It has been increasing in consciousness of the environment in the last few decades. More people are aware of the world’s environmental problems such as global warming, toxic substance usage, and decreasing in non-replenish resources . In addition awareness exists among companies which seek to become green. This study presents the various strategies to implement a GSCM in manufacturing industry. It focuses on the use of decision making models; the model used here is AHP. This method is used in such a way that helps in evaluating different criterion under each strategy, and therefore deciding about best strategy needed.

1. 1
Identify strategies to implement GSCM
In manufacturing industry – using AHP
Karim Khayat
Abstract:
It has been increasing in consciousness of the environment in the last few decades. More people
are aware of the world’s environmental problems such as global warming, toxic substance usage,
and decreasing in non-replenish resourcesi
. In addition awareness exists among companies which
seek to become green.
This study presents the various strategies to implement a GSCM in manufacturing industry. It
focuses on the use of decision making models; the model used here is AHP. This method is used
in such a way that helps in evaluating different criterion under each strategy, and therefore
deciding about best strategy needed.
Key words: GSCM, AHP, strategies, priority weighthing
Introduction:
Recently, people, especially consumers,
become aware of all issues that threaten
their existence, and therefore they put more
pressure on companies to promote a healthy
environment by adopting the necessary
techniques. The trend nowadays is
summarized by 4 words: Green Supply
Chain Management (GSCM).
A Green Sustainable Supply Chain can be
defined as "the process of using
environmentally friendly inputs and
transforming these inputs through change
agents - whose byproducts can improve or
be recycled within the existing environment.
This process develops outputs that can be
reclaimed and re-used at the end of their
life-cycle thus, creating a sustainable supply
chain."ii
It is not an easy task to have a sustainable
supply chain which typically begins with the
acquisition of raw resources and ends with
the delivery of the final goods to customers.
In order to reach such sustainable chain, the
starting point is that the company should
identify the long-term policies and the
effective strategy toward a sustainable future
state, and therefore take some rigorous
decisions. Therefore, in this study we will
provide a sample on how to use AHP
decision model while seeking the best
strategies to achieve the best GSCM in the
manufacturing industry.
Literature review:
The concept of SCM has been remarked as
major trend of the management. Note that
this chain includes not only suppliers and
manufacturers, but also warehouses,
retailer’s transporters, and consumers

2. 2
themselves; so it is a distribution and facility
network that carries out the activities of
material procurement and its reformation
into finished and intermediary products as
well as the finished products distribution to
customers.iii
GSCM, on the other hand, is
innovative chain supply management from
green purchase, green packaging, green
manufacturing, and reverse logistics.
Methodology:
In manufacturing industry, where the need
of GSCM become beneficial, not only for
helping the environment but also for making
more profit and reducing costs, it is
necessary to identify the appropriate
strategies to implement Green Supply Chain
Management. Major strategies in this field
have been categorized in four dimensions
based upon their direct or indirect role in
greening the supply: (1) non-members of
supply chain, (2) downward stream supply
chain members, (3) organizational
perspective and (4) upward stream supply
chain members.
Relevant strategies are identified through
extensive literature review and discussion
with experts. AHP technique has been used
to rank the strategies of GSCM
implementation in manufacturing industry.
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is one of
Multi Criteria decision making method that
helps the decision-maker facing a complex
problem with multiple conflicting and
subjective criteria; it is originally developed
by Prof, Thomas L. Saaty in 1980. In short,
it is a method to derive ratio scales from
paired comparisons. The input can be
obtained from actual measurement such as
price, weight etc., or from subjective
opinion such as satisfaction feelings and
preference. AHP allow some small
inconsistency in judgment because human is
not always consistent. The ratio scales are
derived from the principal Eigen vectors and
the consistency index is derived from the
principal Eigen value. iv
The application of AHP consists in three
parts, namely, making the hierarchy
structure of the decision problem, evaluating
the weights of the answers by pair wise
comparison and calculating global weights.
Narrowing our study to the manufacturing
industry, especially in India, the AHP
involves the following series of stepsv
:
Step 1: establishing the hierarchical
structure; AHP has the advantage of
permitting a hierarchical structure of the
criteria, which provides users with a better
focus on specific criteria and sub-criteria
when allocating the weights.
Step 2: Constructing the pair wise
comparison matrix; at each node of the
hierarchy, a matrix will collect the pair wise
comparisons of the decision-maker
Step 3: Calculating the consistency; as
priorities make sense only if derived from
consistent or near consistent matrices, a
consistency check must be applied. A
consistency index (CI) is proposedvi
;
CI = (λmax–n)/ (n–1)
Where λmax=maximal Eigen value
The consistency ratio, the ratio of CI and RI,
is given by:
CR=CI/RI
Where RI varies depending upon the order
of matrix.vii

3. 3
A table (1) shows the value of the RI for
matrices of order (N) 1 to 10 obtained by
approximating random indices using a
sample size of 500viii
.
N 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
RI 0.58 0.9 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49
Table 1: random indices
Fortunately, there is no need to implement
the steps manually each time we need to
take a decision, since professional
commercial software, expert choice,
developed by expert choice. Incix
is
available on the market simplifying the
implementation of AHP’s steps.
Figure (1) below shows a research frame
work of strategies to implement GSCM in
Indian manufacturing industry.

4. 4
Figure 1:research frame work of strategies to implement GSCM in manufacturing industry
First, we can start by showing the Eigen
value of the 4 strategies (dimensions) to
implement GSCM. (See table (2)); then we
will rank the various elements in each
dimension (see tables (3, 4, 5, 6)); and
finally come up with a priority weighting.
The main tool used in the coming section is
the pair wise comparison.
A group of expert give the appropriate
weight to each dimension considered in this
study; table (2) below presents the weight of
each strategy.

5. 5
Non-
members of
supply chain
Downward-
members of
supply chain
Organization
perspective
Upward-
members of
supply chain
Global
priority
weighting
Non-
members
1 2 2 3 0.410021
Downward-
members
0.5 1 2 2 0.269285
Organization
Perspective
0.5 0.5 1 3 0.211901
Upward-
members
0.333 0.5 0.333 1 0.108793
Table 2: strategies to implement GSCM practices
Analysing results in table (2), we will find
that the dimension of non-members of
supply chain is the most important
dimension with a value of (0.410021),
followed by downward-members of supply
chain (0.269285), then organization
perspective (0.211901), and the last one is
upward-members of supply chain with a
value of (0.108793). (See chart 1)
Chart 1: global priority weighting given to each strategy in the implementation of GSCM in manufacturing industry
In this section, we will focus on weighting
different elements in each strategy alone.
Starting by “non-members of supply chain”;
which involves international environmental
agreement, central and state government
legislations, and NGOs. Those different
variables play a main role in greening the
supply chain and therefore meeting our
green objective. Table (3) presents the
weighting of each variable mentioned above.
International
environmental
agreement
Central
government
litigations
State
government
litigations
Non-
government
organizations
Priority
weighting
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
non-members
downward-members
org. perspective
upward-members
global priority weighting of various
dimensions in implementing GSCM
global priority weighting of
various dimensions in
implementing GSCM

6. 6
Int. Env.
Agreement
1 2 3 4 0.458558
Central
gov. Litig.
0.5 1 3 3 0.304806
State gov.
Litig.
0.333 0.333 1 2 0.143218
NGOs 0.25 0.333 0.5 1 0.093419
Table 3: strategies of non-members of supply chain
Table 3 presents that international
environmental agreement is the most
important variable in this analysis
(0.458558), followed by central government
litigations (0.304806), then the state
government litigations (0.143218), and the
last one is the non-government
organizations (0.093419).
Moving to strategies of downward-members
of supply chain, which involves suppliers
and vendors in green activities, hence
companies seek to find suppliers who reduce
their environment impact without reducing
the quality of their products. Also, this
dimension involves training and quality
education programs to achieve successful
implementation of GSCM, technology
advancement that helps finds efficient
solutions, and environmental audit
management system.
Table (4) presents the global weighting of
all these variables in the downward-
members if supply chain;
Green
suppliers
and vendors
Training
programs
Technology
advancement
Environmental
audit system
Priority
weighting
Green
sup.&vend.
1 0.333 0.333 0.5 0.10343
Training
prog.
3 1 3 3 0.48835
Technology
advancement
3 0.333 1 2 0.25073
Env. Audit
system
2 0.333 0.5 1 0.15749
Table 4: strategies of downward members of supply chain
Based on the numbers presented in the
table (4) above, it will be clear to notice that
training and quality education program is
the most important variable studied in this
section (0.48835), followed by the
technology advancement (0.25073), then
the environmental audit management
system (0.15749), and the last one is the
availability of green suppliers who care
about saving the environment (0.10343).
Pair wise comparison will now be used to
weight strategies related to organization
perspective; which include a set of issues all
presented in figure (1) above, and these
issues will be weighted in table (5) below.
Innovativ
e green
practices
Top mng.
perspectiv
e
Employee
perspectiv
e
Economic
interest
Firm’s
competitive
ness
Industrial
perspectiv
e
Priority
weightin
g

7. 7
IP 5 1 5 3 2 2 0.14683
TP 1 0.2 4 0.5 1 3 0.37415
EP 0.25 0.2 1 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.04536
EI 2 0.333 4 1 1 2 0.17709
FC 1 0.5 4 1 1 2 0.16381
IP 0.333 0.5 2 0.5 0.5 1 0.09276
Table 5: strategies of organization perspective
The most important feature in this section
is top management perspective (0.37415),
and the least important is employee
perspective (0.04536).
A detailed analysis of variables in
organization perspective is summarized in
the chart (2), where different sub-criteria
are weighted regarding to each others.
Chart 2: various sub-criteria in decision making related to organization perspective
The last pair wise comparison made for
identifying criteria related to upward-
members of supply chain; in this section, 3
criteria has been measured: awareness level
of customer, end-of-life management; which
is the most important criteria (0.45793), and
association with local recycling
organizations. The priority weighting is
showed in the table (6) below;
Awareness level
of customer
End of life
management
Association with
recycling org.
Priority
weighting
Awareness level
of customer
1 1 3 0.41606
End of life
management
1 1 4 0.45793

8. 8
Association with
recycling org.
0.333 0.25 1 0.12601
Table 6: strategies of upward-members of supply chain
Discussion and analysis of result:
Further result analysis can be done in this
part of the project concerning strategies
related to the implementation of GSCM in
manufacturing industry; relying on all
previous information and measures given,
we can rank the result by the following way:
Non-members of supply chain have received
the highest global weighting and upward
stream supply chain members’ lowest global
weighting; they are ranked 1st
and 4th
respectively. Downward stream supply
chain members and Organization members
of supply chain are ranked 2nd
and 3rd
respectively. In addition, various strategies
in each one of these dimensions have been
ranked upon their priority weighting.
From the first dimension, non-member of
supply chain, we can note the importance of
international environment agreement in
influencing companies and government. The
second dimension, downward stream supply
chain members, shows the benefit that can
arises from having the appropriate training
programs such as workshops and seminars
on the implementation of GSCM. The third
dimension, organization perspective, ensures
that top management is the key criteria to
adopt and implement GSCM. Finally, the
fourth dimension, upward stream supply
chain members, focuses more on the role
that End-of-life management plays, in
addition to the awareness that customers
may have.
Conclusion:
In this paper selecting GSCM strategy in
manufacturing industry is illustrated by
incorporating AHP model in evaluating
criteria and considering sub-criteria.
The four strategies were also compared in
pair wise manner under each decision
criterion; the final scores of each strategy
were evaluated.
Based on this study, the non0member of
supply chain is selected as the best and most
important dimension in the implementation
of GSCM, this helps to protect the
environment and also integrate corporate
functional strategies to achieve an effective
and profitable green managementx
i
http://www.scribd.com/doc/47801180/Green-Supply-Chain-Management
ii
http://www.mhi.org/media/news/7056
iii
R. Ganeshan and T. P. Harrison, An Introduction to Supply Chain Management, Department of Management
Sciences and Information Systems, Pennsylvania State University, PA, USA, 1995.
iv
thecourse-pm.com/Library/AHP/AHP_Tutorial.pdf
v
Saaty, 2000, 2008
vi
Saaty (1977)
vii
http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ori/journal/v22/n4/full/ori200910a.html
viii
Saaty, 2000
ix
Expert Choice, Inc., Expert Choice software and manual. 4922

9. 9
Elsworth Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA
x
consortiacademia.org/index.php/ijrsm/article/download/.../288