A comparative decision-making model for sustainable end-of-life vehicle management alternative selection using AHP and extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP

• Main Authors: Ahmed, S., Shumon, M.R.H., Falatoonitoosi, E., Quader, M.A.
• Format: Article
• Published: Taylor & Francis 2016
• Subjects: TJ Mechanical engineering and machinery
• Online Access: http://eprints.um.edu.my/18157/; http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2015.1062814

Environmental protection and sustainable development are getting increasing attention in the automobile industries. Environmental consciousness has increased, and sustainability has become an important requirement for the management of end-of-life vehicles (ELVs). The proper management of ELVs can bring improved sustainability performance for any society or organisation. There are several alternative options for ELVs management such as reuse, repair, reconditioning, remanufacturing and recycling. Environmental legislation is forcing original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to manage their products at the end of their life cycle to reduce their potential environmental impact. An appropriate selection model for sustainable ELV management alternatives in the dynamic, competitive and regulatory environment can enable a firm to satisfy economic, environmental, social and technological requirements. This study proposes an integrated model to select the dimensions and criteria for evaluating sustainable alternatives for the proper management of ELVs. First, the Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) method is used to select the most important dimensions and criteria for sustainable alternative selection. Next, a hierarchy has been constructed to develop a systematic technique to solve the alternatives selection problem. An analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and extent analysis method on the fuzzy AHP (FEAHP) model have been used based on the hierarchy to evaluate the most suitable alternatives from the sustainability point of view. The strength of the proposed model is that it compares the results of both methods, the imprecision of experts opinions is considered in the evaluation process and the model is easy to use.