Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating and selecting partners in sustainable supply chain network: a comparative analysis of combined fuzzy multi-criteria approaches

  • Application Article
  • Published:
OPSEARCH Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Partner selection is a crucial problem in supply chain management in which it is essential today to integrate sustainability criteria due to regulation, stakeholder pressers and economic interests. Thus, a sustainability-focused evaluation model for partner selection is required in order to improve the overall performance of the supply chain. This paper develops a new hybrid approach to evaluate and select the partners (suppliers and 3PRL providers) in sustainable supply chain network by combining Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (F-AHP) with Fuzzy Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation (F-PROMETHEE), and Fuzzy Technique for Order Performance by Similarity to Ideal Solution (F-TOPSIS). A set of sustainability criteria for both supplier and 3PRL provider selection is proposed based on extensive literature review and experts’ opinions. F-AHP is used to calculate the priority weight of each criterion. Then, F-PROMETHEE and F-TOPSIS are both used to rank the partners comparatively. The validity and efficacy of the proposed approach is demonstrated through an application for selecting partners in the case of light bulbs recycling which has been strengthened by sensitivity analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Zandieh, M., Chensebli, A.: Reverse logistics network design: a water flow-like algorithm approach. OPSEARCH 53, 667–692 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12597-016-0250-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kannan, G., Pokharel, S., Sasi Kumar, P.: A hybrid approach using ISM and fuzzy TOPSIS for the selection of reverse logistics provider. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54, 28–36 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.06.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Senthil, S., Srirangacharyulu, B., Ramesh, A.: A decision making methodology for the selection of reverse logistics operating channels. Procedia Eng. 38, 418–428 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2012.06.052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Meade, L., Sarkis, J.: A conceptual model for selecting and evaluating third-party reverse logistics providers. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 7, 283–295 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1108/13598540210447728

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Zhao, K., Yu, X.: A case based reasoning approach on supplier selection in petroleum enterprises. Expert Syst. Appl. 38, 6839–6847 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.12.055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Govindan, K., Khodaverdi, R., Jafarian, A.: A fuzzy multi criteria approach for measuring sustainability performance of a supplier based on triple bottom line approach. J. Clean. Prod. 47, 345–354 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.04.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lee, A.H.I., Kang, H.-Y., Hsu, C.-F., Hung, H.-C.: A green supplier selection model for high-tech industry. Expert Syst. Appl. 36, 7917–7927 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.11.052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chatterjee, K., Kar, S.: Multi-criteria analysis of supply chain risk management using interval valued fuzzy TOPSIS. OPSEARCH 53, 474–499 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12597-015-0241-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Sharma, M.J., Yu, S.J.: Selecting critical suppliers for supplier development to improve supply management. OPSEARCH 50, 42–59 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12597-012-0097-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hervani, A.A., Helms, M.M., Sarkis, J.: Performance measurement for green supply chain management. Benchmarking Int. J. 12, 330–353 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1108/14635770510609015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Mathiyazhagan, K., Datta, U., Bhadauria, R., Singla, A., Krishnamoorthi, S.: Identification and prioritization of motivational factors for the green supply chain management adoption: case from Indian construction industries. OPSEARCH (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12597-017-0316-7

    Google Scholar 

  12. Nikolaou, I.E., Evangelinos, K.I., Allan, S.: A reverse logistics social responsibility evaluation framework based on the triple bottom line approach. J. Clean. Prod. 56, 173–184 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.12.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kafa, N., Hani, Y., Mhamedi, A.E.: An integrated sustainable partner selection approach with closed-loop supply chain network configuration. IFAC-Pap. 48, 1840–1845 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2015.06.354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Tuzkaya, G., Ozgen, A., Ozgen, D., Tuzkaya, U.R.: Environmental performance evaluation of suppliers: a hybrid fuzzy multi-criteria decision approach. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 6, 477–490 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03326087

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mathiyazhagan, K., Sudhakar, S., Bhalotia, A.: Modeling the criteria for selection of suppliers towards green aspect: a case in Indian automobile industry. OPSEARCH (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12597-017-0315-8

    Google Scholar 

  16. Chan, F.T.S., Kumar, N.: Global supplier development considering risk factors using fuzzy extended AHP-based approach. Omega 35, 417–431 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2005.08.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Zouggari, A., Benyoucef, L.: Simulation based fuzzy TOPSIS approach for group multi-criteria supplier selection problem. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 25, 507–519 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2011.10.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Shaw, K., Shankar, R., Yadav, S.S., Thakur, L.S.: Supplier selection using fuzzy AHP and fuzzy multi-objective linear programming for developing low carbon supply chain. Expert Syst. Appl. 39, 8182–8192 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.01.149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Luthra, S., Govindan, K., Kannan, D., Mangla, S.K., Garg, C.P.: An integrated framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 1686–1698 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.078

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kafa, N., Hani, Y., El Mhamedi, A.: Sustainable approach for third-party reverse logistics provider selection. Presented at the GSC’2014 International Conference on Green Supply Chain, Arras, France, 25 June 2014

  21. Senthil, S., Srirangacharyulu, B., Ramesh, A.: A robust hybrid multi-criteria decision making methodology for contractor evaluation and selection in third-party reverse logistics. Expert Syst. Appl. 41, 50–58 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013.07.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kannan, G., Murugesan, P.: Selection of third-party reverse logistics provider using fuzzy extent analysis. Benchmarking Int. J. 18, 149–167 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1108/14635771111109869

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Sasikumar, P., Haq, A.N.: Integration of closed loop distribution supply chain network and 3PRLP selection for the case of battery recycling. Int. J. Prod. Res. 49, 3363–3385 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1080/00207541003794876

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kannan, G.: Fuzzy approach for the selection of third party reverse logistics provider. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 21, 397–416 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1108/13555850910973865

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Cheng, Y.-H., Lee, F.: Outsourcing reverse logistics of high-tech manufacturing firms by using a systematic decision-making approach: TFT-LCD sector in Taiwan. Ind. Mark. Manag. 39, 1111–1119 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2009.10.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Wang, J., Zhu, Y.: Research on third-party reverse logistics provider selection based on fuzzy clustering in perspective of low-carbon economy. Commun. Inf. Sci. Manag. Eng. 2, 63–66 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Zareinejad, M., Javanmard, H., Arak, I.: Evaluation and selection of a third-party reverse logistics provider using ANP and IFG-MCDM methodology. Life Sci. J. 10, 350–355 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Datta, S., Samantra, C., Sankar Mahapatra, S., Mandal, G., Majumdar, G.: Appraisement and selection of third party logistics service providers in fuzzy environment. Benchmarking Int. J. 20, 537–548 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-11-2011-0087

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Tajik, G., Azadnia, A.H., Ma’aram, A.B., Hassan, S.A.H.S.: A hybrid fuzzy MCDM approach for sustainable third-party reverse logistics provider selection. Adv. Mater. Res. 845, 521–526 (2013). https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.845.521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ravi, V., Shankar, R., Tiwari, M.K.: Analyzing alternatives in reverse logistics for end-of-life computers: ANP and balanced scorecard approach. Comput. Ind. Eng. 48, 327–356 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2005.01.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Efendigil, T., Önüt, S., Kongar, E.: A holistic approach for selecting a third-party reverse logistics provider in the presence of vagueness. Comput. Ind. Eng. 54, 269–287 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2007.07.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Liu, C.-L., Lyons, A.C.: An analysis of third-party logistics performance and service provision. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 47, 547–570 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2010.11.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Govindan, K., Palaniappan, M., Zhu, Q., Kannan, D.: Analysis of third party reverse logistics provider using interpretive structural modeling. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 140, 204–211 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.01.043

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Bai, C., Sarkis, J.: Flexibility in reverse logistics: a framework and evaluation approach. J. Clean. Prod. 47, 306–318 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.01.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ha, S.H., Krishnan, R.: A hybrid approach to supplier selection for the maintenance of a competitive supply chain. Expert Syst. Appl. 34, 1303–1311 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2006.12.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Ho, W., Xu, X., Dey, P.K.: Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 202, 16–24 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.05.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Chan, F.T.S., Chan, H.K.: An AHP model for selection of suppliers in the fast changing fashion market. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 51, 1195–1207 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-010-2683-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Yeh, W.-C., Chuang, M.-C.: Using multi-objective genetic algorithm for partner selection in green supply chain problems. Expert Syst. Appl. 38, 4244–4253 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.09.091

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Amin, S.H., Zhang, G.: An integrated model for closed-loop supply chain configuration and supplier selection: multi-objective approach. Expert Syst. Appl. 39, 6782–6791 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.12.056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Kannan, D., Khodaverdi, R., Olfat, L., Jafarian, A., Diabat, A.: Integrated fuzzy multi criteria decision making method and multi-objective programming approach for supplier selection and order allocation in a green supply chain. J. Clean. Prod. 47, 355–367 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.02.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Jadidi, O., Zolfaghari, S., Cavalieri, S.: A new normalized goal programming model for multi-objective problems: a case of supplier selection and order allocation. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 148, 158–165 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.10.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. You, X.-Y., You, J.-X., Liu, H.-C., Zhen, L.: Group multi-criteria supplier selection using an extended VIKOR method with interval 2-tuple linguistic information. Expert Syst. Appl. 42, 1906–1916 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.10.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Govindan, K., Rajendran, S., Sarkis, J., Murugesan, P.: Multi criteria decision making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 98, 66–83 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Taha, Z., Rostam, S.: A hybrid fuzzy AHP–PROMETHEE decision support system for machine tool selection in flexible manufacturing cell. J. Intell. Manuf. 23, 2137–2149 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-011-0560-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. El Mokrini, A., Kafa, N., Dafaoui, E., El Mhamedi, A., Berrado, A.: Evaluating outsourcing risks in the pharmaceutical supply chain: case of a multi-criteria combined fuzzy AHP–PROMETHEE approach. IFAC-Pap. 49, 114–119 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.11.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Dağdeviren, M.: Decision making in equipment selection: an integrated approach with AHP and PROMETHEE. J. Intell. Manuf. 19, 397–406 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-008-0091-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Patil, S.K., Kant, R.: A fuzzy AHP–TOPSIS framework for ranking the solutions of knowledge management adoption in supply chain to overcome its barriers. Expert Syst. Appl. 41, 679–693 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013.07.093

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Akdag, H., Kalaycı, T., Karagöz, S., Zülfikar, H., Giz, D.: The evaluation of hospital service quality by fuzzy MCDM. Appl. Soft Comput. 23, 239–248 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2014.06.033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Miller, G.A.: The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol. Rev. 63, 81–97 (1956). https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Saaty, T.L.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill Book Co, New York (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8, 338–353 (1965). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Zadeh, L.A.: Is there a need for fuzzy logic? Inf. Sci. 178, 2751–2779 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2008.02.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Zimmermann, H.-J.: Fuzzy Set Theory: And its Applications. Springer, Dordrecht (2001)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  54. Lee, A.R.: Application of modified fuzzy ahp method to analyze bolting sequence of structural joints. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=922586 (1995)

  55. Brans, J.-P.: L’ingénièrie de la décision; Elaboration d’instruments d’aide à la décision. La méthode PROMETHEE. Presented at the L’aide à la décision: Nature, Instruments et Perspectives d’Avenir, Québec, Canada (1982)

  56. Brans, J.-P., Vincke, P.: A preference ranking organization method: the PROMETHEE method for MCDM. Manag. Sci. 31, 641–656 (1985)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Hwang, C.-L., Yoon, K.: Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Springer, Berlin (1981)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  58. Velasquez, M., Velasquez, M., Hester, P.T.: An analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods. Int. J. Oper. Res. 10, 56–66 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  59. Kou, G., Lu, Y., Peng, Y., Shi, Y.: Evaluation of classification algorithms using mcdm and rank correlation. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak. 11, 197–225 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622012500095

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Woodbury, G.: An Introduction to Statistics. Cengage Learning, Boston (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  61. Spearman, C.E.: The Proof and Measurement of Association Between Two Things. BiblioBazaar, Charleston (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  62. Chen, S.H., Hsieh, C.H.: Representation, ranking, distance, and similarity of L-R type fuzzy number and application. Aust. J. Intell. Process. Syst. 6, 217–229 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  63. Prakash, C., Barua, M.K.: A combined MCDM approach for evaluation and selection of third-party reverse logistics partner for Indian electronics industry. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 7, 66–78 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2016.04.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. QUARTZ EA 7393, IUT de Montreuil, Université Paris 8, 140, rue de la nouvelle France, 93100, Montreuil, France

    Nadine Kafa, Yasmina Hani & Abederrahman El Mhamedi

Authors
  1. Nadine Kafa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yasmina Hani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Abederrahman El Mhamedi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nadine Kafa.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kafa, N., Hani, Y. & El Mhamedi, A. Evaluating and selecting partners in sustainable supply chain network: a comparative analysis of combined fuzzy multi-criteria approaches. OPSEARCH 55, 14–49 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12597-017-0326-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12597-017-0326-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation