Hamed Fazlollahtabar, Navid Kazemitash

DOI Number
First page
Last page


Information Systems (IS) have become crucial for all the organizations to survive in contemporary technology-oriented environment. Consequently, the number of companies and organizations which have invested widely in their IS infrastructures to present better services and to produce higher value products is increasing. On the other hand, nowadays, because of the increase of governmental rules and serious requirements of more people in the case of environmental protection, it seems necessary for all the enterprises to follow these regulations if they want to survive in the global markets. However, what is at issue here is not just the companies’ agreement with the environmental laws; in addition, they should apply some strategies to decrease the negative environmental impacts of their products in some countries. Thus, the aforementioned arguments are the reasons for the compulsory use of the green supplier selection (GSS) in all firms. Considering the mentioned contents, the purpose of this study is representation of the relation between ISs and GSS as two vital components of firms in a novel way which has not been done before. Actually, it shows the ISs' performance or effectiveness to select the green suppliers taking into account the different levels of importance of GSS measures (including eight criteria and 31 sub-criteria), using a multi-criteria decision-making method called Best Worst Method (BWM) to identify the weights (importance) of GSS measures and compute the GSS performance of 10 ISs in a company using the data gathered in a survey from ISs' experts.


Information systems, Green supplier selection, Best worst method, Significance scoring

Full Text:



Langefors, B., 1966, Theoretical Analysis of Information Systems, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.

Sirintrapun, S.J., Artz, D.R., 2016, Health information systems, Clinics in laboratory medicine, 36(1), pp. 133-152.

Sahay, S., Nielsen, P., Latifov, M., 2018, Grand challenges of public health: How can health information systems support facing them?, Health policy and technology, 7(1), pp. 81-87.

Chen, J., Li, M., Jiang, R., Hu, M.B., 2017, Effects of the amount of feedback information on urban traffic with advanced traveler information system, Physics Letters A, 381(35), pp. 2934-2938.

Sicilia, Á.., Madrazo, L., Massetti, M., Plazas, F.L., Ortet, E., 2017, An energy information system for retrofitting smart urban areas, Energy Procedia, 136, pp. 85-90.

Miller, W.B. 2017. Biological information systems: Evolution as cognition-based information management, Progress in biophysics and molecular biology, 134, pp. 1-26.

Köylüoğlu, A.S., Duman, L., Bedük, A., 2015, Information systems in globalization process and their reflections in education, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, pp. 1349-1354.

Anjana, N.S., Amarnath, A., Nair, M.H., 2018, Toxic hazards of ammonia release and population vulnerability assessment using geographical information system, Journal of environmental management, 210, pp. 201-209.

Durmić, E., 2019, Evaluation of criteria for sustainable supplier selection using FUCOM method, Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 2(1), pp. 91-107.

Chatterjee, P., Stević, Ž., 2019, A two-phase fuzzy AHP-fuzzy TOPSIS model for supplier evaluation in manufacturing environment, Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 2(1), pp. 72-90.

Wagner, K., 2017, Geographic Information Systems and Glacial Environments, In Past Glacial Environments (Second Edition), pp. 503-536.

Yu, F., Yang, Y., Chang, D., 2018, Carbon footprint based green supplier selection under dynamic environment, Journal of Cleaner Production, 170, pp. 880-889.

Banaeian, N., Mobli, H., Fahimnia, B., Nielsen, I.E., Omid, M., 2018, Green supplier selection using fuzzy group decision-making methods: A case study from the agri-food industry, Computers & Operations Research, 89, pp. 337-347.

Kuo, T.C., Hsu, C.W., Li, J.Y., 2015, Developing a green supplier selection model by using the DANP with VIKOR. Sustainability, 7(2), pp. 1661-1689.

Govindan, K., Rajendran, S., Sarkis, J., Murugesan, P., 2015, Multi criteria decision-making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review, Journal of Cleaner Production, 98, pp. 66-83.

Jain, V., Kumar, S., Kumar, A., Chandra, C., 2016, An integrated buyer initiated decision-making process for green supplier selection, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 41, pp. 256-265.

Gupta, H., Barua, M. K., 2017, Supplier selection among SMEs on the basis of their green innovation ability using BWM and fuzzy TOPSIS, Journal of Cleaner Production, 152, pp. 242-258.

Galankashi, M.R., Chegeni, A., Soleimanynanadegany, A., Memari, A., Anjomshoae, A., Helmi, S. A., Dargi, A., 2015, Prioritizing green supplier selection criteria using fuzzy analytical network process, Procedia CIRP, 26, pp. 689-694.

Hamdan, S., Cheaitou, A., 2017, Supplier selection and order allocation with green criteria: An MCDM and multi-objective optimization approach, Computers & Operations Research, 81, pp. 282-304.

Badi, I., Pamucar, D., 2020, Supplier selection for steelmaking company by using combined Grey-MARCOS methods, Decision-making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 3(2), pp. 37-48.

Durmić, E., Stević, Ž.,, Chatterjee, P., Vasiljević, M., Tomašević, M., 2020, Sustainable supplier selection using combined FUCOM – Rough SAW model, Reports in Mechanical Engineering, 1(1), pp. 34-43.

Pamucar, D., 2020, Normalized weighted geometric dombi bonferoni mean operator with interval grey numbers: application in multicriteria decision-making, Reports in Mechanical Engineering, 1(1), pp. 44-52.

Rezaei, J., 2015, Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega, 53, pp. 49–57.

Rezaei, J., 2016, Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model, Omega, 64, pp. 126–130.

Salimi, N., Rezaei, J., 2018, Evaluating firms’ R&D performance using best worst method, Evaluation and program planning, 66, pp. 147-155.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

ISSN: 0354-2025 (Print)

ISSN: 2335-0164 (Online)

COBISS.SR-ID 98732551

ZDB-ID: 2766459-4