Neural Computing and Applications

, Volume 28, Issue 12, pp 3683–3696 | Cite as

A hybrid goal programming and dynamic data envelopment analysis framework for sustainable supplier evaluation

  • Madjid Tavana
  • Hadi Shabanpour
  • Saeed Yousefi
  • Reza Farzipoor Saen
Original Article


The evaluation of sustainable suppliers is one of the most complex tasks in sustainable supply chain management (SSCM). Classical data envelopment analysis (DEA) and dynamic DEA (DDEA) models are heavily dependent on historical data and do not forecast future efficiencies of decision-making units (DMUs). The primary objective of this paper is to present a new predictive paradigm for ranking sustainable suppliers in SSCM. The proposed model combines goal programming and DDEA in an integrated and seamless paradigm to determine the future efficiencies of DMUs (suppliers). It also shifts the decision maker’s role from monitoring the past to planning the future. A case study is presented to demonstrate the applicability of the proposed model and exhibit the efficacy of the procedures and algorithms.


Dynamic data envelopment analysis Goal programming Sustainable supplier selection Benchmarking Decision-making units Efficiency evaluation 



The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and the editor for their insightful comments and suggestions.


  1. 1.
    Ageron B, Gunasekaran A, Spalanzani A (2012) Sustainable supply management: an empirical study. Int J Prod Econ 140(1):168–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amindoust A, Ahmed S, Saghafinia A, Bahreininejad A (2012) Sustainable supplier selection: a ranking model based on fuzzy inference system. Appl Soft Comput 12(6):1668–1677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andersen P, Petersen NC (1993) A procedure for ranking efficient units in data envelopment analysis. Manag Sci 39(10):1261–1264CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Azadi M, Farzipoor Saen R (2012) Developing a new chance-constrained DEA model for suppliers selection in the presence of undesirable outputs. Int J Oper Res 13(11):44–66CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Azadi M, Farzipoor Saen R, Tavana M (2012) Supplier selection using chance constrained data envelopment analysis with nondiscretionary factors and stochastic data. Int J Ind Syst Eng 13(2):167–196Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bai C, Sarkis J (2010) Integrating sustainability into supplier selection with grey system and rough set methodologies. Int J Prod Econ 124(1):252–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beamon BM (2005) Environmental and sustainability ethics in supply chain management. Sci Eng Ethics 11(2):221–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carter CR, Jennings MM (2002) Logistics social responsibility: an integrative framework. J Bus Logist 23(1):145–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Charnes A, Cooper WW, Ferguson RO (1955) Optimal estimation of executive compensation by linear programming. Manag Sci 1(2):138–151MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Charnes A, Cooper WW (1961) Management models and industrial applications of linear programming. Wiley, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1978) Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 2(6):429–444MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cooper WW, Seiford LM, Tone K (2007) Data envelopment analysis: a comprehensive text with models, applications, references and DEA-solver software, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dyllick T, Hockerts K (2002) Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Bus Strateg Environ 11(2):130–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Färe R, Grosskopf S (1996) Productivity and intermediate products: a frontier approach. Econ Lett 50(1):65–70CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Färe R, Grosskopf S, Lovell K, Pasurka C (1989) Multilateral productivity comparisons when some outputs are undesirable: a nonparametric approach. Rev Econ Stat 71(1):90–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Färe F, Grosskopf S, Tyteca D (1996) An activity analysis model of the environmental performance of firms—application to fossil-fuel-fired electric utilities. Ecol Econ 18(2):161–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Farzipoor Saen R (2008) Using super-efficiency analysis for ranking suppliers in the presence of volume discount offers. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag 38(8):637–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Farzipoor Saen R (2009) A decision model for ranking suppliers in the presence of cardinal and ordinal data, weight restrictions, and nondiscretionary factors. Ann Oper Res 172(1):177–192CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Farzipoor Saen R (2010) Developing a new data envelopment analysis methodology for supplier selection in the presence of both undesirable outputs and imprecise data. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 51(9):1243–1250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gass SI (1986) A process for determining priorities and weights for large scale linear goal programmes. J Oper Res Soc 37(8):779–785CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Govindan K, Khodaverdi R, Jafarian A (2013) A fuzzy multi criteria approach for measuring sustainability performance of a supplier based on triple bottom line approach. J Clean Prod 47:345–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hatami-Marbini A, Saati S, Tavana M (2010) An ideal-seeking fuzzy data envelopment analysis framework. Appl Soft Comput 10(4):1062–1070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hsu CW, Hu AH (2007) Green supply chain management in the electronic industry. Int J Environ Sci Technol 5(2):205–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jahanshahloo GR, Hosseinzadeh Lotfi F, Khanmohammadi M, Kazemimanesh M, Rezaie V (2010) Ranking of units by positive ideal DMU with common weights. Expert Syst Appl 37(12):7483–7488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jahanshahloo GR, Hosseinzadeh Lotfi F, Shoja N, Tohidi G, Razavyan S (2005) Undesirable inputs and outputs in DEA models. Appl Math Comput 169(2):917–925MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kahraman C, Cebeci U, Ulukan Z (2003) Multi-criteria supplier selection using fuzzy AHP. Logist Inf Manag Syst 16(6):382–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Korhonen PJ, Luptacik M (2004) Eco-efficiency analysis of power plants: an extension of data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res 154(2):437–446CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kumar S (2006) Environmentally sensitive productivity growth: a global analysis using Malmquist–Luenberger index. Ecol Econ 56(2):280–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kumar A, Jain V, Kumar SA (2014) A comprehensive environment friendly approach for supplier selection. Omega 42(1):109–123MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Li L, Li M, Wu C (2013) Production efficiency evaluation of energy companies based on the improved super-efficiency data envelopment analysis considering undesirable outputs. Math Comput Model 58(5–6):1057–1067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Liang L, Wu D, Hua Z (2004) MES-DEA modeling for analyzing anti-industrial pollution efficiency and its application in Anhui province of China. Int J Glob Energy Issues 22(2–4):88–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Liao CN, Kao HP (2011) An integrated fuzzy TOPSIS and MCGP approach to supplier selection in supply chain management. Expert Syst Appl 38(9):10803–10811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Likert R (1932) A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol 22(140):1–55Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Muralidharan C, Anantharaman N, Deshmukh SG (2002) A multi-criteria group decision-making model for supplier rating. J Supply Chain Manag 38(4):22–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Murphy PR, Poist RF (2003) Green perspectives and practices: a comparative logistics study. Supply Chain Manag Int J 8(2):122–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Noorizadeh A, Mahdiloo M, Farzipoor Saen R (2011) Supplier selection in the presence of dual-role factors, nondiscretionary inputs, and weight restrictions. Int J Product Qual Manag 8(2):134–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Önüt S, Kara SS, Işik E (2009) Long term supplier selection using a combined fuzzy MCDM approach: a case study for a telecommunication company. Expert Syst Appl 36(2):3887–3895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pittman R (1983) Multilateral productivity comparisons with undesirable outputs. Econ J 93(372):883–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ratan SRA, Sekhari A, Rahman M (2010) Sustainable supply chain management: state-of-the-art. In: International conference on software, knowledge, information management and applications, Paro, BhutanGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Romero C (2004) A general structure of achievement function for a goal programming model. Eur J Oper Res 153(3):675–686MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sarkis J, Talluri S (2004) Evaluating and selecting e-commerce software and communication systems for a supply chain. Eur J Oper Res 159(2):318–329CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Seiford LM, Zhu J (2002) Modeling undesirable factors in efficiency evaluation. Eur J Oper Res 142(1):16–20CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sengupta JK (1995) Dynamics of data envelopment analysis: theory of systems efficiency. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sexton TR, Silkman RH, Hogan AJ (1986) Data envelopment analysis: critique and extensions, vol 32, no 1. In: Silkman RH (ed) Measuring efficiency: an assessment of data envelopment analysis. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 73–105Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Stewart TJ (2010) Goal directed benchmarking for organizational efficiency. Omega 38(6):534–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sueyoshi T, Goto M (2010) Should the US clean air act include CO2 emission control? Examination by data envelopment analysis. Energy Policy 38(10):5902–5911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sueyoshi T, Goto M (2011) Methodological comparison between two unified (operational and environmental) efficiency measurements for environmental assessment. Eur J Oper Res 210(3):684–693CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sun J, Wu J, Guo D (2013) Performance ranking of units considering ideal and anti-ideal DMU with common weights. Appl Math Model 37(9):6301–6310MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Tone K, Tsutsui M (2010) Dynamic DEA: a slacks-based measure approach. Omega 38(3–4):145–156CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Tone K, Tsutsui M (2014) Dynamic DEA with network structure: a slacks-based measure approach. Omega 42(1):124–131CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Tseng M-L, Chiang JH, Lan LW (2009) Selection of optimal supplier in supply chain management strategy with analytic network process and choquet integral. Comput Ind Eng 57(1):330–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Wang Y-M, Chin K-S, Luo Y (2011) Cross-efficiency evaluation based on ideal and anti-ideal decision making units. Expert Syst Appl 38(8):10312–10319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Wang Y-M, Luo Y (2006) DEA efficiency assessment using ideal and anti-ideal decision making units. Appl Math Comput 173(2):902–915MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Wang NS, Yi RH, Wang W (2008) Evaluating the performances of decision-making units based on interval efficiencies. J Comput Appl Math 216(2):328–343MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Weber A, Current J, Desai A (2000) An optimization approach to determining the number of vendors to employ. Int J Supply Chain Manag 5(2):90–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Wen L, Xu L, Wang R (2013) Sustainable supplier evaluation based on intuitionistic fuzzy sets group decision methods. J Inf Comput Sci 10(10):3209–3220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    White BJ (1996) Developing products and their rhetoric from a single hierarchical model. Proc Annu Conf Soc Tech Commun 43:223–224Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Wierzbicki AP (1999) Reference point approaches. In: Gal T, Stewart TJ, Hanne T (eds) Multicriteria decision making: advances in MCDM models, algorithms, theory, and applications, Chapter 9. Kluwer Academic Publishers, BostonGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Yahya S, Kingsman B (1999) Vendor rating for an entrepreneur development programme: a case study using the analytic hierarchy process method. J Oper Res Soc 50(9):916–930CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Yaisawarng S, Klein J (1994) The effects of sulfur dioxide controls on productivity change in the US electric power industry. Rev Econ Stat 76(3):447–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Yousefi S, Shabanpour H, Farzipoor Saen R, Faramarzi GR (2014) Making an ideal decision making unit using virtual network data envelopment analysis approach. Int J Bus Perform Manag 15(4):316–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Zouggari A, Benyoucef L (2012) Simulation based fuzzy TOPSIS approach for group multi-criteria supplier selection problem. Eng Appl Artif Intell 25(3):507–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Natural Computing Applications Forum 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Madjid Tavana
    • 1
    • 2
  • Hadi Shabanpour
    • 3
  • Saeed Yousefi
    • 4
  • Reza Farzipoor Saen
    • 4
  1. 1.Business Systems and Analytics Department, Distinguished Chair of Business AnalyticsLa Salle UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Business Information Systems Department, Faculty of Business Administration and EconomicsUniversity of PaderbornPaderbornGermany
  3. 3.Young Researchers and Elite Club, Karaj BranchIslamic Azad UniversityKarajIran
  4. 4.Department of Industrial Management, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Karaj BranchIslamic Azad UniversityKarajIran

Personalised recommendations