Computers and Operations Research 81 (2017) 282–304

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Operations Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cor

Supplier selection and order allocation with green criteria: An MCDM

and multi-objective optimization approach
Sadeque Hamdan, Ali Cheaitou∗
Sustainable Engineering Asset Management (SEAM) Research Group and Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management Department, College of
Engineering, University of Sharjah, PO Box 27272, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This research provides a decision-making tool to solve a multi-period green supplier selection and or-
Received 20 July 2016 der allocation problem. The tool contains three integrated components. First, fuzzy TOPSIS (technique
Accepted 7 November 2016
for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution) is used to assign two preference weights to each
Available online 14 November 2016
potential supplier according to two sets of criteria taken separately: traditional and green. Second, top
Keywords: management uses an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to assign a global importance weight to each of
Supplier selection the two sets of criteria based on the strategy of the company and independently of the potential sup-
Planning pliers. Third, for each supplier, the preference weight obtained from fuzzy TOPSIS regarding the tradi-
Order allocation tional criteria is then multiplied by the global importance weight of the set of traditional criteria. The
Green criteria same is done for the green criteria. The two combined preference weights obtained for each supplier are
Multi-criteria decision making then used in addition to total cost to select the best suppliers and to allocate orders using multi-period
Optimization
bi-objective and multi-objective optimization. The mathematical models are solved using the weighted
comprehensive criterion method and the branch-and-cut algorithm. The approach of this research has a
major advantage: it provides top management with flexibility in giving more or less importance weight to
green or traditional criteria regardless of the number of criteria in each category through the use of AHP,
which reduces the effect of the number of criteria on the preference weight of the suppliers. Contrary to
the case in which each supplier is evaluated on the basis of all criteria at the same time, the proposed
approach would not necessarily result in a supplier with poor green performance being ranked among
the best for a situation in which the number of green criteria is smaller than the number of traditional
criteria. In this case, the final ranking would mainly depend on the global weight of the green criteria set
given by the top management using AHP as well as on the ranking of the supplier in terms of green crite-
ria obtained from fuzzy TOPSIS. Extensive numerical experiments are conducted in which the bi-objective
and multi-objective models are compared and the effect of the separation between green and traditional
criteria is investigated. The results show that the two optimization approaches provide very close solu-
tions, which leads to a preference for the bi-objective approach because of its lower computation time.
Moreover, the results confirm the flexibility of the proposed approach and show that combining all cri-
teria in one set is a special case. Finally, a time study is performed, which shows that the bi-objective
integer linear programming model has a polynomial computation time.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction on reducing operational costs and enlarging overall profit [2–4].

Supply chain management aims to maximize a firm’s prof-
itability and customer satisfaction through integrated planning and
control decisions [1]. Moreover, globalization has increased the
challenges of supply chains to remain competitive by focusing
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: shamdan@sharjah.ac.ae, sadeque.hamdan.1991@gmail.com
(S. Hamdan),
ali.cheaitou@centraliens.net, cheaitou.ali@gmail.com, acheaitou@sharjah.ac.ae
(A. Cheaitou).
However, because of the increased awareness of environmental is-
sues, both public and private sectors face increasing pressure to
consider environmental aspects in managing their operations and
supply chains. This consideration is recognized as green supply
chain management [5–7].
Green supply chain management is the management of the
flows of funds, information, and products between and among
all stages of the supply chain to find the right balance between
environmental and economic aspects [5,8]. Moreover, purchasing
is an essential strategic function in supply chain management
for the supply chain to be competitive. Purchasing has six major

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2016.11.005
0305-0548/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 S. Hamdan, A. Cheaitou / Computers and Operations Research 81 (2017) 282–304
decision processes: making or buying, supplier selection, contract
negotiation, design collaboration, procurement, and sourcing anal-
ysis [1,9,10]. Among these six processes, supplier selection has re-
ceived considerable attention since the 1960s to achieve an effec-
tive purchasing strategy because the right selection reduces cost
and improves quality of final products [1,2,11].
Supplier selection in which raw materials and components rep-
resent a significant percentage of the total product cost is the most
critical issue firms face [9]. The importance of supplier selection
has increased also from outsourcing initiatives in which firms rely
more on suppliers to improve the quality of their products, to re-
duce their costs, or to focus on a specific part of their operations
[12]; thus, supplier selection constitutes a strategic decision [13].
The supplier selection problem can be either a single-sourcing
problem, in which one supplier is selected to satisfy the firm’s en-
tire demand, or a multiple-sourcing problem, in which more than
one supplier is selected. In the latter case, each of the suppliers
provides a certain amount of the product based on a set of con-
straints [13]. Relying on one supplier only increases disruption risk
in the supply chain, while depending on multiple sources incurs
an increase in the fixed ordering cost, in terms of administrative
and negotiation costs [14]. However, multiple sourcing is preferred
to single sourcing because it allows for order flexibility [13].
Supplier selection is a complex, multi-criteria decision-making
(MCDM) process that considers both qualitative and quantitative
factors to choose reliable suppliers [2,13,15,16]. This complexity
comes from unpredictable and uncontrollable factors that may be
uncertain and conflict with each other [16,17]. In the past, supplier
selection and order allocation problems did not consider environ-
mental effects and issues and focused instead on product cost, de-
livery time, and quality [5,6], which we consider in this article as
part of the traditional criteria.
Recently, as a result of governmental regulations, increased
awareness to protect the environment, and growing environmen-
tal concerns, the trend is to select green vendors because a
company’s environmental performance is measured by both its
inter-environmental practices and the environmental image of its
suppliers [8,13]. Green supplier selection is the evaluation of the
suppliers to be selected, based on a set of green criteria that in-
cludes environmental aspects, such as waste reduction, use of re-
cyclable materials, green knowledge transfer, and eco-design. Such
green criteria used in supplier selection models are mainly based
on company requirements and the best industrial practices [18].
When evaluating and selecting green suppliers, each green crite-
rion will be given an importance weight, and each alternative sup-
plier will be evaluated and ranked with respect to these criteria
[19].
In general, planning in the supplier selection problem is a pro-
cess in which the supplier selection problem is considered un-
der time-varying demand, cost, and capacity, with the aim to
minimize the company’s total cost. Supplier selection and order
allocation problems with planning decisions are called “dynamic
supplier selection problems” as they take into consideration the
dynamic environment that might vary in any period of the plan-
ning horizon. The fixed cost of suppliers, demand of the product,
and green assessments can change from one period to another.
This change might yield a different selection and planning sched-
ule, in which a supplier may be used in one period but not in the
other periods. The supplier selection and order allocation problem
might also serve as a re-assessment problem in which the suppli-
ers are re-evaluated with new order allocation.
The purpose of this article is to develop a decision-making tool
based on MCDM and bi-objective and multi-objective optimiza-
tion to help decision makers integrate green criteria in the finite-
horizon multi-period supplier selection and order allocation prob-
lem. The proposed tool deals with deterministic demand and the
283
multiple-sourcing situation. The tool is structured in three steps:
first, it gives to every potential supplier two preference weights
based on traditional and green criteria taken separately using fuzzy
TOPSIS (technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal
solution). Second, it assigns an importance weight to the set of
traditional criteria and another importance weight to the set of
green criteria using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). This step
is usually taken by top management in accordance with the com-
pany’s strategy and independent of the available suppliers and the
number of criteria in each category. Third, for each supplier, the
preference weight obtained from fuzzy TOPSIS regarding the tra-
ditional criteria is multiplied by the global importance weight of
the set of traditional criteria. The same is done for the green cri-
teria and for every supplier. The two combined preference weights
obtained for each supplier (traditional and green), in addition to
the fixed and variable purchasing costs and the inventory hold-
ing and penalty shortage costs, serve as input for multi-period bi-
and multi-objective optimization models, which are solved with
the weighted comprehensive criterion method (WCCM) and the
branch-and-cut algorithm using the Optimization Toolbox of MAT-
LAB.
We can summarize the major advantage of this approach as
follows: if, for example, the company is developing or following
a strategy that focuses on the green aspect of the business, top
management will assign a higher importance weight to the set of
green criteria. Therefore, a supplier that has low traditional per-
formance, such as a high cost, but excellent green performance
will rank among the best suppliers and will be eventually selected,
even if the number of green criteria considered is lower than the
number of traditional criteria. Moreover, the methodological choice
is justified for three reasons. First, the use of fuzzy TOPSIS does not
create any inconsistency issues [20]. At the same time, fuzzy TOP-
SIS allows the model to account for any uncertainty that may come
from the experts while ranking the different alternatives on the ba-
sis of the traditional or green criteria, especially when the number
of alternatives or criteria is large [20]. The use of AHP in the sec-
ond step makes it simple for top management and does not lead to
any inconsistency because the number of alternatives is equal to 2
(green criteria set and traditional criteria set), which we discuss in
Section 3.2.1. Third, the optimization models will provide the or-
ganization with the optimal suppliers to deal with in each period,
based on the suppliers’ evaluation (fuzzy TOPSIS), top management
choices (AHP), the suppliers’ relative costs and availability, and the
company’s inventory holding and shortage costs.
We implemented this approach in software we developed us-
ing MATLAB. The software has a user-friendly graphical user inter-
face (GUI) in which users from the organization’s top management
can make their pairwise comparison easily by entering the relative
weights of the two groups of criteria. Moreover, the other deci-
sion makers in charge of the suppliers’ evaluation can also enter
the number of criteria on which they want to evaluate the suppli-
ers, the number of suppliers (alternatives), the weight of each cri-
terion in every set, and the relative weight of each supplier with
respect to every criterion using linguistic variables. The cost ele-
ments, demand, and suppliers’ capacities can also be entered eas-
ily using an MS Excel file imported by the software. The software
processes the fuzzy TOPSIS and AHP calculations, feeds in an opti-
mization code based on the bi-objective model, and uses then the
Optimization Toolbox of MATLAB to solve it. The supply chain de-
partments of two major companies in the Gulf Cooperation Council
region have used this software on two case studies: a major alu-
minum manufacturing company and a major facilities management
company. The purpose was to validate the approach and the soft-
ware. Section 5 presents one of the case studies.
The rest of this article proceeds as follows: Section 2 presents
the literature review and the research findings, and Section 3
284 S. Hamdan, A. Cheaitou / Computers and Operations Research 81 (2017) 282–304
defines the proposed model and the adopted solution approach.
Section 4 exhibits the numerical experiments, and Section 5
concludes with a case study. Section 6 is dedicated to general con-
clusion.
2. Literature review
We classified the literature related to our work into four cate-
gories. The first category includes the works on supplier selection
and order allocation. The second category evaluates the studies
with a focus on green criteria. The third category explores the liter-
ature on green supplier selection and green supplier selection with
order allocation. Finally, the fourth category includes the works on
supplier selection and planning problems. We then summarize the
main findings from the literature and discuss our research’s contri-
bution.
2.1. Supplier selection and order allocation
Supplier selection is an activity recognized as the most im-
portant and prominent part of the purchasing function as it con-
tributes to enhancing competitive strategy and global market share
by reducing operational costs (e.g., maintenance cost), offering
high-quality products, enlarging total supply chain profit, and im-
proving total supply chain performance [14,16,21,22]. In today’s
global competition, customer expectations have increased; these
expectations cannot be explained only by lower product cost, as
they also involve quality, lead time, warranties, and many other
criteria that make supplier selection a multi-criteria problem. For
supplier selection problems, Dickson [23] proposed 23 different
criteria used as reference in the majority of supplier selection stud-
ies [16].
In the literature, two types of supplier selection problems ex-
ist. The first type is the single-sourcing supplier selection prob-
lem, in which a single supplier can fully satisfy the demands of the
company and the company only needs to decide which supplier to
select. Chou and Chang [24] used a strategy-aligned fuzzy simple
multi-attribute rating technique (SMART) for solving the vendor
selection problem. Wang et al. [25] proposed the fuzzy hierarchi-
cal TOPSIS methodology for supplier selection problems to provide
more accurate weights. Kwong et al. [26] developed an integrated
two-stage model based on fuzzy set theory and SMART to assess
the performance of suppliers. Moreover, Bruno et al. [27] used AHP
combined with fuzzy set theory, Tavana et al. [28] applied artificial
neural network, Rahiminezhad et al. [29] used a balanced score-
card with fuzzy AHP, and Memon et al. [30] implemented gray
system theory with uncertainty theory in the supplier selection
problem. Shemshadi et al. [31] applied fuzzy VIKOR (VIseKriteri-
jumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje) based on an entropy
measure for objective weighting in the supplier selection problem.
They extended the VIKOR method with a mechanism to extract and
deploy objective weights on the basis of the Shannon entropy con-
cept.
The second type is the multiple-sourcing supplier selection
problem in which a single supplier cannot satisfy all the demand,
and thus there is a need to split the orders among other suppliers.
In this type, the company must make two decisions: which suppli-
ers to select and what amount to order from each selected supplier
[15,17].
To balance the tradeoff between these conflicting criteria, re-
searchers have developed many models, ranging from single ap-
proaches to hybrid approaches. In a single approach, researchers
usually focus on solving the supplier selection problem and de-
termining the optimum quantities subjected to certain constraints.
For example, Zhang and Zhang [14] developed a mixed-integer pro-
gramming (MIP) model to minimize the total cost, including the
product cost and fixed cost, with stochastic demand, while assum-
ing that all available suppliers met the qualitative criteria level. Du
et al. [32] investigated the supplier selection problem while taking
into consideration life-cycle cost using a bi-objective model that
accounts for operational cost in addition to the purchasing cost,
as minimizing purchasing cost might only lead to more equip-
ment failures, resulting in increased maintenance cost. They pro-
posed a hybridization of the Pareto genetic algorithm and multi-
intersection and similarity crossover strategy to solve the model.
Karpak et al. [33] used goal programming (GP) to minimize the to-
tal product cost and maximize the total product quality and deliv-
ery reliability in selecting suppliers for the hydraulic pump division
of a U.S. original equipment manufacturer. Karpak et al. [34] ap-
plied visual interactive GP in single- and multiple-product supplier
selection problems. Karpak et al. [35] developed a GP model to se-
lect the suppliers and allocate the quantities on the basis of the
total product cost, the total quality, and delivery reliability. The
model is constrained by demand and capacity. Moreover, Kumar
et al. [36] formulated and used fuzzy mixed-integer GP to solve
the vendor selection problem with a fuzzy nature. Amorim et al.
[37] proposed an MIP model for stochastic supplier selection in
the food industry. Moghaddam [38] applied Monte Carlo simula-
tion with fuzzy GP to solve the supplier selection problem.
Conversely, for hybrid models, Amin et al. [39] were the first
to consider strategic perspectives by developing a two-stage inte-
grated quantified SWOT analysis technique with fuzzy linear pro-
gramming (fuzzy LP) to deal with the supplier selection problem.
Some researchers have tried to use historical data in supplier se-
lection, such as Faez et al. [11], who proposed an integrated case-
based reasoning with MIP to select the suppliers and the quanti-
ties to be ordered. Xia and Wu [40] proposed an integrated ap-
proach of AHP, improved by rough set theory and multi-objectives
mixed-integer linear programming (MILP), for a multi-product sup-
plier selection and order allocation problem, in which suppliers of-
fer price discounts on total business volumes.
Moreover, Demirtas and Üstün [41] developed a two-stage sup-
plier selection and order allocation model, based on the analyti-
cal network process (ANP) and the multi-objective mixed-integer
programming (MOMIP), that maximizes the purchasing value and
minimizes the budget and the defect rates. The model was solved
by the  -constraint method and reservation level using the Tcheby-
cheff procedure. Wu et al. [22] used the Delphi method, ANP, and
the MOMIP model for the supplier selection problem, in which cri-
teria are generated by experts using the Delphi method, then these
criteria serve as input for ANP, and finally, the MOMIP model is
used to select the best suppliers and the associated quantities.
Furthermore, Lee et al. [42] used fuzzy AHP and fuzzy mul-
tiple goal programming to select the suppliers for the thin-film-
transistor liquid-crystal display. Liao and Kao [43] developed a
two-stage model that uses fuzzy TOPSIS and multi-choice GP for
supplier selection and order allocation in watch manufacturing.
Rouyendegh and Saputro [44] applied fuzzy TOPSIS and multi-
choice GP in a fertilizer and chemicals company. Kilic [17] applied
fuzzy TOPSIS with MILP to select the best suppliers for multi-item
in a multi-supplier problem, and Perçin [45] used an integrated
AHP–GP approach for supplier selection. Ghorbani et al. [46] used
SWOT analysis and entropy to evaluate suppliers and the integer
linear programming (ILP) model to select and determine the quan-
tities. Sodenkamp et al. [47] used group decision making with dif-
ferent voting power and linear programming (LP) in supplier selec-
tion.
2.2. Green criteria
In today’s open market, suppliers that provide environmentally
friendly products and services gain more recognition and respect
 S. Hamdan, A. Cheaitou / Computers and Operations Research 81 (2017) 282–304
Table 1
Green criteria classification.
Product-related Organization-related
Use of toxic substances Certification of environmental management
system
Use of resources Environmental policy
Environmental labeling Compliance to regulation
Recycled packaging Evaluation of second tier suppliers
Green technology Staff training to increase awareness about
environmental issues
Green market share
for their efforts [7]. Literature reviews on green supplier selection
are limited, and thus this field is immature [7,12]. The green idea
differs from the sustainability concept, in that sustainability covers
economic, social, and environmental criteria, while green features
are limited to environmental criteria. As a result, research recog-
nizes the green concept as part of the sustainability concept [7].
Govindan et al. [12] and Igarashi et al. [7] reviewed green sup-
plier selection articles. Igarashi et al. [7] found that these works
has used both environmental qualitative and quantitative crite-
ria in green supplier selection models without clearly identifying
the criteria characteristics or even the criterion definition. Green
criteria can be structured into two groups: product-oriented and
organization-oriented criteria. Igarashi et al. [7] classified the main
green criteria used in the literature, as shown in Table 1. They
also noted that some of the reviewed articles used either product-
or organization-related criteria. Govindan et al. [12] found that
the most widely used approach in green supplier selection is the
fuzzy-based single approach, in which the most common green
criterion is the environmental management system, followed by
green image, environmental performance, and environmental com-
petencies.
2.3. Green supplier selection and green supplier selection with order
allocation
With environmental regulations and the awareness to protect
the environment, there is a need to adopt environmental aspects
in selecting any organization’s suppliers. A green supplier selection
problem can be defined as a classic supplier selection problem, in
which environmental criteria are considered along with other tra-
ditional criteria in selecting the company’s suppliers [48]. Similar
to the classic supplier selection problem, a green supplier selec-
tion problem can be either a single-sourcing or a multiple-sourcing
problem. To solve the green supplier selection problem, researchers
have applied different methods.
For example, Kannan et al. [18] proposed a framework for se-
lecting green suppliers using fuzzy TOPSIS. Büyüközkan and Çifçi
[8] developed a hybrid model that used fuzzy DEMATEL (Decision-
Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory) to extract the mutual re-
lationships of interdependencies with criteria and strength of in-
terdependence, fuzzy ANP to handle the relationships between the
factors, and, finally, fuzzy TOPSIS to select the best alternative.
Amindoust et al. [19] applied fuzzy logic and a new ranking model
based on the fuzzy inference system. Kannan et al. [49] proposed a
fuzzy axiomatic design, and Hsu et al. [50] used DEMATEL to iden-
tify the key green criterion in supplier selection problems. More-
over, Freeman and Chen [51] used an integrated AHP, entropy,
and TOPSIS to evaluate the ranking of suppliers while consider-
ing green aspects. Darabi and Heydari [52] used the interval-valued
hesitant fuzzy set method. Galankashi et al. [53] applied fuzzy ANP,
Hashemi et al. [54] used ANP and improved gray relational anal-
ysis, and Dobos and Vörösmarty [55] applied data envelopment
analysis-type composite indicators with common weight analysis.
285
However, the previously described methods rank the suppli-
ers without considering capacity limitations or specifying the or-
der quantities from each supplier. Yeh and Chuang [5] aimed to
minimize the total product cost and the total time while max-
imizing quality and green score in multiple supply chain stages
for a multi-product green supplier selection problem by applying
multi-objective genetic algorithms. They used two algorithms to
find the Pareto-optimal solution set. However, the proposed model
was constrained by production capacity limitation, demand satis-
faction for both warehouses and end customers, and some other
constraints for criterion score value.
Moreover, Shaw et al. [6] proposed a fuzzy AHP and fuzzy
multi-objective linear programing (MOLP) model to solve the green
supplier selection problem and deal with its vagueness due to the
subjectivity in human decisions. Kannan et al. [13] proposed a hy-
brid model of fuzzy AHP, fuzzy TOPSIS, and the MOLP approach to
solve multi-sourcing green supplier selection problems. They con-
verted the proposed MOLP model into a single objective function
model by applying a max-min formulation. Zouggari and Beny-
oucef [56] proposed a four-stage simulation-based knowledge ap-
proach for green supplier selection and order allocation problem.
2.4. Supplier selection and order allocation with planning
Most studies in the literature have focused on single-period
supplier selection and order allocation problems. As the selected
suppliers for the one-period problem might not be the best choice
for other periods in the future, especially in a dynamic envi-
ronment, it is important to consider multi-period problems. In a
multi-period configuration, the most suitable suppliers are selected
for each period to satisfy the constraints [10], which makes the
supplier selection problem with order allocation a planning prob-
lem.
Li et al. [57] proposed a two-stage mathematical model to deal
with a material supplier selection and order allocation problem
over a planning horizon in a short product-life-cycle environment.
They applied a fuzzy extended AHP to generate risk weights for
different suppliers among five criteria: cost, quality, risk, profile,
and service performance. In the second stage, they developed a
bi-objective mathematical model to minimize risk and cost. They
solved this bi-objective model using a dynamic programming algo-
rithm to obtain the supplier ranks and the orders allocation. The
model assumed that each supplier could provide all materials with
different capacities and no inventory.
Lee et al. [58] constructed an integrated lot-sizing model with
multi-period supplier selection. This integrated model minimized
the cost under both all-unit and incremental quantity discounts.
The model assumed that no shortage is allowed and demand is
known. To solve the proposed model, they adopted two approaches
based on the size of the problem: MIP is used for small-scale prob-
lems, while a genetic algorithm (GA) is applied for complex and
large-scale problems.
Ware et al. [10] developed mixed-integer non-linear program-
ming to minimize the total cost of purchasing (TCP) in a dy-
namic supplier selection problem. The developed model considered
a multi-product, multi-period situation, in which purchasing cost,
total transportation cost, penalty cost for not meeting quality re-
quirements, and delay cost are considered in the objective func-
tion. The model was constrained by capacity limitation, demand,
and minimum quality level, and it can be solved using LINGO soft-
ware.
All the previously stated models evaluate the supplier selec-
tion problem without considering environmental criteria. The only
work in which green supplier selection and planning were consid-
ered was that of Mafakheri et al. [1]. They introduced a two-stage
dynamic programming model for a single-product multi-period
286 S. Hamdan, A. Cheaitou / Computers and Operations Research 81 (2017) 282–304
green vendor selection and order allocation problem. Using AHP
in the first stage, they ranked potential suppliers using four main
criteria: price performance, delivery performance, environmental
performance, and quality. The model objectives were to maximize
a utility function and to minimize the TCP (including purchasing
cost and inventory holding cost), which they later combined into
one objective function and solved using a dynamic programming
algorithm. However, the model is constrained by capacity limita-
tions, deterministic demand, and inventory allowance.
2.5. Literature review findings and article contribution
The literature on supplier selection is extensive. We reviewed
the most relevant studies to our work and classified them on the
basis of the used approach, the used method, and whether they
include green aspects, as well as on some additional aspects. Table
2 lists the classification.
We can summarize the findings from the literature review as
follows:
1. In the literature, most of the existing models for the supplier
selection problem did not account for a multi-period situation
and did not take green criteria into consideration.
2. Some studies select the best green supplier but without consid-
ering order allocation or the multi-period framework.
3. Most of the models in the literature on supplier selection and
order allocation with planning did not account for shortage and
did not consider the green aspects.
4. The only reviewed article on green supplier selection with plan-
ning [1] did not allow for shortage and did not consider the
fixed ordering cost.
5. To the best of our knowledge, none of the reviewed articles
assessed the effect of a two-step ranking process for suppli-
ers using fuzzy TOPSIS and AHP, thus resulting in two separate
weights for each supplier, while providing the company’s top
management with flexibility regarding the importance weights
of the green criteria and traditional criteria.
The contributions of the current research are fourfold. First, it
integrates green aspects into the supplier evaluation process, while
separating green criteria from traditional criteria in the suppliers
ranking process; that is, we perform the suppliers’ evaluation un-
der the traditional criteria and then under the green criteria using
fuzzy TOPSIS. After that, we carry out a pairwise comparison be-
tween the traditional criteria as a group on the one hand and the
green criteria as another group on the other hand, which gives the
decision maker the ability to assign different importance weights
to each category of criteria using AHP. We combined the results
from the two methods together in a final importance weight for
each supplier. This approach provides the decision maker with
flexibility in evaluating the available suppliers. The use of AHP is
justified by its simplicity and by the absence of inconsistency when
the number of alternatives is equal to two (green criteria set and
traditional criteria set), as shown in Section 3.2.1. The second con-
tribution is related to the optimization models. To the best of our
knowledge, the only article on green supplier selection and order
allocation with multi-period planning horizon is that of Mafakheri
et al. [1], who use AHP to rank all the criteria in a single step. Their
approach makes the model inconsistent when the number of crite-
ria or alternatives changes [20]. In our work, we use fuzzy TOPSIS
to overcome this issue because fuzzy TOPSIS does not have this in-
consistency issue [20]. Moreover, this technique allows the model
to account for any uncertainty that may arise from the experts
while ranking the different alternatives on the basis of the tradi-
tional or green criteria, especially when the number of alternatives
or criteria is large [20]. In addition, the optimization models ac-
count for fixed costs and allow the decision maker to use short-
age, which is not the case in the model proposed by Mafakheri
et al. [1]. The third contribution is also related to the optimiza-
tion models. To the best of our knowledge, this work is the first in
the literature to compare the optimal solutions obtained from two
supplier selection and order allocation models. The first model is
a bi-objective optimization model in which we combine the two
weights of the suppliers based on both categories of criteria (green
and traditional) into a single objective function, while the second
objective function represents the total cost. The second model is
a multi-objective optimization model that considers the suppliers
combined weights based on green criteria in one objective func-
tion, while the combined weights based on traditional criteria are
considered in a separate objective function. The third objective
function is the total cost. As the fourth contribution, this work pro-
vides a time study for the bi-objective optimization model.
3. Models
As explained previously, the approach presented herein consists
of three stages: first, we use fuzzy TOPSIS to rank the available
suppliers on the basis of green criteria and traditional criteria sep-
arately, which results in two preference weights (closeness coeffi-
cients) for each supplier: a green preference weight and a tradi-
tional preference weight. We select fuzzy TOPSIS as an MCDM tool
for ranking the suppliers because it performs better in term of ad-
equacy to changes of alternatives, adequacy to changes of criteria,
agility in the decision process, and number of criteria and suppli-
ers, as shown in the comparison Lima Junior et al. [20] perform.
Fuzzy TOPSIS has been implemented using triangular fuzzy num-
bers (TFN). These numbers have different advantages such as fa-
cilitating the ranking for the decision makers by using linguistic
variables. Moreover, TFNs capture the uncertainty of the knowl-
edge of the decision makers as they allow for partial member-
ships, whereas crisp sets allows for either full membership or non-
membership. Second, we use AHP to determine an importance
weight for each of the two sets of criteria, so that if the com-
pany is focusing on its green performance, the decision makers
will be able to increase the relative importance weight of the set of
green criteria, independent of the available suppliers and their per-
formance in terms of green criteria and traditional criteria. While
for the two categories of criteria the aim is to compare them ac-
cording to the organization’s strategy, and because TOPSIS does not
perform pairwise comparison, we select AHP for this stage. Ap-
plying AHP for only two criteria and by a top management deci-
sion maker reduces the number of matrices required in the calcu-
lation to one. This also eliminates the need to perform consistency
checks because the results will be completely consistent, as shown
in Section 3.2.1. Moreover, using only AHP for both levels (cate-
gory and criteria) would add more complexity in terms of num-
ber of matrices and may result in inconsistent rankings because of
the large number of criteria. Finally, because ranking the suppli-
ers is not enough to select those with which the company would
contract, and because of other considerations, such as the capac-
ity and the costs, the third stage of our procedure uses optimiza-
tion. We develop two optimization models—namely, a bi-objective
mathematical model and a multi-objective mathematical model—
to select the best suppliers and determine the number of products
to be ordered in each period of a planning horizon. We detail the
three stages in the next sections.
3.1. Fuzzy TOPSIS
TOPSIS was introduced by Hwang and Yoon (1981). TOPSIS is
an MCDM technique that ranks alternatives on the basis of the
shortest distance from the positive ideal solution and the longest
distance from the negative ideal solution [59]. Because decision
 S. Hamdan, A. Cheaitou / Computers and Operations Research 81 (2017) 282–304 287

Table 2
Literature classification.

Approaches Article Method Green aspects Additional comments

MCDM only Chou and Chang Fuzzy SMART No

[24]
Wang et al. [25] Fuzzy hierarchical TOPSIS No
Kwong et al. [26] Fuzzy set theory + SMART No Ranking and assessment only
Bruno et al. [27] AHP + fuzzy set theory No
Tavana et al. [28]. Artificial neural network + Adaptive Neuro No
Fuzzy Inference System
Rahiminezhad et al. Balanced score card + fuzzy AHP No
[29]
Memon et al. [30] Grey system theory + uncertainty theory No
Shemshadi et al. Fuzzy VIKOR + Shannon entropy No
[31]
Kannan et al. [18] Fuzzy TOPSIS Yes
Büyüközkan and fuzzy DEMATEL + fuzzy ANP + fuzzy TOPSIS Yes
Çifçi [8]
Amindoust et al. Fuzzy inference system Yes
[19]
Kannan et al. [49] Fuzzy axiomatic design Yes
Hsu et al. [50] DEMATEL Yes To identify key green criteria in
supplier selection
Freeman and Chen AHP + entropy + TOPSIS Yes
[51]
Darabi and Heydari Interval-valued hesitant fuzzy set Yes
[52]
Galankashi et al. Fuzzy Analytical Network Process Yes
[53]
Hashemi et al. [54] ANP + improved gray relational analysis Yes
Dobos and Data envelopment analysis-type composite Yes
Vörösmarty [55] indicators with common weight analysis
Optimization only Zhang and Zhang MIP No
[14]
Du et al. [32] GA No Considered life-cycle cost, solved using
Pareto GA and multi-intersection and
similarity crossover strategy
Karpak et al. [33] GP No
Karpak et al. [34] Visual interactive goal No Single + multiple products
Karpak et al. [35] GP No
Kumar et al. [36] Fuzzy mixed-integer GP No Handles realistic situation in a fuzzy
environment
Amorim et al. [37] MIP No Stochastic model for supplier selection
in food industry
Moghaddam [38] Monte Carlo simulation with fuzzy GP No
Lee et al. [58] MIP No With planning and all-unit quantity
discount and incremental discounts
Ware et al. [10] Mixed-integer non-linear programming No With planning for multi-items
Hybrid Approach Amin et al. [39] SWOT + fuzzy LP No
(Optimization + MCDM) Faez et al. [11] Case-based reasoning + MIP No Used historical data
Xia and Wu [40] AHP + rough set theory + multi-objectives No Price discounts on total business
MILP volumes
Demirtas and ANP + MOMIP No Solved using  -constraint
Üstün [41]
Wu et al. [22] Delphi + ANP + MOMIP No
Lee et al. [42] Fuzzy AHP + fuzzy multiple GP No
Liao and Kao [43] Fuzzy TOPSIS + multi-choice GP No In watch manufacturing
Rouyendegh and Fuzzy TOPSIS + multi-choice GP No In fertilizer and chemicals company
Saputro [44]
Kilic [17] Fuzzy TOPSIS + MILP No Multi-item problem
Perçin [45] AHP + GP No
Ghorbani et al. [46] SWOT + Shannon entropy + ILP No
Sodenkamp et al. Group decision making with different No
[47] voting power + LP
Yeh and Chuang [5] Multi-objective model using GA Yes
Shaw et al. [6] Fuzzy AHP + fuzzy MOLP Yes
Kannan et al. [13] Fuzzy AHP + fuzzy TOPSIS + fuzzy MOLP Yes Solved using max-min formulation
Zouggari and Simulation-based knowledge approach Yes
Benyoucef [56]
Li et al. [57] Fuzzy extended AHP + bi-objective model No With planning
Mafakheri et al. [1] AHP + dynamic programming Yes With planning for single product
288 S. Hamdan, A. Cheaitou / Computers and Operations Research 81 (2017) 282–304

Table 3 decision makers as well as the relative importance of each crite-

Criterion rating scale.
rion within its set to the company. The assignment of weights to
Linguistic Variable TFN the suppliers with respect to the criteria can be done using avail-
Little importance (LI) (0, 0, 0.25) able historical data, the capability studies on the suppliers, and the
Moderately important (MI) (0, 0.25, 0.50) laboratory testing and analysis of the product to be purchased.
Important (I) (0.25, 0.50, 0.75)
Very important (VI) (0.50, 0.75, 1.00) 3.1.2. Fuzzy TOPSIS procedure
Absolutely important (AI) (0.75, 1.0, 1.0)
Step 1:
Using linguistic variables, the decision maker Dk , k = 1, …, K,
Table 4 gives a linguistic weight transformed into a TFN, wki , to each
Alternative rating scale. criterion i, i = 1, …, n, and a linguistic weight transformed into TFN,
Linguistic Variable TFN xki j , to each alternative, j = 1, …, m, with respect to each criterion
Very low (VL) (0, 0, 0.25) i. In the current study, the alternatives are the available suppliers,
Low (L) (0, 0.25, 0.50) and the criteria are related to the suppliers and are either tradi-
Good (G) (0.25, 0.50, 0.75) tional or green. The weights are then aggregated according to the
High (H) (0.50, 0.75, 1.00) following equations:
Very high (VH) (0.75, 1.0, 1.0)
  1  
w̄i = l¯i , m̄i , ūi = w1i + w2i + · · · + wki , (2)
k
makers prefer using a linguistic scale to numbers, and to account   1  
for vagueness and uncertainty in the judgment procedure, Chen x̄i j = l¯i j , m̄i j , ūi j = x1i j + x2i j + · · · + xki j , (3)
k
[60] proposed fuzzy TOPSIS. In the supplier selection problem,
fuzzy TOPSIS is preferred to fuzzy AHP, as shown in the compar- where wki = (lik , mki , uki ), a fuzzy number, is the criterion i weight
ison Lima Junior et al. [20] perform. They proved that fuzzy TOP- given by decision maker Dk, and xki j = (likj , mki j , uki j ), a fuzzy num-
SIS generates consistent results when the number of alternatives or ber, is the alternative j weight with respect to criterion i given by
criteria changes, while reversal ranking occurs in fuzzy AHP. They decision maker Dk .
also showed that fuzzy TOPSIS performs better than fuzzy AHP in Step 2:
most cases and requires less data. To implement fuzzy TOPSIS for In this step, we eliminate the different units of measurement
the ranking of the suppliers based on traditional criteria and green using a normalization approach for the weights x̄i j as follows:
criteria, we use TFN. 
l¯i j m̄i j ūi j
ri j = , , , (4)
3.1.1. TFN uj uj uj
Fuzzy theory was introduced by Zadeh [61] as an extension of for every benefit criterion i, and
the classic notion of sets. Fuzzy numbers are powerful in describ- 
ing a subjective measurement as a range, rather than as an exact lj lj lj
ri j = , , , (5)
value [62]. In the supplier selection problem with a fuzzy environ- ūi j m̄i j l¯i j
ment, the most widely used format of fuzzy numbers is the TFN. A
for every cost criterion, i, where rij is the normalized value of x̄i j
TFN can be defined as a triplet (l, m, u), with a membership func-
and u j = max ui j and l j = min li j [17]. We then combine the matrix
tion defined as follows: i i
⎧ [rij ]m x n with the vector [w̄i ]1 x n to form the decision matrix.
⎪0, x<l
⎪
⎨ Step 3:
x−l In this step, each alternative weight must be multiplied by each
μA ( x ) = , l≤x≤m (1)
⎪ m −l criterion weight to obtain the weighted normalized fuzzy decision
⎪
⎩ u−x , m≤x≤u matrix as in the following equation:
u−m

V = vi j m , where vi j = ri j  wi . (6)
A TFN is based on a three-value judgment, where l is the min- x n
imum possible value, m is the most possible value, and u is the In other words, we obtain V by multiplying the last row in the
maximum possible value. decision matrix obtained in step 2, w̄i , by each row of that matrix.
A linguistic variable is a variable whose value is a word [63]. In Step 4:
this work, we use linguistic variables to account for the uncertainty This step identifies the fuzzy positive ideal solution (FPIS) and
in the decision-making process because they are simple enough to the fuzzy negative ideal solution (FNIS). As the normalized values
be represented as fuzzy numbers. Several types of linguistic scales of vij are from 0 to 1 [20,76], the FPIS is defined as (1,1,1), while
for TFN were proposed and suggested with different points [62]. the FNIS is defined as (0,0,0). We use these values to calculate the
For example, many researchers have proposed different five-point distance from the positive ideal (d+j ) and the negative ideal (d−j )
linguistic scales ([64,65,66,67,68,69]). Other researchers have pro- solutions for each alternative as follows:
posed six-point linguistic scales ([70,71]), while still others have

n  
proposed seven-point linguistic scales ([72,73,74,75]). d+j = d vi j , F PIS , (7)
In this work, we use the five-point linguistic scale proposed by i
Lau et al. [68]. Tables 3 and 4 contain the definition of our rating
scale for criteria and alternatives (suppliers). Using these linguistic 
n  
d−j = d vi j , F NIS , (8)
variables, every decision maker will assign a weight to every cri-
i
terion in the green set of criteria and to every criterion in the set
of traditional criteria. Moreover, every decision maker will assign where we calculate d+j and d−j using
a weight to every supplier with respect to each criterion in each
of the two sets of criteria. The assignment of the weights to the 1

d (A, B ) = (lA − lB )2 + (mA − mB )2 + (uA − uB )2 , (9)
criteria is based on the available knowledge and expertise of the 3
 S. Hamdan, A. Cheaitou / Computers and Operations Research 81 (2017) 282–304 289

AHP Lemma 1. The AHP procedure for ranking the green set of criteria
and the traditional set of criteria is completely consistent.
Goal Proof 1. The eigenvalue of matrix A can be calculated when the
determinant of matrix λI − A equals 0, where I is the identity ma-
trix, A is the pairwise comparison matrix, and λ is the eigenvalue.
Criteria 1 Criteria 2    
 λ 0 1 W 
 −  = 0,
 0 λ 1
W
1 
which means
Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3  
 (λ − 1 ) −W 
 = 0,
 − W1 ( λ − 1 )
Fig. 1. AHP.
then
 1

where d(A, B) is the distance between A = (lA , mA , uA ) and B = (lB , (λ − 1 )(λ − 1 ) − −W ∗ − = 0,
W
mB , uB ).
Step 5: which gives
This last step ranks the alternatives according to the closeness λ2 − 2λ = 0,
coefficient, CCj , j = 1, …, m, which we calculate as follows:
and has the following roots:
d−j
CC j = (10) λ = 2, λ = 0.
d−j + d+j
For the pairwise comparison herein, the two alternatives are
3.2. AHP the two sets of criteria. Therefore, n = 2. We calculate the consis-
tency index (CI) as follows:
In our model, we use the AHP to assign weights to the two λmax − n 2−2
sets of criteria—namely, the set of traditional criteria and the set of CI = = = 0,
n−1 2−1
green criteria. AHP is an MCDM tool that Saaty [77] developed in
which means that the consistency ratio, which is equal to CI/RI, is
the 1970s. AHP decomposes the problem into a hierarchical order,
equal to 0, where RI is the random consistency index; therefore,
beginning with a goal, then main criteria, then sub-criteria, and,
the pairwise comparison matrix is completely consistent and com-
finally, alternatives [77]. We explain the basic idea of AHP next.
pletes the proof. 

3.2.1. AHP procedure for calculating weights of categories
AHP consists mainly of three levels, as Fig. 1 shows: the goal,
the criteria, and the alternatives. To achieve the goal, the alter-
native weights are multiplied by each criterion weight and then
added together to obtain the total weight of the alternative. In this
work, the goal of AHP is to calculate the importance weights of
the two sets of criteria, traditional criteria, and green criteria, by
constructing a pairwise comparison between the two categories of
criteria. In each level of the hierarchy of AHP, we apply the follow-
ing three steps:
Step 1:
Construct a pairwise comparison matrix for the criteria. Assign
a relative weight, rij , for each of the two criteria, i and j, by using
the following scale: equally preferred (1), moderately preferred (3),
strongly preferred (5), very strongly preferred (7), and extremely
preferred (9).
Step 2:
Normalize the values obtained from the pairwise comparison
using the following equation:
ri j
r̄i j =   ,
i ri j
where rij is the weight in the ith row and jth column of the ith
criterion with respect to the jth criterion.
Step 3:
Calculate the weight, wi , for each criterion:
ri1 + ri2 + · · · + rim
wi = , (12)
m •
where m is number of columns in the matrix.
We use the weights obtained from fuzzy TOPSIS using Eq.
(10) and the weights obtained from AHP using Eq. (12) as inputs
to the two mathematical models described in the next sections.
3.3. Bi-objective integer programming models
We use the bi-objective integer programming model to select
the best suppliers and determine the quantities to be ordered from
each selected supplier in each period of a finite planning hori-
zon. In addition, the mathematical model will provide information
about the optimal inventory levels at the end of each period.
The bi-objective optimization model consists of two objective
functions. The first objective function aims to minimize the TCP in
terms of fixed cost, variable cost, inventory holding cost, and short-
age cost over the periods of the planning horizon. The second ob-
jective function tries to maximize total green criteria weights and
total traditional criteria weights over the same period. The model
notations, objective functions, and constraint formulations appear
in the next sections.
3.3.1. Notations
3.3.1.1. Parameters.
• T: Number of periods in the planning horizon.
(11) • m: Total number of suppliers.
• G : Importance weight of the set of green criteria obtained
WAHP
from AHP.
• T : Importance weight of the set of traditional criteria ob-
WAHP
tained from AHP.
• GWj : Closeness coefficient obtained from fuzzy TOPSIS (Eq.
(10)) for supplier j, j = 1, …, m, with respect to all the green
criteria under consideration.
TWj : Closeness coefficient obtained from fuzzy TOPSIS (Eq. (10))
for supplier j, j = 1, …, m, with respect to all the traditional cri-
teria under consideration.
• vcjt : Variable cost per unit product for supplier i in period t,
j = 1, …, m; t = 1, …, T.
290 S. Hamdan, A. Cheaitou / Computers and Operations Research 81 (2017) 282–304
• FCjt : Fixed cost per order for supplier j in period t, j = 1, .., m;
t = 1, .., T.
• Ht : Inventory holding cost per unit product in period t,
t = 1, …, T.
• St : Shortage cost per unit product in period t, t = 1, …, T.
• C max
jt
: Supply capacity of supplier j in period t, j = 1, …, m;
t = 1, .. ., T.
• C min
jt
: Minimum quantity to be ordered from supplier j, if se-
lected, in period t, j = 1, …, m; t = 1, …, T.
• Dt : Deterministic demand in period t, t = 1, …, T.
3.3.1.2. Decision variables.
• Qjt : Quantity to be ordered from supplier j in period t, j = 1, …,
m; t = 1, …, T.
• Yit : A binary variable for supplier j in period t that equals 1 if
the supplier is selected and 0 otherwise, j = 1, …, m; t = 1, …,
T.
• It : Available inventory level at the end of period t, t = 1, .. ., T.
3.3.2. Bi-objective integer non-linear programming model
In this section, we introduce the bi-objective integer non-linear
programming (bi-objective INLP) model, using the traditional way
of modeling inventory levels in the backlog environment, which
leads to a non-linear formulation.
of purchasing represents the total combined weights from the as-
sessment multiplied by the quantities ordered. Eq. (14) minimizes
the TCP, which includes the variable cost, the fixed cost, the inven-
tory holding cost, and the penalty shortage cost. The variable cost
is the cost per unit for a certain product, while the fixed ordering
cost is the cost of placing the order, inspection, and documenta-
tion. The inventory holding cost is the cost associated with storing
the product, which includes the capital cost, insurance cost, obso-
lescence cost, storage keeper salary, and storage maintenance cost.
Shortage cost is the penalty cost for not satisfying the demand and
delaying the order to a later period.
Constraints (15) ensure that each supplier’s capacity is not ex-
ceeded in each period and that the ordered quantity is at least
equal to the minimum specified value if the supplier is selected.
Constraints (16) ensure that the demand in each period is satis-
fied either from the quantity ordered or from the available inven-
tory or is backlogged to be satisfied in a later period. Constraint
(17) ensures that the total demand for the entire planning horizon
is satisfied, though some demands may be satisfied in a later pe-
riod than the period in which they occur. Constraints (18) are for
the integrality and non-negativity of the ordered quantities and the
integrality of the inventory levels, and constraints (19) ensure that
the decision variables Yjt are binary.
We extend and reformulate this INLP, which was developed by
Hamdan and Cheaitou [78], into a linear model by introducing new
decision variables and constraints, as shown in the next section.

T 
m 
T 
m
G T
max T V P = WAHP ∗ GW j ∗ Q jt + WAHP ∗ T W j ∗ Q jt ,
t=1 j=1 t=1 j=1 3.3.3. Bi-objective ILP model
The decision variable, It , is replaced with the following decision
(13)
variables:

T 
m
• ItH : Available inventory level at the end of period t.
min T CP = (vc jt ∗ Q jt + F C j ∗ Y jt + Ht ∗ max(It , 0 )
• ItS : Shortage level at the end of period t.
t=1 j=1
• YtH : A binary variable that indicates whether the inventory at
+ St ∗ max(−It , 0 )), (14) the end of period t is positive (YtH = 1) or not (YtH = 0 ).
subject to: • YtS : A binary variable that indicates whether the inventory at
the end of period t is negative (YtS = 1) or not (YtS = 0).
Y jt C min
jt ≤ Q jt ≤ Y jt C max
jt ∀ j = 1, . . . , m, ∀t = 1, . . . , T , (15)
In the new formulation, we keep the TVP objective function (Eq.

m (13)). In addition, we replace the total cost objective function (Eq.
It−1 + Q jt − It = Dt ∀t = 1, . . . , T , (16) (14)) by the following equation to eliminate the non-linear terms,
j=1 that is, max(It , 0) and max( − It , 0).

m 
T 
T

T 
m
Q jt + I0 = Dt , (17) min T CP = (vc jt ∗ Q jt + F C j ∗ Y jt + Ht ∗ ItH − St ∗ ItS ). (20)
j=1 t=1 t=1 t=1 j=1

In addition to constraints (15), (17), and (19), we add the fol-

Q jt ∈ Z+ , It ∈ Z ∀ j = 1, . . . , m, ∀t = 1, . . . , T , (18)
lowing constraints:

Y jt ∈ {0, 1} ∀ j = 1, . . . , m, ∀t = 1, . . . , T . (19) YtH , YtS ∈ {0, 1} ∀t = 1, . . . , T , (21)

Eq. (13) maximizes the total preference of all the selected sup- −MYtS ≤ ItS ≤ −SYtS ∀t = 1, . . . , T , (22)
pliers over the planning horizon, defined as the total value of pur-
chasing (TVP). The first part of Eq. (13) refers to the green criteria,
while the second part refers to the general criteria, such as cost, SYtH ≤ ItH ≤ MYtH ∀t = 1, . . . , T , (23)
delivery time, and quality. In this objective function, the weights
of the suppliers, which are based on the multiplication of the cat- YtH + YtS ≤ 1 ∀t = 1, . . . , T . (24)
egory weights obtained from AHP (WAHP G T ) by the respec-
and WAHP
Moreover, in constraints (18), we replace It ∈ Z by ∈ and ItH Z+
tive supplier’s preference weights obtained from fuzzy TOPSIS (GWj
ItS ∈ Z− .
and TWj ), are multiplied by the quantities to be ordered from the
Furthermore, we replace constraints (16) with the following
supplier, to reflect the impact of the amount ordered on the com-
constraints:
pany’s performance. For example, when the solution selects two
suppliers, one with high total combined preference weight and one 
n

with low preference weight, the greater the quantity ordered from
H
It−1 S
+ It−1 + Qit − ItH − ItS = Dt ∀t = 1, . . . , T . (25)
i=1
the preferred supplier (with high preference weight), the better is
the company’s performance. In contrast, ordering a small amount Constraint (21) ensures that YtH and YtS are binary variables. Con-
from the supplier with low total combined preference weight re- straint (22) ensures that if ItS is negative, the corresponding binary
sults in a small effect on the overall value of purchasing. The value variable YtS is 1, where M and S are a very large positive number
 S. Hamdan, A. Cheaitou / Computers and Operations Research 81 (2017) 282–304
and a very small positive number, respectively. Constraint (23) en-
sures that if ItH is positive, the corresponding binary variable YtH is
1. Constraint (24) ensures that at most one inventory type is cho-
sen in each period—in other words, either positive inventory, neg-
ative inventory, or neither. These modifications transform the non-
linear model into a linear model and make it possible to use the
branch-and-cut algorithm implemented in the Optimization Tool-
box of MATLAB to solve the mathematical model.
3.4. Multi-objective ILP model
In the bi-objective optimization model described previously,
both the total green preference weight and traditional preference
weight of the suppliers are taken into account in a single objective
function (TVP). The two preference weights of each supplier (close-
ness coefficients obtained from fuzzy TOPSIS) are multiplied by
the green and traditional criteria set weights (obtained from AHP),
respectively, which results, as explained previously, in a selection
that depends on the decision maker’s preference for the two cate-
gories. An alternative way that the decision maker can differentiate
between the green and traditional criteria is by splitting the objec-
tive function TVP into two separate objective functions, in which
one represents the total green preference weights of the suppliers
and the other the total traditional preference weights. This method
provides the decision maker with more flexibility in finding the
Pareto optimal solutions, as we explain in Section 3.5, by varying
the weights given to the objective functions in the solution pro-
cedure. To explore the effect of considering the total green value
of purchasing (TGVP) and the total traditional value of purchasing
(TTVP) in two objective functions on the optimal solution, we in-
troduce a multi-objective ILP model based on the bi-objective ILP
model defined in the previous section. The multi-objective model
has the same parameters, decision variables, and constraints as the
bi-objective ILP model.
In contrast, the multi-objective configuration has three objec-
tive functions. The first objective function is the one defined in
Eq. (20) that minimizes the TCP. Moreover, the other two objec-
tive functions are obtained by splitting Eq. (13), which maximizes
the TVP in the bi-objective configuration, into the following two
objective functions:
291
multi-objective models because of the simplicity of its implemen-
tation and its efficiency, in terms of the number of Pareto solu-
tions.
3.5.1. WCCM
First, we divide the bi-objective ILP model defined in Section
3.3.3 into two single objective sub-problems. The first sub-problem
is defined using Eq. (13) as the objective function, subject to the
constraints defined in Section 3.3.3 (Eqs. (15), (17), (19), (21)–(25)
and the modified Eq. (18)). The second sub-problem has Eq. (20) as
its objective function, subject to the same constraints. We solve
these two sub-problems separately to obtain their optimal solu-
tions, TCPmin and TVPmax , respectively. Second, we adopt the WCCM
to merge both objective functions into a single normalized objec-
tive function [82]. The normalization approach calculates the nor-
malized objective functions as follows:
T CP − T C Pmin
f1 = , (28)
T C Pmin
T V Pmax − T V P
f2 = . (29)
T V Pmax
Eqs. (28) and (29) represent the relative variations between the
single objective functions TCP and TVP and their corresponding op-
timal values. We then multiply the normalized objective functions
by relative weights and combine them in a single objective func-
tion as follows:
min f = α1 f1 + α2 f2 , (30)
where α 1 and α 2 are the relative weights that the decision maker
can set with α 1 + α 2 = 1. The total normalized objective function
(30) is then minimized, subject to the same constraints of the orig-
inal problems (Eqs. (15), (17), (19), (21)–(25) and the modified Eq.
(18)). For given values of α 1 and α 2 , only one Pareto optimal so-
lution is obtained, while changing the values of α 1 and α 2 may
result in different Pareto optimal solutions. Each solution is non-
dominated by any other solution [84].
The same approach can be applied to the multi-objective prob-
lem. Eq. (28) can still be used for the TCP objective function, while
Eq. (29) should be replaced by the following two equations for the
TGVP and TTVP objective functions as follows:

T 
m
max T GV P = GW j ∗ Q jt , (26) T GV Pmax − T GV P
t=1 j=1 f2M = , (31)
T GV Pmax

T 
m
max T T V P = T W j ∗ Q jt (27)
t=1 j=1
Eq. (26) aims to maximize the TGVP, and Eq. (27) maximizes
the TTVP.
The multi-objective optimization model is then defined by Eqs.
(20), (26), and (27), subject to constraints (15), (17), (19), (21)–(25),
ItH ∈ Z+ , and ItS ∈ Z− . Fig. 2 depicts the approach.
3.5. Solution approach
In the presence of multiple and conflicting objectives, multi-
ple solutions will exist because no one solution can be the opti-
mal solution for all the conflicting objectives. These solutions in-
volve a set of non-dominated and efficient optimal solutions called
a Pareto-optimal set [79]. To obtain all the Pareto optimal solutions
of the bi-objective or multi-objective models described previously,
scalarization techniques such as the weighted sum method [80],
the ε -constraint method [81], the comprehensive criterion method
[82], or the WCCM [83,84] can be used. In these techniques, some
parameters can be changed to obtain the maximum number of
Pareto solutions. We adopt the WCCM to solve the bi-objective and
T T V Pmax − T T V P
f3M = . (32)
T T V Pmax
The combined normalized objective function is then given by
min f M = β1 f1 + β2 f2M + β3 f3M . (33)
In Eq. (33), β 1 is equivalent to α 1 in Eq. (30), while β2 =
α2 ∗WAHP
G , β = α ∗W T , and β + β + β = 1.
3 2 AHP 1 2 3
3.5.2. GUI
Using fuzzy TOPSIS, AHP, and then bi-objective optimization has
been simplified as a procedure by developing user-friendly soft-
ware, as mentioned previously and shown in Figs. 3 and 4. The
software is based on a GUI of MATLAB, which asks decision makers
to fill in their evaluation of the criteria and the alternatives (sup-
pliers). It also reads the input data (e.g., cost elements, supplier
capacity, demand) from an MS Excel file. It calculates the suppli-
ers’ closeness coefficients and the two sets of criteria importance
weights and then feeds the bi-objective optimization model that
is solved using the branch-and-cut algorithm of the Optimization
Toolbox of MATLAB. The ranking and optimization results of the
software are displayed in the GUI and stored in the MS Excel file.
292 S. Hamdan, A. Cheaitou / Computers and Operations Research 81 (2017) 282–304

Identification of the available suppliers by the procurement

department

Identification of the relevant criteria (green and traditional) by the

relevant decision makers and based on the product

Fuzzy
yTTOPSIS
OPSIS Output
Outpu

Calculation of the suppliers’ Calculati

Calculation
a on of the suppliers’ Sup
Suppliers’
u pliers’ green preference
preference weights based on preference
prefe weights
f rence weighg ts based on weight
g t and
weigh a d traditional
an tra
green criteria traditional criteria prefe
f rence weight
preference w

×
AHP

Calculation of the importance

ce weight of the sets of green
g een
gr e and
a d
an Green
e category
cat
a egory weight
w and
traditional
onal criteria traditional category
cat
a eg weight

Optimization
Optimi
m zation models

Bi-objective model Multi-objective model

Maximize TGVP (green value)

Maximize TVP (green and traditional values)
Maximize TTVP (traditional value)
Minimize TCP
Minimize TCP

Fig. 2. Summary of the MCDM and optimization approach.

Fig. 3. Fuzzy TOPSIS and AHP tab in the software GUI.

4. Numerical analysis
In this section, we first solve the bi-objective ILP model de-
scribed previously using the WCCM method for different numerical
instances to analyze the effect of the model parameters and es-
pecially the effect of separating the supplier selection criteria into
two sets. Then, we compare this model with the multi-objective
configuration. The data used in this section are realistic experimen-
tal data that we randomly generated to test the models. However,
the models may be used with any other input data of any real case.
Moreover, the models have been implemented on a real-world case
study, as shown in Section 5.
 S. Hamdan, A. Cheaitou / Computers and Operations Research 81 (2017) 282–304 293

Fig. 4. Optimization tab in the software GUI.

4.1. Bi-objective model: basic numerical example Table 5

Ranking for case 1.

This section provides a numerical comparative study, based on Criteria TRC∗ 1 TRC2 TRC3 GC1 GC2 GC3
the optimal solution, between the approach used in this article and Criterion rating DM1 VI MI I VI I MI
the "classic" approach adopted in the literature, in which all the
Alternative S1 VH VL G VH VH VH
supplier selection criteria (green and traditional) are dealt with as
rating S2 H L G H H G
a single set. The numerical study in this section is based on two S3 G G VH G G VH
numerical instances: case 1 and case 2. S4 L H G L G G
S5 VL VH VH VL VL L
Criterion rating DM2 I I I MI AI I
Alternative S1 VH L H H H VH
4.1.1. Input data for the mathematical model rating S2 H G VH G VH G
For the mathematical model, we used the following data for the S3 G G L G VL G
two case studies: S4 L H VH VL L G
S5 VL H VH L VL VL
Criterion rating DM3 AI LI I I I VI
1. Six planning periods are considered (T = 6). Alternative S1 VH VL L G H H
2. Five suppliers are considered (m = 5): S1, S2, S3, S4, and S5. rating S2 H L L VH G L
3. For case 1, three decision makers (DM1, DM2, and DM3) rank S3 G G G G G G
S4 L G VH VL G L
the suppliers on the basis of the green and traditional criteria,
S5 VL H H VL L L
while for case 2, only one decision maker (DM1) ranks the sup-
pliers on the basis of the different criteria.
4. The importance weights for the WCCM method are both equal
to 0.5 (α 1 = α 2 = 0.5). 4.1.2. Alternatives ranking
5. The demand for all periods is equal to Dt = 1500 units per pe- In both case 1 and case 2, we evaluate five suppliers on the
riod for t = 1, …, 6. basis of both traditional and green criteria using fuzzy TOPSIS, in
6. The minimum quantity to be ordered if supplier j is selected in which we calculate a weight (closeness coefficient) for each alter-
period t is C min
jt
= 20 units for j = 1, …, 5; t = 1, …, 6. native with respect to the criteria in the set of traditional and
7. The fixed cost for every supplier is the same in all periods and green criteria. We also give the two sets of criteria importance
is as follows: FC1t = 3500 for supplier 1, FC2t = 3380 for sup- weights using AHP. Tables 5 and 6 show the ranking inputs, for
plier 2, FC3t = 3320 for supplier 3, FC4t = 3275 for supplier 4, case 1 and case 2, respectively, where TRC represents a traditional
and FC5t = 3250 for supplier 5, for t = 1, …, 6. criterion (non-green), the asterisk (∗ ) in the criterion name (TRC∗ )
8. The variable cost is the same in each period and is as follows: indicates that the criterion is a negative criterion (i.e., cost and lead
vc1t = 55 per unit for supplier 1, vc2t = 52 per unit for supplier time), and GC represents green criterion. We assumed that there
2, vc3t = 50 per unit for supplier 3, vc4t = 48 per unit for sup- are three decision makers for fuzzy TOPSIS and for case 1 and one
plier 4, and vc5t = 46 per unit for supplier 5, for t = 1, …, 6. for case 2. The input data shown in Tables 5 and 6 are based on
9. The inventory holding cost is Ht = 10 per unit per period for all our assumptions.
the periods in the planning horizon, while the penalty shortage Tables 7 and 8 display the closeness coefficients of each sup-
cost is St = 100 per unit per period. plier under two approaches for case 1 and case 2, respectively: the
10. Each supplier has a capacity of C maxjt
=10,0 0 0 units per period approach based on fuzzy TOPSIS and AHP adopted in this article
j = 1, …, 5; t = 1, …, 6. and the classic approach in the literature, in which all the criteria
294 S. Hamdan, A. Cheaitou / Computers and Operations Research 81 (2017) 282–304

Table 6
Ranking for case 2.

Criteria TRC∗ 1 TRC2 TRC3 TRC4 GC1 GC2 GC3

Criterion rating DM1 VI MI I I VI I MI

Alternative S1 VH L G G VH VH VH
rating S2 H G G L H H G
S3 G VH G L G G VH
S4 L H G VH L G G
S5 VL VH VH VH VL VL L

Table 7
Closeness coefficients for case 1.

Supplier Fuzzy TOPSIS +AHP Classic approach

TWj GWj CC j = WAHP

G
∗ GW j + WAHP
T
∗ TWj CCCj

0.75G/0.25T 0.5G/0.5T 0.25G/0.75T

S1 0.1314 0.4824 0.3947 0.3069 0.2192 0.3191

S2 0.1608 0.4095 0.3473 0.2852 0.2230 0.2944
S3 0.2213 0.3405 0.3107 0.2809 0.2511 0.2664
S4 0.3290 0.2577 0.2755 0.2934 0.3112 0.3132
S5 0.4359 0.1600 0.2290 0.2980 0.3669 0.3039

Table 8
Closeness coefficients for case 2.

Supplier Fuzzy TOPSIS +AHP Classic approach

TWj GWj CC j = WAHP

G
∗ GW j + WAHP
T
∗ TWj CCCj

0.75G/0.25T 0.5G/0.5T 0.25G/0.75T

S1 0.2035 0.4809 0.41155 0.3422 0.27285 0.3258

S2 0.1916 0.4127 0.357425 0.30215 0.246875 0.2896
S3 0.2126 0.352 0.31715 0.2823 0.24745 0.2736
S4 0.3779 0.2727 0.299 0.3253 0.3516 0.3346
S5 0.4563 0.1266 0.209025 0.29145 0.373875 0.3221

are considered in a single set. In these tables, we assume differ-
ent weights for the two sets of criteria as the output from AHP,
where G denotes green, T denotes traditional, and the numbers
next to G and T are the importance weights presumed to be ob-
tained from AHP for the set of green criteria and the set of tradi-
tional criteria, respectively. For example, 0.75G/0.25T means that
G
WAHP = 0.75 and WAHPT = 0.25. In the fuzzy TOPSIS and AHP ap-
proach, we apply fuzzy TOPSIS first for each supplier using the
green criteria and the traditional criteria separately. We then give
different weights to each set of criteria (AHP). The closeness coef-
ficient of a supplier is then the combination of its closeness coef-
ficients in each category and the importance weights of these two
categories (sets). Moreover, in the classic approach, we apply fuzzy
TOPSIS for each supplier, taking into account all the criteria (green
and traditional) at the same time.
As Table 7 shows, the weights in the classic approach of the
literature correspond approximately to the case in which the AHP
weights for both categories are equal to 0.5 (0.5G/0.5T). This result
confirms the importance of the separation of the criteria into two
categories.
Table 8 shows that the closeness coefficients of the suppli-
ers in the proposed approach (fuzzy TOPSIS + AHP), with AHP
weights equal to 0.5G/0.5T, are different from the closeness coeffi-
cients of the classic approach and result in different supplier rank-
ings. For example, S1 ranks first in the proposed approach (fuzzy
TOPSIS + AHP), while S4 ranks first in the classic approach.
4.1.3. Optimal solution
Tables 9–11 summarize the optimal solution of the bi-objective
ILP model for the three different combinations of criteria set
weights as well as for the classic approach.
In case 1, the proposed approach with fuzzy TOPSIS and AHP,
with AHP weights equal to 0.5G/0.5T, on the one hand and the
classic approach on the other hand provide the same optimal so-
lution, as the closeness coefficients of the two approaches are very
close to each other. Conversely, in case 2, the optimal solution in
the proposed approach (fuzzy TOPSIS + AHP), with AHP weights
equal to 0.5G/0.5T, differs from the optimal solution in the classic
approach because of the difference in the ranking of the suppliers
between the two approaches.
Moreover, in the 0.75G/0.25T combination, the selected suppli-
ers in both case 1 and case 2 are the suppliers with the highest
green weight that results in the highest combined weight. In ad-
dition, in the 0.25G/0.75T combination, in both case 1 and case 2,
the selected suppliers are those with the highest combined weight
and the highest traditional weight.
4.1.4. Pareto front for case 1
Fig. 5 shows the different Pareto optimal solutions that have
been obtained for case 1 with AHP weights equal to 0.8G/0.2T. We
obtained the solutions by solving the bi-objective ILP defined pre-
viously for case 1 using the WCCM method and for different values
of α 1 and α 2 . The combinations of values began with α 1 = 0.05
and α 2 = 0.95. Then, we increased α 1 and decreased α 2 by in-
crements of 0.05 until α 1 = 0.95 and α 2 = 0.05. As Fig. 5 shows,
we obtained only four Pareto optimal solutions. Moreover, an im-
provement in the TVP occurs with an increase in the TCP. The to-
tal increase of the TVP (from the least value to the greatest value),
which is equal to 91.56%, causes an increase in the TCP of approx-
imately 19.03%.
 S. Hamdan, A. Cheaitou / Computers and Operations Research 81 (2017) 282–304 295

Table 9
Optimal quantities to order in case 1.

Fuzzy TOPSIS + AHP (0.75G/0.25T) Fuzzy TOPSIS + AHP (0.25G/0.75T)

Period 1 2 3 4 5 6 Period 1 2 3 4 5 6

S1 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 S1 0 0 0 0 0 0

S2 0 0 0 0 0 0 S2 0 0 0 0 0 0
S3 0 0 0 0 0 0 S3 0 0 0 0 0 0
S4 0 0 0 0 0 0 S4 0 0 0 0 0 0
S5 0 0 0 0 0 0 S5 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500
Fuzzy TOPSIS + AHP (0.5G/0.5T) Classic approach

S1 0 0 0 0 0 0 S1 0 0 0 0 0 0
S2 0 0 0 0 0 0 S2 0 0 0 0 0 0
S3 0 0 0 0 0 0 S3 0 0 0 0 0 0
S4 0 0 0 0 0 0 S4 0 0 0 0 0 0
S5 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 S5 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500

Table 10
Optimal quantities to order in case 2.

Fuzzy TOPSIS + AHP (0.75G/0.25T) Fuzzy TOPSIS + AHP (0.25G/0.75T)

Period 1 2 3 4 5 6 Period 1 2 3 4 5 6

S1 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 S1 0 0 0 0 0 0

S2 0 0 0 0 0 0 S2 0 0 0 0 0 0
S3 0 0 0 0 0 0 S3 0 0 0 0 0 0
S4 0 0 0 0 0 0 S4 0 0 0 0 0 0
S5 0 0 0 0 0 0 S5 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500
Fuzzy TOPSIS + AHP (0.5G/0.5T) Classic approach

S1 0 0 0 0 0 0 S1 0 0 0 0 0 0
S2 0 0 0 0 0 0 S2 0 0 0 0 0 0
S3 0 0 0 0 0 0 S3 0 0 0 0 0 0
S4 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 S4 0 0 0 0 0 0
S5 0 0 0 0 0 0 S5 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500

Table 11
Optimal values in case 1 and case 2.
G T
WAHP and WAHP Optimal TCP Optimal TVP Optimal TGVP Optimal TTVP

Fuzzy TOPSIS + AHP approach Case 1 0.75G/0.25T 516,0 0 0 3551.00 4341.60 1182.60
0.5G/0.5T 433,500 2681.55 1440.00 3923.10
0.25G/0.75T 433,500 3302.33 1440.00 3923.10
Case 2 0.75G/0.25T 516,0 0 0 3703.95 4328.10 1831.50
0.5G/0.5T 451,650 2927.70 2454.30 3401.10
0.25G/0.75T 433,500 3364.88 1139.40 4106.70
Classic approach Case 1 NA 433,500 2735.1 N/A N/A
Case 2 NA 433,500 2898.9 N/A N/A

fuzzy TOPSIS for traditional criteria and then again for green cri-
teria combined with AHP for the two sets of criteria taken apart,
with the classic approach, in which all criteria are considered in
one category during the ranking. The results confirm that the sup-
pliers’ ranking and the corresponding optimal solution using the
classic approach that exists in the literature are a special case of
the results of the approach proposed in this article. We investigate
this conclusion in more depth in the next sections.

4.2. Comparison based on the ranking results

In this section, we provide a comparative study between the ap-

Fig. 5. Pareto set and Pareto front for case 1.
4.1.5. Findings
This section illustrates how the proposed model can be applied
step-by-step. We obtain the Pareto front by changing the weights
(α1 , α2 ) in the WCCM method shown in Eq. (30). This section also
compares the ranking approach proposed herein, which applies
proach proposed in this article and the classic approach adopted in
the literature based on the suppliers’ ranking obtained from fuzzy
TOPSIS. The motivation for this comparison lies in the results of
the comparison of the optimal solutions of the proposed approach
(fuzzy TOPSIS + AHP), with AHP weights equal to 0.5G/0.5T, with
the classic approach observed in the previous section.
Therefore, in this section, we conduct a numerical comparison
between the classic approach of ranking suppliers, which is based
on placing both green and general (traditional) criteria in the same
set, and the approach proposed in this work, which suggests a
296 S. Hamdan, A. Cheaitou / Computers and Operations Research 81 (2017) 282–304

Table 12
Case 3 closeness coefficients.

Supplier Fuzzy TOPSIS + AHP Classic approach

TWj GWj CC j = WAHP

G
∗ GW j + WAHP
T
∗ TWj CCCj

0.75G/0.25T 0.5G/0.5T 0.25G/0.75T

S1 0.2903 0.4688 0.4242 0.3796 0.3349 0.3786

S2 0.2903 0.4095 0.3797 0.3499 0.3201 0.3493
S3 0.2492 0.3214 0.3034 0.2853 0.2673 0.2858
S4 0.3115 0.2065 0.2328 0.259 0.2853 0.2605
S5 0.3751 0.1317 0.1926 0.2534 0.3143 0.257

Table 13
Case 4 closeness coefficients.

Supplier Fuzzy TOPSIS + AHP Classic approach

TWj GWj CC j = WAHP

G
∗ GW j + WAHP
T
∗ TWj CCCj

0.75G/0.25T 0.5G/0.5T 0.25G/0.75T

S1 0.4688 0.5552 0.5336 0.5120 0.4904 0.4859

S2 0.44 0.5729 0.5397 0.5065 0.4732 0.4665
S3 0.4031 0.4047 0.4043 0.4039 0.4035 0.4034
S4 0.3251 0.3881 0.3724 0.3566 0.3409 0.3377

separation between green and general (traditional) criteria. The ob- Table 14
jective of the comparison is to explore the effect of separating the Supplier closeness coefficients for case 4.
criteria into two sets on the ranking of the suppliers and, conse- nG nT
Supplier Classic approach n
GW j + n
T W j for (0.2G/0.8 T)
quently, on the optimal solutions.
We develop two numerical examples—namely, case 3 and case S1 0.4859 0.4861
S2 0.4665 0.4666
4—with different numbers of traditional criteria and green criteria. S3 0.4034 0.4034
In case 3, we consider five green criteria and five traditional crite- S4 0.3377 0.3377
ria, and in case 4, we include two green criteria and eight tradi-
tional criteria. Only closeness coefficients of the suppliers for each
numerical example are shown in this section. S1
Table 12 (case 3) shows that the results obtained by placing 0.5
all the criteria in one category (the classic approach) and the re- 0.4
sults obtained by separating green criteria from traditional cri- 0.3
teria (the fuzzy TOPSIS and AHP approach with WAHP G T
= WAHP = Traditional criteria
0.2 only
0.5) are very close. This closeness verifies the results of case S5 S2
1 discussed in the previous section, in which the numbers of 0.1 Green criteria only
green and traditional criteria were equal. Moreover, the results 0
of case 4 (Table 13), in which the number of traditional criteria Classic approach
is larger than the number of green criteria, show that the clas-
sic approach provides closeness coefficients that are very close to Fuzzy TOPSIS + AHP
with 0.5G/0.5T
the case in which only the traditional criteria are considered. In
this case, the effect of green criteria is reduced in the ranking S4 S3
process.
These results suggest that a relationship exists between the Fig. 6. Radar chart for the closeness coefficients of case 3.
number of criteria in each category and the closeness coefficients.
More precisely,
S1
0.6
nG nT
CCCj ∼
= GW j + TWj, (34) 0.5
n n
0.4
where nG represents the number of green criteria, nT is the number 0.3 Traditional criteria
only
of traditional criteria, n is the total number of criteria, CCCj is the 0.2
Green criteria only
weight of supplier j in the classic approach, and GWj and TWj are 0.1
the closeness coefficients of supplier j with respect to green and S4 0 S2
Classic apporach
traditional criteria taken separately.
Applying Eq. (34) to case 4 results in closeness coefficients that
Fuzzy TOPSIS + AHP
have very close values to those of the classic approach, as Table 14 with 0.2G/0.8T
shows.
Figs. 6 and 7 show the closeness coefficients of the suppli-
ers for case 3 and case 4 for five different cases: fuzzy TOPSIS
with traditional criteria only, fuzzy TOPSIS with green criteria only, S3
fuzzy TOPSIS with AHP and weights of 0.5G/0.5T and 0.2G/0.8T,
Fig. 7. Radar chart for the closeness coefficients of case 4.
and, finally, the classic approach. Figs. 6 and 7 confirm that the
 S. Hamdan, A. Cheaitou / Computers and Operations Research 81 (2017) 282–304 297

results obtained using Eq. (34) are very close to the results of the Table 15
TCP and TVP for different values of the variable cost of supplier
classic approach and therefore confirm that the classic approach is
1.
a special case of the approach proposed herein.
Instance vc1t TCP TVP Selected supplier

1 55 516,0 0 0 3703.95 Supplier 1

2 56 525,0 0 0 3703.95
4.2.1. Findings
3 57 534,0 0 0 3703.95
The main finding of the numerical experiments of this section 4 58 543,0 0 0 3703.95
is that the suppliers’ ranking obtained from the classic approach, 5 59 488,280 3216.83 Supplier 2
in which all criteria are taken into account together, depends on 6 60 488,280 3216.83
the number of criteria that exists in each category (traditional and 7 61 488,280 3216.83
8 62 488,280 3216.83
green) in addition to the performance of each suppliers with re-
9 63 488,280 3216.83
spect to each criteria. More precisely, we can obtain the ranking of 10 64 488,280 3216.83
the classic approach using Eq. (34), which depends on the number 11 65 488,280 3216.83
of criteria in each category as well as the closeness coefficients of 12 66 488,280 3216.83
13 67 488,280 3216.83
each category of criteria. This equation indicates that the approach
14 68 488,280 3216.83
of the literature and the approach proposed herein give the same 15 69 488,280 3216.83
results in one case. This case corresponds to the combination in 16 70 488,280 3216.83
which the importance weights of the two sets of criteria, obtained 17 71 488,280 3216.83
from AHP, are equal to the ratio of the number of criteria in each 18 72 488,280 3216.83
19 73 488,280 3216.83
set to the total number of criteria, which means that the approach
20 74 488,280 3216.83
in the literature is a special case of the approach proposed in this 21 75 488,280 3216.83
article. For example, if, on the one hand, the number of criteria in
each category is equal (nG = nT ), the classic approach is a special
case that corresponds to the case in which WAHP G T
= WAHP = 0.5. If,
on the other hand, the number of criteria in each category is dif-
ferent, the number of criteria in each category may affect the rank-
ing of the suppliers in the classic approach. In such a case, even if
the company prefers to give more importance to green criteria, a
supplier with poor green performance may have an excellent rank-
ing if the number of traditional criteria is larger than the num-
ber of green criteria. This is not the case of the approach proposed
herein.

4.3. Effect of the variable cost of the selected supplier on the solution

In this section, we choose a basic numerical example to exam- Fig. 8. Changes in TCP and TVP while increasing the variable cost, vc1t , for supplier
1.
ine the effect of increasing the variable cost of the selected sup-
plier on the solution and to find the break point, or the point after
which the selected supplier is no longer chosen in the optimal so- for supplier j:
lution. The basic numerical example corresponds to the numerical  T 
G F C j + vc j Dt − T C Pmin
example presented in case 2 in Section 4.1 with WAHP = 0.75 and TVj =
t=1
× 100
T
WAHP = 0.25 (0.75G/0.25T). The optimal selected supplier is sup- T C Pmin
T   G 
plier 1 (S1), which has the highest green value and a variable cost T V Pmax − t=1 Dt ∗ WAHP ∗ GW j + WAHP ∗ T W j
T

of vc1t = 55 per unit for t = 1, …, 6. +

The variable cost is increased with increments of one per unit
of product to solve the optimization problem. We plan to solve 21
instances, from a variable cost of vc1t = 55 per unit to vc1t = 75 per
unit. Table 15 includes the TCP and TVP for each instance (Eqs. (20)
and (13), respectively).
Table 15 shows that the TCP increases with the increase of vc1t
while the TVP does not change. The increase in the TCP stops when
supplier 1 is no longer selected, which can be expected.
Fig. 8 shows that supplier 1 (S1) is no longer the best supplier
after the variable cost becomes equal to 59 per unit, which we
show by the sudden drop in both the TVP and the TCP. Instead
of supplier 1, supplier 2 (S2) becomes the best supplier with the
lowest possible variation in terms of both TCP and TVP from their
optimal values (Eqs. (28) and (29), respectively) and, consequently,
the minimum bi-objective function (Eq. (30)) compared with the
other alternatives.
To better analyze this point of change, or the break point, at
which the best supplier changes from S1 to S2, we introduce the
following equation, which calculates the total variation of the ob-
jective functions TCP and TVP with respect to their optimal values
T V Pmax
×100. (35)
Eq. (35) represents the total relative variation between the ob-
jective functions of the bi-objective model, assuming that only sup-
plier j is selected, and the optimal values of these objective func-
tions. This equation assumes that the capacity of supplier j in each
period is higher than the demand of that period. To show the
usefulness of Eq. (35), we use the basic numerical example men-
tioned previously. For this basic example, the optimal total pur-
chasing cost, TCPmin , when solving the cost single objective func-
tion problem is 433,500, while the optimal total purchasing value,
TVPmax , when solving the preference weights single objective func-
tion problem is 3703.95.
By applying Eq. (35) for the five suppliers in the basic example,
the total variations are TV1 = 19.03%, TV2 = 25.79%, TV3 = 31.34%,
TV4 = 31.53%, and TV5 = 49.21% for supplier 1 through supplier 5,
respectively. The results suggest that supplier 2 is the second-best
supplier after supplier 1 in terms of the total variation between
the solution of the bi-objective model and the optimal solutions
of each of the single objective models. Therefore, when the total
298 S. Hamdan, A. Cheaitou / Computers and Operations Research 81 (2017) 282–304
Table 16
Variable cost break point for each supplier.
Supplier vci of the break point Excluded suppliers
S1 58.255 –
S2 54.741 S1
S3 50.094 S1, S2
S4 56.514 S1, S2, S3
variation of supplier 1 becomes greater than the total variation of
supplier 2, due to the change of the variable cost, vc1 , supplier 2
replaces supplier 1.
Therefore, to determine the exact value of the variable cost, vc1 ,
which corresponds to the break point, TV1 should be determined
using Eq. (35) for supplier 1, while keeping vc1 unknown, and
TV1 should be made equal to the total variation of supplier 2,
which is also calculated using Eq. (35). The obtained equation is
then solved for vc1 . The obtained value of vc1 that corresponds to
the break point is vc1 = 58.25 per unit. This result means that if
the variable cost per unit of supplier 1, vc1 , is greater than 58.25,
supplier 1 is no longer the optimal supplier to be selected, and
supplier 2 replaces supplier 1. It is worth noting that this value
of vc1 = 58.25 calculated using Eq. (35) corresponds to the results
shown in Fig. 8. Moreover, Table 16 includes the variable cost cor-
responding to the break point for the different suppliers in the ba-
sic example, calculated using Eq. (35). We calculate these values
under the assumption that the corresponding supplier is selected
as the optimal one; consequently, they mean that the better sup-
pliers have been excluded from the set of possible suppliers.
4.3.1. Findings
The main finding of this section is that there is a variable cost
threshold for the selected (optimal) supplier beyond which the se-
lected supplier will no longer be optimal and will be replaced by
the second-best supplier. This threshold can be calculated using
Eq. (35) for every supplier.
4.4. Effect of the weights of the two sets of criteria
In this section, we conduct a numerical analysis on the weights
G
of the green set and the traditional set of criteria, WAHP T ,
and WAHP
using case 2 presented in Section 4.1. We use 19 different combi-
nations of weights, beginning with WAHP G T
= 0.05 and WAHP = 0.95
for the first combination. We increase the green category weight,
G , by increments of 0.05 and decrease W T
WAHP by increments of
AHP
0.05 until the weights become equal to 0.95 and 0.05, respectively.
Table 17 summarizes the results. In the 0.4G/0.6T case, supplier
5, which has the least total cost, has an aggregated closeness co-
efficient, CC5 = WAHP G ∗ GW + W T ∗ T W5 = 0.3244, obtained from
5 AHP
fuzzy TOPSIS and AHP, while supplier 4 has a higher cost than
supplier 5 but aggregated closeness coefficient CC4 = 0.3358. These
values lead to total variations from the optimal solution of the
single sub-problems equal to TV5 = 3.39% for supplier 5 and
TV4 = 4.19% for supplier 4; therefore, we select supplier 5 as
the optimal choice. When WAHP G increases to 0.45, supplier 5 is
no longer the second best in terms of the aggregated closeness
coefficient CC5 , as Table 18 shows, which increases its total vari-
ation from the optimal solution. Therefore, the optimal solution
moves from supplier 5 to supplier 4, as Table 17 illustrates.
Moreover, in the 0.55G/0.45T case, supplier 4 is the second
highest in terms of the aggregated closeness coefficient, CC4 , as
Table 19 shows, but the second lowest in terms of cost, while sup-
plier 1 is the best in terms of the aggregated closeness coefficient
but very expensive in terms of variable cost. This leads to a so-
lution in which supplier 4 is the optimal supplier because of its
smaller variation from the optimal solution than supplier 1. How-
ever, in the case 0.6G/0.4T, the aggregated closeness coefficient of
Fig. 9. TVP versus category weights in case 2.
supplier 4 drops. This drop increases the variation from the opti-
mal single objective values, which results in supplier 1 having the
smallest variation and therefore being selected as the optimal sup-
plier.
Fig. 9 shows the decrease in the TVP in the first phase when
supplier 5 is selected. The optimal solution then switches to sup-
plier 4 with a slight increase in the TVP, as the weight of supplier
4 is higher than the weight of supplier 5. The TVP then begins to
decrease until supplier 4 is replaced by supplier 1. Note that at the
first break point, supplier 4 is the supplier with the second-lowest
cost and the best TVP, while supplier 1 has the best green value.
With the increase of WAHPG , the chance of supplier 1 being chosen
as the optimal supplier increases until this happens at the second
break point.
4.4.1. Findings
The importance weights assigned by top management to the
sets of criteria (traditional and green) have a great impact on the
selected (optimal) suppliers. Changing these weights results in a
change of the selected (optimal) supplier. The change happens at
some specific values (break points), as Fig. 9 shows. This numerical
result confirms the importance of considering the two categories of
criteria in two distinct sets and allowing the company’s top man-
agement to assign different importance weight to each set.
4.5. Comparison between the bi-objective and the multi-objective
models
In this section, we compare the bi-objective ILP defined in
Section 3.3 with the multi-objective ILP defined in Section 3.4. We
solve both models using the WCCM method defined in Section 3.5.
We test a numerical example using 15 different weight scenarios
for the WCCM method, as shown in Table 20.
We assume the following values and use them for the optimiza-
tion models:
1. Six planning periods are considered (T = 6).
2. Three suppliers are considered (m = 3): S1, S2, and S3.
3. One decision maker (DM1) will rank the suppliers on the basis
of the green and traditional criteria.
4. The demand for all periods is equal to Dt = 50 0 0 units per pe-
riod for t = 1, …, 6.
5. The minimum quantity to be ordered if supplier j is selected in
period t is C min
jt
= 20 units for j = 1, …, 3; t = 1, …, 6.
6. The fixed cost for every supplier is the same in all periods and
is as follows: FC1t = 1750 for supplier 1, FC2t = 1650 for supplier
2, and FC3t = 1550 for supplier 3, for t = 1, .., 6.
 S. Hamdan, A. Cheaitou / Computers and Operations Research 81 (2017) 282–304 299

Table 17
Optimal cost and value objective functions for case 2.

TCP TVP TGVP TTVP Selected (optimal) supplier

0.05G/0.95T 433,500 3958.34 1139.40 4106.70 Supplier 5

0.1G/0.9T 433,500 3809.97 1139.40 4106.70
0.15G/0.85T 433,500 3661.61 1139.40 4106.70
0.2G/0.8T 433,500 3513.24 1139.40 4106.70
0.25G/0.75T 433,500 3364.88 1139.40 4106.70
0.3G/0.7T 433,500 3216.51 1139.40 4106.70
0.35G/0.65T 433,500 3068.15 1139.40 4106.70
0.4G/0.6T 433,500 2919.78 1139.40 4106.70
0.45G/0.55T 451,650 2975.04 2454.30 3401.10 Supplier 4
0.5G/0.5T 451,650 2927.70 2454.30 3401.10
0.55G/0.45T 451,650 2880.36 2454.30 3401.10
0.6G/0.4T 516,0 0 0 3329.46 4328.10 1831.50 Supplier 1
0.65G/0.35T 516,0 0 0 3454.29 4328.10 1831.50
0.7G/0.3T 516,0 0 0 3579.12 4328.10 1831.50
0.75G/0.25T 516,0 0 0 3703.95 4328.10 1831.50
0.8G/0.2T 516,0 0 0 3828.78 4328.10 1831.50
0.85G/0.15T 516,0 0 0 3953.61 4328.10 1831.50
0.9G/0.1T 516,0 0 0 4078.44 4328.10 1831.50
0.95G/0.05T 516,0 0 0 4203.27 4328.10 1831.50

Table 18
Closeness coefficients for case 2 at break point 1 ((0.4G/0.6T) and (0.45G/0.55T)).

Supplier GWj TWj 0.4G/0.6T 0.45G/0.55T

CC j = WAHP
G
∗ GW j + WAHP
T
∗ TWj Rank CC j = WAHP
G
∗ GW j + WAHP
T
∗ TWj Rank

S1 0.4809 0.2035 0.3145 3 0.3283 2

S2 0.4127 0.1916 0.2800 4 0.2911 4
S3 0.3520 0.2126 0.2684 5 0.2753 5
S4 0.2727 0.3779 0.3358 1 0.3306 1
S5 0.1266 0.4563 0.3244 2 0.3079 3

Table 19
Closeness coefficients for case 2 at the break point 2 ((0.55G/0.45T) and (0.6G/0.4T)).

Supplier GWj TWj 0.55G/0.45T 0.6G/0.4T

CC j = G
WAHP ∗ GW j + WAHP
T
∗ TWj Rank CC j = WAHP
G
∗ GW j + WAHP
T
∗ TWj Rank

S1 0.4809 0.2035 0.3561 1 0.3699 1

S2 0.4127 0.1916 0.3132 3 0.3243 2
S3 0.3520 0.2126 0.2893 4 0.2962 4
S4 0.2727 0.3779 0.3200 2 0.3148 3
S5 0.1266 0.4563 0.2750 5 0.2585 5

Table 20 8. The inventory holding cost is Ht = 10 per unit per period for all
Weights scenarios for the WCCM method.
the periods in the planning horizon, while the penalty shortage
Run # G
WAHP T
WAHP α1 α2 β1 β2 β3 cost is St = 100 per unit per period.
9. Each supplier has a capacity of C max
jt
= 10,0 0 0 units per period,
1 0.75 0.25 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.675 0.225
2 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.45 0.45 where j = 1, …, 3; t = 1, …, 6.
3 0.25 0.75 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.225 0.675 10. The closeness coefficients of the suppliers obtained from
4 0.75 0.25 0.25 0.75 0.25 0.5625 0.1875 fuzzy TOPSIS are as follows: TW1 = 0.2903; GW1 = 0.4688 for
5 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.75 0.25 0.375 0.375 supplier 1, TW2 = 0.2492; GW2 = 0.3214 for supplier 2, and
6 0.25 0.75 0.25 0.75 0.25 0.1875 0.5625
7 0.75 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.375 0.125
TW3 = 0.3751; GW3 = 0.1317 for supplier 3.
8 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.25 We first solve the bi-objective ILP and the multi-objective ILP
9 0.25 0.75 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.125 0.375
using the WCCM method as explained in Section 3.5. We then cal-
10 0.75 0.25 0.75 0.25 0.75 0.1875 0.0625
11 0.5 0.5 0.75 0.25 0.75 0.125 0.125 culate the corresponding optimal TCP, TGVP, and TTVP using Eqs.
12 0.25 0.75 0.75 0.25 0.75 0.0625 0.1875 (20), (26), and (27), respectively. Table 21 shows the results for
13 0.75 0.25 0.9 0.1 0.9 0.075 0.025 both the bi-objective and multi-objective models.
14 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.1 0.9 0.05 0.05 Table 21 shows that in most of the cases, both models have
15 0.25 0.75 0.9 0.1 0.9 0.025 0.075
the same optimal solutions and, consequently, the same TCP, TGVP,
and TTVP. The results confirm that the bi-objective model is pre-
ferred to the multi-objective model. Indeed, in all the cases ex-
plored in which there is a difference in the optimal solution be-
tween the bi-objective model and the multi-objective model, the
7. The variable cost is the same in each period and is as follows: bi-objective model yields a higher green value. Moreover, the bi-
vc1t = 52 per unit for supplier 1, vc2t = 50 per unit for supplier objective model has a lower computation time because solving
2, and vc3t = 48 per unit for supplier 3, for t = 1, …, 6. three optimization problems in the bi-objective model is faster
300 S. Hamdan, A. Cheaitou / Computers and Operations Research 81 (2017) 282–304

Table 21
Comparison between bi-objective and multi-objective results.

Run Bi-objective model Multi-objective model

TCP TGVP TTVP TCP TGVP TTVP

1 1,570,500 14,064 8709 1,570,500 14,064 8709

2 1,570,500 14,064 8709 1,570,500 14,064 8709
3 1,570,500 14,064 8709 1,570,500 14,064 8709
4 1,570,500 14,064 8709 1,570,500 14,064 8709
5 1,570,500 14,064 8709 1,570,500 14,064 8709
6 1,570,500 14,064 8709 1,449,300 3951 11,253
7 1,570,500 14,064 8709 1,570,500 14,064 8709
8 1,570,500 14,064 8709 1,570,500 14,064 8709
9 1,449,300 3951 11,253 1,449,300 3951 11,253
10 1,570,500 14,064 8709 1,570,500 14,064 8709
11 1,570,500 14,064 8709 1,449,300 3951 11,253 Fig. 10. Total number of decision variables and constraints versus the CPU running
12 1,449,300 3951 11,253 1,449,300 3951 11,253 time (polynomial fitting).
13 1,449,300 3951 11,253 1,449,300 3951 11,253
14 1,449,300 3951 11,253 1,449,300 3951 11,253
15 1,449,300 3951 11,253 1,449,300 3951 11,253

Note: Bold values indicate that there is a difference between the two models
at that run.

than solving four optimization problems in the multi-objective

model.
Furthermore, the WCCM method gives more importance to the
objective function with the highest importance weight (α i or β i )
assigned by the decision maker. As a result, an objective func-
tion with a very small importance weight may have a very large
variation from its optimal solution, with a small effect on the
bi-objective or multi-objective solution. For example, in the case
shown in Table 21, the TGVP of the multi-objective optimal solu-
tion results in a variation of 71.91% with respect to the TGVP of
the green value single objective function problem defined in Eq.
(26). The variation is then multiplied by the weight of the objec-
tive function (0.1875), which results in a variation of 13.48% in the
multi-objective model. We solve other instances and confirm the
results. (These instances and their solutions are available on re-
quest.)
4.5.1. Findings
By comparing the bi-objective formulation and the multi-
objective formulation, we show that in most of the cases, there
is no difference between the optimal solutions of the bi-objective
and the multi-objective models. Therefore, we recommend the bi-
objective formulation, as it is simpler than the multi-objective one.
4.6. Computation time analysis for the bi-objective model
4.6.1. Computer specifications and computation time fitting
In this section, we analyze the total computation time required
to solve the three optimization problems of the bi-objective ILP
model defined in Section 3.3. All the optimization models herein
have been solved using the branch-and-cut algorithm implemented
in the Optimization Toolbox of MATLAB R14 of MathWorks. The
models have been run on a computer equipped with an Intel(R)
Core(TM) i5-4590, CPU @ 3.3 GHz and an 8.00 GB RAM and the
windows 7 64-bit operating system.
We randomly generated the input data used in study for the
mathematical models using the (RANDBETWEEN) function in Mi-
crosoft Excel. We changed the problem size to examine the effect
on the computation time by increasing the number of suppliers
and the number of periods from three suppliers and six periods to
40 suppliers and 250 periods, which leads to a maximum of 21,0 0 0
decision variables. We also solve the different problems obtained
and record their computation time. (The full data and results are
available on request.)
Fig. 11. Number of decision variables versus the CPU running time (exponential
fitting).
Fig. 10 displays the total number of decision variables and
constraints versus CPU running time. This plot can be fitted
as a second-degree polynomial function with a coefficient of
determination R2 = 84%, which means that the obtained regression
model accounts for 84% of the variability in the data. In Fig. 11,
we fitted the running time results with an exponential regression
curve. After approximately 16,200 decision variables, the compu-
tation time of the fitting curve increases rapidly. For example, the
curve provides a computation time of approximately 70 0,0 0 0 s for
20,0 0 0 decision variables, while the actual computation time for
this number of decision variables was less than 18,0 0 0 s. As a re-
sult, the exponential regression function, even with a better coeffi-
cient of determination (R2 = 89%) than the fitted polynomial func-
tion (R2 = 84%), does not reflect the behavior of the running time
at a higher number of decision variables.
4.6.2. Big-O notation
We use the big-O notation to classify an algorithm in terms of
the required processing time as the input size changes. A descrip-
tion of a function in terms of the big-O notation usually provides
an upper bound on the growth rate of the function [85]. The for-
mal definition of the big-O notation is as follows:
T (n ) = O(g(n ) ), (36)
if and only if constants c and n0 > 0 exist, such that T(n) ≤ c × g(n)
for all n ≥ n0 , where n is the problem size, g(n) is the function that
corresponds to the upper bound on the growth rate of the function
T(n), and T(n) is the time function for the algorithm.
The big-O notation is based on two assumptions: the input ar-
gument, n, is restricted to be a non-negative integer and the value
of T(n) is non-negative for all values of n. As Fig. 10 shows, the
best-fitting time function may give negative values. To overcome
this issue, we divided the data in Fig. 10 into two parts on the
 S. Hamdan, A. Cheaitou / Computers and Operations Research 81 (2017) 282–304 301

Table 22
Traditional and green ranking.

Delivery Payment Stock Compliance to Design for Environment Green

Criteria time term Cost availability Quality government reg. environment protection image

Criterion DM VI I I AI AI I VI VI I
rating
Alternative S1 H VH VH L VH G VH H H
rating
S2 G VH G G H L H L L
S3 G VH G G H L H L L

Table 23
Closeness coefficients and categories weights.
T G
Category (set of criteria) importance weights WAHP WAHP
0.1667 0.8333

Supplier closeness coefficients Supplier TWj GWj

S1 0.4806 0.5217
S2 0.5152 0.3397
S3 0.5152 0.3397

Fig. 13. Total number of decision variables and constraints versus the CPU running
time (part 2).

Lemma 2. As a function of the number of decision variables, n, the

computation time, T(n), required to solve the bi-objective ILP problem
described in Section 3.3 using the branch-and-cut algorithm has a
polynomial upper-bound function of T(n) = O(n2 ).

Proof 2. For the best-fitting curve function in Fig. 12, consider

T(n) = 4 x 10 − 6 n2 − 0.0017 n + 3.4468. Assuming n0 = 1, the goal is
Fig. 12. Total number of decision variables and constraints versus the CPU running
time (part 1).
to find the value for c, such that cn2 represents the upper bound
of the time function, T(n) ≤ cn2 , which leads to

basis of the number of decision variables. The first part represents n 3.4468
4 x 10−6 − 0.0017 + ≤ c,
the running time for the problems with fewer than 50 0 0 decision n2 n2
variables, and the second part represents the running time for the
and, consequently, for n0 = 1 gives
problems with 50 0 0 to 21,0 0 0 decision variables. Figs. 12 and 13
illustrate the results of this decision. c ≥ 3.45.
Figs. 12 and 13 show that the computation time function is
polynomial and leads to the following lemma. Therefore, T(n) is O(n2 ) for all n ≥ n0 = 1, and c = 3.45.

Table 24
Purchasing schedule for each optimization stage.

Optimal solution of the cost minimization sub-problem (TCP = 226,717.6)

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.
S1 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 30 30 18 0 0
S2 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
S3 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
Inventory 15 30 45 60 30 0 0 0 0 15 3 0
Shortage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Optimal solution of the TVP maximization sub-problem (TVP = 358.017)

S1 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
S2 15 15 15 0 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
S3 0 0 0 15 30 30 30 30 30 3 12 3
Inventory 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Shortage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Optimal solution of the bi-objective problem (TCP = 227,033, TVP = 325.629, variation = 9.18%)

S1 0 0 0 0 0 30 30 30 30 18 0 0
S2 30 0 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
S3 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
Inventory 15 0 15 30 0 0 0 0 0 15 3 0
Shortage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
302 S. Hamdan, A. Cheaitou / Computers and Operations Research 81 (2017) 282–304
Moreover, for the best-fitting curve function in Fig. 13, consider
T(n) = 9 × x 10 − 6 n2 − 0.2885n + 3250 ≤ cn2 . By assuming c = 1, we
obtain
2 2 and supplier 3 because they are cheaper than supplier 1, with a
−0.99991 n − 0.2885n + 3250 ≤ 0,
for all values of n > 57. Because the value of n in this equa-
tion is greater than or equal to 50 0 0, T(n) is O(n2 ) for n ≥
n0 = 50 0 0 and c = 1. This completes the proof. 
4.6.3. Findings
The bi-objective model formulated in Section 3.3.3 has a poly-
nomial computation time function of T(n) = O(n2 ). This result is
useful because it confirms that the model can be used even for
large problems with a large number of possible suppliers and a
large number of planning periods.
5. Case study
In this section, we use a case study from a facilities manage-
ment company, which is based in the Gulf Cooperation Council re-
gion and is a subsidiary of a multi-national company, to test the
developed model and to show its applicability using a realistic sit-
uation. We mention neither the company name nor the names of
the suppliers for confidentiality reasons; instead, we call the com-
pany XYZ and its potential three suppliers S1, S2, and S3. The XYZ
company wants to determine the optimum quantities of r141b re-
frigerant, which must be purchased from its three certified green
suppliers during a 12-month planning horizon. A decision maker
of XYZ used the MATLAB based software mentioned in Section
3.5.2 after having gone through the model and confirmed its use-
fulness for this problem. The data related to the case study and the
optimization results appear in the following sections.
5.1. Data collection
XYZ ranks its suppliers on the basis of the following green as-
pects: compliance with government regulations related to the en-
vironment, design for environment, environment protection, and
supplier’s green image. XYZ traditionally focuses on delivery time,
payment terms, product cost, availability of stock, and quality. The
decision maker in the company was asked to assign an importance
weight to each criterion and to evaluate each supplier with respect
to each criterion as shown in Table 22. The decision maker men-
tioned that the green aspect is strongly preferred to these other
traditional aspects. Table 23 also shows the categories’ importance
weights using AHP.
The product demand is 45 units per month for January–April,
90 units per month for May–September, 63 units per month for
October and December, and 72 units for November. Regarding the
capacity, each supplier can provide 30 units per month. The fixed
cost in each month is 2575 for supplier 1, 1595 for supplier 2, and
1565 for supplier 3. The variable cost in each month is 294.1 per
unit for supplier 1 and 196.3 and 194.8 per unit for supplier 2 and
supplier 3 respectively. The company does not allow for shortage in
demand, because the product is essential; thus, we set the short-
age cost to a large value. The inventory holding cost for each unit
in each month is 30.
5.2. Results
When only the TCP is minimized, the optimal TCP = 226,717.6.
Conversely, when only the TVP is maximized, the optimal
TVP = 358.017. Finally, optimizing the bi-objective problem results
in a total variation from both optimal objectives equal to 9.18%.
Table 24 summarizes the purchasing schedule in each step.
5.3. Discussion
Solving the TCP sub-problem leads to purchasing from supplier
difference in the variable cost of approximately 100 per unit and
almost 10 0 0 in the fixed cost. Optimizing the TVP results in se-
lecting supplier 1. This result is justified because supplier 1 has
the highest TVP per unit: 0.515 = 0.8333 × 0.5217 + 0.1667 × 0.4806.
Considering both objectives leads to purchasing from suppliers 2
and 3, mainly because the variation would increase significantly if
supplier 1 were selected, due to the larger difference in the costs
than the difference in the weights among the three suppliers.
6. Conclusion
This article uses fuzzy TOPSIS to rank potential suppliers on the
basis of two sets of criteria: traditional and green. It then uses
AHP to assign importance weights to each set of criteria. Conse-
quently, the potential supplier considered very good in terms of
traditional criteria and very poor in terms of green criteria will not
be ranked among the best alternatives if top management decides
to give more importance to the set of green criteria. This model
gives the decision maker more flexibility in deciding on the im-
portance of the green aspect in the selection of suppliers, which
means that the decision maker can emphasize either set of criteria
according to the managerial perspective. We compared this pro-
posed ranking approach with the classic approach adopted in the
literature in which all the criteria are considered in a single set.
The ranking outcomes and the optimization results show that the
classic approach and the approach proposed herein give the same
results in one case. This case corresponds to the combination in
which the importance weights of the two sets of criteria, for the
proposed approach, are equal to the ratio of the number of criteria
in each set to the total number of criteria, which means that the
classic approach is a special case of the proposed approach. Fur-
thermore, we conducted a sensitivity analysis for the variable cost,
in which we increased the variable cost of the selected supplier to
obtain the break point at which the optimal supplier changes. In
addition, time analysis for the bi-objective ILP shows that the de-
veloped model has a second-degree polynomial best-fitting func-
tion and that O(n2 ) can be considered the upper bound for the
time function of the proposed model. Moreover, we compared the
multi-objective configuration with the bi-objective configuration
under the same weights. The comparison results show that both
configurations lead to the same optimal solution in almost all the
cases. This suggests that the bi-objective model is superior to the
multi-objective model because optimizing three problems in the
bi-objective configuration is faster than optimizing four problems
in the multi-objective configuration. Finally, considering stochastic
demand and different potential suppliers in each period, as well
as quantity discount schemes, constitutes avenues for further re-
search.
References
[1] Mafakheri F, Breton M, Ghoniem A. Supplier selection-order allocation: a
two-stage multiple criteria dynamic programming approach. Int J Prod Econ
2011;132:52–7. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.03.005.
[2] Guo C, Li X. A multi-echelon inventory system with supplier selection and
order allocation under stochastic demand. Int J Prod Econ 2014;151:37–47.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.01.017.
[3] Viswanadham N, Gaonkar RS, Hassini S. Partner selection and synchronized
planning in dynamic manufacturing networks. IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom.
2003;19:117–30.
[4] Aissaoui N, Haouari M, Hassini E. Supplier selection and order lot sizing mod-
eling: A review. Comput Oper Res 2007;34:3516–40. doi:10.1016/j.cor.2006.01.
016.
[5] Yeh W-C, Chuang M-C. Using multi-objective genetic algorithm for partner se-
lection in green supply chain problems. Expert Syst Appl 2011;38:4244–53.
doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2010.09.091.
 S. Hamdan, A. Cheaitou / Computers and Operations Research 81 (2017) 282–304
[6] Shaw K, Shankar R, Yadav SS, Thakur LS. Supplier selection using fuzzy AHP
and fuzzy multi-objective linear programming for developing low carbon sup-
ply chain. Expert Syst Appl 2012;39:8182–92. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.01.149.
[7] Igarashi M, de Boer L, Fet AM. What is required for greener supplier selec-
tion? A literature review and conceptual model development. J Purch Supply
Manage 2013;19:247–63. doi:10.1016/j.pursup.2013.06.001.
[8] Büyüközkan G, Çifçi G. A novel hybrid MCDM approach based on fuzzy DEMA-
TEL, fuzzy ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS to evaluate green suppliers. Expert Syst Appl
2012;39:30 0 0–11. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.08.162.
[9] Mendoza A, Ventura JA. A serial inventory system with supplier selection and
order quantity allocation. Eur J Oper Res 2010;207:1304–15. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.
2010.06.034.
[10] Ware NR, Singh SP, Banwet DK. A mixed-integer non-linear program to model
dynamic supplier selection problem. Expert Syst Appl 2014;41:671–8. doi:10.
1016/j.eswa.2013.07.092.
[11] Faez F, Ghodsypour SH, O’Brien C. Vendor selection and order allocation us-
ing an integrated fuzzy case-based reasoning and mathematical programming
model. Int J Prod Econ 2009;121:395–408. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.11.022.
[12] Govindan K, Rajendran S, Sarkis J, Murugesan P. Multi criteria decision making
approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review. J
Clean Prod 2013. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.046.
[13] Kannan D, Khodaverdi R, Olfat L, Jafarian A, Diabat A. 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 2013;47:355–67. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.02.010.
[14] Zhang J, Zhang M. Supplier selection and purchase problem with fixed cost
and constrained order quantities under stochastic demand. Int J Prod Econ
2011;129:1–7. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.08.003.
[15] Özgen D, Önüt S, Gülsün B, Tuzkaya UR, Tuzkaya G. A two-phase possibilis-
tic linear programming methodology for multi-objective supplier evaluation
and order allocation problems. Inf Sci (NY) 2008;178:485–500. doi:10.1016/j.
ins.20 07.08.0 02.
[16] Sanayei A, Farid Mousavi S, Abdi MR, Mohaghar A. An integrated group
decision-making process for supplier selection and order allocation us-
ing multi-attribute utility theory and linear programming. J Franklin Inst
2008;345:731–47. doi:10.1016/j.jfranklin.2008.03.005.
[17] Kilic HS. An integrated approach for supplier selection in multi-item/multi-
supplier environment. Appl Math Model 2013;37:7752–63. doi:10.1016/j.apm.
2013.03.010.
[18] Kannan D, Jabbour ABLDS, Jabbour CJC. Selecting green suppliers based on
GSCM practices: using fuzzy TOPSIS applied to a Brazilian electronics company.
Eur J Oper Res 2014;233:432–47. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2013.07.023.
[19] Amindoust A, Ahmed S, Saghafinia A, Bahreininejad A. Sustainable supplier se-
lection: a ranking model based on fuzzy inference system. Appl Soft Comput J
2012;12:1668–77. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2012.01.023.
[20] Lima Junior FR, Osiro L, Carpinetti LCR. A comparison between fuzzy AHP and
fuzzy TOPSIS methods to supplier selection. Appl Soft Comput 2014;21:194–
209. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2014.03.014.
[21] Razmi J, Maghool E. Multi-item supplier selection and lot-sizing planning un-
der multiple price discounts using augmented ε -constraint and Tchebycheff
method. Int J Adv Manufact Technol 2009;49. doi:10.1007/s00170- 009- 2392- 1.
[22] Wu WY, Sukoco BM, Li CY, Chen SH. An integrated multi-objective decision-
making process for supplier selection with bundling problem. Expert Syst Appl
2009;36:2327–37. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2007.12.022.
[23] Dickson GW. An analysis of vendor selection systems and decisions. J Purch
1966;2:5–17. doi:10.5465/AMBPP.1966.4980919.
[24] Chou S, Chang Y. A decision support system for supplier selection based on
a strategy-aligned fuzzy SMART approach. Expert Syst Appl 2008;34:2241–53.
doi:10.1016/j.eswa.20 07.03.0 01.
[25] Wang J-W, Cheng C-H, Huang K-C. Fuzzy hierarchical TOPSIS for supplier se-
lection. Appl Soft Comput 2009;9:377–86. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2008.04.014.
[26] Kwong CK, Ip WH, Chan JWK. Combining scoring method and fuzzy expert
systems approach to supplier assessment: a case study. Integr Manufact Syst
2002;13:512–19. doi:10.1108/09576060210442671.
[27] Bruno G, Esposito E, Genovese A, Simpson M. Applying supplier selection
methodologies in a multi-stakeholder environment: a case study and a critical
assessment. Expert Syst Appl 2016;43:271–85. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2015.07.016.
[28] Tavana M, Fallahpour A, Di Caprio D, Santos-Arteaga FJ. A hybrid intelligent
fuzzy predictive model with simulation for supplier evaluation and selection.
Expert Syst Appl 2016. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2016.05.027.
[29] Rahiminezhad M, Ahmad S, Hashemzahi P. Supplier selection in automobile
industry : a mixed balanced scorecard—fuzzy AHP approach. Alexandria Eng J
2016;55:93–100. doi:10.1016/j.aej.2016.01.005.
[30] Memon MS, Lee YH, Mari SI. Group multi-criteria supplier selection us-
ing combined grey systems theory and uncertainty theory. Expert Syst Appl
2015;42:7951–9. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2015.06.018.
[31] Shemshadi A, Shirazi H, Toreihi M, Tarokh MJ. A fuzzy VIKOR method for sup-
plier selection based on entropy measure for objective weighting. Expert Syst
Appl 2011;38:12160–7. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.03.027.
[32] Du B, Guo S, Huang X, Li Y, Guo J. A Pareto supplier selection algorithm for
minimum the life cycle cost of complex product system. Expert Syst Appl
2015;42:4253–64. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2015.01.056.
[33] Karpak B, Kumcu E, Kasuganti R. An application of visual interactive goal pro-
gramming: a case in vendor selection decisions. J Multicriteria Decis Anal
1999;8:93–105.
303
[34] Karpak B, Kasuganti RR, Kumcu E. Multi-objective decision-making in supplier
selection: an application of visual interactive goal programming. J Appl Bus
Res 1999;15:57–72.
[35] Karpak B, Kumcu E, Kasuganti RR. Purchasing materials in the supply chain:
managing a multi-objective task. Eur J Purch Supply Manage 2001;7:209–16.
doi:10.1016/S0969-7012(01)0 0 0 02-8.
[36] Kumar M, Vrat P, Shankar R. A fuzzy goal programming approach for vendor
selection problem in a supply chain. Comput Ind Eng 2004;46:69–85. doi:10.
1016/j.cie.2003.09.010.
[37] Amorim P, Curcio E, Almada-Lobo B, Barbosa-Póvoa APFD, Grossmann IE. Sup-
plier selection in the processed food industry under uncertainty. Eur J Oper
Res 2016;252:801–14. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2016.02.005.
[38] Moghaddam KS. Fuzzy multi-objective model for supplier selection and order
allocation in reverse logistics systems under supply and demand uncertainty.
Expert Syst Appl 2015;42:6237–54. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2015.02.010.
[39] Amin SH, Razmi J, Zhang G. Supplier selection and order allocation based
on fuzzy SWOT analysis and fuzzy linear programming. Expert Syst Appl
2011;38:334–42. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2010.06.071.
[40] Xia W., Wu Z. Supplier selection with multiple criteria in volume discount en-
vironments. Omega 2007;35:494–504. doi:10.1016/j.omega.20 05.09.0 02.
[41] Demirtas EA, Üstün Ö. An integrated multiobjective decision making process
for supplier selection and order allocation. Omega 2008;36:76–90. doi:10.1016/
j.omega.20 05.11.0 03.
[42] Lee AHI, Kang HY, Chang CT. Fuzzy multiple goal programming applied to
TFT-LCD supplier selection by downstream manufacturers. Expert Syst Appl
2009;36:6318–25. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2008.08.044.
[43] Liao C-N, Kao H-P. An integrated fuzzy TOPSIS and MCGP approach to supplier
selection in supply chain management. Expert Syst Appl 2011;38:10803–11.
doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.02.031.
[44] Rouyendegh BD, Saputro TE. Supplier selection using integrated fuzzy TOPSIS
and MCGP: a case study. Proc—Soc Behav Sci 2014;116:3957–70. doi:10.1016/j.
sbspro.2014.01.874.
[45] Perçin S. An application of the integrated AHP-PGP model in supplier selection.
Meas Bus Excell 2006;10:34–49. doi:10.1108/13683040610719263.
[46] Ghorbani M, Bahrami M, Arabzad SM. Implementing Shannon entropy, SWOT
and mathematical programming for supplier selection and order allocation. Int
J Supply Chain Manage 2012;1:43–7. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.04.064.
[47] Sodenkamp MA, Tavana M, Di Caprio D. Modeling synergies in multi-criteria
supplier selection and order allocation: an application to commodity trading.
Eur J Oper Res 2016;0:1–16. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2016.04.015.
[48] Genovese A, Koh SCL, Bruno G, Bruno P. Green supplier selection: a litera-
ture review and a critical perspective. Supply Chain Manage Inf Syst 2010:1–6
doi:978- 962- 367- 696- 0.
[49] Kannan D, Govindan K, Rajendran S. Fuzzy Axiomatic Design approach based
green supplier selection: a case study from Singapore. J Clean Prod 2014;96.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.12.076.
[50] Hsu C-W, Kuo T-C, Chen S-H, Hu AH. Using DEMATEL to develop a carbon
management model of supplier selection in green supply chain management.
J Clean Prod 2013;56:164–72. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.09.012.
[51] Freeman J, Chen T. Green supplier selection using an AHP-Entropy-
TOPSIS framework. Supply Chain Manage Int J 2015;20:327–40. doi:10.1108/
SCM- 04- 2014- 0142.
[52] Darabi S, Heydari J. An interval- valued hesitant fuzzy ranking method based
on group decision analysis for green supplier selection. IFAC PapersOnLine
2016;49:12–17. doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.03.003.
[53] Galankashi MR, Chegeni A, Soleimanynanadegany A, Memari A, Anjomshoae A,
Helmi SA, et al. Prioritizing green supplier selection criteria using fuzzy ana-
lytical network process. Proc CIRP 2015;26:689–94. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2014.
07.044.
[54] Hashemi SH, Karimi A, Tavana M. An integrated green supplier selection ap-
proach with analytic network process and improved grey relational analysis.
Int J Prod Econ 2015;159:178–91. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.09.027.
[55] Dobos I, Vörösmarty G. Green supplier selection and evaluation using DEA-
type composite indicators. Int J Prod Econ 2014;157:273–8. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.
2014.09.026.
[56] Zouggari A, Benyoucef L. Simulation based fuzzy TOPSIS approach for group
multi-criteria supplier selection problem. Eng Appl Artif Intell 2012;25:507–
19. doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2011.10.012.
[57] Li Z, Wong WK, Kwong CK. An integrated model of material supplier selection
and order allocation using fuzzy extended AHP and multiobjective program-
ming. Math Probl Eng 2013;2013:1–14. doi:10.1155/2013/363718.
[58] Lee AHI, Kang H-Y, Lai C-M, Hong W-Y. An integrated model for lot sizing with
supplier selection and quantity discounts. Appl Math Model 2013;37:4733–46.
doi:10.1016/j.apm.2012.09.056.
[59] Hwang C-L, Yoon K. Methods for multiple attribute decision making, vol. 186.
Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer; 1981. Mult. attrib. decis. mak. SE-3 p. 58–191.
doi:10.1007/978- 3- 642- 48318- 9_3.
[60] Chen C-T. Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy en-
vironment. Fuzzy Sets Syst 20 0 0;114:1–9. doi:10.1016/S0165-0114(97)00377-1.
[61] Zadeh LA. 1965 J(Zadeh) fuzzy sets.pdf. Inf Control 1965;8:338–53. doi:10.1109/
2.53.
[62] Chen T-Y, Ku T-C. Importance-assessing method with fuzzy number-val-
ued fuzzy measures and discussions on TFNs and TrFNs. Int J Fuzzy Syst
2008;10:92.
[63] Zadeh LA. The concept of a linguistic variable and its applications to approxi-
mate reasoning I. Inf Sci (NY) 1975;8:199–249.
304 S. Hamdan, A. Cheaitou / Computers and Operations Research 81 (2017) 282–304
[64] Chang P-L, Chen Y-C. A fuzzy multi-criteria decision making method for
technology transfer strategy selection in biotechnology. Fuzzy Sets Syst
1994;63:131–9. doi:10.1016/0165-0114(94)90344-1.
[65] Liou TS, Wang MJJ. Subjective assessment of mental workload—a fuzzy lin-
guistic multicriteria approach. Fuzzy Sets Syst 1994;62:155–65. doi:10.1016/
0165-0114(94)90055-8.
[66] Chien C-J, Tsai H-H. Using fuzzy numbers to evaluate perceived service quality.
Fuzzy Sets Syst 20 0 0;116:289–300. doi:10.1016/S0165-0114(98)00239-5.
[67] Lee HT, Chen SH, Kang HY. Multicriteria scheduling using fuzzy theory and
tabu search. Int J Prod Res 2002;40:1221–34. doi:10.1080/00207540110098832.
[68] Lau HCW, Wong CWY, Lau PKH, Pun KF, Chin KS, Jiang B. A fuzzy multi-
criteria decision support procedure for enhancing information delivery in ex-
tended enterprise networks. Eng Appl Artif Intell 2003;16:1–9. doi:10.1016/
S0952-1976(03)0 0 020-4.
[69] Yang T, Hung C-C. Multiple-attribute decision making methods for plant layout
design problem. Robot Comput Integr Manufact 2007;23:126–37. doi:10.1016/
j.rcim.20 05.12.0 02.
[70] Chan FTS, Chan MH, Tang NKH. Evaluation methodologies for technology se-
lection. J Mater Process Technol 20 0 0;107:330–7. doi:10.1016/S0924-0136(00)
00679-8.
[71] Ertay T, Büyüközkan G, Kahraman C, Ruan D. Quality function deployment im-
plementation based on analytic network process with linguistic data: an ap-
plication in automotive industry. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 2005;16:221–32.
[72] Chen C-T. A fuzzy approach to select the location of the distribution center.
Fuzzy Sets Syst 2001;118:65–73. doi:10.1016/S0165- 0114(98)00459- X.
[73] Herrera F, Martínez L, Sánchez PJ. Managing non-homogeneous information
in group decision making. Eur J Oper Res 2005;166:115–32. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.
2003.11.031.
[74] Chen C-T, Lin C-T, Huang S-F. A fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and
selection in supply chain management. Int J Prod Econ 2006;102:289–301.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.20 05.03.0 09.
[75] Kuo M-S, Liang G-S, Huang W-C. Extensions of the multicriteria analysis
with pairwise comparison under a fuzzy environment. Int J Approx Reason
2006;43:268–85. doi:10.1016/j.ijar.2006.04.006.
[76] Saghafian S, Hejazi SR. Multi-criteria group decision making using a modified
fuzzy TOPSIS procedure. In: Int conf comput intell model control autom int
conf intell agents, 2. Web Technol Internet Commer; 2005.
[77] Saaty TL. Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the ana-
lytic hierarchy process, vol. 6. Rws Publications; 20 0 0.
[78] Hamdan S, Cheaitou A. Green supplier selection and order allocation using
an integrated fuzzy TOPSIS, AHP and IP approach. In: Ind. eng. oper. manag.
(IEOM), 2015 int. conf. IEEE; 2015. p. 1–10. doi:10.1109/IEOM.2015.7093826.
[79] Fonseca CM, Fleming PJ. Multiobjective optimization and multiple constraint
handling with evolutionary algorithms—part I: a unified formulation. IEEE
Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Hum 1998;28:26–37. doi:10.1109/3468.
650319.
[80] Miettinen K. Nonlinear multiobjective optimization. Int Ser Oper Res Manage
Sci 1999;12:320. doi:10.2307/254267.
[81] Mavrotas G. Effective implementation of the epsilon-constraint method in
Multi-Objective Mathematical Programming problems. Appl Math Comput
2009;213:455–65. doi:10.1016/j.amc.2009.03.037.
[82] Dehghani M, Esmaeilian M, Tavakkoli-Moghaddam R. Employing fuzzy ANP for
green supplier selection and order allocations: a case study. Int J Econ Manage
Soc Sci 2013;2:565–75.
[83] Kamali A, Fatemi Ghomi SMT, Jolai F. A multi-objective quantity discount and
joint optimization model for coordination of a single-buyer multi-vendor sup-
ply chain. Comput Math Appl 2011;62:3251–69. doi:10.1016/j.camwa.2011.08.
040.
[84] Marler RT, Arora JS. Survey of multi-objective optimization methods
for engineering. Struct Multidiscip Optim 2004;26:369–95. doi:10.1007/
s0 0158-0 03-0368-6.
[85] Leiserson CCE, Rivest RRL, Stein C, Cormen TH. Introduction to algorithms. 3rd
ed. Massachusetts: The MIT Press; 2009. doi:10.2307/2583667.