EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 192 (2018) MATEC Web Conf., 192 (2018) 01021 References
Open Access
Issue
MATEC Web Conf.
Volume 192, 2018
The 4th International Conference on Engineering, Applied Sciences and Technology (ICEAST 2018) “Exploring Innovative Solutions for Smart Society”
Article Number 01021
Number of page(s) 9
Section Track 1: Industrial Engineering, Materials and Manufacturing
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201819201021
Published online 14 August 2018
  1. L.M.D.F. Ferreira, C. Silva, and S.G. Azevedo, An environmental balanced scorecard for supply chain performance measurement (Env_BSC_4_SCPM), Benchmarking: An International Journal. 23(6), 1398-1422 (2016) [Google Scholar]
  2. C.-N. Wang, H.-X.T. Ho, S.-H. Luo, and T.-F. Lin, An integrated approach to evaluating and selecting green logistics providers for sustainable development, Sustainability. 9(2), 218 (2017) [Google Scholar]
  3. P. Oberhofer and M. Dieplinger, Sustainability in the transport and logistics sector: lacking environmental measures, Business Strategy and the Environment. 23(4), 236-253 (2014) [Google Scholar]
  4. M. Björklund and H. Forslund, The purpose and focus of environmental performance measurement systems in logistics, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management. 62(3), 230-249 (2013) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. M.I. Piecyk and M. Björklund, Logistics service providers and corporate social responsibility: sustainability reporting in the logistics industry, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management. 45(5), 459-485 (2015) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. J.F. Henri and M. Journeault, Environmental performance indicators: an empirical study of Canadian manufacturing firms, Journal of Environmental Management. 87, 165-176 (2008) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. A. Scipioni, A. Mazzi, F. Zuliani, and M. Mason, The ISO 14031 standard to guide the urban sustainability measurement process: an Italian experience, Journal of Cleaner Production. 16, 1247-1257 (2008) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. C. Jasch, Environmental performance evaluation and indicators, Journal of Cleaner Production. 8(1), 79-88 (2000) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. H. Walker, L. Di Sisto, and D. McBain, Drivers and barriers to environmental supply chain management practices: lessons from the public and private sectors, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management. 14(1), 69–85 (2008) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. D. Nawrocka, Environmental supply chain management, ISO 14001 and RoHS. How are small companies in the electronics sector managing?, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 15(6), 349–360 (2008) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. R.L. Keeney and H. Raiffa, Decision with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1976) [Google Scholar]
  12. W.L. Winston, Operations research: applications and algorithms (Thomson Learning, Toronto, 2004) [Google Scholar]
  13. P. Zhou, B.W. Ang, and K.L. Poh, Comparing aggregating methods for constructing the composite environmental index: an objective measure, Ecological Economics. 59(3), 305-311 (2006) [Google Scholar]
  14. W.W. Cooper, L.M. Seiford, and K. Tone, Data Envelopment Analysis: a comprehensive text with models, applications, reference and DEA-solver software (Springer, New York, 2007) [Google Scholar]
  15. K.P. Yoon and C.L. Hwang, Multiple attribute decision making: an introduction (SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, California, 1995) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. P. Sureeyatanapas, J.B. Yang, and D. Bamford, Evaluation of corporate sustainability, Frontiers of Engineering Management. 1(2), 176-194 (2014) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  17. C.M. Tam, V.W.Y. Tam, and S.X. Zeng, Environmental performance evaluation (EPE) for construction, Building Research & Information. 30(5), 349-361 (2002) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. International Standard ISO 14031: Environmental management - Environmental performance evaluation - Guidelines (International Organization for Standardization, 2013) [Google Scholar]
  19. J.B. Yang, B.G. Dale, and C.H.R. Siow, Self-assessment of excellence: an application of the evidential reasoning approach, International Journal of Production Research. 39(16), 3789-3812 (2001) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  20. K.S. Chin, J.B. Yang, M. Guo, and J.P.K. Lam, An evidential-reasoning-interval-based method for new product design assessment, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. 56(1), 142-156 (2009) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  21. C. Fu and S. Yang, The combination of dependence-based interval-valued evidential reasoning approach with balanced scorecard for performance assessment, Expert Systems with Applications. 39(3), 3717-3730 (2012) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  22. F. Liu, W.-d. Zhu, Y.-w. Chen, D.-l. Xu, and J.-b. Yang, Evaluation, ranking and selection of R&D projects by multiple experts: an evidential reasoning rule based approach, Scientometrics. 111(3), 1501–1519 (2017) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. H. Sellak, B. Ouhbi, and B. Frikh, Energy planning under uncertain decision-making environment: an evidential reasoning approach to prioritize renewable energy sources, Inteligencia Artificial. 20(59), 21-31 (2017) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  24. J.B. Yang and M.G. Singh, An evidential reasoning approach for multiple attribute decision making with uncertainty, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. 24(1), 1-18 (1994) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  25. Y.M. Wang, J.B. Yang, and D.L. Xu, Environmental impact assessment using the evidential reasoning approach, European Journal of Operational Research. 174(3), 1885-1913 (2006) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  26. J.B. Yang, Rule and utility based evidential reasoning approach for multiple attribute decision analysis under uncertainty, European Journal of Operational Research. 131(1), 31-61 (2001) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  27. Y.M. Wang, J.B. Yang, D.L. Xu, and K.S. Chin, The evidential reasoning approach for multiple attribute decision analysis using interval belief degrees, European Journal of Operational Research. 175(1), 35-66 (2006) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  28. M. Guo, J.B. Yang, K.S. Chin, and H.W. Wang, Evidential reasoning based preference programming for multiple attribute decision analysis under uncertainty, European Journal of Operational Research. 182(3), 1294-1312 (2007) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  29. P.A. Bottomley, J.R. Doyle, and R.H. Green, Testing the reliability of weight elicitation methods: direct rating versus point allocation, Journal of Marketing Research. 37(4), 508-513 (2000) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  30. P. Sureeyatanapas and S. Pathumnakul, Impacts of using relative weights in multiple criteria decision making: a comparative study between independent-and overlapping-criteria decision problems, International Journal of Applied Decision Sciences. 10(2), 101-117 (2017) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  31. P. Sen and J.B. Yang, Multiple criteria decision support in engineering design (Springer, London, 1998) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  32. P. Sureeyatanapas, J.B. Yang, and D. Bamford, The sweet spot in sustainability: a framework for corporate assessment in sugar manufacturing, Production Planning & Control. 26(13), 1128-1144 (2015) [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.