Volume 13, Issue 3 (Summer 2024)
Arch Hyg Sci 2024, 13(3): 129-138 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Asadi-Ghalhari M, Karimi B, Soltanzadeh A, Namdari S. Development and Evaluation of Green Industry Indicators for the Effective Implementation of Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM). Arch Hyg Sci 2024; 13 (3) :129-138
URL: http://jhygiene.muq.ac.ir/article-1-742-en.html
URL: http://jhygiene.muq.ac.ir/article-1-742-en.html
1- Research Center for Environmental Pollutants, Qom University of Medical Sciences, Qom, Iran
2- Department of Environmental Health Engineering, Arak University of Medical Sciences, Arak, Iran
3- Department of Occupational Health & Safety Engineering, Research Center for Environmental Pollutants, Faculty of Health, Qom University of Medical Sciences, Qom, Iran
4- Department of Environmental Health Engineering, Faculty of Health, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, Iran
2- Department of Environmental Health Engineering, Arak University of Medical Sciences, Arak, Iran
3- Department of Occupational Health & Safety Engineering, Research Center for Environmental Pollutants, Faculty of Health, Qom University of Medical Sciences, Qom, Iran
4- Department of Environmental Health Engineering, Faculty of Health, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, Iran
Abstract: (271 Views)
Background & Aims: This study develops an integrated evaluation framework for assessing the performance of green industries using the Fuzzy Delphi Technique (FDT) and Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP). As industrial sectors increasingly prioritize sustainability, establishing green industry standards is crucial for achieving long-term environmental goals.
Materials and Methods: This applied, descriptive-analytical research involved a panel of experts in environmental health and green industries who were selected via snowball sampling. Data were collected through literature review, surveys, and expert interviews using the FDT and FAHP methods.
Results: The evaluation framework consists of 12 main indicators, including public health protection, personnel health protection, ecosystem preservation, water management, sewage management, waste management, air pollution control, energy consumption management, raw material consumption, noise pollution, accident-related pollution prevention, and investment management for pollution control. These indicators were refined and validated based on expert feedback, and additional suggestions were incorporated. The FDT identified the most critical indicators, while the FAHP methodology was employed to prioritize and weigh these indicators using triangular fuzzy numbers to account for uncertainty in decision-making.
Conclusion: According to the research findings, air pollution prevention and water management were identified as the highest-priority indicators. Furthermore, 122 sub-indices related to these indicators were validated, with acceptable consistency ratios in pairwise comparisons confirming the reliability of the framework. This integrated evaluation tool offers a robust and reliable method for assessing green industry performance, providing valuable insights for policymakers and industry leaders to drive sustainable development and green industry standards.
Materials and Methods: This applied, descriptive-analytical research involved a panel of experts in environmental health and green industries who were selected via snowball sampling. Data were collected through literature review, surveys, and expert interviews using the FDT and FAHP methods.
Results: The evaluation framework consists of 12 main indicators, including public health protection, personnel health protection, ecosystem preservation, water management, sewage management, waste management, air pollution control, energy consumption management, raw material consumption, noise pollution, accident-related pollution prevention, and investment management for pollution control. These indicators were refined and validated based on expert feedback, and additional suggestions were incorporated. The FDT identified the most critical indicators, while the FAHP methodology was employed to prioritize and weigh these indicators using triangular fuzzy numbers to account for uncertainty in decision-making.
Conclusion: According to the research findings, air pollution prevention and water management were identified as the highest-priority indicators. Furthermore, 122 sub-indices related to these indicators were validated, with acceptable consistency ratios in pairwise comparisons confirming the reliability of the framework. This integrated evaluation tool offers a robust and reliable method for assessing green industry performance, providing valuable insights for policymakers and industry leaders to drive sustainable development and green industry standards.
Keywords: Air pollution, Controlled, Environment, Fuzzy delphi technique, Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process, Green industry, Green supply chain management (GSCM), Indoor prevention and control
Type of Study: Original Article |
Subject:
Environmental Health
Received: 2025/07/14 | Accepted: 2025/07/19 | Published: 2024/10/3
Received: 2025/07/14 | Accepted: 2025/07/19 | Published: 2024/10/3
References
1. Kainuma M, Pandey R, Masui T, Nishioka S. Methodologies for leapfrogging to low carbon and sustainable development in Asia. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy. 2017;9(2). doi: 10.1063/1.4978469 [DOI:10.1063/1.4978469]
2. Faghani Kondori P, Mostafaeipour A, Sadegheih A, Zare Mehrjardi Y, Vahdatzad MA. A new model for developing sustainable green industries: A case study of Mashhad, Iran. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy. 2021;13(2). doi: 10.1063/5.0044113 [DOI:10.1063/5.0044113]
3. Lütkenhorst W, Altenburg T, Pegels A, Vidican G. Green industrial policy: Managing transformation under uncertainty. Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik Discussion Paper. 2014; 13(28).
4. OECD. Putting green growth at the heart of development. OECD Green Growth Studies. 2013. Link
5. Fearnside PM. Environmental and social impacts of hydroelectric dams in Brazilian Amazonia: Implications for the aluminum industry. World development. 2016;77:48-65. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.08.015 [DOI:10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.08.015]
6. Okereke C, Coke A, Geebreyesus M, Ginbo T, Wakeford JJ, Mulugetta Y. Governing green industrialisation in Africa: Assessing key parameters for a sustainable socio-technical transition in the context of Ethiopia. World Development. 2019;115(2):279-90. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.11.019 [DOI:10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.11.019]
7. Kainuma Y, Tawara N. A multiple attribute utility theory approach to lean and green supply chain management. International journal of production economics. 2006;101(1):99-108. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2005.05.010 [DOI:10.1016/j.ijpe.2005.05.010]
8. Shapira P, Gök A, Klochikhin E, Sensier M. Probing "green" industry enterprises in the UK: A new identification approach. Technological forecasting and social change. 2014;85:93-104. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2013.10.023 [DOI:10.1016/j.techfore.2013.10.023]
9. Cheng X, Long R, Chen H, Li W. Green competitiveness evaluation of provinces in China based on correlation analysis and fuzzy rough set. Ecological Indicators. 2018;85:841-52. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.11.045 [DOI:10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.11.045]
10. Xiang SJ, Zheng RK. Study on the green economy development index in China. Stat Res. 2013;30(3):72-7. Link
11. Novák V, Perfilieva I, Mockor J. Mathematical principles of fuzzy logic. 2012; (517). Link
12. Mohammadfam I, Aliabadi MM, Soltanian AR, Tabibzadeh M, Mahdinia M. Investigating interactions among vital variables affecting situation awareness based on Fuzzy DEMATEL method. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 2019;74:102842. doi: 10.1016/j.ergon.2019.102842 [DOI:10.1016/j.ergon.2019.102842]
13. Boulkedid R, Abdoul H, Loustau M, Sibony O, Alberti C. Using and reporting the Delphi method for selecting healthcare quality indicators: a systematic review. PloS one. 2011;6(6):e20476. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020476 [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0020476]
14. Hsu C, Sandford BA. Delphi technique. encyclopedia of research design. Ed. Neil J. Salkind. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Reference Online. 2010. Doi: 10.4135/9781412961288.n107 [DOI:10.4135/9781412961288.n107]
15. Pomerol JC, Barba-Romero S. Multicriterion decision in management: principles and practice. Springer Science & Business Media; 2000. Link [DOI:10.1007/978-1-4615-4459-3]
16. Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z. Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods in economics: an overview. Technological and economic development of economy. 2011;17(2):397-427. doi: 10.3846/20294913.2011.593291 [DOI:10.3846/20294913.2011.593291]
17. Sachdeva M, Lehal R, Gupta S, Gupta S. Influence of contextual factors on investment decision-making: a fuzzy-AHP approach. Journal of Asia Business Studies. 2023;17(1):108-28. doi:10.1108/JABS-09-2021-0376 [DOI:10.1108/JABS-09-2021-0376]
18. Büyüközkan G, Feyzioğlu O, Nebol E. Selection of the strategic alliance partner in logistics value chain. International Journal of Production Economics. 2008;113(1):148-58. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2007.01.016 [DOI:10.1016/j.ijpe.2007.01.016]
19. Zadeh LA. Fuzzy sets. Information and control. 1965;8(3):338-53. doi: 10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X [DOI:10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X]
20. Saaty TL. Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the analytic hierarchy process. European journal of operational research. 1994; 74(3):426-47. Link [DOI:10.1016/0377-2217(94)90222-4]
21. Karakuş CB. Evaluation of groundwater quality in Sivas province (Turkey) using water quality index and GIS-based analytic hierarchy process. International journal of environmental health research. 2019;29(5):500-19. doi:10.1080/09603123.2018.1551521 [DOI:10.1080/09603123.2018.1551521]
22. Larimian T, Zarabadi ZS, Sadeghi A. Developing a fuzzy AHP model to evaluate environmental sustainability from the perspective of Secured by Design scheme-A case study. Sustainable Cities and Society. 2013;7:25-36. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2012.10.001 [DOI:10.1016/j.scs.2012.10.001]
23. Petković J, Ševarac Z, Levi Jakšić M, Marinković S. Application of fuzzy AHP method for choosing a technology within service company. Technics Technologies Education Management/TTEM. 2012;7(1):332-41. Link
24. Fan Z-P, Hu G-F, Xiao S-H. A method for multiple attribute decision-making with the fuzzy preference relation on alternatives. Computers & Industrial Engineering. 2004;46(2):321-7. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2003.12.011 [DOI:10.1016/j.cie.2003.12.011]
25. Bellman RE, Zadeh LA. Decision-making in a fuzzy environment. Management science.1970;17(4):B-141- 64. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.17.4.B141 [DOI:10.1287/mnsc.17.4.B141]
26. Renigier-Bilozor M, Janowski A, Walacik M. Geoscience methods in real estate market analyses subjectivity decrease. Geosciences. 2019;9(3):130. doi:10.3390/geosciences9030130 [DOI:10.3390/geosciences9030130]
27. Lermontov A, Yokoyama L, Lermontov M, Machado MA. River quality analysis using fuzzy water quality index: Ribeira do Iguape river watershed, Brazil. Ecological Indicators. 2009;9(6):1188-97. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.02.006 [DOI:10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.02.006]
28. Casillas J, López FJ, editors. Marketing intelligent systems using soft computing: Managerial and research applications.2010. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-15606-9 [DOI:10.1007/978-3-642-15606-9]
29. Kahraman C, Kaya I. A fuzzy multicriteria methodology for selection among energy alternatives. Expert systems with applications.2010;37(9):6270-81. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2010.02.095 [DOI:10.1016/j.eswa.2010.02.095]
30. Chang D-Y. Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European journal of operational research. 1996;95(3):649-55. doi: 10.1016/0377-2217(95)00300-2 [DOI:10.1016/0377-2217(95)00300-2]
31. Buckley JJ. Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy sets and systems. 1985;17(3):233-47. doi: 10.1016/0165-0114(85)90090-9 [DOI:10.1016/0165-0114(85)90090-9]
32. Buckley JJ, Feuring T, Hayashi Y. Fuzzy hierarchical analysis revisited. European Journal of Operational Research. 2001;129(1):48-64. doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00405-1 [DOI:10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00405-1]
33. Gogus O, Boucher TO. Strong transitivity, rationality and weak monotonicity in fuzzy pairwise comparisons. Fuzzy sets and systems. 1998;94(1):133-44. doi: 10.1016/S0165-0114(96)00184-4 [DOI:10.1016/S0165-0114(96)00184-4]
34. Ahmed F, Kilic K. Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process: A performance analysis of various algorithms. Fuzzy Sets and Systems. 2019;362:110-28. doi: 10.1016/j.fss.2018.08.009 [DOI:10.1016/j.fss.2018.08.009]
35. Gandhi S, Mangla SK, Kumar P, Kumar D. A combined approach using AHP and DEMATEL for evaluating success factors in implementation of green supply chain management in Indian manufacturing industries. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications. 2016;19(6):537-61. •doi: 10.1080/13675567.2016.1164126 [DOI:10.1080/13675567.2016.1164126]
36. Do QH. Evaluating lecturer performance in Vietnam: An application of fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods. Heliyon. 2024;10(11). doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e30772 [DOI:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e30772]
37. Jackson SE, Schuler RS, Jiang K. An aspirational framework for strategic human resource management. Academy of Management Annals. 2014;8(1):1-56. doi: 10.5465/19416520.2014.872335 [DOI:10.5465/19416520.2014.872335]
38. Tang G, Chen Y, Jiang Y, Paillé P, Jia J. Green human resource management practices: scale development and validity. Asia pacific journal of human resources. 2018;56(1):31-55. doi:10.1111/1744-7941.12147 [DOI:10.1111/1744-7941.12147]
39. Fujii H, Managi S. Economic development and multiple air pollutant emissions from the industrial sector. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2016;23(3):2802-12. doi: 10.1007/s11356-015-5523-2 [DOI:10.1007/s11356-015-5523-2]
40. Srivastava SK. Green supply‐chain management: a state‐of‐the‐art literature review. International journal of management reviews. 2007;9(1):53-80. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00202.x [DOI:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00202.x]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Owned by Qom University of Medical Sciences
Published by Qom University of Medical Sciences Press
eISSN: 2322-4916
pISSN: 2251-9203
Email: arch.hygiene[at]muq.ac.ir
arch.hygiene[at]gmail.com
