Sunteți pe pagina 1din 16

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING International Journal of Industrial Engineering Research and Development (IJIERD), ISSN 0976 6979(Print),

, ISSN 0976 6987(Online)AND DEVELOPMENT (IJIERD) RESEARCH Volume 3, Issue 2, July-December (2012), IAEME
ISSN 0976 6979 (Print) ISSN 0976 6987 (Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, July-December (2012), pp. 58-73 IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijierd.asp
Journal Impact Factor (2012): 2.3810 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com

IJIERD
IAEME

INVESTIGATION THOUGHT DECISION-MAKING TRIAL AND EVALUATION LABORATORY (DEMATEL) IN GREEN SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT INCLUDE REDUCING AND RECYCLING PHARMACEUTICAL WASTE FOR A PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURER IN INDIA
1

Ajay Verma 1 and Dr. Anshul Gangele 2 [Research Scholar] Department of Mechanical Engineering, Suresh Gyan Vihar University, Jaipur (Raj.) 302025 E-mail: vajay9@yahoo.co.in 2 Institutes of Technology & Management, Gwalior (M.P.) 474001 E-mail: anshulgangele@gmail.com

ABSTRACT This study presented an integrated approach for selecting appropriate suppliers in addressing Pharmaceutical Green Supply Chain Management (PGSCM) of environment change via Multiple Criteria Decision Making Method (MCDM). In this study, thirteen criteria of Pharmaceutical Green Supply Chain Management with three dimensions were identified from literature review and interview with three experts in a Pharmaceutical manufacturer. By considering the interrelationships among criteria, the Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) were applied to deal with the importance and causal relationships among the evaluation criteria of supplier selection. As indicated by the results, the four most important criteria are internal environmental management, involvement in initiatives for negative economic, training related reducing waste management, and green purchasing. The results also found that the top four criteria not only have potential significance in the selection of green suppliers with waste management competencies, but also affect the other twelve criteria, separately.

Keywords: Pharmaceutical Green Supply Chain Management, supplier selection, DEMATEL

58

International Journal of Industrial Engineering Research and Development (IJIERD), ISSN 0976 6979(Print), ISSN 0976 6987(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, July-December (2012), IAEME

1. INTRODUCTION With increase in environmental concerns during the past decade, a consensus is growing that environmental pollution issues accompanying industrial development should be addressed together with supply chain management, thereby contributing to green supply chain management (GSCM). [37] Since the Waste Electrical and Electronics Equipment (WEEE), Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) and Eco-design for Energy using Products (EuP) directives were passed by the European Union (EU), GSCM has been adopted as a proactive strategy by leading Indian Pharmaceutical industry companies. Thus, it is inferred that GSCM practice can be viewed as the primary strategy capable of complying with the requirements of legislations and maintaining the competitive advantage. Therefore, GSCM is an operational initiative on the part of many organizations, including those in Asia and South Asian region which are adopting to address such environmental issues. [32] India is one of the most industrialized countries in the Asia-Pacific region. Most Pharmaceutical manufacturers in India are involved in products manufacturing. These companies play important roles in global markets as their products share a substantial portion in market. Once, India was the largest producer of pharmaceutical products the world. Pharmaceutical industries are subject to customer requests for green products and green manufacturing that comply with emerging environmental directives. These directives, especially the RoHS, directly impact the Pharmaceutical industries in India. These directives also have a far-reaching influence on supply chain partners for multinational enterprises. [18] Although, to the best of our knowledge, various investigations have proposed different approaches to implement GSCM [22, 37, 4, 45, 31, 10, 48], there have been far less research on identifying the consistency and priority approaches to GSCM investigation with the systematic analysis, in Pharmaceutical industry. This is because the complexity of GSCM practices, customer and cost pressures and regulation uncertainty, Investigating GSCM is considered as a thankless task that increases overall product cost. For example, the RoHS directive lacks a standardized test procedure and an updated exemption annex of chemicals. These shortcomings result in significant problems when Investigating GSCM. Furthermore, increased regulations RoHS-EU, RoHS-Korea, RoHS-China and RoHS-India result in difficulties executing GSCM practices. Hence, enterprises cannot determine whether their executive strategies conform to regulations or ensure that current management approaches are working and have a low risk. Consequently, enterprise embraces the appropriate approaches for Investigating GSCM practice and it is significant to mitigate potential risks from green supply chain. The central purpose of this study is to establish the consistency and priority approaches for Investigating GSCM in response to environmental regulations of RoHS. The Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL), which is applied to conduct the relative importance of different approaches, is extremely crucial, since the results can be used by managers investigating and adopting their own GSCM practices. GSCM is generally understood to involve screening suppliers based on their environmental performance and doing business only with those that meet certain environmental regulations or standards. [31] Empirical investigations with identified supplier management as the most important dimension for implementing GSCM or sustainable supply chain management (SSCM). [15, 34] An increasing number of authors have addressed supplier selection issues in green supply chain viewed from environmental perspectives. [1, 8, 12, 14, 16, 17, 23, 28, 31, 41, 44, 46,] One of the 59

International Journal of Industrial Engineering Research and Development (IJIERD), ISSN 0976 6979(Print), ISSN 0976 6987(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, July-December (2012), IAEME

biggest challenges faced by our planet is climate change, which is now recognized as the most serious environmental threat for sustainable development. [19] Nevertheless, to the best of our knowledge, green supplier selection specifically considering in Pharmaceutical industry has never been found in previous literature. In addition, most of early literature may be limited to exploring the broad environmental criteria of either quantitative or qualitative property with regard to environmental cost, production process, product, and management system. Some typical supplier selection models are illustrated below. By incorporating green competence, environmental efficiency, green image, and life cycle cost into the supplier selection, the framework proposed in designed green vendor rating systems for the assessment of a suppliers environmental performance. [36] As later pointed out in environmental consideration of supplier selection is a key competitive issue for large and medium-sized enterprises, and thus it should be taken into account to maintain the long-term relationships with these suppliers. Similarly, considering the corresponding evaluation factors of environmental performances proposed an environmentally conscious purchasing decision tool to assist managers in understanding the trade-offs between environmental dimensions using analytic hierarchy process (AHP). [12, 46] Presently pointed out companies are embracing the concept of greening of suppliers in the South East Asian region, aiming to provide an insight of the extent of greening that has been implemented and the underlying reasons for Asia companies to increasingly adopt. [31] As further pointed out in environmental principles applicable to green supplier evaluation has been proposed by using the AHP and fuzzy logic. [44] Their study considers the complete environmental impact of a product during its entire life cycle. By incorporating the issue of hazardous substances into green supplier selection, utilized analytic network process (ANP) method to construct an evaluation framework of supplier selection in a India Pharmaceutical company, which included five main criteria, namely procurement management, R&D management, process management, incoming quality control, and management system.[14] More currently, proposed an integrated model that adopts environmental and non-environmental criteria for selecting green supplier in high-tech industry, including the criteria of quality, technology capability, pollution control, environmental management, green product, and green competencies. [23] Similarly, integrated a number of sustainability factors into the model of supplier selection that include economic, environmental, and social issues, particularly in the field of social dimension in which employment practices, health and safety, local communities influence, contractual stakeholders influence, and other stakeholders influence were included. [1] However, those previous studies may be still limited to either the broad environmental criteria or integrating criteria without considering waste management issue on the operation of the corresponding green supplier selection. In this study, the interrelationship among criteria of green supplier selection and evaluation has to be considered. Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) approach has been considered as one of the best tools for dealing with the importance and causal relationships among the evaluation criteria. [5, 11, 26, 25, 39, 44,] This is because that DEMATEL method can confirm interdependence among variables and aid in the development of a directed graph to reflect the interrelationships between variables. [24] In view of the significance of incorporating the waste management into supplier selection as well as the limitation of previous studies, we utilized the DEMATEL methodology to construct a waste management model for green supplier selection to be used in Pharmaceutical industry. The main objective of this study is to recognize the criteria of supplier selection and evaluation with respect to waste management competency in GSCM and to construct the cognition map of evaluation criteria in accordance with the real situation where criteria are interdependent. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 discusses selection criteria for green suppliers in terms of waste management competency. Section 3 discusses the DEMATEL approach. Section 4 illustrates a case of appropriate supplier selection. Concluding remarks, along with the conclusions and future research are given in Section 5.

60

International Journal of Industrial Engineering Research and Development (IJIERD), ISSN 0976 6979(Print), ISSN 0976 6987(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, July-December (2012), IAEME

2. CRITERIA FOR PHARMACEUTICAL GREEN SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT Based on integrating the categories and criteria identified from the literature, an environmental framework was designed for incorporating environmental criteria regarding the competency of Pharmaceutical Green Supply Chain Management into supplier selection in GSCM. Thirteen criteria were determined and categorized into three main clusters as follows: 2.1 PGSCM practices 2.1.1 Internal environmental management Commitment of PGSCM from senior managers Support for PGSCM from mid-level managers Cross-functional cooperation for environmental improvements Eco-labeling of Products Support of regulations environment 2.1.2 Green purchasing Cooperation with suppliers for environmental objectives Environmental audit for suppliers internal management Suppliers ISO14000 certification Second-tier supplier environmentally friendly practice evaluation 2.1.3 Eco-design Design of products for reduced consumption of material/energy Design of products for reuse, recycle, and recovery of material Design of products to avoid or reduce use of hazardous substances their manufacturing process Design of product for support regulation Design the products that least capacity for decrease taking time, the area stores, and the energy between the transportation Design the products to be easy set up for the users in the most energy saving way Design usability of part particularly for Extend using products, repair easy and increase efficiency 2.1.4 Cooperation with customers Cooperation with customer for eco-design Cooperation with customers for cleaner production Cooperation with customers for green packaging 2.1.5 Training related reducing waste management Total quality environmental management Environmental compliance and auditing programs ISO 14001 certification Environmental Management Systems exist 2.1.6 Reuse and remanufacturing management Reduction of air emission Reduction of waste water Reduction of solid wastes Reduction of electricity consumption Reuse of waste water Remanufacturing of waste material

61

International Journal of Industrial Engineering Research and Development (IJIERD), ISSN 0976 6979(Print), ISSN 0976 6987(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, July-December (2012), IAEME

2.2 PGSCM performance 2.2.1 Environmental Reduction of physical Decrease of frequency for environmental accidents Decrease of consumption for hazardous/harmful/toxic materials Improve an enterprises environmental situation 2.2.2 Involvement in initiatives for Positive economic Decrease of cost for materials purchasing Decrease of cost for energy consumption Decrease of fee for waste treatment Decrease of fee for waste discharge Decrease of fine for environmental accidents 2.2.3 Involvement in initiatives for Negative economic Increase of investment Increase of operational cost Increase of training cost Increase of costs for purchasing environmentally friendly materials 2.2.4 Supplier collaboration ISO 14001 certification Cooperation with suppliers for environmental objectives Environmental audit for suppliers internal management 2.3 PGSCM pressure 2.3.1 Market and inventory Export 2.3.2 Regulatory Central governmental environmental regulations Regional environmental regulations Regulations: WEEE Regulations: RoHS Regulations: EuP 2.3.3 Competition Competitors green strategies Industrial professional group activities 3. DEMATEL DEMATEL is a comprehensive tool for building and analyzing a structural model involving causal relationships between complex factors. [44] Developed by the Science and Human Affairs Program of the Battelle Memorial Institute of Geneva between 1972 and 1976, DEMATEL has been used to research and solve a group of complicated and intertwined problems. DEMATEL was developed in the belief that pioneering and appropriate use of scientific research methods could improve understanding of the specific problematic cluster of intertwined problems, thereby contributing to the identification of workable solutions by a hierarchical structure. The methodology, according to the concrete characteristics of objective affairs, can confirm the interdependence among the variables/attributes and restrict the relationship that reflects the characteristic with an essential system and development trend. [6, 13,] The product of the DEMATEL process is a visual representation (i.e., an individual map of the mind) that the respondent uses to organize his or her own actions.

62

International Journal of Industrial Engineering Research and Development (IJIERD), ISSN 0976 6979(Print), ISSN 0976 6987(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, July-December (2012), IAEME

DEMATEL (Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory) The DEMATEL method can be summarized in the following steps: Step 1: Find the average matrix. Suppose we have H experts in this study and n factors to consider. Each stakeholder is asked to indicate the degree to which he or she believes a factor i affects factor j. These pair wise comparisons between any two factors are denoted by aij and are given an integer score ranging from 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4, representing No influence (0), Low influence (1), Medium influence (2), High influence (3), and Very high influence (4), respectively. The scores by each expert will give k us a n x n non-negative answer matrix X k =[ xij ], with 1 k H . Thus X 1 , X 2 ,, X H are the
k answer matrices for each of the H experts, and each element of X k is an integer denoted by xij . The

diagonal elements of each answer matrix X k are all set to zero. We can then compute the n x n average matrix A for all expert opinions by averaging the H experts scores as follows:

1 H k (1) xij H k =1 The average matrix A=[ aij ] is also called the initial direct relation matrix. A shows the initial direct aij =
effects that a factor exerts on and receives from other factors. Furthermore, we can map out the causal effect between each pair of factors in a system by drawing an influence map. Figure 1 below is an example of such an influence map. Here, each letter represents a factor in the system. An arrow from c to d shows the effect that c has on d, and the strength of its effect is 4. DEMATEL can convert the structural relations among the factors of a system into an intelligible map of the system.

c 4 3

1 d g

3 e 4

Fig. 1 Example of an influence map

63

International Journal of Industrial Engineering Research and Development (IJIERD), ISSN 0976 6979(Print), ISSN 0976 6987(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, July-December (2012), IAEME

Step 2: Calculate the normalized initial direct-relation matrix. The normalized initial directrelation matrix D is obtained by normalizing the average matrix A in the following way:
n n Let s = max max aij , max aij 1i n j =1 1 j n i =1

(2)

Then D =

A s

(3)

Since the sum of each row j of matrix A represents the total direct effects that factor i gives to the other factors, max aij represents the total direct effects of the factor with the most direct
1i n j =1 n

effects on others. Likewise, since the sum of each column i of matrix A represents the total direct effects received by factor i, max aij represents the total direct effects received of the factor
1 j n i =1 n

that receives the most direct effects from others. The positive scalar s takes the lesser of the two as the upper bound, and the matrix D is obtained by dividing each element of A by the scalar s. Note that each element d ij of matrix D is between zero and less than 1.

Step 3: Compute the total relation matrix. A continuous decrease of the indirect effects of problems along the powers of matrix D, e.g. D 2 , D3 ,..., D , guarantees convergent solutions to
the matrix inversion similar to an absorbing Markov chain matrix. Note that lim D m = [0]nn
m

and lim( I + D + D 2 + D3 + ... + D m ) = ( I D) 1 , where 0 is the n x n null matrix and I is the n x n


m

identity matrix. The total relation matrix T is an n x n matrix and is defined as follow: T = [tij] i, j = 1, 2,, n Where

T= D + D2 + + Dm = D + D2 + ... + Dm = D( I + D + D2 + ... + Dm-1 )

= D[( I + D + D 2 + ... + D m-1 ) (1- D )](1- D )-1 = D (I-D)-1, as m (4)


We also define r and c as n x 1 vectors representing the sum of rows and sum of columns of the total relation matrix T as follows:

64

International Journal of Industrial Engineering Research and Development (IJIERD), ISSN 0976 6979(Print), ISSN 0976 6987(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, July-December (2012), IAEME

r = []in r

n = tij 1 j =1

(5)
n1

n c = [c j ]1n = tij i =1 1n

(6)

where superscript denotes transpose. Let ri be the sum of i-th row in matrix T. Then ri shows the total effects, both direct and indirect, given by factor i to the other factors. Let cj denotes the sum of j-th column in matrix T. Then cj shows the total effects, both direct and indirect, received by factor j from the other factors. Thus when j = i, the sum ( rc+ ) gives us an index representing the total effects both given and ii received by factor i. In other words, ( rc+ ) shows the degree of importance (total sum of effects ii given and received) that factor i plays in the system. In addition, the difference ( rc ) shows the ii net effect that factor i contributes to the system. When ( rc ) is positive, factor i is a net causer, ii and when ( rc ) is negative, factor i is a net receiver (Tzeng et al. 2007; Tamura et al., 2002). ii

Step 4: Set a threshold value and obtain the impact-relations-map. In order to explain the structural relation among the factors while keeping the complexity of the system to a manageable level, it is necessary to set a threshold value p to filter out some negligible effects in matrix T. While each factor of matrix T provides information on how one factor affects another, the decision-maker must set a threshold value in order to reduce the complexity of the structural relation model implicit in matrix T. Only some factors, whichs effect in matrix T is greater than the threshold value, should be chosen and shown in an impact-relations-map (IRM). [42] In this paper, the threshold value has been decided by experts. As long as the threshold value has been decided, the final result can be shown in an IRM. 4. AN ILLUSTRATIVE FOR A PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURER
The case company is a leading provider of innovative products for both global and domestic markets. Its primary objective for all product lines is to be number one in India and within the top three in the global market. The case companys distinguished reputation has its beginnings in the India Pharmaceutical industry, where we have ranked number one for the past 20 years. Furthermore, it is also the worlds largest Pharmaceutical manufacturer, holding a 55% global market share. GSCM is a significant issue for the Indians Pharmaceutical industry because recent studies have shown that most of the worlds manufacturing will be relocated to Asia within the next two decades. In adherence to the awareness of climate change in the green supply chain, the consideration of supplier selection has been changed from broad environmental issues into the specific issue of reducing and recycling pharmaceutical waste. India is one of the most industrialized countries in the Asia-Pacific region, with numerous Pharmaceutical manufacturers. The case company in this study is interested in incorporating reducing and recycling pharmaceutical waste into supplier evaluation and selection for GSCM practice due to it suffer 65

International Journal of Industrial Engineering Research and Development (IJIERD), ISSN 0976 6979(Print), ISSN 0976 6987(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, July-December (2012), IAEME

pressure from buyers and has become as the regard to reducing and recycling pharmaceutical waste in green supply chain. In relation to the increased environmental regulations within climate change, the study company wanted to implement a systematic method of selecting appropriate suppliers based on competency in reducing and recycling pharmaceutical waste. Through detailed analysis of the pertinent literature and in-depth interviews with three senior supply chain and environmental management representatives from the company, thirteen criteria for waste management were recognized as basis for the formulation of the selection framework for selecting green suppliers as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Pharmaceutical Green Supply Chain Management criteria for green supplier selection Dimensions Criteria
Internal environmental management (C1)

PGSCM practices

Green purchasing (C2) Eco-design (C3) Cooperation with customers (C4) Training related reducing waste management (C5) Reuse and Remanufacturing management (C6) Environmental (C7) Involvement in initiatives for Positive economic (C8) Involvement in initiatives for Negative economic (C9) Supplier collaboration (C10) Market (C11) Regulatory (C12) Competition (C13)

PGSCM performance PGSCM pressure

Based on the previously identified pharmaceutical green supply chain management evaluation criteria for supplier selection, we utilized the DEMATEL to construct the influence map in accordance with the real situation in which criteria should be interdependent. Three senior managers of the company were invited to fill out expert questionnaires using a five-point scale (i.e., o= no influence, 1= low influence, 2= moderate influence, 3=high influence, 4= extreme influence), indicating to what extent each criterion was practiced in their organization. Using the 13 x 13 pair wise comparisons, the averages of their opinions were calculated in accordance with Eq. (1). The normalized initial direct-relation matrix was then generated by using Eqs. (2) and (3). The total relation matrix was computed by using Eq. (4) through (6) as shown in Table 2. The degree of influence on the criteria is given in Table 3. In order to make this framework distinct, a threshold value of 0.26, based on the maximum value of the diagonal in the total influence matrix, was adopted. The influence map of these 13 mutually interdependent criteria is depicted in Figure 2.

66

International Journal of Industrial Engineering Research and Development (IJIERD), ISSN 0976 6979(Print), ISSN 0976 6987(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, July-December (2012), IAEME

Table 2. Total influence matrix


C1 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 0.260 0.326 0.186 0.207 0.355 0.280 0.283 0.271 0.362 0.286 0.278 0.274 0.266 C2 0.341 0.241 0.184 0.206 0.352 0.278 0.281 0.269 0.359 0.276 0.276 0.272 0.264 C3 0.341 0.309 0.141 0.198 0.353 0.271 0.281 0.261 0.351 0.285 0.285 0.272 0.256 C4 0.308 0.277 0.167 0.144 0.335 0.256 0.267 0.247 0.333 0.270 0.262 0.258 0.243 C5 0.287 0.258 0.148 0.167 0.237 0.231 0.256 0.231 0.311 0.244 0.237 0.233 0.234 C6 0.329 0.282 0.162 0.191 0.333 0.201 0.297 0.260 0.339 0.275 0.275 0.271 0.247 C7 0.313 0.282 0.178 0.191 0.348 0.260 0.211 0.259 0.338 0.266 0.275 0.263 0.255 C8 0.300 0.270 0.162 0.183 0.326 0.250 0.259 0.189 0.324 0.247 0.247 0.252 0.244 C9 0.292 0.263 0.158 0.178 0.317 0.235 0.253 0.242 0.240 0.241 0.249 0.245 0.230 C10 0.341 0.301 0.201 0.190 0.361 0.270 0.289 0.277 0.351 0.216 0.276 0.264 0.264 C11 0.278 0.256 0.159 0.179 0.320 0.245 0.255 0.244 0.310 0.250 0.191 0.247 0.240 C12 0.297 0.267 0.169 0.173 0.323 0.239 0.257 0.238 0.321 0.245 0.261 0.190 0.234 C13 0.303 0.272 0.172 0.184 0.337 0.244 0.254 0.251 0.327 0.257 0.249 0.245 0.187

Table 3. Degree of influence on criteria


Criteria Internal environmental management (C1) Green purchasing (C2) Eco-design (C3) Cooperation with customers (C4) Training related reducing waste management (C5) Reuse and Remanufacturing management (C6) Environmental (C7) Involvement in initiatives for Positive economic (C8) Involvement in initiatives for Negative economic (C9) Supplier collaboration (C10) Market (C11) Regulatory (C12) Competition (C13) ri 3.990 3.606 2.188 2.390 4.297 3.261 3.424 3.240 4.268 3.358 3.362 3.295 3.167 ci 3.635 3.597 3.606 3.369 3.074 3.446 3.438 3.253 3.144 3.601 3.175 3.216 3.291 ri + ci 7.625 7.203 5.794 5.759 7.371 6.707 6.862 6.493 7.412 9.959 6.537 6.511 6.458 ri - ci 0.355 0.009 -1.418 -0.979 1.223 -0.185 -0.014 -0.013 1.124 -0.243 0.187 0.079 -0.124

Fig. 2. Influence map of total relationship among criteria


1.5 C5 C9 1

0.5 C11 C12 C8 C7 C13 6.5 7 C6 C10 C1 C2 7.5 8

0 5.5 -0.5 6

-1

C4 C3

-1.5

67

International Journal of Industrial Engineering Research and Development (IJIERD), ISSN 0976 6979(Print), ISSN 0976 6987(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, July-December (2012), IAEME

5. RESULT AND DISCUSSION


Considering the significance of pharmaceutical green supply chain management among the criteria for supplier selection in Table 3, the importance can be prioritized as: C1>C9>C5>C2>C10>C7>C6>C11>C12>C8> C13>C3>C4 in terms of degree of importance (ri + ci). Incorporating the analysis of DEMATEL evidence, Internal environmental management (C1), Involvement in initiatives for Negative economic (C9), and Training related reducing waste management (C5) are the top three most important criteria with the values of 7.625, 7.412, and 7.371, respectively. Cooperation with customers (C4) and Eco-design (C3) are the least important criteria with the values of 5.759 and 5.794, respectively. In contrast to the importance, training related reducing waste management (C5), Involvement in initiatives for Negative economic (C9), Internal environmental management (C1), Market and inventory (C11), Regulatory (C12), Green purchasing (C2) are net causer, whereas Eco-design (C3), Cooperation with customers (C4), supplier collaboration (C10), Competition (C13), Environmental (C7), and Involvement in initiatives for Positive economic (C8) are net receivers in accordance with the value of difference (ri - ci ). As previously noted, Figure 2 shows that internal environmental management (C1), involvement in initiatives for negative economic (C9), training related reducing waste management (C5), and green purchasing (C2) are not only the net causes but also the top four most important criteria for the selection of green suppliers with the competencies on waste management. Corporate governance is critically important in determining how companies respond to climate change. Companies that integrate climate change into their board and executive structures, as well as their public reporting mechanisms, are far more likely to maintain the long-term commitment and comprehensive approaches needed to address climate change risks and opportunities effectively across their entire business structure. With regard the criterion of pharmaceutical governance, pointed out that an increasing number of suppliers have established governance within top management to ensure the completion of waste reduction activities are properly set in place. Sixty percent of suppliers from the supply chain report have elected a board committee member or executive to be responsible for waste management and climate change issues demonstrated that top-management support is the most important item for the successful implementation of GSCM practice in the Indian Pharmaceutical industries. [15] This implies that enterprises have realized that senior manager support is necessary and that this support plays a critical role in the successful adoption and implementation of GSCM. By incorporating the issue of waste management into GSCM, waste governance must be supported by top management because it is the foundation for further promoting the waste management. Someone within the company must take responsibility for the whole organization in directing the effort and recognizing the importance of waste management issues. Furthermore, suppliers should have a person/team responsible for the identification of low- waste solutions that can help buyers, accordance with waste regulations or standards. Waste governance has the potential to significantly influence green supplier selection, as well as highlight the importance of implementing and planning waste management practices to suppliers. Based on the results of this study, a management system of waste information has been determined as the second most important criterion. Effective waste management involves the collection and incorporation of relevant information on each department within a company, particularly concerning waste inventory and accounting. Based on the survey results of waste 68

International Journal of Industrial Engineering Research and Development (IJIERD), ISSN 0976 6979(Print), ISSN 0976 6987(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, July-December (2012), IAEME

management, argued that the majority of large companies have established the basic management systems and processes necessary to effectively manage their waste and related business risks. In order to disclose and manage waste data, suppliers need to establish a management system as a platform to collect waste data from their organizational, which would be first step towards managing waste. Suppliers will face great pressure and difficulty in collecting comprehensive waste data if they do not have a waste management system in place. Training related to waste management is the third most crucial criterion in evaluating green suppliers. As pointed out, a wide range of training can enhance environmental management capabilities of suppliers. Moreover, enterprises provide education on quality, environmental performance, and other aspects simultaneously. [27] As a result, this can greatly improve environmental awareness of the staff. [46] Companies initially encounter challenges when implementing waste management initiatives related to GSCM practices. These practices are generally very complex, and most employees are not aware of waste management associated with GHG inventory, accounting, and regulations. In view of the importance of consciousness of waste management for employees, education and training in waste issues need to be launched to promote environmental awareness. As an example, regulations related to the emerging standards, are used to collect and report waste data from either a product or organizational perspective. In educational training, the necessary understanding of the principles of waste inventory and accounting covers a host of topics ranging from waste legislation, implementing waste inventory and accounting, waste footprint calculation, to waste data verification. As noted above, it is evident that training related to corporate waste management can contribute to enhance waste emission awareness of employees and promote the waste management initiatives. The fourth most important criterion for selecting and evaluating green supplier is waste policy. As indicated the order to deliver and raise the awareness of environmental issues among suppliers, customers, and staff, the organization needs to draw up an environmental policy for GSCM concerning its customers/suppliers. [45] The members have integrated waste policies into their procurement departments, and a large majority of these members (90%) have an emissions reduction plan in place. Thus, the company can facilitate waste management practices by establishing a waste policy as a manifestation of its position regarding waste emissions disclosure, waste reduction target certification, among others.

6. CONCLUSIONS
The GSCM based conceptual framework and operational model for the incorporation of Pharmaceutical Green Supply Chain Management into supplier selection have been presented. After identifying the related criteria of Pharmaceutical Green Supply Chain Management activities for the proposed framework, DEMATEL was applied to a Pharmaceutical company. By using DEMATEL, the structure and interrelationships have not only been recognized, the key criteria that influence the supplier selection with regard to Pharmaceutical Green Supply Chain Management competencies have also been determined. Results indicate that the four most important criteria are internal environmental management, involvement in initiatives for negative economic, training related reducing waste management, and green purchasing. The results also show that the top four criteria not only have potential significance in selecting green suppliers with the competencies of Pharmaceutical Green Supply Chain Management, but also affect the other twelve evaluation criteria. 69

International Journal of Industrial Engineering Research and Development (IJIERD), ISSN 0976 6979(Print), ISSN 0976 6987(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, July-December (2012), IAEME

Compared with the previous investigations, the proposed method may have following contributions. First, a new model for selecting suppliers with emphasis on Pharmaceutical Green Supply Chain Management issues has been developed. Such a framework has never been found in the previous literature. Second, the DEMATEL method was applied in selecting supplier in PGSCM and it is rarely found from the previous studies. DEMATEL can deal with the complicated and intertwined problems and determine the causal relationships among the evaluation criteria. In this paper, the DEMATEL method is an appropriative method to delineate the structure of a totally interdependent problem and find the foci for solving the problem. By identifying the structure and interrelationships, the key criteria that influence green supplier selection have been recognized. These results can be helpful for a decision-maker to rank supplier with respect to waste management competencies.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to put on record appreciation to the anonymous referees for their valuable suggestions, which have enhanced the quality of the paper over its earlier version.

7. REFERENCES
1. Bai, C. and Sarkis, J. (2010). Green supplier development: Analytical evaluation using rough set theory. Journal of Cleaner Production, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.01.016 2. Barnard, J. W. (2006). Corporate Boards and the New Environmentalism. William and Mary Law Review. 31, pp. 291-295. 3. Boiral, O. (2006). Global warming: should companies adopt a proactive strategy? Long Range Planning, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 315330. 4. Bowen, F. E.; Cousine, P. D.; Lamming, R. C.; Faruk, A. C., (2001). Explaining the gap between the theory and practice of green supply. Greener Manage. Int., 35, 41-59. 5. Chiu, Y. J., Chen, H. C., Tzeng, G. H. and Shyu, J. Z. (2006). Marketing strategy based on customer behavior for the LCD-TV. International Journal of Management and Decision Making, Vol.7, No.2/3, pp.143-165. 6. Chiu, Y. J., Chen, H. C., Tzeng, G. H. and Shyu, J. Z. (2006). Marketing strategy based on customer behavior for the LCD-TV. International Journal of Management and Decision Making, Vol.7, No.2/3, pp.143-165. 7. Cogan, D., Good, M., Kantor, G. and McAteer, E. (2009). Corporate governance and climate change. 8. Enarsson, L. (1998). Evaluation of suppliers: How to consider the environment. 9. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 5-17. 10. Evans, H.; Johnson, J., (2005). 10 Steps toward RoHS directive compliance. Cir. Assembly, 16, 68-70. 11. Fontela, E. and Gabus, A. (1974). DEMATEL, Innovative Methods, Report No. 2 Structural Analysis of the World Problematique, Battelle Geneva Research Institute. 12. Handfield, R., Walton, S., Sroufe, R. and Melnyk, S. (2002). Applying environmental criteria to supplier assessment: a study in the application of the analytical hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 141, pp. 7087. 70

International Journal of Industrial Engineering Research and Development (IJIERD), ISSN 0976 6979(Print), ISSN 0976 6987(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, July-December (2012), IAEME

13. Hori, S. and Shimizu, Y. (1999). Designing methods of human interface for supervisory control systems. Control Engineering Practice, Vol.7, No.11, pp.1413-1419. 14. Hsu, C.W. and Hu, A.H. (2009). Applying hazardous substance management to supplier selection using analytic network process. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol.17, No. 2, pp.255 -264. 15. Hu, A.H. and Hsu, C.W. (2006). Empirical Study in the Critical Factors of Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM) Practice in the Taiwanese Electrical and Electronics Industries Proceeding of 2006 IEEE International Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology, Singapore, pp. 853-857. 16. Humphreys, P.K., Wong, Y.K. and Chen, F.T.S. (2003a). Integrating environmental criteria into the supplier selection process. Journal of Materials Processing Technology. Vol. 138, pp. 349-356. 17. Humphreys, P.K., McIvor, R. and Chan, F.T.S. (2003b). Using case-based reasoning to evaluate supplier environmental management performance. Expert Systems with Applications, Vol, 25, pp. 141-153. 18. Huang, J., (2005). The ministry of economic affairs establishes a RoHS service corps to help the electrical and electronic industries build green supply chains. Taiwan Clean. Prod. Newsletter, 1 (1), 2-3. 19. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (2007). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis Summary for Policymakers. IPCC: Geneva. 20. Jeswani, H.K., Wehrmeyer, W. and Mulugetta, Y. (2008). How warm is the corporate response to climate change? Evidence from Pakistan and the UK. Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 4660. 21. Kolk, A. and Pinkse, J. (2004). Market strategies for climate change. European Management Journal, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 304314. 22. Lamming, R.; Hampson, J., (1996). The environment as a supply chain management issue. Brit. J. Manage., 7 (Special issue 1), S45-S62. 23. Lee, H.I., Kang, H.Y., Hsu, C.F. and Hung, H.C. (2009). A green supplier selection model for high-tech industry. Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 7917-7927. 24. Lin, C. W., Chen, S. H. and Tzeng, G. H. (2009). Constructing a Cognition Map of Alternative Fuel Vehicles Using the DEMATEL Method. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, Vol.16, pp.5-19. 25. Lin, C.W. and Tzeng, G.H. (2009). Identification of a threshold value for the DEMATEL method using the maximum mean de-entropy algorithm to find critical services provided by a semiconductor intellectual property mall. Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36, pp. 98919898. 26. Liou, J. J. H., Tzeng, G. H. and Chang, H. C. (2007). Airline safety measurement using a novel hybrid model. Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol.13, No.4, pp.243-249. 27. Lippmann, S. (1999). Supply chain environmental management: elements of success. Corporate Environmental Strategy, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp.175-182. 28. Noci, G. (1997). Designing green vendor rating systems for the assessment of a supplier's environmental performance. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, Vol.3, No.2, pp. 103-114.

71

International Journal of Industrial Engineering Research and Development (IJIERD), ISSN 0976 6979(Print), ISSN 0976 6987(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, July-December (2012), IAEME

29. Okereke, C. (2007). An exploration of motivations, drivers and barriers to waste management: The UK FTSE 100. European Management Journal, Vol. 25, No.6, pp. 475486. 30. Rao, P. (2002). Greening the supply chain a new initiative in south East Asia. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 632655. 31. Rao, P. (2005). The greening of suppliers-in the South East Asian context. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 13, pp. 935-945. 32. Rao, P.; Holt, D., (2005). Do green supply chains lead to competitiveness and economic performance?. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage., 25 (9), 898-916. 33. Ajay Verma and Dr. Anshul Gangele, Green Supply Chain Management Empirical Study For Closing The Loop International Journal of Production Technology and Management (IJPTM), Volume3, Issue1, 2012, pp. 78 - 94, Published by IAEME 34. Schultz, K. and Williamson, P. (2005). Gaining competitive advantage in a wasteconstrained world: strategies for European business. European Management Journal, Vol. 23, No.4, pp. 383391. 35. Seuring, S. and Mller, M. (2008). Core Issues in Sustainable Supply Chain Management a Delphi Study. Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol.17, pp. 455466. 36. Skjaerseth, J. and Skodvin, T. (2003). Climate Change and Oil Industry: Common problems varying strategies. Manchester University Press, Manchester. 37. Southworth, K. (2009). Corporate voluntary action: A valuable but incomplete solution to climate change and energy security challenges. Policy and Society, Vol. 27, pp. 329350. 38. Sheu, J. B.; Chou, Y. H.; Hu, C. C., (2005). An integrated logistics operational model for green-supply chain management. Trans. Res., 41 (4), 287-313. 39. Sullivan, R. (2009). The management of greenhouse gas emissions in large European companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 16, pp. 301309. 40. Tzeng, G. H., Chiang, C. H. and Li, C. W. (2007). Evaluating intertwined effects in elearning programs: a novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL. Expert Systems with Applications, Vol.32, No.4, pp.1028-1044. 41. US-AEP. (1999). Supply chain environmental management-lessons for leader in the electronic industry. Clean Technology Environmental Management (CTEM) Program, US-Asia Environmental Partnership. 42. Walton, S.V., Handfield, R.B. and Melnyk, S.A. (1998). The green supply chain: Integrating suppliers into environmental management processes. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 2-11. 43. Weinhofer, G. and Hoffmann, V.H. (2008). Mitigating climate change How do corporate strategies differ?. Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 77-89. 44. Wu, C.H., Kuo, T.C. and Lu, Y.Y. (2007), Environmental principles applicable to green supplier evaluation by using multi-objective decision analysis. International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45, No. 18-19, pp. 43174331. 45. Wu, W. W. and Lee, Y. T. (2007). Developing global managers competencies using the fuzzy DEMATEL method. Expert Systems with Applications, Vol.32, No.2, pp.499-507.

72

International Journal of Industrial Engineering Research and Development (IJIERD), ISSN 0976 6979(Print), ISSN 0976 6987(Online) Volume 3, Issue 2, July-December (2012), IAEME

46. Yuang, A. and Kielkiewicz Yuang, A. (2001). Sustainable supply network management. Corporate Environmental Management, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 260-268. 47. Zhu, Q. and Geng, Y. (2001). Integrating environmental issues into supplier selection and management: a study of large and medium-sized state-owned enterprises in China. Greener Management International, Vol. 35, pp. 27-40. 48. Zhu, Q. and Geng, Y. (2001). Integrating environmental issues into supplier selection and management: a study of large and medium-sized state-owned enterprises in China. Greener Management International, Vol. 35, pp. 27-39. 49. Zhu, O.; Sarkis, J.; Geng, Y., (2005). Green supply chain management in china: pressures, practices and performance. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage., 25 (5), 449-468.

73