Chapter 4 Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process of Green Supply Chain Management in the Pharmaceutical Industry

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Chapter 4 Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process of Green Supply Chain Management in the Pharmaceutical Industry"

Transcription

1 Chapter 4 Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process of Green Supply Chain Management in the Pharmaceutical Industry 4.1 Introduction During the past decade with increasing environmental concerns, a consensus, the green supply chain management (GSCM) contribute to environmental pollution with industrial development, supply chain management issues that must be addressed together with the growing is [173]. Products (EuP) directions using the drug waste, Hazardous Substances (RoHS) for energy and environmental design restrictions were passed by India; GSCM by leading Indian pharmaceutical industry has been adopted as a positive strategy. Thus, it is able to conform to the requirements of primary legislation GSCM practice strategies and sustain competitive advantage that can be seen as relevant. Therefore, GSCM way to address environmental issues, which are a part of many organizations including those in Asia, operating on offer [151]. India in the Asia-Pacific region is one of the most industrialized countries. Most drug manufacturers in India are involved in manufacturing products. Substantial segment share their products to market as these companies play an important role in the worldwide markets. Pharmaceutical industries emerging green products and green manufacturing environment follow the instructions that are subject to the customer's requests. These directions, in particular RoHS, directly affecting pharmaceutical industries in India. These guidelines for multinational enterprises supply chain partners also have a far-reaching authority [89]. While, to the best of our knowledge to implement GSCM various investigations have proposed different approaches [26, 59, 110, 115, 150, 207, 222], in the pharmaceutical industry, with systematic analysis to investigate GSCM approach to identify priority on stability and far less research has been done. GSCM investigation GSCM practices, customer and regulatory uncertainty, complexity, cost pressures and increases the overall cost of the product is considered as a difficult task because it is. Check GSCM these shortcomings result in significant problems. Also, increased complexity results GSCM practices in India perform RoHS regulations. Therefore, enterprises in accordance with its decisionmaking strategy can not determine. As a result, enterprise investigations GSCM practice and it embrace a holistic view of green supply chain is critical to mitigate potential risks. 59

2 The central aim of this study RoHS and EuP regulations in response to environmental sustainability and to investigate GSCM is to establish priority approach. The results of its own investigation and adoption of GSCM practices can be used by managers The relative importance of the different approaches applied to the operation of the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP),,, is particularly important [49]. 4.2 Material and Method To the AHP method for investigating GSCM, this study is appropriate the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) and uses triangular fuzzy numbers to express comparative conclusion of decision makers. A logical approach of FAHP to identify priority approaches for GSCM investigation was adopted based on a multifaceted and multicriteria environment. Check GSCM practice in the Indian pharmaceutical industry will affect the priority FAHP approach to make the most of the difference. Method ( 1 ) factor analysis GSCM practice through the creation of hierarchy ( 2 ) to collect data from industry expert interviews and ( 3 ) determine the individual dimensions and weight, including generalized approach consists of three steps. GSCM and GSCM practices investigation and FAHP a literature review will be discussed through the structure of the hierarchy. 4.3 Investigation approaches to GSCM GSCM practice green supply chain interruptions associated with the risk for a number of approaches have been proposed in the literature, which are aimed at justifying examined. 4.1 In summary, as shown in the table below briefly GSCM practice and research have been identified in various different ways [110]. Evaluation environmentally echo and vendor management, lean supply, collaborative supply strategies, associated with establishing and supply chain management practices working with suppliers for the procurement policy examine concepts to improve the enabling environment. Checks for various important elements of successful supply chain management environment [115]. GSCM components policies, supplier meetings, training, collaborative R & D, high levels of lead, cross-functional integration, effective written procedures for dealing with the production and reorganization of companies within the and suppliers targeting, evaluation and selection of suppliers are concerned with effective communication with suppliers and 60

3 customers. Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM) approach to better understanding of the industry by focusing on nine major drug companies. Generally, these firms employed by some of the devices are summarized GSCM: Pre- qualification of suppliers Environmental needs during the purchase phase Environmental Performance Management Environmental Considerations in Product Design Building Reverse Logistics To facilitate better policies and legislation affecting SCEM To work with industry peers to standardize requirements to Informing suppliers of corporate environmental concerns Promote the exchange of information and ideas The three main types of green check inductively derived model to analyze supply [26]. The first type, ie Green Supply Process, Packaging and Recycling proposal to end supplier management activities, including collaboration with suppliers represents the variations. The second type, ie product-based green supply inputs supplied by packing as attempts to manage products. The third type, ie advanced green supply the sharing of such risks, combined with buyers and suppliers of clean technology demonstration program to evaluate the use of environmental criteria as a more proactive approach [207]. Sales of other related departments, environmental personnel, purchasing personnel and personnel, consisting of cross-functional teams, the most advanced stability-oriented strategies for sharing information can be found in the organization. Associations its customers / suppliers and their sustainability purchasing policy, objectives and targets are likely to generate profits. In addition, specific criteria such as associations (ISO14001) recognized technical standards and its suppliers to be recognized as one of the preferred suppliers are required to meet performance specifications. In addition, third party inspection on site by the supplier performance supplier s selfassessment can be improved through. Training through collaboration with suppliers not 61

4 only provide them with information about the product is for suppliers to in addition to stability issues other purchase recommendation is administered to companies that provide [26]. GSCM practices suppliers have established their own environmental programs, holding seminars help of consciousness, working in collaboration with suppliers on green product design are required to include. Physicians, companies, worker empowerment, customer focus, continuous improvement and zero waste, life cycle analysis and environmental marketing positions in purchasing green supply chain in terms of total quality management is to integrate the ideas. Green Purchasing mutually engaging with suppliers to develop clean technologies and processes, self-determination to the task of environmental certification requires suppliers to environmental survey of a supplier, the supplier assessment and environmental auditing, environmental criteria for allocation of approved suppliers, including proposals include a number of eco-environment and process design and product suppliers in modernity. Manufacturers of incoming documents and auditable systems to prevent non-conforming products must be installed [59]. To establish such an arrangement would involve three phases. The first step instructions and senior management of the company is to resolve legal risk should support the initial risk assessment. The next step is the complex requirement of the RoHS directive is to employ a company-wide compliance team. The third phase should include a date for the completion and supplier requirements, i.e. testing, documentation can outline a company's compliance statement is to develop. For directions while assessing supply chain risks, companies can determine the material declaration process. However, companies also through questionnaires RoHS suppliers to solve their level of caution should be eligible. A number of GSCM practices implemented to develop their performance. The internal environmental management programs fail without such a promise is bound to be high management because, senior managers and senior managers, cross-functional support declaration promising to investigate and examine the steps for GSCM extremely useful for the development of enterprise performance is recorded [222]. 62

5 All GSCM practices only one function or department rather than being oriented to support cross-functional needs. They are two promising approach to green procurement and eco-design and companies or products within the supply chain should focus on before fraction of the time are recommended. Currently, major customers, suppliers for environmental objectives to assist customers with greater motivation, to achieve better environmental performance resulting force are exerted on suppliers. 4.4 Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process Analytical Hierarchy Process Saaty (1980) introduced by (AHP) method, the choice and preference of a set of characteristics in a multi-criteria decision making problem of how to resolve the relative importance of directing [157, 197]. The primary advantage of AHP approach that handles multiple criteria and qualitative and quantitative data is the relative ease with which [99, 118]. However, AHP often enough numbers to carry out the inherent uncertainty associated with the mapping decision-maker perceptions and the ability to adjust the opacity is criticized for lack of [40]. The exact mathematical value, giving decision-makers the choice is not easy to answer. FAHP, therefore, GSCM between different approaches to examine the weight is applied to solve and adopt their current GSCM practices and ways to adjust the preference granted to the enterprise. Some people estimate the necessary steps are explained as follows: Step 1: Establishing the hierarchical structure Hierarchical structure with elements of decision-making, Decision makers using a nine-point scale, pair-wise comparisons between alternatives and criteria are requested to. All matrices are developed and all pair-wise comparison of the decision maker(s) are each n. Step 2: calculate the consistency Priority elements, calculate the maximum eigenvector or the relative weights that are consistent and to ensure λ max. Then, for each matrix of order n consistency index (CI) Eq. (1) is using. Based on the CI and random index (RI), the consistency ratio (CR) is calculated using Eq. (2). The CI and CR are defined as follows: 63

6 (1) (2) where, n is the number of items being compared in the matrix, λ max is the largest Eigen value and RI is a random consistency index obtained from a large number of simulation runs and varies upon the order of matrix (see Table 2). Step 3: Constructing a fuzzy positive matrix A decision-maker transforms the score of pair-wise comparison into linguistic variables via the positive triangular fuzzy number (PTFN). The fuzzy positive reciprocal matrix can be defined as (Buckley, 1985) = where, is a fuzzy position reciprocal matrix of decision-maker k; is the relative importance between i and j of decision elements =1, =j, =1/, =1,2,, n Step 4: Calculating fuzzy weights value According to the Lambda-Max method proposed by Csutora and Buckley (2001), the fuzzy weights of the hierarchy can be calculated. This process is described as follows: Let a=1 to obtain the positive matrix of decision maker = n*n. Then, apply the AHP to calculate weight matrix. = i = 1,2,.n 64

7 Let α=0 to obtain the lower bound and upper bound of the positive matrix of decisionmaker, = n*n and = n*n. Then, apply the AHP to calculate the weight matrix: and = i=1,2,.n = i=1,2,.n N RI Table 4.2 Random index To ensure the fuzziness of weight, two constants, i.e. and, are calculated as follows: =min = min The lower bound ( ) and upper bound ( ) of the weight matrix are defined as: =, =, i=1,2,..n =, =, i=1,2,..n Aggregating, and, the fuzzy weight for decision-maker k can be acquired as follows: 65

8 =, i=1,2,..n Applying the geometric average to incorporate the opinions of decision-makers is defined as follows: = Where, : The fuzzy weight of decision-makers i is incorporated with k decision-makers. : The fuzzy weight of decision element i of k decision-maker. k : number of decision-makers Through factor analysis to build a hierarchy of GSCM practice Important literature and better quality assurance and product assurance of a systematic indepth interviews with Council through detailed analysis, GSCM a tentative list of 25 ways questionnaire was developed as the basis for development. Every single item was practiced in their particular organization to point out to what extent the scale. (e.g. 1 = not at all important, 2 = not important, 3 = moderate, 4 = important, 5 = extremely important). The Indian pharmaceutical industry to examine samples of GSCM based companies focused on observation and experience. Data collection questionnaire distribution of pharmaceutical industries concerned. Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of India for the purpose respondents were selected among members. Quality assurance questionnaire both managing directors and purchasing departments were addressing target groups. Because of the sample companies were mainly representatives or departments may lack GSCM. A total of 250 questionnaires were sent out and 64 were valid, representing a 27% response rate, of which 67 were returned. Development and confirmation of important factors and environmental management according to the study, your response rate is 21% [196]. Furthermore, it was normal and appropriate 16% of their research, found that the [5]. The response rate in this study is quite good and the property of GSCM practice demonstrates that the issue should be considered as novel. The authors factors than 1 and 0.6 were required to select more than one factor loading 66

9 Eigen values of the separation factor studies performed to remove the factors [30, 103]. Their factor loadings are less than 0.06 because these five variables are eliminated. The remaining 20 items, so again analyzed and investigated GSCM as a hierarchy supplier management, product recycling, and life cycle management of the organization's involvement was named as removed in four dimensions (See Figure4.1). The experience, testing or measuring procedure yields the same results on repeated testing concerns the extent to which [32]. Validity and reliability of factors that can be employed to support any measures need to be determined [133]. Cronbach's alpha internal consistency analysis using a key factor to calculate the reliability of the items was performed [196]. The test and item analysis was recalculated without both those five items. After five items were dropped, from to Table 4.4 lists the Cronbach's alpha values. Generally, Cronbach alpha value of 0.7 over the high internal consistency of the scale is considered [116]. All Cronbach's alpha values in our study revealed high internal consistency, is greater than 0.7. The researchers measured the variable domain of validity of the material to cover material items to make the measurements depends on how well [132]. Content validity is subjectively evaluated by researchers [208]. In this work, the content validity of the questionnaire by three senior quality assurance and product assurance practitioners and detailed assessment is based on a thorough literature review. Consequently, factor analysis by constructing measures of GSCM content validity. 67

10 Linguistic Variables Positive triangular fuzzy number Positive reciprocal triangular fuzzy number Extremely strong (9, 9, 9) (1/9, 1/9, 1/9) Intermediate (7, 8, 9) (1/9, 1/8, 1/7) Very strong (6, 7, 8) (1/8, 1/7, 1/6) Intermediate (5, 6, 7) (1/7, 1/6, 1/5) Strong (4, 5, 6) (1/6, 1/5, 1/4) Intermediate (3, 4, 5) (1/5, 1/4, 1/3) Moderately strong (2, 3, 4) (1/4, 1/3, 1/2) Intermediate (1, 2, 3) (1/3, 1/2, 1) Equally strong (1, 1, 1) (1, 1, 1) Table 4.3 Triangular fuzzy numbers Sometimes called predictive validity or external validity, criterion validity Relations, an independent measure of a measuring instrument is related to relevant criterion is concerned with the extent to which [13]. With a performance criterions GSCM were designed to explore the relationship. The results of this study provide a better understanding and investigation GSCM can help identify opportunities [113]. 68

11 Dimension Approaches Item loading range GSCM performance (D 1 ) GSCM pressure (D 2 ) GSCM practices (D 3 ) Life cycle GSCM (D 4 ) Eigen values 1 Environmental auditing for suppliers (D11) Supplier environmental questionnaire (D12) Requesting compliance statement (D13) Asking for product testing report (D14) Cumulative percentage 5 Demanding bill of material (BOM) (D15) Establishing environmental requirements for purchasing items (D16) 7 Investigating green purchasing (D17) Joining local recycling organization (D21) Collaboration on products recycling with the same sector industry (D22) 3 Produce disassembly manual (D23) Green design (D31) Top management support(d32) Environmental policy for GSCM (D33) Cross-function integration (D34) Manpower involvement (D35) Effective communication platform within companies and with suppliers (D36) 7 Establish an environmental risk management system for GSCM (D37) 8 Supplier evaluation and selection (D38) Applying LCA to carry out eco-report (D41) Establish an environmental database of products (D42) Table 4.4 Factor analysis results 69

12 Goal Dimension Approach GSCM performance (D 1 ) Selection of priority approaches for Investigating GSCM GSCM pressure (D 2 ) GSCM practices (D 3 ) Life cycle GSCM (D 4 ) 4.5 Measuring and collecting data Environmental auditing for suppliers (D 11 ) Supplier environmental questionnaire (D 12 ) Requesting compliance statement (D 13 ) Asking for product testing report (D 14 ) Demanding bill of material (BOM) (D 15 ) Establishing environmental requirements for purchasing items (D 16 ) Investigating green purchasing (D 17 ) Joining local recycling organization (D 21 ) Collaboration on products recycling with the same sector industry (D 22 ) Produce disassembly manual (D 23 ) Green design (D 31 ) Top management support (D 32 ) Environmental policy for GSCM (D 33 ) Cross-function integration (D 34 ) Manpower involvement (D 35 ) Effective communication platform within companies and with suppliers (D 36 ) Establish an environmental risk management system for GSCM (D 37 ) Supplier evaluation and selection (D 38 ) Applying LCA to carry out eco-report (D 41 ) Establish an environmental database of products (D 42 ) Table 4.5 Hierarchy of GSCM investigation Manager to attend a personal interview Invention Green Planning Program (GPP) examined nine well-known enterprises are responsible for GSCM. Companies were famous in their organizations through GSCM practices; GSCM practice approach to influence evaluators examined the relative weight against the list as they worked to resolve. These companies comply with environmental regulations such as RoHS and EUP promote the GSCM practice was introduced were selected as members of the GPP. Many pharmaceutical companies, mostly manufacturers include assembly, and three green their supply chain operations, including a variety of proposals embrace the green, green products, and the creation and management platform for the development of a recycling system, green supply chain information for green product certification database management system installation. A nine-point scale, pair -wise comparisons between dimensions and approaches to assign relative importance was captured. 70

13 Dimension GSCM performance (D 1 ) GSCM pressure (D 2 ) GSCM practices (D 3 ) Life cycle GSCM (D 4 ) 4.6 Determination of generalized weight To determine the importance of dimensions and perspectives, the pair-wise comparison matrices were translated into a set of eigenvectors problems and the vectors of priorities so as to achieve the results were normalized to unite. The pair-wise comparison of the geometric mean of all samples is used to aggregate. Generalized approach local and global dimensions and weights were generated by the aforementioned process (see Tables 7.6 to 7.10). Results respondents' decision stability over all fall within acceptable ratios from 0.10 suggested. Local Weights (a) Approach Local weights Global Weights (b) Ranking Environmental auditing for suppliers (D11) Supplier environmental survey (D12) Requesting compliance report (D13) Asking for product testing report (D14) Demanding bill of material (BOM) (D15) Establishing environmental requirements for purchasing items (D16) Investigating green purchasing (D17) Local recycling organization (D21) Collaboration on products recycling with the same sector industry (D22) Produce disassembly manual (D23) Green design (D31) Top management support (D32) Environmental policy for GSCM (D33) Cross-function integration (D34) Manpower involvement (D35) Effective communication platform within companies and with suppliers (D36) Establish an environmental risk management system for GSCM (D37) Supplier evaluation and selection (D38) Applying LCA to carry out eco-report (D41) Establish an environmental database of products (D42) a. Local weight is derived from judgment with respect to a single criterion. b. Global weight is derived from multiplication by the weight of the criteria Table 4.6 Local and global weights for investigating GSCM 71

14 D 1 D 2 D 3 D 4 Weights D 1 (1, 1, 1) (4.931, 5.943, 6.951) (0.955, 1.386, 2.079) (1.816, 2.189, 2.652) D 2 (0.143, 0.159, 0.202) (1, 1, 1) (0.453, 0.574, 0.746) (0.629, 0.927, 1.356) D 3 (0.480, 0.720, 1.045) (1.338, 1.737, 2.200) (1, 1, 1) (3.419, 4.480, 5.517) D 4 (0.376, 0.456, 0.549) (0.736, 1.076, 1.586) (0.180, 0.222, 0.291) (1, 1, 1) λ max = CI=0.019 CR=0.021 Table 4.7 Pair wise comparison matrix and weights with respect to the goal D 11 D 12 D 13 D 14 D 15 D 16 D 17 Weights (1.651, (0.347, (0.275, (1.260, (0.500, , 0.585, 0.405, 1.587, 0.620, 3.684) 1.000) 0.630) 1.957) 0.794) D 11 (1, 1, 1) (6.316, 7.319, 8.320) D 12 (0.120, 0.137, 0.158) D 13 (0.271, 0.397, 0.606) D 14 ( 1.710, 2.884) D 15 (1.587, 2.466, 3.634) D 16 (0.511, 0.630, 0.794) D 17 (1.260, 1.613, 2.000) (1, 1, 1) (0.275, 0.405, 0.630) (1.587, 2.466, 3.634) (2.520, 3.557, 4.762) (4.579, 5.593, 6.604) (2.520, 3.557, 4.762) (2.190, 3.175, 4.481) λ max = CI= CR= (0.210, 0.281, 0.397) (1, 1, 1) (0.500, 2.000) (0.500, 2.000) (0.500, 2.000) (0.437, 0.794, 1.587) (0.347, 0.550, 1.000) (0.151, 0.179, 0.218) (0.500, 2.000) (1, 1, 1) (1.260, 2.080, 3.175) (0.315, 0.481, 0.794) (0.464, 0.794, 1.260) (0.368, 0.630, 1.101) (0.210, 0.281, 0.397) (0.630, 1.260, 2.289) (0.794, 1.260, 2.154) (1, 1, 1) (1.260, 2.154, 3.302) (0.303, 0.464, 0.794) (0.437, 0.794, 1.587) (0.223, 0.315, 0.457) ( 1.817, 2.621) (0.909, 1.587, 2.714) (0.630, 1.260, 2.289) (1, 1, 1) (0.437, 0.794, 1.587) (0.630, 1.260, 2.289) (1, 1, 1) Table 4.8 Pair wise comparison matrix and weights with respect to GSCM performance dimension 72

15 D 21 D 22 D 23 Weights D 21 (1, 1, 1) (1.999, 2.923, 4.159) (0.396, 0.692, 1.259) D 22 (0.239, 0.341, 0.499) (1, 1, 1) (0.197, 0.250, 0.346) D 23 (0.793, 1.441, 2.519) (2.883, 3.978, 5.039) (1, 1, 1) λ max = CI= CR= Table 4.9 Pair wise comparison matrix and weights with respect to GSCM pressure dimension D 31 D 32 D 33 D 34 D 35 D 36 D 37 D 38 Weights D 31 (1, 1, 1) (0.191, 0.317, 0.347) D 32 (2.884, 3.979, 5.241) D 33 (5.241, 6.257, 7.268) D 34 (5.241, 6.257, 7.268) D 35 (1.817, 2.268, 2.884) D 36 (3.634, 4.718, 5.769) D 37 (0.693, 1.442) D 38 (0.794, 1.119, 1.587) (0.138, 0.160, 0.191) (1, 1, 1) ( 1.442, 2.080) (0.303, 0.481, 0.794) (0.481, 0.693, 1.000) (0.281, 0.382, 0.500) (0.195, 0.240, 0.347) (0.405, 0.481, 0.593) (0.281, 0.382, 0.500) (0.138, 0.160, 0.191) ( 1.442, 2.080) (1, 1, 1) (0.693, 1.145, 2.000) (0.500, 0.874, 1.442) (0.397, 0.693, 1.260) (0.630, 1.260, 2.289) (0.500, 2.000) (0.500, 0.874, 1.442) λ max = CI= CR= (0.347, 0.441, 0.550) (2.000, 2.621, 3.557) (0.794, 1.442, 2.520) (1, 1, 1) ( 1.817, 2.884) (0.347, 0.550, 1.000) (0.721, 1.101, 1.710) (0.909, 1.587, 2.714) (0.630, 1.587) (0.173, 0.212, 0.275) (2.884, 4.160, 5.130) (0.437, 0.794, 1.587) (0.585, 0.909, 1.387) (1, 1, 1) (0.347, 0.585, 1.000) ( 1.710, 2.884) (0.909, 1.587, 2.714) (0.874, 1.357, 2.289) (0.693, 1.442) (1.687, 2.080, 2.466) (0.500, 2.000) (0.368, 0.630, 1.101) (0.368, 0.630, 1.101) (1, 1, 1) (0.437, 0.737, 1.145) (0.874, 1.357, 2.289) (0.347, 0.550, 1.000) (0.630, 0.894, 1.260) (2.000, 2.621, 3.557) (0.693, 1.145, 2.000) (0.630, 1.587) (0.437, 0.737, 1.145) ( 1.817, 2.884) (1, 1, 1) (0.550, 0.000, 0.000) (0.874, 1.357, 2.289) Table 4.10 Pair wise comparison matrix and weights with respect to GSCM practices dimension (1, 1, 1)

16 D 41 D 42 Weights D 41 (1, 1, 1) (0.232, 0.329, 0.481) D 42 (2.080, 3.037, 4.309) (1, 1, 1) λ max = CI= CR= Table 4.11 Pair wise comparison matrix and weights with respect to Life cycle GSCM 4.7 Summary dimension Nine organizations large and medium-assembly manufacturers in the Indian pharmaceutical industry, which had participated in the study. To determine the importance of dimensions and perspectives, GSCM collected from respondents decided to investigate ways to generate normalized local and global load. The results of weighing the relative importance of individual dimensions and approaches to priority setting and instead GSCM organizations during the process of examining the issue should be recognized for their efforts. Moreover, the results represent the normal state of Indian pharmaceutical enterprises will investigate GSCM. Three sets of normalized weights as shown in Table 7.5 to determine the importance of GSCM approach to examine the generated. The second column dimensions, local loads, fourth and fifth columns of each approach are local and global weights, respectively. The global weight of each approach by the local weight of each dimension is calculated by multiplying the local weight of each approach. FAHP analysis of evidence, including the local weights for each dimension ( 'Supply Management' (0.4337) and organizational partnerships (0.3234) life cycle management' to examine the two most important dimensions of GSCM practice that show). Recycling product (0.1161) is shown in Table 7.5 shows the dimensions of little importance. Product Test Reports (0.2026) approach, (0.7500) sequence reveals the paramount importance with respect to each dimension (0.5067), top management support (0.2670) and an environmental database products installed disassembly guide production of supplier management, product recycling, respectively involvement of the organization and life cycle management. An environmental database of installed products ( ) Product Test Reports ( ) : Table 7.5 Given the global burden, the Indian pharmaceutical industry and the power to investigate GSCM approach based on ten priority order follow clear that the ' top management support ( 74

17 ), the bill of materials ( BOM ) ( ), suppliers environmental audit ( ), Compliance Statement ( ), green purchasing ( ), production disassembly guide ( ), environmental requirements for the purchase of goods ( ) and GSCM environmental policy ( ) was founded. In addition, the resulting global weight, a large majority of the ten priorities based approach that showed the dimensions of supplier management. Check GSCM findings confirmed the important role of supplier performance management. In addition, GSCM approach them and aid organizations prefer to examine respondents' views about the importance of continuous improvement and recognize their strengths to move towards the show. The current management approach, enterprises can comply with the requirements of the rules that it can not ensure GSCM approach to investigate the stability and recognition of priority because of the uncertainties in existing environmental regulations is important. Greening the supply chain literature, various approaches have contributed to the identification, litter and preferred approach to sustainability, especially in the pharmaceutical industry, have known about. The main strength of this chapter, therefore, has two layers: the sustainability approach recognizes and provides a method for ranking approach. The study of the Indian pharmaceutical industry GSCM investigates the use of different approaches proposed for the post of FAHP. Despite focusing on the Indian pharmaceutical industry, the results of this study to examine a GSCM approach to identify and prioritize the offer. It GSCM and GSCM implementation strategy will include the development of practice approach to identify and assess the relative importance of a basic hierarchy model is planned. According to their specific circumstances and needs of different organizations can use the model. In addition, the model also managers that will help improve their understanding of GSCM practices and awareness of their organization GSCM enables decision makers to evaluate the can. The study was insufficient, the effect of different industry sectors and regions of the GSCM as a basis for further research on finding work that can be hoped. In the pharmaceutical industry GSCM approach in future research to investigate and customers with changes to environmental regulations should be changed. Accumulation, it is also important to examine the role of supplier management GSCM mention the importance of buyer-supplier relations and addressing issues that affect the implementation of GSCM. 75

18 In addition, GSCM practice different ways of applying analytical tool in determining the weight to hold the opinion analytic network process in terms of property and equipment (ANP) is suggested to use. In terms of all practices, investment recoveries compared to developed countries, particularly low awareness in India, seem to gain. However, because of Indian manufacturers in India as well as the marketing potential regulatory pressure during pressure have realized the importance of GSCM including investment recovery. Overall, eco-design practices in India in the supply chain cover off one of the biggest challenges seem to be and this is true for the pharmaceutical industry. The overall gap further boost by the Government of India and the respective professional societies, as well as collaborative partnerships and incentives may be needed. 76