Evaluating green suppliers: improving supplier performance with DEA in the presence of incomplete data

  • Imre Dobos
  • Gyöngyi VörösmartyEmail author
Original Paper


The role of the supplier and relationship management with the supply base in purchasing is increasingly appreciated. This highlights the importance of pre- and post-qualification data, and the need for the focus to shift from selection to rating and mapping opportunities for development in the process of relationship management. From a decision-theory perspective, this means that suppliers need to be informed about how specific performance indicators should be improved to increase their prospects of qualifying for selection. From the supply management point of view, it is important that the efficiency of suppliers is increased to the level at which criteria are met. We employ a DEA model to parameterize the related data, making it treatable using fuzzy or interval DEA models. The problems associated with missing and imprecise data in such models can also be solved using parametric linear programming. However, this approach means that technology coefficients are also parameterized, for which good analytical solutions are lacking. We therefore approach the problem using simulation.


DEA Green supplier evaluation Parametric linear programing Missing data Imprecise data 



Funding was provided by Nemzeti Kutatási és Technológiai Hivatal (Grant No. K 124644).


  1. Agarwal P, Sahai M, Mishra V, Bag M, Singh V (2011) A review of multi-criteria decision making techniques for supplier evaluation and selection. Int J Ind Eng Comput 2(4):801–810Google Scholar
  2. Boran FE, Genç S, Kurt M, Akay D (2009) A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making for supplier selection with TOPSIS method. Expert Syst Appl 36(8):11363–11368Google Scholar
  3. Bruno G, Esposito E, Genovese A, Simpson M (2016) Applying supplier selection methodologies in a multi-stakeholder environment: a case study and a critical assessment. Expert Syst Appl 43:271–285Google Scholar
  4. Chai J, Liu JN, Ngai EW (2013) Application of decision-making techniques in supplier selection: a systematic review of literature. Expert Syst Appl 40(10):3872–3885Google Scholar
  5. Charnes V, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1978) Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 2:429–444Google Scholar
  6. Chen C, Suurmond R, van Raaij E, Bäckstrand J (2017) Purchasing process models: tools for teaching purchasing and supply management. In: Proceedings of the 24. IPSERA conference WP, vol 132, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  7. Cooper WW, Li S, Seiford LM, Tone K, Thrall RM, Zhou J (2001) Sensitivity and stability analysis in DEA: some recent developments. J Product Anal 15:217–246Google Scholar
  8. Dantzig GB, Thapa MN (2003) Linear programming 2: theory and extensions. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. de Boer L, Labro E, Morlacchi P (2001) A review of methods supporting supplier selection. Eur J Purch Suppl Manag 7(2):75–89Google Scholar
  10. Deshmukh AJ, Vasudevan H (2014) Emerging supplier selection criterion in the context of traditional vs green supply chain management. Int J Manag Value Suppl Chains 5(1):19–33Google Scholar
  11. Dey PK, Bhattacharya A, Ho W, Clegg B (2015) Strategic supplier performance evaluation: a case-based action research of a UK manufacturing organisation. Int J Prod Econ 166:192–214Google Scholar
  12. Dickson GW (1966) An analysis of vendor selection systems and decisions. J Purch 2(1):5–17Google Scholar
  13. Dobler D, Burt DN (1995) Purchasing and supply management: text and cases, 6th edn. McGraw-Hill, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Dobos I, Vörösmarty G (2014) Green supplier selection and evaluation using DEA-type composite indicators. Int J Prod Econ 157(1):273–278Google Scholar
  15. Färe R, Grosskopf S (2013) DEA, directional distance functions and positive, affine data transformation. Omega 41(1):28–30Google Scholar
  16. Gal T (1979) Postoptimal analyses, parametric programming, and related topics. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Glock CH, Grosse EH, Ries JM (2017) Decision support models for supplier development: systematic literature review and research agenda. Int J Prod Econ 193:798–812Google Scholar
  18. Govindan K, Rajendran S, Sarkis J, Murugesan P (2015) Multi criteria decision making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review. J Clean Prod 98:66–83Google Scholar
  19. Ho W, Xu X, Dey PK (2010) Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review. Eur J Oper Res 202(1):16–24Google Scholar
  20. Igarashi M, de Boer L, Fet AM (2013) What is required for greener supplier selection? A literature review and conceptual model development. J Purch Suppl Manag 19(4):247–263Google Scholar
  21. Jin Y, Ryan JK, Yund W (2014) Sourcing decisions with competitive suppliers and imperfect information. Decis Sci 45(2):229–254Google Scholar
  22. Johnsen T, Howard M, Miemczyk J (2014) Purchasing and supply chain management: a sustainability perspective. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Kao C, Liu ST (2000) Data envelopment analysis with missing data: an application to university libraries in Taiwan. J Oper Res Soc 51:897–905Google Scholar
  24. Kaufmann L, Carter RC, Buhrmann C (2010) Debiasing the supplier selection decision: a taxonomy and conceptualization. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag 40(10):792–821Google Scholar
  25. Lasch R, Janker CG (2005) Supplier selection and controlling using multivariate analysis. Int J Phys Distr Logist Manag 35(6):409–425Google Scholar
  26. Luzzini D, Caniato F, Spina G (2014) Designing vendor evaluation systems: an empirical analysis. J Purch Suppl Manag 20(2):113–129Google Scholar
  27. Manshadi ED, Mehregan MR, Safari H (2015) Supplier classification using UTADIS method based on performance criteria. Int J Acad Res Bus Soc Sci 5(2):31–45Google Scholar
  28. Martos B (1964) Hyperbolic programming. Naval Res Logist Q 11(2):135–155Google Scholar
  29. Monczka RM, Handfield R, Guinipero LC, Patterson JL, Walters D (2009) Purchasing and supply chain management. South-Western Cengage Learning, MasonGoogle Scholar
  30. Narasimhan R, Talluri S, Mendez D (2001) Supplier evaluation and rationalization via data envelopment analysis: an empirical examination. J Supply Chain Manag 37(2):28–37Google Scholar
  31. Rezaei J, Ortt R (2012) A multi-variable approach to supplier segmentation. Int J Prod Res 50(16):4593–4611Google Scholar
  32. Rezaei J, Nispeling T, Sarkis J, Tavasszy L (2016) A supplier selection life cycle approach integrating traditional and environmental criteria using the best worst method. J Clean Prod 135:577–588Google Scholar
  33. Roodhooft F, Konings J (1997) Vendor selection and evaluation an activity based costing approach. Eur J Oper Res 96(1):97–102Google Scholar
  34. Roth PL, Switzer FS (1995) A Monte Carlo analysis of missing data techniques in a HRM setting. J Manag 21(5):1003–1023Google Scholar
  35. Sarkar A, Mohapatra PK (2006) Evaluation of supplier capability and performance: a method for supply base reduction. J Purch Suppl Manag 12(3):148–163Google Scholar
  36. Şen CG, Şen S, Başlıgil H (2010) Pre-selection of suppliers through an integrated fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and max-min methodology. Int J Prod Res 48(6):1603–1625Google Scholar
  37. Smirlis YG, Maragos EK, Despotis DK (2006) Data envelopment analysis with missing values: an interval DEA approach. Appl Math Comput 177(1):1–10Google Scholar
  38. van Raaij E (2016) Purchasing value: purchasing and supply management’s contribution to health service performance. Inaugural addresses research in management seriesGoogle Scholar
  39. van Weele A (2009) Purchasing and supply chain management, 5th edn. Cengage, BostonGoogle Scholar
  40. Wan Z, Beil DR (2009) RFQ auctions with supplier qualification screening. Oper Res 57(4):934–949Google Scholar
  41. Weber CA, Desai A (1996) Determination of paths to vendor market efficiency using parallel coordinates representation: a negotiation tool for buyers. Eur J Oper Res 90(1):142–155Google Scholar
  42. Weber CA, Current JR, Benton WC (1991) Vendor selection criteria and methods. Eur J Oper Res 50(1):2–18Google Scholar
  43. Wetzstein A, Hartmann E, Benton WC Jr, Hohenstein NO (2016) A systematic assessment of supplier selection literature—state-of-the-art and future scope. Int J Prod Econ 182:304–323Google Scholar
  44. Yu C, Wong TN (2014) A supplier pre-selection model for multiple products with synergy effect. Int J Prod Res 52(17):5206–5222Google Scholar
  45. Yund W, Ryan JK, Jin Y (2012) Design of two-stage procurement processes with imperfect information on supplier capabilities. In: IIE Annual conference. Proceedings (p 1). Institute of Industrial and System Engineers (IISE)Google Scholar
  46. Zhu Q, Dou Y, Sarkis J (2010) A portfolio-based analysis for green supplier management using the analytical network process. Suppl Chain Manag Int J 15(4):306–319Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Budapest University of Technology and EconomicsBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Budapesti Corvinus EgyetemBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations