A Delphi Study on Risk and Uncertainty Decision Making for Renewable Energy Green

Supply Chain Management

Dissertation Proposal

Submitted to Northcentral University

Graduate Faculty of the School of Business and Technology

in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of

W
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
IE
EV
PR

by

SCOTT LITTLE

Prescott Valley, Arizona

April 23, 2017




ProQuest Number: 10273059




All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.



W

IE


EV
ProQuest 10273059

Published by ProQuest LLC (2017 ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.


All rights reserved.
PR

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition ProQuest LLC.


ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
PR
EV
IE
W
 Abstract

Risk and uncertainty in decision making is an existing problem for green supply chain

managers. This is especially true in emerging markets such as renewable energy.

Various business models and theoretical frameworks have been developed to deal with

risk and uncertainty factors in this area. Some of the more successful involve fuzzy

decision making where factors are assigned a range of values that are ranked and

organized to determine the most significant. Two common fuzzy multi-criteria decision

frameworks for green supply chain management (GSCM) practices are the fuzzy

Analytical Hierarchy Process (FAHP) and fuzzy Technique for Order of Preference by

W
Similarity to Ideal Solution (FTOPSIS). Both frameworks involve assigning fuzzy
IE
numerical values to linguistic variables, then organizing, weighting, and ranking the

factors. This was a qualitative Delphi study to discover, develop, and describe risk and
EV
uncertainty factors for renewable energy green supply chain decision makers in the

American Southwest. A panel of anonymous university and business experts in green

supply chains for renewable energy participated in the study. The three phases involved
PR

assigning, weighting, and ranking the factors taken from published literature on the

subject. The primary economic risk factor for green supply chains determined by

consensus in this study was website security. This is based on the fuzzy AHP weighted

average value and the fuzzy TOPSIS ideal value and closeness coefficient. The secondary

economic risk factor was quality of product. The primary social risk and uncertainty

factor determined from the results of the study was pollution. The secondary social risk

factor was green innovation. The primary environmental risk and uncertainty factors

determined from the results of the study was green production. The secondary risk

factory was green design. The primary additional factor was cost of doing business (green

iii
vs. traditional). This methodology has been successfully used in studies for established

industries such as electronics and auto suppliers and will be used as a novel approach for

the emerging market renewable energy. The results from this study may be used to

contribute to the theoretical body of knowledge and can be applied to wide variety of

business problems in green supply chains, renewable energy, and related fields.

W
IE
EV
PR

iv
 Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................1

Background ....................................................................................................................2
Statement of the Problem ...............................................................................................4
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................5
Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................6
Research Questions ........................................................................................................9
Nature of the Study ........................................................................................................9
Significance of the Study .............................................................................................10
Definition of Key Terms ..............................................................................................11
Fuzzy numbers ............................................................................................................. 12
Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM) ....................................................................... 12
Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). .......................................................................... 12
Renewable energy. ......................................................................................................... 13

W
Summary ......................................................................................................................14

Chapter 2: Literature Review .............................................................................................15

IE
Fuzzy Decision-Making ...............................................................................................16
Multi-criteria decision analysis ........................................................................................ 16
Conceptual Outline and History of Multi-Criteria Decision Support Systems .......................... 23
EV
Multi-Criteria Decision Framework Alternatives ........................................................33
Fuzzy Decision-Making Summary ..............................................................................45
Social Green Supply Chain Risk and Uncertainty Factors ..........................................46
Economic Green Supply Chain Risk and Uncertainty Factors ....................................48
Environmental Renewable Energy Risk and Uncertainty Factors ...............................51
PR

Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM) ................................................................54

Summary of Green Supply Chain Management ..........................................................78
Renewable Energy .......................................................................................................79
Renewable Energy and Decision Making ....................................................................85
Summary ....................................................................................................................100

Chapter 3: Research Method ............................................................................................102

Research Methods and Design(s)...............................................................................102
Population ..................................................................................................................103
Sample........................................................................................................................103
Materials/Instruments ................................................................................................104
Data Collection, Processing, and Analysis ................................................................105
Assumptions...............................................................................................................108
Limitations .................................................................................................................108
Delimitations ..............................................................................................................109
Ethical Assurances .....................................................................................................110
Summary ....................................................................................................................112

v
Chapter 4: Findings ..........................................................................................................113
Introduction ................................................................................................................113
Results ........................................................................................................................114
Demographics of Sample ...........................................................................................114
Evaluation of Findings, Methodology and Analysis .................................................122
Summary ....................................................................................................................135

Chapter 5: Implications, Recommendations, and Conclusions .......................................136

Introduction ................................................................................................................136
Delimitations ..............................................................................................................137
Ethical Assurances .....................................................................................................138
Implications................................................................................................................139
Economic Green Supply Chain Risk and Uncertainty Factors. ........................................... 143
Social Green Supply Chain Risk and Uncertainty Factors. ................................................. 147
Environmental Renewable Energy Risk and Uncertainty Factors. ....................................... 149
Additional Renewable Energy Risk and Uncertainty Factors. ............................................. 150

W
Conclusions ................................................................................................................152

References ........................................................................................................................154
IE
Appendix A: Delphi Study Letters ................................................................................163
EV
Appendix B: Informed Consent Form ............................................................................164

Appendix C: Delphi Study Instructions and Survey .......................................................166

PR

Appendix D: List of Site links for Participant Recruitment ...........................................170

Appendix E: Excel Calculations and Screen Shots.........................................................171

vi
 List of Tables

Table 1 Qualitative Criteria vs. Quantitative Criteria (Elo et Al 2014). ..........................111

W
IE
EV
PR

vii
 List of Figures

Figure 1. Multi Criteria Decision Concept Map (Gorsevski et al. 2013). .........................25

Figure 2. (DECERNS) multi criteria decision framework (Ishizaka & Nemery,

2013). .................................................................................................................................28

Figure 3. (DECERNS) API support framework (Ishizaka & Nemery, 2013). ..............28

W
IE
EV
PR

viii
 1

Chapter 1: Introduction

Risk and uncertainty decision-making factors are common issues for companies,

particularly for ones involved in supply chain management (Mirakyan & De Guio, 2015;

Rostamzadeh, Govindan, Esmaili, & Sabaghi, 2015). These can affect productivity,

growth, and efficiency. This is particularly true for newer, less established, industries

such as renewable energy (Durugbo, 2013; Sinrat & Atthirawong, 2015; Soroudi, 2014).

Renewable energy is sustained or recycled energy produced by non-carbon based sources

such as solar, wind, hydroelectric, and biogas (Dizdaroglu, 2015; Dreveskracht, 2011).

W
The energy is an alternative to fossil fuel produced energy, which leads to pollution and

natural resource depletion (Palmas, Siewert, & von Haaren, 2014; Reynolds, Hessburg, &
IE
Bourgeron, 2014). Renewable energy decision-making involves optimal allocation of

available time, energy, and material resources for successful project completion and
EV
implementation (Nazam, Xu, Tao, Ahmad, & Hashim, 2015; Rosso, Bottero, Pomarico,

La Ferlita, & Comino, 2014). Risk and uncertainty can have detrimental effects on the
PR

allocation of resources and supply chain management processes (Demirtas, 2013;

Scholten, Ghasemi, Fakhari, & Mokhtar, 2014; Zhou, 2015).

Supply chain management consists of processes for the flow of goods and

services from manufacturing to consumer consumption (Govindan, Azevedo, Carvalho,

& Cruz-Machado, 2015; Yildiz & Yayla, 2015). Green supply chain management

(GSCM) practices involve clean and environmentally sound procedures such as recycling

and using nontoxic manufacturing materials (Kumar, Agrahari, & Roy, 2015; Mangla,

Kumar, Barua, 2015). Risk and uncertainty for green supply chains is a well-established

research area (Deshmukh & Vasudevan, 2014; Kamalian, 2013). There are numerous
 2

papers published on the topic (Bhattacharya et al., 2014; Durugbo, 2013; Kamali,

Alesheikh, Khodaparast, Hosseinniakani, & Alavi Borazjani, 2015). Most of these are

focused on established industries such as automotive and electronics (Mavi, Kazemi,

Najafabadi, & Mousaabadi, 2013; Rostamy, Shaverdi, & Ramezani, 2014; Saeidi et al.,

2014; Tyagi, Kumar, & Kumar, 2015). There is a deficiency in research on risk and

uncertainty for green supply chains in renewable energy, an emerging and incompletely

established industry (Dizdaroglu, 2015; Freeman & Chen, 2015). There are opportunities

for identifying and examining risk factors in this emerging industry (Mukherjee, 2014;

W
Sun, Reich, Cai, Guindani, & Schwartzman, 2015). This study is an attempt to discover,

develop, and describe economic, social, and environmental risk and uncertainty factors
IE
for decision-making practices in the renewable energy industry; an area where

researchers think further work needs to be done (Hsueh & Yan, 2013; Tseng & Geng,
EV
2012; Tsoutsos, Tsitoura, Kokologos, & Kalaitzakis, 2015).

Background
PR

Renewable energy as a legitimate agency resource has grown considerably in the

last 30 years (Dreveskracht, 2011). By 2008 the solar industry had grown to six Giga

(billion) watts (Dizdaroglu, 2015). Researchers in the field of renewable energy

recognized that to produce successful projects there needed to be methods developed that

take many different types of risk and uncertainty factors into consideration (Freeman &

Chen, 2015; Huang et al., 2011). These risk factors include social, economic, and

environmental issues to differing degrees depending on circumstances unique to each

situation. Research areas where risk and uncertainty are prevalent include emerging
 3

markets such as renewable energy and more established supply chain management

processes (Kamali et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2009).

Fuzzy decision-making processes were developed in the early 1980s as a

mathematical methodology used to calculate the significance of risk criteria and influence

factors (Hsueh & Yan, 2013). The tools include weighting criteria and summing them

and comparing to other criteria, sensitivity analysis to determine the most effective, and

matrix operations to calculate the two or three most significant factors from a group of

many. The Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS)

W
and Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) are two common fuzzy mathematical theoretical

frameworks that use criteria weighted by decision makers to calculate the most
IE
significant decision factors (Scholten et al., 2014; Tsoutsos et al., 2015).

The AHP was created by Thomas L. Saaty, a physicist, in the 1970s as a method
EV
to analyze decision making under risk and uncertainty (Yildiz & Yayla 2015). The

TOPSIS was developed 1980s by mathematicians Hwang and Yoon to determine desired
PR

factors from a group where risk and uncertainty are present (ztrk & zelik, 2014).

Initially due to its complexity fuzzy and multi-criteria decision making was kept in the

domain of applied mathematicians (Lee, Jun, & Chung, 2015). However with the advent

of computerized software and the internet in the early 2000s it became accessible to

other scientists, researchers, and renewable energy decision makers. Green supply chain

management (GSCM) is a research area where fuzzy decision making is frequently used

when analyzing risk and uncertainty (Nazam et al., 2015; Saeidi et al., 2014).

Keith Oliver, an English logistician and mathematician, invented the term supply

chain management in 1982 (Demirtas, 2013). The basic concept was the scientific study
 4

of the flow of goods and services from manufacturing to consumption and disposal

(Yildiz & Yayla 2015). There are now numerous subfields including green supply chain

management (GSCM) which came into prominence in the 1990s due to influence from

the environmental movement (Zhou, 2015). The practices incorporate social, economic,

and environmental factors such as recycling, hazardous waste reuse, and green

manufacturing processes (Scholten et al., 2014). Nazam et al., 2015; Tyagi et al., 2015).

Because of the complexity involved, there are numerous risk and uncertainty

factors involved in green supply chain processes and the field is ripe for theoretical

W
research (Govindan et al., 2015a; Mavi et al., 2013). This is especially true in emerging

markets such as renewable energy (Mangla et al., 2015; Saeidi et al., 2014). That was the
IE
primary motivation behind conducting this study to discover, develop, and describe

economic, social, and environmental risk and uncertainty factors for green supply chain
EV
decision-making practices in the renewable energy industry in the American Southwest

(Deshmukh & Vasudevan, 2014; Hsueh & Yan, 2013).

PR

Statement of the Problem

The specific problem, which is the focus of this study, is there continues to be risk

and uncertainty in green supply chain decision-making and planning (Durugbo, 2013;

Freeman & Chen 2015; Nazam et al., 2015; Sinrat & Atthirawong, 2015). There is

progress, but researchers agree that additional work needs to be done in industries other

than electronics, publishing, and textiles (Bhattacharya et al., 2014; Rostamy et al.,

2014). One such potential area for additional research is the renewable energy industry

(Soroudi, 2014; Tsoutsos et al., 2015). The renewable energy industry is an emerging

area where risk and uncertainty can affect efficiency, growth, and productivity and where
 5

there are continued opportunities to add to the existing body of theoretical knowledge

(Chang, Chang, & Hsu, 2011; Palmas et al., 2014). The potential negative consequences

of not performing this study include continued risk and uncertainty in the renewable

energy industry and lack of efficiency, growth, and productivity (Scholten et al., 2014).

The consequences also include not contributing to the existing body of theoretical

knowledge on risk and uncertainty in green supply chain planning and decision making,

an area where researchers agree additional work needs to be done (Deshmukh &

Vasudevan, 2014; Rostamzadeh et al., 2015).

W
Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this qualitative Delphi study is to discover, develop, and describe
IE
risk and uncertainty factors for renewable energy green supply chain decision makers in

the American Southwest (Kamali et al., 2015; Nazam et al., 2015). At this stage in the
EV
research, the risk and uncertainty factors will generally be defined as economic, social,

and environmental factors affecting green supply chains (Erdogan & Kaya, 2015;
PR

Mukherjee, 2014; Vollmer, Pribadi, Remondi, Rustiadi, & Grt-Regamey, 2015). The

results of this study will contribute to the theoretical body of knowledge on risk and

uncertainty in green supply chains and renewable energy (Deshmukh & Vasudevan,

2014; Dizdaroglu, 2015; Winkler, Kuklinski, & Moser, 2015). Academic researchers in

green supply chains and renewable energy can possibly incorporate the results into their

work (Freeman & Chen, 2015; Tyagi et al., 2015; Vahabzadeha, Asiaei, & Zailani, 2015).

Business leaders in green supply chain management and renewable energy decision

making can possibly benefit from this study and use the results in their decision-making

and resource planning (Laukkanen & Patala, 2014; Rezaei, 2015; Rostamy et al., 2014).
 6

The decision makers will be drawn from a sample and population of both university and

business leaders within renewable energy and green supply chains. The focus will be on

university researchers who have written papers related to the study and will benefit from

the conclusions of the study. The primary geographical area will be the American

Southwest, but can be expanded if a significant sample is not obtained.

Theoretical Framework

Risk and uncertainty are prevalent issues in green supply chain processes for

developing industries such as renewable energy (Mirakyan & De Guio 2015; Sinrat &

W
Atthirawong, 2015). Different theoretical frameworks have been developed to deal with

risk and uncertainty in green supply chains with most involving fuzzy multi-criteria
IE
decision analysis (Bhattacharya et al., 2014). A significant number of studies in this area

include a research lens to observe, understand and explain social, economic, and
EV
environmental factors (El-Zein & Tonmoy, 2015; Hsueh & Yan, 2013).

The following is a qualitative study to discover, develop, and describe risk and
PR

uncertainty factors for renewable energy green supply chain decision makers in the

American Southwest. There will be economic, social, and environmental factors

included in the study (Erdogan & Kaya 2015; Rahman, Shi, & Chongfa, 2014; Vollmer et

al., 2015). The factors will be ranked and organized using the three step Delphi study

given to university and business expert green supply chain decision makers. Uncertain or

fuzzy values will be assigned to each factor (Erdogan & Kaya 2015; Franco, Bojesen, &

Hougaard, 2015; Wardoyo & Wardoyo, 2015). The factors will be based on the research

of Freeman and Chen (2015), Kamali et al. (2015), Nazam et al. (2015), Rostamy et al.
 7

(2014), Saeidi et al. (2014), and Tyagi et al. (2015), who conducted studies in green

supply chains for the automobile industry and industrial units.

The lens for this study will be focused on these social, economic, and

environmental risk and uncertainty factors in green supply chains for the renewable

energy industry (Mangla et al., 2015; Rahman, Shi, & Chongfa, 2014; Vollmer et al.,

2015). The factors will be identified as criteria based on the fuzzy hybrid decision

framework of Freeman and Chen (2015) and the Delphi study of Saeidi et al. (2014). The

fuzzy hybrid framework has been used in research for automotive, textile, publishing, and

W
electronics industries as well as ecotourism research (Kumar et al., 2015; Suganthi,

Iniyan, & Samuel, 2015). There need to be additional studies for these frameworks on
IE
green supply chains for renewable energy, an emerging and uncertain industry (Jaiswal,

Ghosh, Lohani, & Thomas, 2015).

EV
The three frameworks to be used in this study will be the fuzzy multi criteria

decsion methods, uncertainty factors, and green supply chain frameworks. Alternative
PR

frameworks not used in this study will also be discussed in the literature review. The

fuzzy multi criteria decision framework is used for decision making where there are

imprecise or uncertain linguistic scaled values such as Low to High (Franco et al., 2015).

Triangular fuzzy numbers are uncertain numbers that can have three possible values

(Fallah et al., 2014). The fuzzy numbers are organized and ranked using multi-criteria

decision methods (Zhang & Xu, 2015).

The multi-criteria decision framework used in this study will be the fuzzy

analytical Hierarchy Process (FAHP) and fuzzy Technique for Order of Preference by

Similarity to Ideal Solution (FTOPSIS) framework developed by Freeman and Chen

 8

(2015) in their Delphi study on green supply chains for Chinese electronics suppliers.

The FAHP is used to rank, weigh, and compare uncertainty factors and the FTOPSIS is

used to calculate the distance of a factor from the most desired result (Lee et al., 2015;

Nazam et al., 2015). This framework was chosen because the FAHP is the most common

framework for risk and uncertainty in green supply chain and renewable energy research

and FTOPSIS is effective in assessing the most desirable risk and uncertainty factors

(Ferretti, Bottero, & Mondini, 2014; Rostamy et al., 2014; Tyagi et al., 2015).

The uncertainty framework is used to define uncertainty in decision making and

W
minimize negative consequences with fuzzy decision making and uncertain or imprecise

values (Mirakyan & De Guio 2015; Sinrat & Atthirawong, 2015). The risk and
IE
uncertainty factor framework was chosen because risk and uncertainty are prevalent

issues with both green supply chain and renewable energy research (Suganthi et al.,
EV
2015). Social, economic, and environmental factors are included for a holistic focus

(Rezaei, 2015; Rostamy et al., 2014). The fuzzy uncertainty factors used in this study
PR

will be taken from the Delphi study of Saeidi et al. (2014). These factors will be ranked

by university and business experts using a nine-point scale from extremely preferable to

equal.

The green supply chain framework is a management research framework used to

study environmental and recycling processes within supply chain manufacturing and

product consumption (Govindan, Azevedo et al., 2015; Yildiz & Yayla 2015). There is a

substantial degree of risk and uncertainty in green supply chain managment because of

the novelty of some green and environmental processes (Kumar et al., 2015; Mangla et

al., 2015). The framework was chosen because this is an area with a substantial amount
 9

of risk and uncertainty and where there are many research opportunities to add to the

existing body of theoretical knowledge (Ferretti et al., 2014; Jaiswal, Ghosh, Galkate, &

Thomas, 2015). This is particularly true when dealing with areas of emerging technology

such as the renewable energy industry (Mukherjee, 2014; Sun et al., 2015).

Research Questions

The primary research question is What are the primary factors affecting risk and

decision making for renewable energy green supply chain decision makers in the

American Southwest? The secondary research questions are based on the primary

W
criteria factors from Saeidi et al. (2014) and Tyagi et al. (2015). These factors will be

ranked by Delphi experts from Very Low to Very High. The last three questions are
IE
based on Tyagi et al.s alternative criteria. These will be ranked by the Delphi experts

from Very Poor to Very Good.

EV
Q1. How do economic factors affect risk and decision making for renewable

energy green supply chain decision makers in the American Southwest?

PR

Q2. How do social factors affect risk and decision making for renewable energy

green supply chain decision makers in the American Southwest?

Q3. How do environmental factors affect risk and decision making for renewable

energy green supply chain decision makers in the American Southwest?

Nature of the Study

The nature of this study is to study to discover, develop, and describe economic,

social, and environmental risk and uncertainty factors for green supply chain decision-

making practices in the renewable energy industry in the American Southwest. The

methodology will be the Delphi study used in Saeidi et al. (2014) and Tyagi et al. (2015)
 10

given to university and possibly business experts in green supply chains and renewable

energy. This fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS hybrid framework and Delphi method is the

optimal choice for the proposed study because it has been used for extensive research

focused on established areas such as automotive supply chains (Mavi et al., 2013;

Rostamy et al., 2014).

Renewable energy is one research area where there are still many opportunities

for assessing risk and uncertainty factors (Freeman & Chen, 2015; Mukherjee, 2014).

The study is aligned with the problem, purpose statements, and research questions.

W
Internal and external validity will be guaranteed by using anonymous samples of the

population and descriptive as well as statistical techniques to analyze the data

(Dizdaroglu, 2015).
IE
Significance of the Study
EV
The significance of this study is there is a consensus among researchers that more

work is needed to assess risk and uncertainty factors for green supply chain processes,
PR

particularly in emerging markets such as renewable energy (Bhattacharya et al., 2014;

Durugbo, 2013; Kamali et al., 2015; Rostamy et al., 2014). This fuzzy hybrid AHP and

TOPSIS framework will be used to calculate the risk and uncertainty factors from the

Delphi study given to university and possibly business experts in green supply chains and

renewable energy (Freeman & Chen, 2015; Saeidi et al., 2014; Tyagi et al., 2015). This

hybrid framework and Delphi methods have been used in numerous studies for more

established industries but is a novel approach for an emerging market such as renewable

energy (Mavi et al., 2013; Rostamy et al., 2014). The results of this study can contribute

to the theoretical body of knowledge on risk and uncertainty for supply chain
 11

management and renewable energy. In addition, the framework and methodology can be

transferred to a wide variety of business problems and practical applications.

Definition of Key Terms

Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). The AHP along with the TOPSIS is one

of the two most frequent multi-criteria models to be used in renewable energy and green

supply chain decision making with risk and uncertainty (Erdogan & Kaya, 2015; Herle &

Wanderer, 2014). The AHP was developed by Saaty in the 1970s and is used with

importance criteria or weights for each factor, which is then summed together in a series

W
to determine the final weighting. The weighted criteria are placed in a matrix to compare

and are then ranked (Yildiz & Yayla 2015).

IE
Dempster-Shafer theory (DST). The Dempster-Shafer is a game theory of

probability where a panel of experts is used to determine and evaluate uncertain or fuzzy
EV
linguistic variables (Deng et al., 2014; Dutta, 2015). These variables are given

probabilistic value ranges known as a plausibility value (Beynon, 2002; Vijayaraghavan

PR

& Jayalakshmi, 2015). The plausibility is calculated as the belief value of one minus the

criteria value. The higher the value, the closer to belief (Liu et al., 2015). The Dempster-

Shafer has been used in green supply chain risk and uncertainty research to some extent,

but more work needs to be done to determine its effectiveness in this area (Al-Abadi,

2015; Lu et al., 2015).

Eigenvalue. An eigenvalue is a numerical value corresponding to a set of data

points (Herle & Wanderer, 2014). The value is the variance of the data set around a

regression line and includes the direction that the data moves when graphed as left to

right, up to down, and the angle of the direction beginning at the origin. The direction is
 12

represented by an arrow and is known as the eigenvector. Each variable will have a

unique eigenvalue, eigenvector, and dimension. Two variables will have two

eigenvalues, two eigenvectors, and two dimensions.

Fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy numbers are ranges of numbers used to represent

uncertain or imprecise values (Demirtas, 2013; Lee et al., 2015). They are used when

dealing with risk and uncertainty (Scholten et al., 2014). There are different types of

fuzzy numbers (Franco, Bojesen, & Hougaard, 2015; Wardoyo & Wardoyo, 2015). The

triangular fuzzy number uses a range of three values; Upper, Model, and Lower (Dutta,

W
2015). The trapezoidal fuzzy number uses four values as a range (Govindan,

Khodaverdi, & Vafadarnikjoo, 2015).

IE
Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM). Green supply chain management

is the flow of goods and services from manufacturing to consumption and disposal using
EV
environmental and reusable practices (Kamalian, 2013; Yildiz & Yayla 2015).

Recycling, renewable energy usage, and nonhazardous wastes are examples of GSCM
PR

practices (Govindan, Azevedo et al., 2015; Kumar et al., 2015).

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). Multi-criteria decision analysis is a

discipline of operations research and management science that includes principles from

applied mathematics, economics, and computer science (Borges et al., 2014; Jaiswal,

Ghosh, Galkate, & Thomas, 2015; Vahabzadeha et al., 2015). It is a methodology that

relies on mathematical and computer modeling to determine the optimal solution based

on a set of conflicting criteria (El-Zein & Tonmoy, 2015). The model is created in a

criteria and decision space, where the criteria are given weights based on their importance

and then evaluated (Papaioannou, Vasiliades, & Loukas, 2015). MCDA is used in
 13

renewable energy to assist decision makers with optimizing available resources (Ferretti

& Comino, 2015; Huang, Keisler, & Linkov, 2011). The most common multi-criteria

method used in green supply chain and renewable energy research is the AHP (Yildiz &

Yayla 2015).

Preference ranking organization method for enrichment of evaluations

(PROMETHEE). The PROMETHEE is a French multi-criteria model used for

renewable energy projects (Esmaelian, Tavana, Arteaga, & Mohammadi, 2015). The

PROMETHEE model is used to compare each criterion to the next and determine which

W
is higher ranked of the two and then sums up the comparisons and is a similar method to

AHP. PROMETHEE also has a visual graphing component Geometrical Analysis for
IE
Interactive Aid that is used to analyze the data points in a cluster to determine the most

significant criteria using a principal component analysis (Herle & Wanderer, 2014). The
EV
principal component has the highest eigenvalue or greatest concentration of data points.

The eigenvalue is the regression line through the cluster of data points.
PR

Renewable energy. Renewable energy includes energy produced by non-carbon

based fuel sources (Demirtas, 2013; Zhou, 2015). The goal for renewable energy

producers is to create a fuel source that is clean burning and does not deplete natural

resources like fossil fuels do (Dreveskracht, 2011). Examples of renewable energy are

solar energy, hydroelectric power, and biofuels (Rosso et al., 2014). Another desirable

aspect of renewable energy, particularly solar, is portability, where smaller power plants

can be installed in rural areas when too expensive to bring in large electrical utilities

(Palmas et al., 2014).

 14

Technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS).

TOPSIS is a multi criteria decsion method created in the 1980s by Hwang and Yoon,

where the distance between factors and a desired solution are measured (ztrk &

zelik, 2014). The primary purpose is to minimize the distance to the desired solution

and maximize distance from an undesired solution (Erdogan & Kaya, 2015). TOPSIS

along with AHP are the most common multi-criteria methods used in green supply chain

decision making where there are risk and uncertainty (Freeman & Chen, 2015; Nazam et

al., 2015).

W
VIKOR method. The VIKOR is multi criteria decsion method used in green

supply chain decision making (Vahabzadeha et al., 2015). VIKOR was developed in
IE
Serbia by Serafim Opricovic and is an acronym for VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I

Kompromisno Resenje (Saeidi et al., 2014). The primary focus is to identify uncertain
EV
linguistic factors that include conflicting criteria. The criteria are compared to a desired

value (Lee et al., 2015). The factor closest to the desired value is ranked the highest.
PR

Summary

This section serves as the introduction and research background for this

qualitative Delphi study to discover, develop, and describe risk and uncertainty factors

for renewable energy green supply chain decision makers in the American Southwest

(Freeman & Chen, 2015; Kamali et al., 2015; Tyagi et al., 2015). Included in this section

are the problem statement, purpose statement, research questions, theoretical framework,

and definition of terms. These subsections are in alignment with one another to form a

cohesive framework and lens that is used to focus on the research problem.
 15

Chapter 2: Literature Review

The following is a literature review for this qualitative Delphi study to discover,

develop, and describe risk and uncertainty factors for renewable energy green supply

chain decision makers in the American Southwest. The purpose of this literature review

is to present an integrated critical analysis and synthesis of the scholarly, peer-reviewed

literature that provides a foundation and context for this study. The review is divided into

subheadings for Fuzzy Decision Making, Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM),

and Renewable Energy (Kumar et al., 2015; Mangla et al., 2015; Rezaei, 2015). The

W
subheadings include Conceptual outline and History of Multi-Criteria Decision Support

Systems, Alternative Decision Frameworks, and Renewable Energy Decision Making.

IE
The headings and subheadings will each be used to analyze and synthesize the recently

published literature for each section.

EV
Scholarly peer-reviewed articles, the majority of which have been published

within the last five years, are the source for the literature. The primary literature search
PR

was conducted through Google Scholar using keywords based on the subheadings fuzzy

decision making, risk and uncertainty for green supply chains, risk and uncertainty for

renewable energy, and renewable energy. Sub-searches were conducted through other

scholarly databases such as Elsevier, Academia.edu, and Springer. Over 200

articles were originally searched and analyzed to determine validity for this study. Out of

the original articles approximately were chosen due to the relevance to the research topic.

This review is in alignment with the problem, purpose statements, and research questions,

with one of the main goals being to identify the necessity of performing this study based

on the work of other researchers.