchasing, manufacturing processes, final product delivery, disposal, and the product end-of-life management.…”

Prioritizing the responses to manage risks in green supply chain: An Indian plastic manufacturer perspective

“…In methodology of AHP, 'analytic' implies that a particular problem is initially broken down into its constitutive elements and 'hierarchy' means that a hierarchical structure of the constitutive elements built according to the goal of the study (Saaty, 1980;Qureshi et al, 2009). This method is beneficial in evaluating the system in finding the priority of concern of criteria and sub-criteria associated with that system (Zayed et al, 2008;Sarminento and Thomas, 2010;Govindan et al, 2014a;Al-Hawari et al, 2014;Galvez et al, 2015). However, human judgment based factors always have uncertainty and ambiguity.…”

Risk analysis in green supply chain using fuzzy AHP approach: A case study

“…Various criteria enlisted in their study are cost, flexibility, assurance to supply, delivery, quality, manufacturing, purchasing, etc. (Sarminento and Thomas, 2010). In line with this, several risk factors like demand, supply, process, knowledge flow, legal, financial, and the natural environment have been listed and evaluated in the organizational GSC context for managing the GSC efficiently (Yang and Li, 2010;Qianlei, 2012;Mangla et al, 2015, in press).…”

“…According to Table 2, different scholars and practitioners have used the AHP and fuzzy AHP analysis to deal different normal and fuzzy surroundings (Sarminento and Thomas, 2010;Toke et al, 2012;Wang et al, 2012;Muralidhar et al, 2012;Rostamy et al, 2013). Under these considerations, we propose to use the fuzzy AHP methodology for analyzing the risks in GSC in this study.…”

“…The methodology of AHP enables managers to analyze the complicated system and provides assistance in evaluating the human judgment primarily based on system factors by marking their priority (Sarminento and Thomas, 2010). Being as a reference to GSCM literature, the application of AHP and fuzzy AHP can be widely noticed (for example, the studies of Hsu and Hu, 2008;Yang and Li, 2010;Odeyale et al, 2013;Mathiyazhagan et al, 2014;Govindan et al, 2014).…”