Bütünleşik çok kriterli karar verme teknikleri ile yeşil tedarikçi seçimi

Öz

Önemi son yıllarda daha da artan Yeşil Tedarik Zinciri Yönetimi (YTZY) kavramı, tüm faaliyetlerinde çevresel etkileri ön planda tutan bir tedarik zinciri olarak ele alınmaktadır. Günümüzde işletmeler sadece ekonomik performansları açısından değil aynı zamanda YTZY’yi önemli kılan çevresel performansları açısından da dikkate alınmaktadır. Ancak YTZY, tedarikçilerin katılımı olmadan gerçekleştirilemez. Bu nedenle tedarikçilerinin doğru belirlenmesi, daha iyi bir YTZY performansının geliştirilmesinde hayati önem taşımaktadır. YTZY literatüründe birçok sektörde çok sayıda araştırma bulunurken, çevreye etkisi büyük olan kimya sektörünün boya alt alanındaki araştırmalar sınırlıdır. Tedarikçi seçimi çalışmalarında Çok Kriterli Karar Verme (ÇKKV) tekniklerinin sıklıkla kullanıldığı, ancak farklı yaklaşımların sonuçlarının karşılaştırıldığı ve bütünleştirildiği az sayıda çalışma olduğu görülmektedir. Bu araştırmada, farklı ÇKKV teknikleri kullanılarak yeşil tedarikçi seçimi yapılmakta ve sonuçlar karşılaştırılarak bir araya getirilmektedir. Çalışmada, her biri ANP ile entegre olan MOORA-Oran Yöntemi, MOORA-Referans Noktası Yaklaşımı, GRA ve COPRAS yöntemleri ile kimya endüstrisinin boya alt dalında yeşil tedarikçi seçimi gerçekleştirilmiştir. Daha sonra genel bir sıralama elde etmek için COPELAND yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Bu çalışma uygulanan sektör açısından özgün bir model önermekte ve ÇKKV yöntem sonuçlarını entegre ederek literatüre katkı sağlamaktadır. Çalışmada öne sürülen model, yeşil tedarikçi seçim modelinin oluşturulmasında karar vericilere yardımcı olabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yeşil Tedarik Zinciri Yönetimi (YTZY)
• ÇKKV
• COPELAND

Green supplier selection with integrated multi-criteria decision making techniques

Abstract

The concept of Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM), whose importance has increased in recent years, is considered as a supply chain that prioritizes environmental impacts in all its activities. Nowadays, businesses are considered not only in terms of their economic performance, but also in terms of their environmental performance which makes GSCM important. However, GSCM cannot be conducted without the participation of the suppliers. Due to this fact, correct determination of their suppliers has vital importance in developing a better GSCM performance. While there is a plenty of research in many sectors in GSCM literature, the research in the paint subfield of the chemical sector, which has a great environmental impact, is limited. It is seen that Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) techniques are frequently used in supplier selection studies, however, there are few studies where the results of different approaches are compared and integrated. In this research, green supplier selection is conducted using different MCDM technics, and the results are compared and combined. In the study, green supplier selection was carried out in the paint sub-branch of the chemical industry with the MOORA-Ratio Method, MOORA-Reference Point Approach, GRA and COPRAS methods, each of which is integrated with the ANP Then, the COPELAND method was used to obtain a general ranking. This research contributes to the literature by proposing a unique model in terms of the applied sector and integrating MCDM method results. The model proposed in this study can help the decision makers in order to build a green supplier selection model.

Keywords

• Green Supplier Chain Management (GSCM)
• MCDM
• COPELAND.

Kaynakça

1. Alizadeh, A., and Yousefi, S. (2019). An integrated taguchi loss function–fuzzy cognitive map –mcgp with utility function approach for supplier selection problem. Neural Computing and Applications, 31(11), 7595-7614.
2. Alkahtani, M. and Kaid, H. (2018). Supplier selection in supply chain management: A review study. International Journal of Business Performance and Supply Chain Modelling, 10(2), 107–130.
3. Azadi, M., Jafarian, M., Saen, R. F. and Mirhedayatian, S. M. (2015). A new fuzzy DEA model for evaluation of efficiency and effectiveness of suppliers in sustainable supply chain management context. Computers and Operations Research, 54, 274–285.
4. Badi, I. and Ballem, M. (2018). Supplier selection using the rough BWM-MAIRCA model: A case study in pharmaceutical supplying in Libya. Decision making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 1(2), 16-33.
5. Bali, Ö., Köse, E. and Gümüş, S. (2013). Green supplier selection based on IFS and GRA. Grey Systems: Theory and Application, 3(2), 158-176.
6. Banaeian, N., Mobli, H., Fahimnia, B., Nielsen, I. E. and Omid, M. (2018). Green supplier selection using fuzzy group decision making methods: A case study from the agri-food industry. Computers and Operations Research 89, 337–347.
7. Baskaran, V., Nachiappan, S. and Rahman, S. (2012). Indian textile suppliers’ sustainability evaluation using the grey approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 135, 647–658.
8. Bin, L. and Hong-Jun, L. (2010). Research on supplier assessment indices system of green purchasing. International Conference on Measuring Technology and Mechatronics Automation, 314-317.

9. Boran, F. E., Genç, S., Kurt, M., ve Akay, D. (2009). A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making for supplier selection with TOPSIS method. Expert systems with applications, 36(8), 11363-11368.
10. Brauers, W. K. M., Ginevičius, R. and Podvezko, V. (2010). Regional development in Lithuania considering multiple objectives by the MOORA method. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 16(4), 613-640.
11. Brauers, W. K. M. and Zavadskas, E. K. (2012). Robustness of MULTIMOORA: A method for multi-objective optimization. Informatica, 23(1), 1–25.
12. Brauers, W. K. M., Zavadskas, E. K. and Ginevicius, R. (2015). Multi-objective decision making in macro and microeconomics with application of the MULTIMOORA method. International Journal Applied Nonlinear Science, 2(1/2), 75–99.
13. Büyüközkan, G., Çifçi, G. ve Güleryüz, S. (2011). Strategic analysis of healthcare service quality using fuzzy AHP methodology. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(8), 9407-9424.
14. Büyüközkan, G., ve Çifçi, G. (2012). A novel hybrid MCDM approach based on fuzzy DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS to evaluate green suppliers. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(3), 3000–3011.
15. Caillaux, M. A. (2011). Container logistics in Mercosur: Choice of a transhipment port using the ordinal COPELAND method, data envelopment analysis and probabilistic composition. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 13, 355–370.
16. Cavinato, J. L., Flynn, A., and Kauffman, R. (2006), The supply management handbook, New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 643–675.
17. Chand, M., Bhatia, N. and Singh, R. K. (2016). ANP-MOORA-based approach for the analysis of selected issues of green supply chain management. An International Journal, 25(2), 642-659.
18. Chen, C. C., Tseng, M. L., Lin, Y. H. and Lin, Z. S. (2010). Implementation of green supply chain management in uncertainty. International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, Macao, December, 7–10.
19. Chiou, C. Y., Hsu, C. W. and Hwang, W. Y. (2008). Comparative investigation on green supplier selection of the American, Japanese and Taiwanese electronics industry in China. International Conference On IE&EM, IEEE, 8(11), 1909-1914.
20. Chiou, T. Y., Chan, H. K., Lettice, F., and Chung, S. H. (2011). The influence of greening the suppliers and green innovation on environmental performance and competitive advantage in Taiwan. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 47(6), 822-836.
21. Cristea, C. and Cristea, M. (2017). A multi-criteria decision-making approach for supplier selection in the flexible packaging industry. MATEC Web of Conferences 94, EDP Sciences.
22. Çakır, E. (2017). Kriter ağırlıklarının SWARA–COPELAND yöntemi ile belirlenmesi: Bir üretim işletmesinde uygulama. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 4(1), 42-56.
23. Çetin, O, Önder, E. (2015). Cetin, O., & Önder, E. (2015). Tedarikçi Seçiminde Analitik Ağ Süreci Yönteminin Kullanilmasi (Using Analytic Network Process Method for Supplier Selection). The Journal of KAU IIBF, 6(10), 335-354.
24. Dotoli, M. and Falagario, M. (2012). A hierarchical model for optimal supplier selection in multiple sourcing contexts. International Journal of Production Research, 50(11), 2953-2967.
25. Eshtehardian, E., Ghodousi, P. ve Bejanpour, A. (2013). Using ANP and AHP for the supplier selection in the construction and civil engineering companies; case study of Iranian company. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 17 (2): 262–70.
26. Freeman, J. and Chen, T. (2015). Green supplier selection using an AHP-Entropy-TOPSIS framework. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 20(3), 327-340.
27. Gencer, C. ve Gürpinar, D. (2007). “Analytic network process in supplier selection: A case study in an electronic firm. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 31(11), 2475-2486.
28. Girubha, R. J. and Vinodh, S. (2012). Application of fuzzy VIKOR and environmental impact analysis for material selection of an automotive component. Materials and Design, 37, 478 - 486.
29. Govindan, K. Kannan, D. and Shankar, M. (2015). Evaluation of green manufacturing practices using a hybrid MCDM model combining DANP with PROMETHEE. International Journal of Production Research, 53(21), 6344-6371.
30. Govindan, K., Rajendran, S., Sarkis, J. and Murugesan, P. (2015). Multi criteria decision making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 98, 66-83.
31. Görener, A., Ayvaz, B., Kuşakcı, A. O., and Altınok, E. (2017). A hybrid type-2 fuzzy based supplier performance evaluation methodology: The Turkish Airlines technic case”, Applied Soft Computing, 56, 436-445.
32. Grisi, R. M., Guerra, L. and Naviglio, G. (2009). Supplier performance evaluation for green supply chain management. içinde Taticchi, P. (Ed.), Business Performance Measurement and Management (s.149-163).
33. Gupta, S., Soni, U. and Kumar, G. (2019). Green supplier selection using multi-criterion decision making under fuzzy environment: A case study in automotive industry. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 136, 663–680.
34. Haeri, S., Amin, S. and Rezaei, J. (2019). A grey-based green supplier selection model for uncertain environments. Journal of Cleaner Production, 221, 768-784.
35. Handfield, R., Walton, S. V., Sroufe, R. and Melnyk, S. A. (2002). Applying environmental criteria to supplier assessment: A study in the application of the AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 141, 70-87.
36. Hashemi, S. H., Karimi, A. and Tavana, M. (2015). An integrated green supplier selection approach with analytic network process and improved grey relational analysis. International Journal of Production Economics, 159, 178-191.
37. Ho, W., Xu, X., and Dey, P. K. (2010). Multi-criteria decision-making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 202(1), 16-24.
38. Hruska, R., Průša, P. and Babić, D. (2014). The use of AHP method for selection of supplier. Transport, 29(2), 195-203.
39. Hsu, C. W. and Hu, A. H. (2007). Application of analytic network process on supplier selection to hazardous substance management in green supply chain management. International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, 1362-1368.
40. Hsu, C. W., Kuo, T. C., Chen, S. H. and Hu, A. H. (2013). Using DEMATEL to develop a carbon management model of supplier selection in green supply chain management. Journal of cleaner production, 56, 164-172.
41. Huang, C. C. and Lee, H. M. (2003). A novel partial-memory learning algorithm based on grey relational structure. içinde Advances in Intelligent Data Analysis V, August 28-30, 68-75.
42. Humphreys, P., McCloskey, A., McIvor, R., Maguire, L. and Glackin, C. (2006). Employing dynamic fuzzy membership functions to assess environmental performance in the supplier selection process. International Journal of Production Research, 44(12), 2379-2419.
43. Jabbour, A. B. L. S. and Jabbour, C. J. C. (2009). Are supplier selection criteria going green? Case studies of companies in Brazil. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 109(4) 477-495.
44. Jakhar, S. K. (2014). Designing the green supply chain performance optimisation model. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 15(3), 235–259.
45. Kamalakannan, R., Ramesh, C., Shunmugasundaram, M., Sivakumar, P., and Mohamed, A. (2020). Evaluvation and selection of suppliers using TOPSIS. Materials Today: Proceedings, 33, 2771-2773.
46. Kannan, G., Haq, A. N., Sasikumar, P., and Arunachalam, S. (2008). Analysis and Selection of green suppliers using interpretative structural modelling and AHP. International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 9(2), 163-182.
47. Kaya, T. ve Kahraman, C. (2010). Entegre bir bulanik VIKOR ve AHP metodolojisi kullanarak çok kriterli yenilenebilir enerji planlamasi: İstanbul örneği. Enerji, 35(6), 2517-2527.
48. Kılıç, H. S. ve Yalçın, A. S. (2019). Green supplier selection via an integrated multi-attribute decision making approach. Sakarya Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 23(6), 1066-1079.
49. Kumar, P., Singh, R. K. and Vaish, A. (2017). Suppliers’ green performance evaluation using fuzzy extended ELECTRE approach. Clean Technology Environment, 19(3), 809-821.
50. Kuo, R. J., Wang, Y. C. and Tien, F. C. (2010). Integration of artificial neural network and mada methods for green supplier selection. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18, 1161-1170.
51. Kuo, R. J. and Lin Y. J. (2012). Supplier selection using analytic network process and data envelopment analysis. International Journal of Production Research, 50(11), 2852-2863.
52. Lee, A. H. I., Kang, H. Y., Hsu, C. F. and Hung, H. C. (2009). A green supplier selection model for high-tech industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(4), 7917-7927.
53. Lee, T. (J)., Phuong Nha Le, T., Genovese, A. and Koh, L. S. C. (2012). Using FAHP to determine the criteria for partner’s selection within a green supply chain the case of hand tool industry in Taiwan. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management , 23(1), 25-55.
54. Lee, S. Y. (2015). The effects of green supply chain management on the supplier’s performance through social capital accumulation. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 20(1), 42-55.
55. Mehralian, G., Gatari, A. R., Morakabati, M. and Vatanpour, H. (2011). Developing a suitable model for supplier selection based on supply chain risks: An empirical study from Iranian pharmaceutical companies. Journal of Pharmaceutical Research, 11(1), 209-219.
56. Min, H. and Galle, W. P. (1997). Green purchasing strategies: Trends and implications. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, Summer, 10-17.
57. Mousakhani, S., Nazari-Shirkouhi, S., and Bozorgi-Amiri, A. (2017). A novel interval type-2 fuzzy evaluation model-based group decision analysis for green supplier selection problems: A case study of battery industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 168, 205-218.
58. Özbek, A. (2019). Çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri ve excel ile problem çözümü, 2. Baskı, Ankara, Seçkin Yayıncılık.
59. Özdağoğlu, A. (2013b). Çok ölçütlü karar verme modellerinde normalizasyon tekniklerinin sonuçlara etkisi: COPRAS örneği. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, 8(2), 229-252.
60. Özdemir, Y., Tüysüz, S. ve Başlıgil, H. (2016). Nükleer enerji santralleri için AHP ve ANP yöntemi kullanılarak risklerin ağirliklandirilması. Sigma Journal of Engineering and Natural Sciences, 7(2), 207-217.
61. Öztürk, B. A. ve Özçelik, F. (2014). Üçlü kar payına dayali bulanik çok kriterli karar verme yöntemiyle sürdürülebilir tedarikçi seçimi. İşletme ve Ekonomi Araştırma Dergisi, 5(3), 129.
62. Öztürk, H., Pekel, E. ve Elevli, B. (2018). Using ANP and ELECTRE methods for supplier selection: Cable industry application. Journal of Science, 22(5), 1190-1198.
63. Podvezko, V. (2011), The comparative analysis of MCDA methods SAW and COPRAS. Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 22(2), 134-146.
64. Peng, J. J., Wang, J. Q., Wang, J., Yang, L. J., and Chen, X. H. (2015). An extension of ELECTRE to multi-criteria decision-making problems with multi-hesitant fuzzy sets. Information Sciences, 307, 113-126.
65. Pitchipoo, P., Venkumar, P. and Rajakarunakaran, S. (2012). A distinct decision model for the evaluation and selection of a supplier for a chemical processing industry. International Journal of Production Research, 50(16), 4635-4648.
66. Pourghahreman, N. and Qhatari, A. N. (2015). Supplier selection in an agent based pharmaceutical supply chain: An application of TOPSIS and PROMETHEE. Uncertain Supply Chain Management, 3, 231–240.
67. Qin, J., Liu, X., and Pedrycz, W. (2017). An extended TODIM multi-criteria group decision making method for green supplier selection in interval type-2 fuzzy environment. European Journal of Operational Research, 258(2), 626-638.
68. Quan, J., Zeng, B. and Liu, D. (2018). Green supplier selection for process industries using weighted grey incidence decision model. Complexity, 1-12.
69. Saari, D. G. and Merlin, V. R. (1996). The copeland method relationships and the dictionary. Economie Theory, 8, 51-76.
70. Saaty, T. L. (2009). Theory and applications of the analytic network process: Decision making with benefits, opportunities, costs, and risk. RWS Publications. Pittsburgh.
71. Sahu, N. K., Datta, S. and Mahapatra, S. S. (2012). Establishing green supplier appraisement platform using grey concepts. Grey Systems: Theory and Application, 2(3), 395–418.
72. Sarıçalı, G. ve Kundakçı, N. (2016). AHP ve COPRAS yöntemleri ile otel alternatiflerinin değerlendirilmesi. International Review of Economics and Management, 4(1), 45-66.
73. Sevkli, M., Lenny Koh, S.C., Zaim, S., Demirbag, M. ve Tatoglu, E. (2007). Tedarikçi seçimi için bir veri zarflama analitik hiyerarşi süreci uygulamasi: Türkiye'de Beko'nun bir vaka çalişmasi. Uluslararası Üretim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 45 (9), 1973-2003.
74. Shi, P., Yan, B., Shi, S., and Ke, C. (2015). A decision support system to select suppliers for a sustainable supply chain based on a systematic DEA approach. Information Technology and Management, 16(1), 39-49.
75. Simchi, D. and Levi, P. K. (2004). Managing the supply chain the definitive guide for the business. McGraw-Hill, USA.
76. Swift, C. O. (1995). Preferences for single sourcing and supplier selection criteria. Journal of Business Research, 23, 105-111.
77. Taylan, O., Bafail, A.O., Abdulaal, R.M. and Kabli, M.R. (2014). Bulanık AHP ve bulanık TOPSIS metodolojileri ile inşaat projeleri seçimi ve risk değerlendirmesi. Uygulamalı Yumuşak Hesaplama, 17, 105-116.
78. Tektaş, A. ve Aytekin, A. (2011). Supplier selection in the international environment: A comparative case of a Turkish and an Australian company. IBIMA Business Review, 1-15.
79. Theiben, S. and Spinler, S. (2014). Strategic analysis of manufacturer-supplier partnerships: An ANP model for collaborative CO2 reduction management. European Journal of Operational Research, 233(2), 383-397.
80. Thongchattu, C. and Siripokapirom, S. (2010). Green supplier selection consensus by neural network. 2nd International Conference on Mechanical and Electronics Engineering, 313-316.
81. Torabi, S. A., and Boostani, A. (2018). Supplier selection and order allocation under risk: Iranian oil and gas drilling companies. International Journal of Industrial Engineering & Production Research, 29(1), 35-52.
82. Tseng, M. L. (2011). Green supply chain management with linguistic preferences and incomplete information. Apply Soft Computing, 11(8), 4894-4903.
83. Tuzkaya, G., Özgen, A., Özgen, D. ve Tuzkaya, U. R. (2009). Environmental performance evaluation of suppliers: A hybrid fuzzy multi-criteria decision Approach. International Journal of Environmantel Science and Technology, 6(3), 477-490.
84. Varnas, A., Balfors, B. and Faith-Ell, C. (2009). Environmental consideration in procurement of construction contracts: Current practice, problems and opportunities in green procurement in the Swedish construction industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17, 1214–1222.
85. Watrobski, J. ve Salabun, W. (2016). Green supplier selection framework based on multi-criteria decision-analysis approach. Sustainable Design and Manufacturing, (361-371). Springer, Cham.
86. Weber, C. A. Current, J. R. and Benton, W. C. (1991). Vendor selection criteria and methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 50(1), 2–18.
87. Wen, U. P. and Chi, J. M. (2010). Developing green supplier selection procedure: A DEA approach. International Conference on IEEM, IEEE, 29-31 Oct., 74-79.
88. Wu, H. H. (2002). A comparative study of using grey relational analysis in multiple attribute decision making problems. Quality Engineering, 15(2), 209-217.
89. Wu, Q., Zhou, L., Chen, Y. and Chen, H. (2019). An integrated approach to green supplier selection based on the interval type-2 fuzzy best-worst and extended VIKOR methods. Information Sciences, 502, 394–417.
90. Yadav, V. and Sharma, M. K. (2014). An application of hybrid data envelopment analytical hierarchy process approach for supplier selection. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 28(2), 218-242.
91. Yang, Y. and Wu, L. (2007). Grey entropy method for green supplier selection. International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, Shanghai, 4682-4685.
92. Yang, Y. Z. and Wu, L. Y. (2008). Extension method for green supplier selection. International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, 1-4.
93. Yeh, W. C. and Chuang, M. C. (2011). Using multi-objective genetic algorithm for partner selection in green supply chain problems. Expert Systems with Applications, 38, 4244–4253.
94. Yıldırım, B. F. ve Önder, E. (2015). Çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri. Dora Yayıncılık, Bursa.
95. Yu, Q. and Hou, F. (2016). An Approach for green supplier selection in the automobile manufacturing industry. Kybernetes, 45(4), 571-588.
96. Zhao, H. and Guo, S. (2014). Selecting green supplier of thermal power equipment by using a hybrid MCDM method for sustainability. Sustainability, 6, 217-235.