Journal of Cleaner Production 273 (2020) 123089

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Review

Approaches for supporting sustainable supplier selection - A literature

review
Vanessa Batista Schramm*, Luciana Priscila Barros Cabral, Fernando Schramm
Development of Systems for Supporting Sustainable Decisions (DeSiDeS), Federal University of Campina Grande (UFCG), Rua Aprígio Veloso, N.
882, Bloco

rio, Campina Grande, Paraíba, 58.429-900, Brazil
CB, Bairro Universita

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Supplier selection is a typical multicriteria decision problem and a more complex variation of it is the
Received 6 January 2020 sustainable supplier selection that should consider economic, environmental, and social aspects,
Received in revised form simultaneously. Several approaches have been developed to address this process, some of which are
17 June 2020
based on MCDM/A methods, applied individually or combined with other MCDM/A methods, and/or
Accepted 27 June 2020
Available online 16 July 2020
other different techniques. In this paper, we provide a literature review on these approaches that have
been developed over the last three decades (1990e2019) with 82 reviewed papers. Our study contributes
Handling editor: Prof. Jiri Jaromir Klemes to identify the most frequently applied MCDM/A methods and how they are applied: individually or
combined with other techniques; considering a single or a group decision making perspective; dealing
Keywords: with imprecision and/or uncertainties treatment; providing order quantities assignments. Most of the
Supply chain management approaches are based on compensatory methods that provokes the effect of compensation among
Sustainable supplier selection criteria; however, this type of methods is not indicated for supporting decisions that are concerned with
Multicriteria decision making/aid (MCDM/ sustainability for which environmental and social aspects cannot be compensated for by economical
A)
ones.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. Research methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Descriptive analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3.1. Distribution of papers according to year, journal, and area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3.2. Applied methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Declaration of competing interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1. Introduction services are produced and delivered to their customers and clients.
As a consequence, the concept of sustainable supply chain emerged
In the last three decades (1990e2019), sustainability awareness attracting both academic and corporate interest in public and pri-
increased significantly, impacting the way in which goods and vate organizations (Büyüko € zkan and Çifçi, 2012). The selection of
suppliers is one of the key tasks in the sustainable supply chain
management (Büyüko € zkan and Çifçi, 2012; Nielsen et al., 2014; El
* Corresponding author. Mariouli and Abouabdellah, 2019), which involves the manage-
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (V.B. Schramm), lucianapbc@
ment of all activities associated with the input-transformation-
gmail.com (L.P.B. Cabral), [email protected] (F. Schramm).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123089
0959-6526/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 V.B. Schramm et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 273 (2020) 123089

output process. published from 2016 onwards and thus are not covered by the
Supplier selection is a typical multicriteria decision making existing literature review papers. In this paper, we provide a liter-
problem (Dickson, 1966; Weber et al., 1991; Liao and Rittscher, ature review on these approaches that have been developed over
2007; Amid et al., 2011; Deng et al., 2014; Govindan et al., 2015). the last three decades (1990e2019) with 82 reviewed papers,
A more complex version is the sustainable supplier selection that aiming to identify the most frequently used MCDM/A methods and
considers economic, environmental, and social aspects, simulta- how they are applied: individually or combined with other MCDM/
neously, because the consequence of each action has economic, A methods and/or different techniques; considering a single or a
social, and environmental impacts. Multicriteria Decision Making/ group decision making perspective; dealing with imprecision and/
Aid (MCDM/A) is a branch of operational research/management or uncertainties treatment; providing order quantities
science that deals with this type of problem, supporting the assignments.
structuring, analysis and recommendation of a solution. The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 describes the re-
Due to the importance of sustainable supply chain management, view method adopted in this study; Section 3 presents a descriptive
several approaches have been developed to address the issue of analysis of the reviewed papers; Section 4 shows the discussions;
sustainable supplier selection. The use of formal decision support and conclusions are presented in Section 5.
models can help organizations gain competitive advantage
(Genovese et al., 2013; Igarashi et al., 2013; Nielsen et al., 2014; 2. Research methodology
Govindan et al., 2015). Some of these approaches are based on the
use of MCDM/A methods that are applied individually or integrated The literature review addresses MCDM/A-based approaches for
with other techniques. According to Ansari and Kant (2017), supporting sustainable supplier selection. Firstly, we formulate the
MCDM/A methods aim organizations to find the best compromise following research questions:
alternative, according to all the criteria. Consequently, in the last
decade, it was observed an upward trend in the number of publi- C Which are the most frequently applied methods in MCDM/A-
cations addressing different aspects of sustainable supply chain based approaches for supporting sustainable supplier
management. Some of these studies are covered by systematic selection?
literature review papers, which examined primary and secondary C How are these methods being applied (individually or com-
papers that were published in peer-reviewed journals from 1990, bined with other techniques; considering a single or a group
creating an important knowledge base. decision making perspective; dealing with imprecision and/
Igarashi et al. (2013) provided a literature review on papers that or uncertainties treatment; providing order quantities
were published from 1991 to 2011, regarding aspects that are assignments)?
required for green supplier selection, which is a paradigm that
considers environmental criteria during the selection of suppliers The Scopus, which is a database provided by the Brazilian Co-
without concerning social issues. Inevitably, green supplier selec- ordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel
tion converged to sustainable supplier selection given the need to (CAPES), was used to select the research papers to be reviewed.
consider the three dimensions of sustainable development in Scopus was chosen because it covers the largest number of publi-
supply chain management. Still regarding green supply chain cation titles on this subject during the period 1990e2019 compared
management processes, Govindan et al. (2015) examined 33 papers to Web of Science.
that appeared from 1996 to 2011, focusing on environmental issues English publications were searched between 1990 and
and MCDM/A-based approaches used. They classified the ap- November 2019 in peer-reviewed journals. The search string format
proaches according to the way in which methods were applied used was: TITLE-ABS-KEY (“sustainable supplier selection” OR “sus-
(individually or integrated). Most of them are based on the use of tainable vendor selection”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“*criteri*" OR
individual method, where Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) (and its "*attribute*" OR “multi-objective*" OR “multi*objective*") AND
variations) is the leader (16.6%), followed by Analytic Network PUBYEAR > 1990 AND (EXCLUDE (DOCTYPE, “cp”) OR EXCLUDE
Process (ANP) (11.1%), and Mathematical Programming-based (DOCTYPE, “cr”) OR EXCLUDE(DOCTYPE, “er")) AND (LIMIT-TO (LAN-
methods (only 2.77%). They also noted that the popularity of AHP GUAGE, “English")) AND (EXCLUDE (SRCTYPE, “k")).
in supplier selection approaches can be explained by convenience This search string assures the inclusion of the largest number of
and simplification rather than mathematical reasons. Regarding papers that are relevant to the study. Also, the search string
sustainable supplier selection, from 2002 to 2016, 286 papers were removes conference papers, conference reviews, erratum, and book
published in the specialized literature, addressing different aspects series. As a result, the search returned 74 papers published in
of sustainable supply chain management. These studies were specialized journals.
summarized into 10 systematic literature review papers that in As recommended by Bauer and Bakkalbasi (2005) in a study that
turn were summarized into the work of Ansari and Kant (2017). compares different databases, the Google Scholar was consulted in
From the list, 29 papers reported the use MCDM/A methods for addition to Scopus in order to get recent publications, which added
supporting different decision-making processes that occur in sup- 14 extra papers to our review base. Six papers were removed from
ply chain management, being AHP and Data Envelopment Analysis the original Scopus base because they were not concerned with
(DEA) the most used (8 papers), followed by Technique for Order MCDM/A-based approaches for supporting sustainable supplier
Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) (5), ANP (4), selection.
Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) (3)
and Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) (1). 3. Descriptive analysis
The studies cited above cover three decades of advances in the
area of supply chain management and address different issues 3.1. Distribution of papers according to year, journal, and area
associated with the sustainable supply chain management process,
internal and external to organizations, but without specifically The reviewed data base comprises 82 papers that were pub-
addressing the supplier selection task. In addition, most of the lished in peer-reviewed journals in the last thirty years
papers that show MCDM/A approaches for supplier selection (1990e2019). The distribution of reviewed papers over the years is
(considering economic, environmental, and social criteria) were presented in Fig. 1. The first paper was published in 2011 in the
 V.B. Schramm et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 273 (2020) 123089 3

integration of techniques. Considering the use of one method

applied individually, DEA, TOPSIS and AHP are the most frequently
used methods (including also variations of these methods). DEA is a
Mathematical Programing technique that is widely used in the
context of multicriteria decision making. This method and a vari-
ation of it using goal programming were used in 8 approaches as
can be seen in Table 1.
Regarding MCDM/A methods, the most frequently used is
TOPSIS: Shalke et al. (2018); Mohammed (2019) and Memari et al.
(2019) used fuzzy versions of TOPSIS, incorporating imprecision in
judgments; for dealing with imprecision, Bai and Sarkis (2018) used
TOPSIS with Grey Theory, while Li et al. (2019) used Rough Set
Fig. 1. Distribution of reviewed papers according to publication year.
Theory; dos Santos et al. (2019) used a fuzzy version of TOPSIS
aggregating Shannon’s Entropy for also incorporating uncertainties
in the analysis; and Yu et al. (2019) used Entropy Measure Method
Computers in Industry journal and until 2015 the number of pub- and Grey Correlation Analysis to deal with uncertainties and
lications per year was less than five. An increase was verified from imprecision, respectively.
2016 onwards, with around 73% of the publications concentrated In the following studies AHP and its variations are used:
between 2018 and 2019. Khoshfetrat et al. (2019) applied the conventional AHP;
From 2016 onwards, it was verified a significant increase in the Büyüko € zkan and Çifçi (2011) and Laosirihongthong et al. (2019)
number of scientific publications regarding approaches for sup- used a fuzzy version of AHP allowing imprecision in judgments;
porting sustainable supplier selection. This can be explained by the for dealing with imprecision, Ahmadi et al. (2017) used Grey
occurrence of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Relational Analysis combined with AHP; Xu et al. (2019) used the
Development (or Rioþ20) that was held in 2012, in Rio de Janeiro/ Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Sets combined with a version of AHP for
Brazil that took forward-looking decisions for implementing sus- sorting problematic; and Pishchulov et al. (2019) applied a variant
tainable development, encompassing, among other topics, sus- of AHP named Voting-AHP.
tainable consumption and production. This topic had already been Other MCDM/A methods that are being used in single method-
deeply discussed among governments and other stakeholders at based approaches are: ANP (Ghadimi et al., 2017); Vise Kriter-
international and regional levels during the ten years prior to the ijumska Optimizacija i Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR) for sorting
Rioþ20, in a global multi-stakeholder decision-making process that problematic (Demir et al., 2018); Elimination et Choix Traduisant la
was known as the Marrakech Process. re
alite

(ELECTRE) method, incorporating Rough Set Theory for
A consequence of this was the inclusion of social and/or envi- dealing with uncertainties (Lu et al., 2018); an extended novel
ronmental aspects in decision-making processes involved in the TODIM (acronym in Portuguese for Interactive Multi-criteria Deci-
supply chain management, including the supplier selection task. In sion Making) method with Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Sets (Qin et al.,
this context, decision models/systems for supporting supplier se- 2017); DEMATEL (Song et al., 2017); Fuzzy Kano Model, that is an
lection, considering a multi criteria perspective, emerged as a integration of Fuzzy Sets Theory into Kano model (Jain and Singh,
promising topic. 2019); and Discrete Choquet Integral Multi-Criteria (Wang et al.,
Most of the papers were published in the Journal of Cleaner 2019).
Production (~18%). Some studies were published in journals that Besides the MCDM/A methods, other techniques were applied
deal with computer applications, such as the Expert Systems with for dealing with the multicriteria problem resulting from the sup-
Application and the Computers and Industrial Engineering (~13%). plier selection. Osiro et al. (2018) proposed a group decision
Papers comprise a wide range of areas (Fig. 2). approach that is based on the Quality Function Deployment (QFD),
a qualitative technique, using Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Term Sets to
3.2. Applied methods represent the judgements of decision makers. Foroozesh et al.
(2018) and Foroozesh et al. (2019) proposed a group decision-
The papers were organized into two main classes: (i) ap- making approach based on the Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
proaches based on single method and (ii) approaches based on (FMEA) technique and fuzzy sets. Amindoust et al. (2012b) pro-
posed an approach based on the Fuzzy Inference System. Rao et al.
(2017) used Linguistic 2-tuple Grey Correlation Degree. And
Rabbani et al. (2019) applied the Interval-Valued Fuzzy Sets.
Some approaches are based on classical optimization methods
applied individually: Park et al. (2018), Almasi et al. (2019), and El
Mariouli and Abouabdellah (2019). Arabsheybani et al. (2018)
used an optimization technique with fuzzy information (Fuzzy
Multi-Objective Optimization on the Basis of Ratio Analysis e Fuzzy
MOORA).
Classical optimization techniques appear in other approaches
but combined with MCDM/A methods and other techniques,
including qualitative methods (such as QFD, Swot Analysis and
Delphi) and DEA, for supporting different tasks in the sustainable
supplier selection process: Azadnia et al. (2015), Gupta et al. (2016),
Hamdan and Cheaitou (2017a), Jauhar and Pant (2017), Tavana et al.
(2017b), Yazdani et al. (2017), Azadnia et al. (2018), Babbar and
Amin (2018); Cheraghalipour and Farsad (2018), Vahidi et al.
Fig. 2. Distribution of reviewed papers according to journal’s areas. (2018), and Rabieh et al. (2019).
4 V.B. Schramm et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 273 (2020) 123089

Table 1
Approaches for supporting sustainable supplier selection based on a single method.

Reference Technique Order quantity assignment Group decision

Ahmadi et al. (2017) AHP with Grey Relational Analysis ✔

Almasi et al. (2019) Goal Programming ✔
Amindoust et al. (2012a) DEA
Amindoust et al. (2012b) Fuzzy Inference System ✔
Arabsheybani et al. (2018) Fuzzy-MOORA ✔
Bai and Sarkis (2018) TOPSIS with Grey Theory
Büyüko € zkan and Çifçi (2011) AHP-diffuse with incomplete language preferences ✔
Demir et al. (2018) VIKOR-Sort
dos Santos et al. (2019) Fuzzy-TOPSIS with Shannon’s Entropy
El Mariouli and Abouabdellah (2019) Goal Programming
Foroozesh et al. (2018) FMEA with Fuzzy Sets ✔
Foroozesh et al. (2019) FMEA with Interval-Valued Fuzzy Sets ✔
Ghadimi et al. (2017) ANP ✔
Ghoushchi et al. (2018) Goal Programming-DEA
Izadikhah and Farzipoor Saen (2019) DEA
Jain and Singh (2019) Fuzzy-Kano Model
Khoshfetrat et al. (2019) AHP ✔
Laosirihongthong et al. (2019) Fuzzy-AHP
Li et al. (2019) TOPSIS with Rough Set Theory ✔
Lu et al. (2018) ELECTRE with Rough Set Theory ✔
Memari et al. (2019) Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets-TOPSIS ✔
Mohammed (2019) Fuzzy-TOPSIS ✔
Moheb-Alizadeh and Handfield (2018) Goal Programming-DEA ✔ ✔
Moheb-Alizadeh and Handfield (2019) Goal Programming-DEA ✔
Osiro et al. (2018) QFD with Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Term Sets (HFLTS) ✔
Park et al. (2018) Multi-Objective Integer Linear Programming ✔
Pishchulov et al. (2019) Voting-AHP ✔
Qin et al. (2017) An extended novel TODIM method with Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Sets ✔
Rabbani et al. (2019) Interval-Valued Fuzzy Sets ✔
Rao et al. (2017) Linguistic 2-tuple Grey Correlation Degree
Shalke et al. (2018) TOPSIS ✔
Song et al. (2017) DEMATEL ✔
Tavana et al. (2017a) Goal Programming-DEA
Wang et al. (2019) Discrete Choquet Integral Multi-Criteria
Xu et al. (2019) AHP Sort II with Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Sets
Yu et al. (2019) TOPSIS with Entropy Measure Method and Grey Correlation Analysis ✔
Zarbakhshnia and Jaghdani (2018) DEA

As for the approaches that are based on the integration of Tables also present the approaches that support the order quantity
techniques, TOPSIS (considering its fuzzy version) and AHP (and its assignment task, for which an optimization technique is used, and
fuzzy version) are the first and second most used MCDM/A method, approaches that consider group decision perspective, for which the
respectively (Table 2). Followed by ANP and VIKOR with seven cases preferences of various individuals to set the parameters of the
each. Then, Best Worst Method (BWM), DEMATEL (and its varia- decision model is used.
tions), and COPRAS (and its variations). Other MCDM/A used are: A huge variety of MCDM/A methods were used, some of which
ELECTRE, TODIM, Full Consistency Method (FUCOM), Preference are variations of more traditional ones, such as AHP. The Fig. 3
Ranking Organization Method for Enriched Evaluation (PROM- presents these methods with their respective frequency of occur-
ETHEE), a version of the Simple Additive Weighting (SAW), using rence in both single and integration-based approaches.
Rough Set Theory, and Weighted Aggregates Sum Product Assess-
ment (WASPAS) that appeared combined with other MCDM/A 4. Discussion
methods and other techniques in the approach proposed by Tavana
et al. (2017b). The MCDM/A area is quite consolidated, with a huge number of
Liu et al. (2019a) and Liu et al. (2019b) incorporated qualitative methods and practitioners. In the context of sustainable supplier
techniques (QFD and Alternative Queuing Method, respectively), selection, we observed a large number of approaches based on
and Go € ren (2018) combined DEMATEL with Taguchi Loss Functions different MCDM/A methods, applied individually or combined with
technique. Lorena and Leonardo (2018) proposed a model that a wide range of different techniques in different ways.
combines an artificial intelligence technique (Colored Petri Nets) One of the challenges of this study was to contrast MCDM/A
with different multicriteria decision-making methods, which was methods from other techniques applied in the context of multi-
used as basis, to support supplier selection. criteria decision making. To address this, we consider as MCDM/A
Other types of techniques appeared integrated with MCDM/A methods, the quantitative techniques that are able to recommend a
methods, such as: Rule-Based Weighted Fuzzy Method that appear best compromise solution, from a set of alternatives, to a decision
integrated with AHP and Goal Programming in the work of Azadnia maker based on his/her preferences, in a situation where there is no
et al. (2015); Piecewise linear values function with BWM optimal solution; also, this solution can be presented in terms of
(Jafarzadeh Ghoushchi et al., 2019); and Interpretive Structural ranking of alternatives from the best to the worst (ranking prob-
Modelling that is integrated with Delphi, ANP and a version of lematic), a classification of them into pre-defined sets (sorting
COPRAS incorporating Grey Theory (Kannan, 2018). problematic), or a recommendation of a unique alternative (choice
Tables 1 and 2 present a summary of approaches based on a problematic). Note that in various studies DEA is classified as a
single method and on integration of techniques, respectively. MCDM/A method, but this is not the case in this study, which
 V.B. Schramm et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 273 (2020) 123089 5

Table 2
Approaches for supporting sustainable supplier selection based on integration of techniques.

Reference Techniques Order quantity Group

assignment decision

Abdel-Basset et al. (2018) ANP þ TOPSIS ✔

Abdel-Basset et al. (2019) ANP þ VIKOR ✔
Awasthi et al. (2018) AHP þ Fuzzy-VIKOR
Azadnia et al. (2015) Fuzzy-AHP and Rule-Based Weighted Fuzzy Method þ Goal Programming ✔
Azadnia et al. (2018) Fuzzy-AHPþQFDþFuzzy multi-objective mix-integer non-linear programming
Babbar and Amin (2018) Fuzzy-QFD þ Goal Programming ✔ ✔
Bai et al. (2019) BWM þ Grey-TODIM ✔
Çalı and Balaman (2019) ELECTRE I þ VIKOR with Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets ✔
Cheraghalipour and BWM þ Revised Multi-Choice Goal Programming
Farsad (2018)
Fallahpour et al. (2017) AHP þ Fuzzy-TOPSIS
Go€ren (2018) Fuzzy-DEMATEL þ Taguchi Loss Functions ✔
Gupta and Barua (2017) BWM þ Fuzzy-TOPSIS
Gupta et al. (2016) AHP þ Fuzzy Multi-Objective Integer Linear Programming ✔
Hamdan and Cheaitou Fuzzy-TOPSIS þ AHP þ Bi-Objective Linear Integer Programming
(2017a)
Hamdan and Cheaitou AHP þ Fuzzy-TOPSIS
(2017b)
Jafarzadeh Ghoushchi Fuzzy-BWM þ Piecewise linear values function
et al. (2019)
Jauhar and Pant (2017) DEA þ MODE
Kannan (2018) Fuzzy-Delphi þ Interpretive Structural Modelling þ ANP þ COPRAS-Grey
Khan et al. (2018) Fuzzy-Shannon Entropy þ Fuzzy Inference System
Khorasani (2018) Fuzzy-AHP þ Fuzzy-COPRAS
Liu et al. (2019a) QFD with Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Trapezoidal Fuzzy Numbers þ VIKOR with Interval-Valued
Intuitionistic Trapezoidal Fuzzy Numbers
Liu et al. (2019b) BWM þ Alternative Queuing Method
Liu et al. (2019c) Fuzzy-AHP þ TOPSIS ✔
Lo et al. (2018) BWM þ Fuzzy-TOPSIS ✔
Lorena and Leonardo Colored Petri Nets þ different multicriteria methods
(2018)
Luthra et al. (2017) AHP þ VIKOR
Mao et al. (2019) Fuzzy-TOPSIS with Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Numbers þ TODIM with Interval-Valued
Intuitionistic Fuzzy Numbers
Mati
c et al. (2019) FUCOM þ COPRAS ✔
Mohammed et al. (2018) Fuzzy-AHP þ Fuzzy-TOPSIS ✔
Mohammed et al. (2019) Fuzzy-AHP þ TOPSIS ✔
Mousakhani et al. (2017) Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Sets TOPSIS þ Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Sets Hamming Distance ✔
Orji and Wei (2014) Fuzzy-DEMATEL þ TOPSIS ✔
Orji and Wei (2015) TOPSIS þ Systems Dynamics Model
Petrudi et al. (2018) Interpretive Structural Modelling þ Fuzzy-DEMATEL þ ANP þ Fuzzy-TOPSIS ✔
Phochanikorn and Tan Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets-DEMATEL þ ANP þ VIKOR
(2019)
Rabieh et al. (2019) Delphi þ Fuzzy-TOPSIS þ Goal Programming ✔
Rashidi and Cullinane Fuzzy-DEA þ Fuzzy-TOPSIS
(2019)
Roy et al. (2019) Fuzzy-AHP þ PROMETHEE ✔
Stevi

c et al. (2019) FUCOM þ Interval Rough SAW
Tavana et al. (2017b) ANP þ QFD þ AHP, WASPAS þ MOORA þ COPRAS
Vahidi et al. (2018) SWOT Analysis þ QFD þ Bi-Objective Possibilistic-Stochastic Programming Model ✔
Wang et al. (2018) Fuzzy-AHP þ Green-DEA ✔
Yazdani et al. (2017) DEMATEL þ QFD þ COPRAS and MOORA
Yu et al. (2018) TOPSIS þ ELECTRE with Entropy Measure Method
Zhou and Xu (2018) DEMATEL þ ANP þ VIKOR ✔

classifies it as Mathematical Programming-based methodology. management, it does not make sense that environmental and social
Fifteen different types of MCDM/A methods were identified: aspects be compensated for by economical ones. In this sense, non-
TOPSIS, AHP, ANP, VIKOR, ELECTRE, TODIM, DEMATEL, Fuzzy-Kano compensatory methods are more appropriate to be used in ap-
Model, Discrete Choquet Integral Multi-Criteria, BWM, COPRAS, proaches for supporting sustainable supplier selection: when a
FUCOM, PROMETHEE, SAW, and WASPAS. Most of the approaches non-compensatory method is used, the approach will recommend
are based on compensatory methods, such as AHP, TOPSIS and ANP. a supplier who have the best overall performance considering all
However, the corresponding papers do not make any mention to criteria, simultaneously.
the effect of compensation that some methods can provoke during Another concern regarding the use of compensatory methods is
the aggregation of the intercriteria information - when a the erroneous interpretation given to the “weights” of criteria (the
compensatory method is used, a disadvantage in some criteria can proper term is scaling constants). In non-compensatory, these
be compensated for by a large advantage in another criterion. constants mean relative importance among criteria, while in
The choice of the method depends on the analysis of how compensatory methods, these constants carry other information
desirable the effect of compensation is in the multi-criteria decision beyond the relative importance of criteria, which is the information
problem at hand. In the context of sustainable supply chain of trade-off of criteria, that will reflect the idea of compensation
6 V.B. Schramm et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 273 (2020) 123089

Fig. 3. Occurrence of MCDM/A methods.

among criteria. These differences have implications on the way in social aspects with other performance criteria, simultaneously.
which this information is elicited from decision makers. According Most of the reviewed studies used approaches for supporting sus-
to De Almeida et al. (2016), elicitation of weights is one of the most tainable supplier selection that are based on compensatory multi-
relevant issue in using a multicriteria decision approach, particu- criteria methods and around ~55% of the approaches used are based
larly, for compensatory methods. on the integration of different techniques in different ways.
In practice, if the multicriteria method is not properly applied, MCDM/A-based approaches are powerful tools for supporting
the solution may not reflect the preferences of decision makers and supplier selection task. Before choosing the MCDM/A method, it is
they probably will not accept the recommendation provided by the important to evaluate if compensation is a desired effect or not e
approach and consequently it can fall into disuse. Other important approaches that are based on compensatory methods should not be
aspect that influences the acceptance of an approach for supporting adopted if decision makers do not want to compensate social and/
decision makers is the cognitive effort that is required from them to or environment performance of suppliers with economic
understand to understand the concepts and parameters inherent in performance.
the method e a complex preference modeling process can reduce The integration of multiple techniques is trendy due to the
the effectiveness of applying multicriteria methods. practical complexity of this type of decision, but to avoid incon-
This aspect is particularly important for approaches that are sistent results, it is necessary to understand the fundamentals
based on the integration of techniques. In our study, ~55%reviewed differences among the methods, before integrating them. More-
approaches are based on the integration of different techniques in over, it is important to observe if the integration of techniques
different ways. In both cases, TOPSIS and AHP are the most improves the complexity of the approach, making it hard to apply
frequently applied methods. in real-life situations - if an approach requires a high cognitive
In ~18% of the approaches, the assignment of order quantities effort from decision makers, the modeling process can be harmed
that should be allocated to each supplier by using optimization and consequently the application of the approach. Finally, the
models were provided. In addition, about 38% of the studies process for elicitation of criteria’s weights is a critical issue and
adopted a group decision perspective and for these cases, it is deserves more attention in these studies, particularly when
recommended to incorporate an analysis of divergence amongst compensatory methods are being used.
the group. In this sense, more research is needed to study the applicability
Various approaches deal with imprecision in decision makers’ of these approaches to real-life supplier selection problems,
judgments, incorporating Fuzzy Sets Theory and its variations (In- particularly to verify the level of cognitive effort that is required
terval Type-2 Fuzzy Sets, Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets, and Hesitant from decision makers and if they are confident in the recommen-
Fuzzy Linguistic Term Sets), Rough Set Theory, and Grey Theory. dation that the approaches provide.
Some approaches incorporate techniques for dealing with un- Future work might improve our study incorporating the analysis
certainties, such as Shannon Entropy and Entropy Measure Method. of criteria and the practical implications of the proposed ap-
proaches, and other papers that may have been omitted from our
review.
5. Conclusion

This study provides a literature review of 82 peer-reviewed Declaration of competing interest

journal papers on decision models, based on MCDM/A methods,
for supporting supplier selection task, specifically, in the context of The authors declare that they have no known competing
sustainable supply chain management, considering both green and financial interests or personal relationships that could have
 V.B. Schramm et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 273 (2020) 123089 7

appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Appl. 114, 479e487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2018.07.071.
Deng, X., Hu, Y., Deng, Y., Mahadevan, S., 2014. Supplier selection using AHP
methodology extended by D numbers. Expert Syst. Appl. 41, 156e167. https://
Acknowledgment doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013.07.018.
Dickson, G.W., 1966. An analysis of vendor selection systems and decisions. J. Purch.
2 (1), 5e17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.1966.tb00818.x.
This work was supported by the Paraíba State Research Foun- dos Santos, B.M., Godoy, L.P., Campos, L.M.S., 2019. Performance evaluation of green
dation (FAPESQ) [Grant No.: 007/2018]. suppliers using entropy-TOPSIS-F. J. Clean. Prod. 207, 498e509. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.235.
El Mariouli, O., Abouabdellah, A., 2019. A new model of supplier’s selection for
References sustainable supply chain management. Adv. Sci. Technol. Eng. Syst. 4 (2),
251e259. https://doi.org/10.25046/aj040233.
Abdel-Baset, M., Chang, V., Gamal, A., Smarandache, F., 2019. An integrated neu- Fallahpour, A., Udoncy Olugu, E., Nurmaya Musa, S., Yew Wong, K., Noori, S., 2017.
trosophic ANP and VIKOR method for achieving sustainable supplier selection: A decision support model for sustainable supplier selection in sustainable
a case study in importing field. Comput. Ind. 106, 94e110. https://doi.org/ supply chain management. Comput. Ind. Eng. 105, 391e410. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compind.2018.12.017. 10.1016/j.cie.2017.01.005.
Abdel-Basset, M., Mohamed, M., Smarandache, F., 2018. A hybrid neutrosophic Foroozesh, N., Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., Mousavi, S.M., 2018. Sustainable-supplier
group ANP-TOPSIS framework for supplier selection problems. Symmetry 10 selection for manufacturing services: a failure mode and effects analysis model
(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/sym10060226. based on interval-valued fuzzy group decision-making. Int. J. Adv. Manuf.
Ahmadi, H.B., Petrudi, S.H.H., Wang, X., 2017. Integrating sustainability into supplier Technol. 95 (9e12), 3609e3629. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-017-1308-8.
selection with analytical hierarchy process and improved grey relational anal- Foroozesh, N., Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., Mousavi, S.M., 2019. An interval-valued
ysis: a case of telecom industry. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 90 (9e12), fuzzy statistical group decision making approach with new evaluating indices
2413e2427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-016-9518-z. for sustainable supplier selection problem. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. (Preprint), 1e12.
Almasi, M., Khoshfetrat, S., Rahiminezhad Galankashi, M., 2019. Sustainable sup- https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-17467.
plier selection and order allocation under risk and inflation condition. IEEE Genovese, A., Lenny Koh, S.C., Bruno, G., Esposito, E., 2013. Greener supplier se-
Trans. Eng. Manag. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2019.2903176. lection: state of the art and some empirical evidence. Int. J. Prod. Res. 51 (10),
Amid, A., Ghodsypour, S.H., O’Brien, C., 2011. A weighted maxemin model for fuzzy 2868e2886. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2012.748224.
multi-objective supplier selection in a supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 131, Ghadimi, P., Dargi, A., Heavey, C., 2017. Making sustainable sourcing decisions:
139e145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.04.044. practical evidence from the automotive industry. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 20 (4),
Amindoust, A., Ahmed, S., Saghafinia, A., 2012a. Supplier performance measure- 297e321. https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2016.1227310.
ment of palm oil industries from a sustainable point of view in Malaysia. Bio Ghoushchi, S.J., Milan, M.D., Rezaee, M.J., 2018. Evaluation and selection of sus-
Technol.: Indian J. 6 (6), 155e158. tainable suppliers in supply chain using new GP-DEA model with imprecise
Amindoust, A., Ahmed, S., Saghafinia, A., Bahreininejad, A., 2012b. Sustainable data. J. Ind. Eng. Int. 14 (3), 613e625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40092-017-0246-
supplier selection: a ranking model based on fuzzy inference system. App. Soft 2.
Comput. J. 12 (6), 1668e1677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2012.01.023. Go€ren, H.G., 2018. A decision framework for sustainable supplier selection and
Ansari, Z.N., Kant, R., 2017. A state-of-art literature review reflecting 15 years of order allocation with lost sales. J. Clean. Prod. 183, 1156e1169. https://doi.org/
focus on sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 142, 2524e2543. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.211.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.023. Govindan, K., Rajendran, S., Sarkis, J., Murugesan, P., 2015. Multi criteria decision
Arabsheybani, A., Paydar, M.M., Safaei, A.S., 2018. An integrated fuzzy MOORA making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: a literature
method and FMEA technique for sustainable supplier selection considering review. J. Clean. Prod. 98 (1), 66e83. https://doi.org/10.1016/
quantity discounts and supplier’s risk. J. Clean. Prod. 190, 577e591. https:// j.jclepro.2013.06.046.
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.167. Gupta, H., Barua, M.K., 2017. Supplier selection among SMEs on the basis of their
Awasthi, A., Govindan, K., Gold, S., 2018. Multi-tier sustainable global supplier se- green innovation ability using BWM and fuzzy TOPSIS. J. Clean. Prod. 152,
lection using a fuzzy AHP-VIKOR based approach. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 195, 242e258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.125.
106e117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.10.013. October 2017. Gupta, P., Govindan, K., Mehlawat, M.K., Kumar, S., 2016. A weighted possibilistic
Azadnia, A.H., Saman, M.Z.M., Wong, K.Y., 2015. Sustainable supplier selection and programming approach for sustainable vendor selection and order allocation in
order lot-sizing: an integrated multi-objective decision-making process. Int. J. fuzzy environment. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 86 (5e8), 1785e1804. https://
Prod. Res. 53 (2), 383e408. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.935827. doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-8315-4.
Azadnia, Amir Hossein, Ghadimi, P., 2018. An integrated approach of fuzzy quality Hamdan, S., Cheaitou, A., 2017a. Dynamic green supplier selection and order allo-
function deployment and fuzzy multi-objective programming to sustainable cation with quantity discounts and varying supplier availability. Comput. Ind.
supplier selection and order allocation. J. Optim. Ind. Eng. 11 (1), 1e22. https:// Eng. 110, 573e589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2017.03.028.
doi.org/10.22094/JOIE.2017.629.1405. Hamdan, S., Cheaitou, A., 2017b. Supplier selection and order allocation with green
Babbar, C., Amin, S.H., 2018. A multi-objective mathematical model integrating criteria: an MCDM and multi-objective optimization approach. Comput. Oper.
environmental concerns for supplier selection and order allocation based on Res. 81, 282e304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2016.11.005.
fuzzy QFD in beverages industry. Expert Syst. Appl. 92, 27e38. https://doi.org/ Igarashi, M., De Boer, L., Fet, A.M., 2013. What is required for greener supplier se-
10.1016/j.eswa.2017.09.041. lection? A literature review and conceptual model development. J. Purch.
Bai, C., Sarkis, J., 2018. Integrating sustainability into supplier selection: a grey- Supply Manag. 19, 247e263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2013.06.001.
based TOPSIS analysis. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 24 (6), 2202e2224. https:// Izadikhah, M., Farzipoor Saen, R., 2019. Ranking Sustainable Suppliers by Context-
doi.org/10.3846/tede.2018.5582. dependent Data Envelopment Analysis. Annals of Operations Research.
Bai, C., Kusi-Sarpong, S., Badri Ahmadi, H., Sarkis, J., 2019. Social sustainable supplier Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-019-03370-4.
evaluation and selection: a group decision-support approach. Int. J. Prod. Res. Jafarzadeh Ghoushchi, S., Khazaeili, M., Amini, A., Osgooei, E., 2019. Multi-criteria
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1574042. sustainable supplier selection using piecewise linear value function and fuzzy
Bauer, K., Bakkalbasi, N., 2005. An examination of citation counts in a new scholarly best-worst method. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 37 (2), 2309e2325. https://doi.org/
communication environment. D-Lib Mag. 11 (9). Retrieved February 21, 2020, 10.3233/JIFS-182609.
from. http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september05/bauer/09bauer.html. Jain, N., Singh, A.R., 2019. Sustainable supplier selection criteria classification for
Büyüko € zkan, G., Çifçi, G., 2011. A novel fuzzy multi-criteria decision framework for Indian iron and steel industry: a fuzzy modified Kano model approach. Int. J.
sustainable supplier selection with incomplete information. Comput. Ind. 62 Sustain. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2019.1566413.
(2), 164e174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2010.10.009. Jauhar, S.K., Pant, M., 2017. Integrating DEA with DE and MODE for sustainable
Büyüko € zkan, G., Çifçi, G., 2012. Evaluation of the green supply chain management supplier selection. J. Comput. Sci. 21, 299e306. https://doi.org/10.1016/
practices: a fuzzy ANP approach. Prod. Plann. Contr. 23 (6), 405e418. https:// j.jocs.2017.02.011.
doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2011.561814. Kannan, D., 2018. Role of multiple stakeholders and the critical success factor
Çalı, S., Balaman, Ş.Y., 2019. A novel outranking based multi criteria group decision theory for the sustainable supplier selection process. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 195,
making methodology integrating ELECTRE and VIKOR under intuitionistic fuzzy 391e418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.02.020 e.
environment. Expert Syst. Appl. 119, 36e50. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Khan, S.A., Kusi-Sarpong, S., Arhin, F.K., Kusi-Sarpong, H., 2018. Supplier sustain-
j.eswa.2018.10.039. ability performance evaluation and selection: a framework and methodology.
Cheraghalipour, A., Farsad, S., 2018. A bi-objective sustainable supplier selection J. Clean. Prod. 205, 964e979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.144.
and order allocation considering quantity discounts under disruption risks: a Khorasani, S.T., 2018. Green supplier evaluation by using the integrated fuzzy AHP
case study in plastic industry. Comput. Ind. Eng. 118, 237e250. https://doi.org/ model and fuzzy copras. In: Process Integration and Optimization for Sustain-
10.1016/j.cie.2018.02.041. ability, 2, pp. 17e25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41660-017-0027-9.
De Almeida, A.T., De Almeida, J.A., Costa, A.P.C.S., De Almeida-Filho, A.T., 2016. Khoshfetrat, S., Rahiminezhad Galankashi, M., Almasi, M., 2019. Sustainable sup-
A new method for elicitation of criteria weights in additive models: flexible and plier selection and order allocation: a fuzzy approach. Eng. Optim. 1e14. https://
interactive tradeoff. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 250, 179e191. https://doi.org/10.1016/ doi.org/10.1080/0305215X.2019.1663185, 0(0).
j.ejor.2015.08.058. Laosirihongthong, T., Samaranayake, P., Nagalingam, S., 2019. A holistic approach to
Demir, L., Akpınar, M.E., Araz, C., Ilgın, M.A., 2018. A green supplier evaluation supplier evaluation and order allocation towards sustainable procurement.
system based on a new multi-criteria sorting method: VIKORSORT. Expert Syst. Benchmark. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-11-2018-0360.
8 V.B. Schramm et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 273 (2020) 123089

Li, J., Fang, H., Song, W., 2019. Sustainable supplier selection based on SSCM prac- a sustainable supply chain. Uncertain Supply Chain Manag. 6 (4), 423e444.
tices: a rough cloud TOPSIS approach. J. Clean. Prod. 222, 606e621. https:// https://doi.org/10.5267/j.uscm.2017.12.003.
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.070. Phochanikorn, P., Tan, C., 2019. A new extension to a multi-criteria decision-making
Liao, Z., Rittscher, J., 2007. A multi-objective supplier selection model under sto- model for sustainable supplier selection under an intuitionistic fuzzy envi-
chastic demand conditions. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 105, 150e159. https://doi.org/ ronment. Sustainability 11 (19). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195413.
10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.03.001. Pishchulov, G., Trautrims, A., Chesney, T., Gold, S., Schwab, L., 2019. The Voting
Liu, A., Xiao, Y., Lu, H., Tsai, S.B., Song, W., 2019a. A fuzzy three-stage multi-attribute Analytic Hierarchy Process revisited: a revised method with application to
decision-making approach based on customer needs for sustainable supplier sustainable supplier selection. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 211, 166e179. https://doi.org/
selection. J. Clean. Prod. 239, 118043. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.01.025. October 2018.
j.jclepro.2019.118043. Qin, J., Liu, X., Pedrycz, W., 2017. An extended TODIM multi-criteria group decision
Liu, H.C., Quan, M.Y., Li, Z.W., Wang, Z.L., 2019b. A new integrated MCDM model for making method for green supplier selection in interval type-2 fuzzy environ-
sustainable supplier selection under interval-valued intuitionistic uncertain ment. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 258 (2), 626e638. https://doi.org/10.1016/
linguistic environment. Inf. Sci. 486, 254e270. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ejor.2016.09.059.
j.ins.2019.02.056. Rabbani, M., Foroozesh, N., Mousavi, S.M., Farrokhi-Asl, H., 2019. Sustainable sup-
Liu, Y., Eckert, C., Yannou-Le Bris, G., Petit, G., 2019c. A fuzzy decision tool to plier selection by a new decision model based on interval-valued fuzzy sets and
evaluate the sustainable performance of suppliers in an agrifood value chain. possibilistic statistical reference point systems under uncertainty. Int. J. Syst.
Comput. Ind. Eng. 127, 196e212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.12.022. Sci.: Oper. Logist. 6 (2), 162e178. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Lo, H.-W., Liou, J.J.H., Wang, H.-S., Tsai, Y.-S., 2018. An integrated model for solving 23302674.2017.1376232.
problems in green supplier selection and order allocation. J. Clean. Prod. 190, Rabieh, M., Rafsanjani, A.F., Babaei, L., Esmaeili, M., 2019. Sustainable supplier se-
339e352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.105. lection and order allocation: an integrated delphi method, fuzzy topsis, and
Lorena, C.-M., Leonardo, R.-U., 2018. Sustainable procurement with Coloured Petri multi-objective programming model. Sci. Iran. 26 (4E), 2524e2540. https://
Nets. Application and extension of the proposed model. Expert Syst. Appl. 114, doi.org/10.24200/sci.2018.5254.1176.
467e478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2018.07.043. Rao, C., Goh, M., Zheng, J., 2017. Decision mechanism for supplier selection under
Lu, H., Jiang, S., Song, W., Ming, X., 2018. A rough multi-criteria decision-making sustainability. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Making 16, 87e115. https://doi.org/
approach for sustainable supplier selection under vague environment. Sus- 10.1142/S0219622016500450, 01.
tainability 10 (8), 2622. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082622. Rashidi, K., Cullinane, K., 2019. A comparison of fuzzy DEA and fuzzy TOPSIS in
Luthra, S., Govindan, K., Kannan, D., Mangla, S.K., Garg, C.P., 2017. An integrated sustainable supplier selection: implications for sourcing strategy. Expert Syst.
framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains. Appl. 121, 266e281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2018.12.025.
J. Clean. Prod. 140, 1686e1698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.078. Roy, S.A., Ali, S.M., Kabir, G., Enayet, R., Suhi, S.A., Haque, T., Hasan, R., 2019.
Mao, R.J., You, J.X., Duan, C.Y., Shao, L.N., 2019. A heterogeneous MCDM framework A framework for sustainable supplier selection with transportation criteria. Int.
for sustainable supplier evaluation and selection based on the IVIF-TODIM J. Sustain. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2019.1625983.
method. Sustainability 11 (18), 5057. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11185057. Shalke, P., Paydar, M.M., Hajiaghaei-Keshteli, M., 2018. Sustainable supplier selec-
Mati
c, B., Jovanovi
c, S., Das, D.K., Zavadskas, E.K., Stevi
c, Z., Sremac, S., tion and order allocation through quantity discounts. Int. J. Manag. Sci. Eng.
Marinkovi
c, M., 2019. A new hybrid MCDM model: sustainable supplier selec- Manag. 13 (1), 20e32. https://doi.org/10.1080/17509653.2016.1269246.
tion in a construction company. Symmetry 11 (3). https://doi.org/10.3390/ Song, W., Xu, Z., Liu, H.-C., 2017. Developing sustainable supplier selection criteria
sym11030353. for solar air-conditioner manufacturer: an integrated approach. Renew. Sustain.
Memari, A., Dargi, A., Akbari Jokar, M.R., Ahmad, R., Abdul Rahim, A.R., 2019. Sus- Energy Rev. 79, 1461e1471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.081.
tainable supplier selection: a multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method. Stevi
 Durmi

c, Z., c, E., Gaji

c, M., Pamu
car, D., Puska, A., 2019. A novel multi-criteria
J. Manuf. Syst. 50, 9e24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2018.11.002. decision-making model: interval rough SAW method for sustainable supplier
Mohammed, A., 2019. Towards a sustainable assessment of suppliers: an integrated selection. Information 10 (10), 292. https://doi.org/10.3390/info10100292.
fuzzy TOPSIS-possibilistic multi-objective approach. Ann. Oper. Res., Tavana, M., Shabanpour, H., Yousefi, S., Farzipoor Saen, R., 2017a. A hybrid goal
0123456789 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-019-03167-5. programming and dynamic data envelopment analysis framework for sus-
Mohammed, A., Harris, I., Govindan, K., 2019. A hybrid MCDM-FMOO approach for tainable supplier evaluation. Neural Comput. Appl. 28 (12), 3683e3696. https://
sustainable supplier selection and order allocation. Int. J. Prod. Econ. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s00521-016-2274-z.
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.02.003. Tavana, M., Yazdani, M., Di Caprio, D., 2017b. An application of an integrated
Mohammed, A., Setchi, R., Filip, M., Harris, I., Li, X., 2018. An integrated method- ANPeQFD framework for sustainable supplier selection. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl.
ology for a sustainable two-stage supplier selection and order allocation 20 (3), 254e275. https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2016.1219702.
problem. J. Clean. Prod. 192, 99e114. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Vahidi, F., Torabi, S.A., Ramezankhani, M.J., 2018. Sustainable supplier selection and
j.jclepro.2018.04.131. order allocation under operational and disruption risks. J. Clean. Prod. 174,
Moheb-Alizadeh, H., Handfield, R., 2018. An integrated chance-constrained sto- 1351e1365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.012.
chastic model for efficient and sustainable supplier selection and order allo- Wang, C.N., Nguyen, V.T., Thai, H.T.N., Tran, N.N., Tran, T.L.A., 2018. Sustainable
cation. Int. J. Prod. Res. 56 (21), 6890e6916. https://doi.org/10.1080/ supplier selection process in edible oil production by a hybrid fuzzy analytical
00207543.2017.1413258. hierarchy process and green data envelopment analysis for the SMEs food
Moheb-Alizadeh, H., Handfield, R., 2019. Sustainable supplier selection and order processing industry. Mathematics 6 (12), 302. https://doi.org/10.3390/
allocation: a novel multi-objective programming model with a hybrid solution math6120302.
approach. Comput. Ind. Eng. 129, 192e209. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Wang, X., Cai, J., Xiao, J., 2019. A novel decision-making framework for sustainable
j.cie.2019.01.011. supplier selection considering interaction among criteria with heterogeneous
Mousakhani, S., Nazari-Shirkouhi, S., Bozorgi-Amiri, A., 2017. A novel interval type-2 information. Sustainability 11 (10), 2820. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102820.
fuzzy evaluation model based group decision analysis for green supplier se- Weber, C., Current, J., Benton, W., 1991. Vendor selection criteria and methods. Eur. J.
lection problems: a case study of battery industry. J. Clean. Prod. 168, 205e218. Oper. Res. 50, 2e18. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(91)90033-R.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.154. Xu, Z., Qin, J., Liu, J., Martínez, L., 2019. Sustainable supplier selection based on
Nielsen, I.E., Banaeian, N., Golin
ska, P., Mobli, H., Omid, M., 2014. Green Supplier AHPSort II in interval type-2 fuzzy environment. Inf. Sci. 483, 273e293. https://
Selection Criteria: from a Literature Review to a Flexible Framework for doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2019.01.013.
Determination of Suitable Criteria. Logistics Operations, Supply Chain Man- Yazdani, M., Chatterjee, P., Zavadskas, E.K., Zolfani, S.H., 2017. Integrated QFD-
agement and Sustainability. Springer, Cham, pp. 79e99. https://doi.org/10.1007/ MCDM framework for green supplier selection. J. Clean. Prod. 142,
978-3-319-07287-6_6. 3728e3740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.095.
Orji, I.J., Wei, S., 2014. A decision support tool for sustainable supplier selection in Yu, C., Shao, Y., Wang, K., Zhang, L., 2019. A group decision making sustainable
manufacturing firms. J. Ind. Eng. Manag. 7 (5), 1293e1315. https://doi.org/ supplier selection approach using extended TOPSIS under interval-valued Py-
10.3926/jiem.1203. thagorean fuzzy environment. Expert Syst. Appl. 121, 1e17. https://doi.org/
Orji, I.J., Wei, S., 2015. Dynamic modeling of sustainable operation in green 10.1016/j.eswa.2018.12.010.
manufacturing environment. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 26 (8), 1201e1217. Yu, C., Zhao, W., Li, M., 2018. An integrated sustainable supplier selection approach
https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-11-2014-0120. using compensatory and non-compensatory decision methods. Kybernetes 48
Osiro, L., Lima-Junior, F.R., Carpinetti, L.C.R., 2018. A group decision model based on (8), 1782e1805. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-02-2018-0063.
quality function deployment and hesitant fuzzy for selecting supply chain Zarbakhshnia, N., Jaghdani, T.J., 2018. Sustainable supplier evaluation and selection
sustainability metrics. J. Clean. Prod. 183, 964e978. https://doi.org/10.1016/ with a novel two-stage DEA model in the presence of uncontrollable inputs and
j.jclepro.2018.02.197. undesirable outputs: a plastic case study. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 97 (5e8),
Park, K., Okudan Kremer, G.E., Ma, J., 2018. A regional information-based multi- 2933e2945. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-2138-z.
attribute and multi-objective decision-making approach for sustainable sup- Zhou, X., Xu, Z., 2018. An integrated sustainable supplier selection approach based
plier selection and order allocation. J. Clean. Prod. 187, 590e604. https://doi.org/ on hybrid information aggregation. Sustainability 10 (7). https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.035. 10.3390/su10072543.
Petrudi, S., Abdi, M., Goh, M., 2018. An integrated approach to evaluate suppliers in