A. Descriptions of the criteria
Criteria Description
Material cost (C1) The cost of purchasing the raw materials
After sales service cost (C2) The cost that related to after sales service Support system cost (C3) The cost that related to support system process
Maintenance cost (C4) The costs that related to Maintenance activities
Production cost (C5) Production costs of the supplier
Capability of Handling Abnormal Quality (C6) The power of the supplier to controlling the quality of products and eliminating the low-quality products
Rejection Rate of the Product (C7) The rate of rejection for the supplier’s products (the percentage of defective products)
Information quality (C8) The transparency of information and capability of supplier to information sharing with its partners
Service level (C9) The capability of supplier to satisfy the demand of customer Flexibility in giving Discount (C10) The type and amount of discount given by the supplier
Product volume flexibility (C11) Flexibility of the supplier for changing the quantity (volume) of orders Lead Time flexibility (C12) Flexibility of the supplier for changing the lead time of orders Manufacture flexibility (C13) The capability of the supplier to provide different types of products Future technology development (C14) The capability and motivation of the supplier to utilize or develop the
new/modern technologies.
System reliability (C15) The ability of a supplier to consistently supply an acceptable product at the required time.
IT (C16) The level of information technology of the supplier
Technical Capability Determination (17)
Green certification (C18) The ability of the supplier in collecting green related certification in generating the needed materials
Reuse (C19) The effort of supplier in re-applying the generated goods Hazardous Wastes (C20) The ability of supplier in minimizing the hazardous wastes Green warehousing (C21) The ability of supplier to implement the green warehousing measures Environmental Performance Evaluation (C22) The supplier's ability to comply with the environmental concerns and commit to
environmental issues agreements.
Eco-Labeling (C23) The level of responsibility of the supplier in using eco-labels for the requested goods
Environment-Friendly Raw Materials (C24) The ability of the supplier to use the raw materials with minimum environmental damages
Pollution Control (C25) The ability of the supplier in monitoring and controlling quantity of dangerous materials applied in generating the needed materials
B. Detailed of implementing the FDEMATEL
B-1. The calculations of the FDEMATEL method for criteria of price aspect are given as follows:
Table B.1: The average of opinions of three teams of experts for criteria of price aspect
Material cost After sales service
cost Support system
cost Maintenance
cost Production cost
a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3
Material cost 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0
After sales service
cost 2.0
0 3.0
0 4.0
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 Support system
cost 2.0
0 3.0
0 4.0
0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 Maintenance cost 5.3
3 6.3
3 8.6
7 4.00 5.00 6.00 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 Production cost 8.0
0 9.0
0 9.0
0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0
Table B.2: The normalized fuzzy matrix for criteria of price aspect Material cost After sales service
cost Support system
cost Maintenance
cost Production cost
a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3
Material cost 0.0 0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.0
6 0.0
6 0.0
6 0.0 6 0.0
6 0.0 6 0.0
6 0.0 6 0.0
6 After sales service
cost 0.1
2 0.1 8 0.2
4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
6 0.0
6 0.0
6 0.0 6 0.0
6 0.0 6 0.0
6 0.0 6 0.0
6 Support system
cost 0.1
2 0.1 8 0.2
4 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0 6 0.0
6 0.0 6 0.0
6 0.0 6 0.0
6 Maintenance cost 0.3
2 0.3 8 0.5
2 0.24 0.30 0.36 0.0
6 0.0
6 0.0
6 0.0 0 0.0
0 0.0 0 0.0
6 0.0 6 0.0
6 Production cost 0.4
8 0.5 4 0.5
4 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.0
6 0.0
6 0.0
6 0.0 6 0.0
6 0.0 6 0.0
0 0.0 0 0.0
0
Table B.3: Fuzzy total relation matrix for criteria of price aspect Material cost After sales
service cost Support system
cost Maintenance
cost Production
cost
a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3
Material cost 0.0 9 0.1
1 0.1
4 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.0
8 0.0
8 0.0
8 0.0 8 0.0
8 0.0 8 0.0
8 0.0 8 0.0
8 After sales
service cost 0.2 0 0.2
9 0.3
9 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.0
8 0.0
9 0.1
0 0.0 8 0.0
9 0.1 0 0.0
8 0.0 9 0.1
0 Support system
cost 0.2
0 0.2 9 0.3
9 0.10 0.11 0.13 0.0
3 0.0
4 0.0
4 0.0 8 0.0
9 0.1 0 0.0
8 0.0 9 0.1
0 Maintenance cost 0.4
4 0.5 7 0.8
0 0.29 0.37 0.46 0.1
1 0.1
3 0.1
5 0.0 6 0.0
7 0.0 9 0.1
1 0.1 3 0.1
5 Production cost 0.5
7 0.6 7 0.7
1 0.13 0.15 0.16 0.1
1 0.1
2 0.1
2 0.1 1 0.1
2 0.1 2 0.0
6 0.0 6 0.0
7
Table B.4: The crisp total relation matrix for criteria of price aspect Material
cost After sales service
cost Support system
cost Maintenance
cost Production cost
Material cost 0.1096 0.101 0.083 0.082563 0.083
After sales service
cost 0.2923 0.056 0.092 0.091952 0.092
Support system
cost 0.2923 0.113 0.035 0.091952 0.092
Maintenance cost 0.5839 0.373 0.13 0.072949 0.13
Production cost 0.6585 0.146 0.119 0.119191 0.063
Table B.4: The interrelationships matrix for criteria of price aspect Material
cost After sales service cost Support system cost Maintenance cost Production cost
Material cost 0 0 0 0 0
After sales service cost 1 0 0 0 0
Support system cost 1 0 0 0 0
Maintenance cost 1 1 0 0 0
Production cost 1 0 0 0 0
A-2. The calculations of the FDEMATEL method for criteria of quality aspect are given as follows:
Table B.5: The average of opinions of three teams of experts for criteria of quality aspect
Capability of Handling Abnormal
Quality Rejection Rate of the
Product Information
quality service level
a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3
Capability of Handling Abnormal Quality
0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0
Rejection Rate of
the Product 2.00 3.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 Information
quality 2.00 3.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0
service level 5.33 6.33 8.67 4.00 5.00 6.00 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0
Table B.6: The normalized fuzzy matrix for criteria of quality aspect
Capability of Handling Abnormal
Quality Rejection Rate of the
Product Information
quality service level
a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3
Capability of Handling Abnormal Quality
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.0
6 0.0
6 0.0
6 0.0
6 0.0
6 0.0
6
Rejection Rate of
the Product 0.13 0.19 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
6 0.0
6 0.0
6 0.0
6 0.0
6 0.0
6 Information
quality 0.13 0.19 0.26 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
6 0.0
6 0.0
6
service level 0.34 0.40 0.55 0.26 0.32 0.38 0.0
6 0.0
6 0.0
6 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0
Table B.7: Fuzzy total relation matrix for criteria of quality aspect
Capability of Handling Abnormal
Quality Rejection Rate of the
Product Information
quality service level
a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3
Capability of Handling Abnormal
Quality
0.05 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.0
8 0.0
8 0.0
8 0.0
8 0.0
8 0.0
8 Rejection Rate of
the Product 0.17 0.25 0.35 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.0
8 0.0
9 0.1
0 0.0
8 0.0
9 0.1
0 Information
quality 0.17 0.25 0.35 0.10 0.11 0.13 0.0
2 0.0
3 0.0
4 0.0
8 0.0
9 0.1
0
service level 0.41 0.53 0.76 0.30 0.38 0.47 0.1
1 0.1
3 0.1
5 0.0
5 0.0
7 0.0
9
Table B.8: The crisp total relation matrix for criteria of quality aspect
Capability of Handling
Abnormal Quality Rejection Rate of the
Product Information quality service level
Capability of Handling Abnormal
Quality 0.067666948 0.098647361 0.07952143 0.079521
Rejection Rate of the Product 0.256238926 0.050631324 0.08910479 0.089105
Information quality 0.256238926 0.110631324 0.02910479 0.089105
service level 0.547637675 0.38421268 0.127626161 0.067626
Table B.9: The interrelationships matrix for criteria of quality aspect
Capability of Handling
Abnormal Quality Rejection Rate of the
Product Information quality service level
Capability of Handling Abnormal
Quality 0 0 0 0
Rejection Rate of the Product 1 0 0 0
Information quality 1 0 0 0
service level 1 1 0 0
B-3. The calculations of the FDEMATEL method for criteria of technology aspect are given as follows:
Table B.10: The average of opinions of three teams of experts for criteria of technology aspect
Future technology
development System reliability/ IT Technical Capability Determination
a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3
Future technology
development 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 1.
00 1.
00 1.
00 1.00 1.00 1.00
System reliability/ 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.
00 1.
00 1.
00 6.00 7.00 8.00
IT 4.00 5.00 6.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 0.
00 0.
00 0.
00 4.00 5.00 6.00
Technical Capability
Determination 1.00 1.00 1.00 8.00 9.00 9.00 1.
00 1.
00 1.
00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Table B.11: The normalized fuzzy matrix for criteria of technology aspect
Future technology
development System reliability/ IT Technical Capability Determination
a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3
Future technology
development 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.22 0.28 0.33 0.
06 0.
06 0.
06 0.06 0.06 0.06
System reliability/ 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.
06 0.
06 0.
06 0.33 0.39 0.44
IT 0.22 0.28 0.33 0.22 0.28 0.33 0.
00 0.
00 0.
00 0.22 0.28 0.33
Technical Capability
Determination 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.44 0.50 0.50 0.
06 0.
06 0.
06 0.00 0.00 0.00
Table B.12: Fuzzy total relation matrix for criteria of technology aspect
Future technology
development System reliability/ IT Technical Capability
Determination Future technology
development 0.11 0.13 0.16 0.36 0.49 0.62 0.0
9 0.1
1 0.1
2 0.20 0.28 0.38
System reliability/ 0.12 0.15 0.17 0.25 0.36 0.45 0.1
0 0.1
2 0.1
3 0.45 0.57 0.70
IT 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.49 0.72 0.96 0.0
7 0.1
0 0.1
3 0.42 0.61 0.83
Technical Capability
Determination 0.13 0.16 0.18 0.60 0.75 0.81 0.1
1 0.1
2 0.1
3 0.23 0.33 0.42
Table B.13: The crisp total relation matrix for criteria of technology aspect Future technology
development System reliability/ IT Technical
Capability Determination
Future technology development 0.135478856 0.485585692 0.105834074 0.283949
System reliability/ 0.147172665 0.3537417 0.114977562 0.568682
IT 0.401415855 0.720528473 0.096326186 0.611927
Technical Capability Determination 0.157827523 0.732324624 0.123341222 0.32999
Table B.14: The interrelationships matrix for criteria of technology aspect
Future technology
development System reliability/ IT Technical
Capability Determination
Future technology development 0 0 0 0
System reliability/ 0 0 0 1
IT 1 1 0 1
Technical Capability Determination 0 1 0 0
B-4. The calculations of the FDEMATEL method for criteria of flexibility aspect are given as
follows:
Table B.15: The average of opinions of three teams of experts for criteria of flexibility aspect
Flexibility in Giving Discount Product volume
flexibility Lead Time
flexibility Manufacture flexibility
a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3
Flexibility in Giving
Discount 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.00 1.00 Product volume
flexibility 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.00 1.00 Lead Time flexibility 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 1.0
0 1.00 1.00 Manufacture flexibility 1.00 1.00 1.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 4.0
0 5.0
0 6.0
0 0.0
0 0.00 0.00
Table B.16: The normalized fuzzy matrix for criteria of flexibility aspect
Flexibility in Giving
Discount Product volume
flexibility Lead Time
flexibility Manufacture flexibility
a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3
Flexibility in Giving
Discount 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.0
7 0.0
7 0.0
7 0.07 0.07 0.07 Product volume
flexibility 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
7 0.0
7 0.0
7 0.07 0.07 0.07 Lead Time flexibility 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.07 0.07 0.07 Manufacture flexibility 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.40 0.47 0.53 0.2
7 0.3
3 0.4
0 0.00 0.00 0.00
Table B.17: Fuzzy total relation matrix for criteria of flexibility aspect
Flexibility in Giving
Discount Product volume
flexibility Lead Time
flexibility Manufacture flexibility
a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3
Flexibility in Giving
Discount 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.09 0.09 0.09
Product volume
flexibility 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.08 0.08 0.08
Lead Time flexibility 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.08 Manufacture flexibility 0.13 0.14 0.16 0.45 0.54 0.62 0.32 0.40 0.49 0.06 0.07 0.08
Table B.18: The crisp total relation matrix for criteria of flexibility aspect Flexibility in Giving
Discount Product volume
flexibility Lead Time
flexibility Manufacture flexibility
Future technology development 0.094329561 0.121617066 0.110562821 0.088434
System reliability/ 0.088433963 0.051516 0.103652645 0.082907
IT 0.088433963 0.114016 0.041152645 0.082907 Technical Capability Determination 0.143745924 0.537106929 0.403074203 0.072262
Table B.19: The interrelationships matrix for criteria of flexibility aspect Flexibility in
Giving Discount Product volume
flexibility Lead Time
flexibility Manufacture flexibility
Flexibility in Giving Discount 0 0 0 0
Product volume flexibility 0 0 0 0
Lead Time flexibility 0 0 0 0
Manufacture flexibility 0 1 1 0
A-5. The calculations of the FDEMATEL method for criteria of green aspect are given as follows:
Table B.20: The average of opinions of three teams of experts for criteria of green aspect
Green
certification Reuse Hazardous
Wastes Green
warehousing
Environmental Performance
Evaluation Eco-Labeling Environment- Friendly Raw
Materials Pollution Control
a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3
Green
certification
0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Reuse
5.33 6.33 7.33 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.00 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.00 1.0
0 6.0
0 7.0
0 8.00 1.00 1.0
0 1.00 1.00 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hazardous
Wastes
4.00 5.00 6.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 3.33 4.33 5.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Green
warehousing
4.00 5.00 6.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Environmental
Performance Evaluation
8.0
0 9.00 9.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.00 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.00 1.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.00 4.00 5.0
0 6.00 1.00 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.00 1.00 1.00
Eco-Labeling
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.00 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.00 1.0
0 2.0
0 3.0
0 4.00 0.00 0.0
0 0.00 1.00 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.00 1.00 1.00
Environment- Friendly Raw Materials
4.0
0 5.00 6.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.00 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.00 1.0
0 2.0
0 3.0
0 4.00 1.00 1.0
0 1.00 0.00 0.0
0 0.0
0 1.00 1.00 1.00
Pollution
Control
6.00 7.00 8.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 1.00 1.00 8.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Table B.21: The normalized fuzzy matrix for criteria of green aspect
Green certification Reuse Hazardous Wastes Green warehousing Environmental Performance
Evaluation Eco-Labeling Environment- Friendly Raw
Materials Pollution Control
a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3
Green certification 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
3 0.0
3 0.0
3 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.0
3 0.0
3 0.0
3 0.0
3 0.0
3 0.03 0.0
3 0.0
3 0.03 0.03 0.0
3 0.03 0.03 0.0
3 0.03
Reuse 0.1
6 0.1
9 0.2
2 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.0
3 0.0
3 0.0
3 0.1
8 0.2
1 0.24 0.0
3 0.0
3 0.03 0.03 0.0
3 0.03 0.03 0.0
3 0.03 Hazardous
Wastes 0.1
2 0.1
5 0.1
8 0.0
3 0.0
3 0.0
3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
3 0.0
3 0.0
3 0.1
2 0.1
5 0.18 0.1
0 0.1
3 0.16 0.03 0.0
3 0.03 0.03 0.0
3 0.03 Green
warehousing 0.1
2 0.1
5 0.1
8 0.0
3 0.0
3 0.0
3 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.1
2 0.1
5 0.18 0.0
3 0.0
3 0.03 0.03 0.0
3 0.03 0.03 0.0
3 0.03 Environmental
Performance Evaluation
0.2
4 0.2
7 0.2
7 0.0
3 0.0
3 0.0
3 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.0
3 0.0
3 0.0
3 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.00 0.1
2 0.1
5 0.18 0.03 0.0
3 0.03 0.03 0.0
3 0.03 Eco-Labeling 0.0
3 0.0
3 0.0
3 0.0
3 0.0
3 0.0
3 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.0
3 0.0
3 0.0
3 0.0
6 0.0
9 0.12 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.00 0.03 0.0
3 0.03 0.03 0.0
3 0.03
Environment- Friendly Raw Materials
0.12 0.1
5 0.1
8 0.0
3 0.0
3 0.0
3 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.0
3 0.0
3 0.0
3 0.0
6 0.0
9 0.12 0.0
3 0.0
3 0.03 0.00 0.0
0 0.00 0.03 0.0
3 0.03 Pollution
Control 0.1
8 0.2
1 0.2
4 0.0
3 0.0
3 0.0
3 0.18 0.21 0.24 0.0
3 0.0
3 0.2
4 0.1
2 0.1
5 0.18 0.0
3 0.0
3 0.03 0.03 0.0
3 0.03 0.00 0.0
0 0.00
Table A.22: Fuzzy total relation matrix for criteria of green aspect
Green
certification Reuse Hazardous
Wastes Green
warehousing
Environmental Performance
Evaluation Eco-Labeling Environment- Friendly Raw
Materials Pollution Control Green
certification 0.0
4 0.0
6 0.0
7 0.0
4 0.0
4 0.0
4 0.0
5 0.0
5 0.0
5 0.0
4 0.0
4 0.0
5 0.0
6 0.0
7 0.0
8 0.0
5 0.0
5 0.0
6 0.0
4 0.0
4 0.0
4 0.0
4 0.0
4 0.0
4
Reuse 0.2
5 0.3
1 0.3
8 0.0
2 0.0
3 0.0
3 0.0
6 0.0
7 0.0
8 0.0
5 0.0
6 0.0
8 0.2
2 0.2
7 0.3
2 0.0
8 0.1
0 0.1
2 0.0
5 0.0
6 0.0
6 0.0
5 0.0
6 0.0
6 Hazardous
Wastes 0.2
0 0.2
6 0.3
3 0.0
5 0.0
6 0.0
6 0.0
3 0.0
4 0.0
5 0.0
5 0.0
6 0.0
8 0.1
6 0.2
2 0.2
8 0.1
4 0.1
8 0.2
4 0.0
5 0.0
6 0.0
6 0.0
5 0.0
6 0.0
6 Green
warehousing 0.1
9 0.2
5 0.3
1 0.0
5 0.0
5 0.0
6 0.0
6 0.0
6 0.0
7 0.0
2 0.0
2 0.0
4 0.1
6 0.2
0 0.2
5 0.0
7 0.0
8 0.1
0 0.0
5 0.0
5 0.0
6 0.0
5 0.0
5 0.0
6 Environment
Performanceal Evaluation
0.30 0.3
5 0.3
7 0.0
5 0.0
6 0.0
6 0.0
6 0.0
7 0.0
7 0.0
5 0.0
6 0.0
7 0.0
5 0.0
7 0.1
0 0.1
5 0.1
9 0.2
3 0.0
5 0.0
6 0.0
6 0.0
5 0.0
6 0.0
6 Eco-Labeling 0.0
8 0.1
1 0.1
3 0.0
4 0.0
4 0.0
5 0.0
5 0.0
5 0.0
6 0.0
4 0.0
4 0.0
6 0.0
9 0.1
3 0.1
8 0.0
2 0.0
4 0.0
5 0.0
4 0.0
4 0.0
5 0.0
4 0.0
4 0.0
5 Environment
-Friendly Raw Materials
0.18 0.2
3 0.2
9 0.0
5 0.0
5 0.0
5 0.0
5 0.0
6 0.0
6 0.0
5 0.0
5 0.0
6 0.1
0 0.1
4 0.1
9 0.0
6 0.0
7 0.0
9 0.0
2 0.0
2 0.0
2 0.0
5 0.0
5 0.0
5 Pollution
Control 0.2
8 0.3
6 0.5
1 0.0
6 0.0
6 0.0
8 0.2
1 0.2
5 0.3
0 0.0
6 0.0
6 0.3
0 0.1
9 0.2
5 0.3
7 0.0
9 0.1
2 0.1
8 0.0
6 0.0
6 0.0
8 0.0
3 0.0
4 0.0
6
Table B.23: The crisp total relation matrix for criteria of green aspect
Green
certification Reu
se Hazardous
Wastes Green
warehousing
Environme ntal Performanc
e Evaluation
Eco- Labeling
Environme nt-Friendly
Raw Materials
Pollution Control
Green
certification 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.04
Reuse 0.31 0.03 0.07 0.06 0.27 0.10 0.06 0.06
Hazardous
Wastes 0.26 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.22 0.18 0.06 0.06
Green
warehousing 0.25 0.05 0.06 0.02 0.20 0.08 0.05 0.05
Environmental Performance
Evaluation 0.34 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.19 0.06 0.06
Eco-Labeling 0.11 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.13 0.04 0.04 0.04
Environment- Friendly Raw
Materials 0.23 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.14 0.07 0.02 0.05
Pollution
Control 0.37 0.07 0.25 0.10 0.26 0.12 0.07 0.04
Table B.24: The interrelationships matrix for criteria of green aspect
Green
certification Reu
se Hazardous
Wastes Green
warehousing
Environme ntal Performan
ce Evaluation
Eco- Labeling
Environm ent- Friendly
Raw Materials
Pollution Control Green
certification 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reuse 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Hazardous 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
Wastes Green
warehousing 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Environmental Performance
Evaluation 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Eco-Labeling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Environment- Friendly Raw
Materials 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pollution
Control 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
C. The collected data for FBWM
Table C.1: Best-to-Other comparisons for the criteria of price aspect
Expert Material cost After sales
service cost Support system
cost Maintenance
cost Production cost 1 Material
cost (Best criterion
)
1 1 1 1.5 2 2.5 3.5 4 4.5 2.5 3 3.5 1.5 2 2.5
2 1 1 1 1.5 2 2.5 3.5 4 4.5 2.5 3 3.5 0.6
7 1 1.5
3 1 1 1 2.5 3 3.5 3.5 4 4.5 2.5 3 3.5 1.5 2 2.5
Averag
e 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.8
3 2.3
3 2.8
3 3.5
0 4.0
0 4.5
0 2.5
0 3.0
0 3.5
0 1.2
2 1.6
7 2.1
7
Table C.2: Other-to-Worst comparisons for the criteria of price aspect Support system cost (Worst
criterion) Expert
1 2 3 Average
Criteria
Material cost
3.5 3.5 3.5 3.50
4 4 4 4.00
4.5 4.5 4.5 4.50
After sales service cost
1.5 1.5 2.5 1.83
2 2 3 2.33
2.5 2.5 3.5 2.83
Support system cost
1 1 1 1.00
1 1 1 1.00
1 1 1 1.00
Maintenance cost 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.50
2 2 2 2.00
2.5 2.5 2.5 2.50
Production cost
2.5 2.5 2.5 2.50
3 3 3 3.00
3.5 3.5 3.5 3.50
Table C.3: Best-to-Other comparisons for the criteria of quality aspect
Expert Capability of
Handling Abnormal
Rejection Rate of
the Product Information
quality Service level
Quality
1 Service
level (Best criterion
)
0.67 1 1.5 1.5 2 2.5 2.5 3 3.5 1 1 1
2 1.5 2 2.5 1.5 2 2.5 2.5 3 3.5 1 1 1
3 0.67 1 1.5 0.66
7 1 1.5 2.5 3 3.5 1 1 1
Averag
e 0.9
4 1.3
3 1.8
3 1.22 1.6
7 2.1
7 2.5
0 3.0
0 3.5
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0
Table C.4: Other-to-Worst comparisons for the criteria of quality aspect Information quality (Worst criterion)
Expert
1 2 3 Average
Criteria
Capability of Handling Abnormal Quality
2.5 1.5 2.5 2.17
3 2 3 2.67
3.5 2.5 3.5 3.17
Rejection Rate of the Product
1.5 2.5 2.5 2.17
2 3 3 2.67
2.5 3.5 3.5 3.17
Information quality
1 1 1 1.00
1 1 1 1.00
1 1 1 1.00
Service level
2.5 2.5 2.5 2.50
3 3 3 3.00
3.5 3.5 3.5 3.50
Table C.5: Best-to-Other comparisons for the criteria of flexibility aspect
Expert Flexibility in
Giving Discount Product volume
flexibility Lead Time
flexibility Manufacture flexibility 1
Manufactur e flexibility
(Best criterion)
2.5 3 3.5 1.5 2 2.5 1.5 2 2.5 1 1 1
2 2.5 3 3.5 1.5 2 2.5 1.5 2 2.5 1 1 1
3 2.5 3 3.5 0.66
7 1 1.5 0.67 1 1.5 1 1 1
Averag
e 2.5
0 3.0
0 3.5
0 1.22 1.6
7 2.1
7 1.2
2 1.6
7 2.1
7 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0
Table C.6: Other-to-Worst comparisons for the criteria of flexibility aspect Flexibility in Giving Discount (Worst
criterion)
Expert 1 2 3 Average
Criteria
Flexibility in Giving Discount
1 1 1 1.00
1 1 1 1.00
1 1 1 1.00
Product volume
flexibility 2.5 1.5 1.5 1.83
3 2 2 2.33
3.5 2.5 2.5 2.83 Lead Time flexibility
2.5 1.5 1.5 1.83
3 2 2 2.33
3.5 2.5 2.5 2.83
Manufacture flexibility
2.5 2.5 2.5 2.50
3 3 3 3.00
3.5 3.5 3.5 3.50
Table C.7: Best-to-Other comparisons for the criteria of technology aspect
Expert Future
technology development
System
reliability/ IT Technical
Capability Determination 1
System reliability
/ (Best criterion)
1.5 2 2.5 1 1 1 0.67 1 1.5 1.5 2 2.5
2 1.5 2 2.5 1 1 1 0.67 1 1.5 0.66
7 1 1.5
3 1.5 2 2.5 1 1 1 0.67 1 1.5 0.66
7 1 1.5
Average 1.5
0 2.0
0 2.5
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 1.0
0 0.6
7 1.0
0 1.5
0 0.94 1.3
3 1.83
Table C.8: Other-to-Worst comparisons for the criteria of technology aspect Future technology
development (Worst criterion) Expert
1 2 3 Average
Criteria
Future technology development
1 1 1 1.00
1 1 1 1.00
1 1 1 1.00
System reliability/
1.5 1.5 1.5 1.50
2 2 2 2.00
2.5 2.5 2.5 2.50
IT
1.5 1.5 1.5 1.50
2 2 2 2.00
2.5 2.5 2.5 2.50
Technical Capability Determination
0.667 0.67 1.5 0.94
1 1 2 1.33
1.5 1.5 2.5 1.83
Table C.9: Best-to-Other comparisons for the criteria of green aspect
Expert Green
certification Reuse Hazardous
Wastes Green
warehousing
Environmenta l Performance
Evaluation Eco-Labeling Environment- Friendly Raw Materials
Pollution Control
1 Environ mental Perform
ance Evaluati on (Best
1.5 2 2.
5 1.
5 2 2.
5 1.
5 2 2.
5 2.
5 3 3.
5 1 1 1 2.
5 3 3.
5 1.
5 2 2.
5 1.
5 2 2.
5
2 1.
5 2 2.
5 1.
5 2 2.
5 1.
5 2 2.
5 2.
5 3 3.
5 1 1 1 2.
5 3 3.
5 1.
5 2 2.
5 1.
5 2 2.
5
3 1.
5 2 2.
5 1.
5 2 2.
5 1.
5 2 2.
5 2.
5 3 3.
5 1 1 1 1.
5 2 2.
5 2.
5 3 3.
5 2.
5 3 3.
5
criterio n) Average
1.5 0
2.0 0
2.5 0
1.5 0
2.0 0
2.5 0
1.5 0
2.0 0
2.5 0
2.5 0
3.0 0
3.5 0
1.0 0
1.0 0
1.0 0
2.1 7
2.6 7
3.1 7
1.8 3
2.3 3
2.8 3
1.8 3
2.3 3
2.8 3
Table C.10: Other-to-Worst comparisons for the criteria of technology aspect Green warehousing (Worst criterion)
Expert
1 2 3 Average
Criteria
Green certification
2.5 2.5 1.5 2.17
3 3 2 2.67
3.5 3.5 2.5 3.17
Reuse
2.5 2.5 1.5 2.17
3 3 2 2.67
3.5 3.5 2.5 3.17
Hazardous Wastes
2.5 2.5 1.5 2.17
3 3 2 2.67
3.5 3.5 2.5 3.17
Green warehousing
1 1 1 1.00
1 1 1 1.00
1 1 1 1.00
Environmental Performance Evaluation
2.5 2.5 2.5 2.50
3 3 3 3.00
3.5 3.5 3.5 3.50
Eco-Labeling 1.5 1.5 2.5 1.83
2 2 3 2.33
2.5 2.5 3.5 2.83
Environment-Friendly Raw Materials
2.5 2.5 1.5 2.17
3 3 2 2.67
3.5 3.5 2.5 3.17
Pollution Control 2.5 2.5 1.5 2.17
3 3 2 2.67
3.5 3.5 2.5 3.17
D. Decision tree in SuperDecision software
E. Calculations of the VIKOR method
Table E.1: The experts’ opinion for FVIKOR
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14
a 1
a 2
a 3
a 1
a 2
a 3
a 1
a 2
a 3
a 1
a 2
a 3
a 1
a 2
a 3
a 1
a 2
a
3 a1 a
2 a 3
a 1
a 2
a 3
a 1
a 2
a 3
a 1
a 2
a 3
a 1
a 2
a 3
a 1
a 2
a 3
a 1
a 2
a 3
a 1
a 2
a 3 A
1 1 3 5 1 3 5 3 5 7 1 3 5 1 3 5 6 8 9 0.6
7 1 1.
5 7 9 1
0 7 9 1
0 3 5 7 7 9 1
0 6 8 9 7 9 1
0 7 9 1
0 A
2 3 5 7 3 5 7 6 8 9 6 8 9 6 8 9 6 8 9 1 3 5 6 8 9 7 9 1
0 6 8 9 6 8 9 6 8 9 6 8 9 6 8 9
A
3 1 3 5 3 5 7 3 5 7 3 5 7 6 8 9 7 9 1
0 1 3 5 3 5 7 6 8 9 3 5 7 3 5 7 3 5 7 3 5 7 3 5 7
A
4 3 5 7 3 5 7 6 8 9 6 8 9 3 5 7 6 8 9 1 3 5 3 5 7 6 8 9 6 8 9 3 5 7 3 5 7 3 5 7 6 8 9
A
5 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 3 5 7 7 9 1
0 0.6
7 1 1.
5 6 8 9 7 9 1
0 3 5 7 6 8 9 7 9 1
0 6 8 9 7 9 1
0
Table E.1: The experts’ opinion for FVIKOR
C15 C16 C17 C18 C19 C20 C21 C22 C23 C24 C25
a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3 a1 a2 a3
A1
6 8 9 7 9 10 7 9 10 7 9 10 7 9 10 3 5 7 6 8 9 7 9 10 6 8 9 7 9 10 7 9 10
A2
6 8 9 3 5 7 6 8 9 7 9 10 6 8 9 6 8 9 3 5 7 6 8 9 6 8 9 6 8 9 6 8 9
A3
1 3 5 3 5 7 3 5 7 3 5 7 6 8 9 6 8 9 3 5 7 3 5 7 3 5 7 6 8 9 3 5 7
A4
3 5 7 3 5 7 3 5 7 6 8 9 3 5 7 6 8 9 6 8 9 6 8 9 3 5 7 3 5 7 6 8 9
A5
7 9 10 6 8 9 7 9 10 6 8 9 7 9 10 3 5 7 7 9 10 7 9 10 7 9 10 7 9 10 7 9 10
Table E.2: The normalized decision matrix
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8
A1 -0.7 0 0.67 -0.7 0 0.67 -0.3 0.25 0.75 -0.5 0 0.5 -0.5 0 0.5 -0.5 0.25 1 -0.2 0 0.19 -0.4 0 0.43
A2 -0.3 0.33 1 -0.3 0.33 1 0.13 0.63 1 0.13 0.63 1 0.13 0.63 1 -0.5 0.25 1 -0.1 0.46 1 -0.3 0.14 0.57
A3 -0.7 0 0.67 -0.3 0.33 1 -0.3 0.25 0.75 -0.3 0.25 0.75 0.13 0.63 1 -0.8 0 0.75 -0.1 0.46 1 0 0.57 1
A4 -0.3 0.33 1 -0.3 0.33 1 0.13 0.63 1 0.13 0.63 1 -0.3 0.25 0.75 -0.5 0.25 1 -0.1 0.46 1 0 0.57 1
A5 -0.7 0 0.67 -0.7 0 0.67 -0.5 0 0.5 -0.5 0 0.5 -0.3 0.25 0.75 -0.8 0 0.75 -0.2 0 0.19 -0.3 0.14 0.57
Table E.2: The normalized decision matrix
C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 C18
A1 -
0.8 0 0.75 -0.2 0.5 1 -
0.4 0 0.43 -
0.3 0.14 0.57 -
0.4 0 0.43 -
0.4 0 0.43 -0.2 0.11 0.44 -
0.4 0 0.43 -
0.4 0 0.43 -
0.4 0 0.43
A2 -
0.8 0 0.75 -0.5 0 0.5 -
0.3 0.14 0.57 -
0.3 0.14 0.57 -
0.3 0.14 0.57 -
0.3 0.14 0.57 -0.2 0.11 0.44 0 0.57 1 -
0.3 0.14 0.57 -
0.4 0 0.43
A3 -
0.5 0.25 1 -0.2 0.5 1 0 0.57 1 0 0.57 1 0 0.57 1 0 0.57 1 0.22 0.67 1 0 0.57 1 0 0.57 1 0 0.57 1
A4 -
0.5 0.25 1 -0.5 0 0.5 0 0.57 1 0 0.57 1 0 0.57 1 -
0.3 0.14 0.57 0 0.44 0.78 0 0.57 1 0 0.57 1 -
0.3 0.14 0.57
A5 -
0.8 0 0.75 -0.2 0.5 1 -
0.3 0.14 0.57 -
0.4 0 0.43 -
0.3 0.14 0.57 -
0.4 0 0.43 -0.3 0 0.33 -
0.3 0.14 0.57 -
0.4 0 0.43 -
0.3 0.14 0.57
Table E.2: The normalized decision matrix
C19 C20 C21 C22 C23 C24 C25
A1 -0.4 0 0.43 -0.7 0 0.67 -0.3 0.14 0.57 -0.4 0 0.43 -0.3 0.14 0.57 -0.4 0 0.43 -0.4 0 0.43
A2 -0.3 0.14 0.57 -0.2 0.5 1 0 0.57 1 -0.3 0.14 0.57 -0.3 0.14 0.57 -0.3 0.14 0.57 -0.3 0.14 0.57
A3 -0.3 0.14 0.57 -0.2 0.5 1 0 0.57 1 0 0.57 1 0 0.57 1 -0.3 0.14 0.57 0 0.57 1
A4 0 0.57 1 -0.2 0.5 1 -0.3 0.14 0.57 -0.3 0.14 0.57 0 0.57 1 0 0.57 1 -0.3 0.14 0.57
A5 -0.4 0 0.43 -0.7 0 0.67 -0.4 0 0.43 -0.4 0 0.43 -0.4 0 0.43 -0.4 0 0.43 -0.4 0 0.43
