Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management (June 2021) 22(2):113–126

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-021-00258-w

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

A Time-Dependent Sustainable–Flexible Supplier Selection

Considering Uncertainty and TODIM Method in Iranian Dairy
Industries
Alireza Arshadi Khamseh1

Received: 12 September 2020 / Accepted: 8 January 2021 / Published online: 16 March 2021
 Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management 2021

Abstract Nowadays, by increasing awareness on environ- Keywords Dairy industry  Fuzzy time function 
mental and social responsibilities, stakeholders and people Interval TFN  Supplier selection  Sustainability 
put more pressure on the enterprises and companies to TODIM
respect these issues. Owing to the fact that suppliers as the
upstream of the supply chain play an important role in
success and prosperity, the sustainability of suppliers Introduction
would be a must and enterprises need to create and utilize
an integrated assessment model based on related criteria in There would be several definitions of sustainability in supply
every specific industry. However, these sustainability and chain management and one of the clear expressions for that
environmental criteria especially would be critical in the could be presented by the World Commission on Environ-
cold chain and dairy industries; to our knowledge, there ment and Development as ‘‘development that meets the
are not enough surveys related to this category. Interval needs of the present without compromising the ability of
triangular fuzzy numbers have been utilized to overcome future generations to meet their own needs’’ (Dubey et al.,
uncertainty of the linguistic notions of the experts in this 2017). In recent times, by increasing the knowledge of end-
area. As criterion’s weight and even its matter would be users and passed lows by the governments, industries have
changed during the time horizon, fuzzy time function would been forced to achieve sustainability in their process of
be applied to illustrate these modifications during the time. manufacturing and related supply chain (Luthra et al.,
For solving our integrated sustainable–flexible multi-cri- 2017; Trollman and Colwill, 2020). As sustainable evalua-
teria model, we take advantage of TODIM, a discrete tion includes environmental, social and economic aspects, in
multi-criteria method based on prospect theory in uncer- order to have appropriate collaboration in sustainability
tainty which includes gain and loss of decision simulta- aspects, organizations should have close coordination with
neously. Finally, managerial insight and associated all the supply chain aspects (Amindoust et al., 2012; Lu et al.,
sensitivity analysis of the ability and robustness of the 2018; Zahraee et al., 2018). Suppliers are crucial upstream
proposed decision framework have been illustrated in the SC partners which contribute significantly to the sustainable
small- and medium-scale dairy industries in Iran. objectives of the enterprises (Luthra et al., 2017). Zhu et al.
believed environmental aspects which could be considered
by the suppliers enhance the whole supply chain perfor-
mance (Zhu & Sarkis, 2006). Hence, sustainable supplier
selection would be a strategic point in our sustainability plan.
Owing to the widespread criteria in three aspects of eco-
& Alireza Arshadi Khamseh nomic, environmental and social, decision-makers are facing
[email protected] a lot of qualitative and quantitative criteria and some experts
1 who have their opinions with vagueness and uncertainty.
Department of Logistics Management, Faculty of Economics
Administration and Social Sciences, Istanbul Gelisim Under these circumstances, as mentioned in the literature,
University, Istanbul, Turkey scholars took the advantage of fuzzy MCDM techniques

123
114 Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management (June 2021) 22(2):113–126

(Chai et al., 2013; Govindan et al., 2015; Kaur et al., India (Yawar & Kauppi, 2018) and an investigation on green
2016; Shojaie et al., 2018; Mittal, 2019). MCDM is an supplier selection through fuzzy group decision making has
optimization process that specifies the best alternative thanks been accomplished on agri-food industries (Banaeian et al.,
to the comparisons of all the alternatives under several cri- 2018).
teria. In particular, in our survey in the dairy industries, we The rest of our paper is organized as follows: In ‘‘Liter-
are facing variations and vagueness and uncertainties. It ature review’’ section, a literature review on sustainable
would be irrational for the DMs to illustrate their preferences supplier selection in dairy industries and fuzzy sustainable
by precise values, here the difference between criteria will be supplier selection will be reviewed. In part 3, a survey on
distinguished by taking advantage of linguistic numbers. In fuzzy numbers, fuzzy time function and TODIM and interval
this case, interval TFN has been applied for better compre- TFN will be illustrated. Our real case study in the dairy
hension and finding complete perception of the experts’ industry will be explained in section four. Managerial insight
notions and decreasing uncertainty. Nowadays, one of the and sensitivity analysis will be addressed in part 5. Finally,
challenges for the companies and SCs as well would be the conclusion will be presented in ‘‘Conclusion’’ section.
prompt changes, and here, in our problem, this pace will
emerge in many aspects of the supply chain and the most
prestigious would be market-driven and customer-related Literature Review
specifications. Under these circumstances, adaptation to the
market values would be worthwhile. Here, we consider fuzzy In this part, a brief summary has been presented with a
time functions that make our decisions based on the neces- focus on sustainable supplier selection criteria and fuzzy
sities, fluctuations and variations of the criteria’s priority sustainable supplier selection models in dairy industries.
during the time and criteria weights in time horizon in such a
way that our a sustainable supplier would be determined Sustainability of the Suppliers in the Dairy
clearly and reasonably. Our proposed MCDM method to find Industries
the final ranking of the dairy suppliers would be TODIM (an
acronym in Portuguese for Interactive Multi-Criteria Deci- One of the significant issues in the procurement department
sion Making), which is a behavioral decision-making is supplier selection and assessment. These days, people
method based on prospect theory and can prescribe the are really observant about health, information related to it,
bounded rational behavior of DM. Considering both loss and processing and finally distribution of them all around the
gain of every decision should be an extra advantage of the world (Van Kleef et al., 2006). Nowadays, people notice
proposed method to the other MCDM. Shukla et al. (2010) quality, safety and environmental aspects in their pur-
depicted flexibility and sustainability in two dimensions and chasing decisions. Managerial insights in the dairy and
illustrated enterprises which have both sustainability and food companies investigate these customers’ requirements
flexibility as a whole, ‘‘Trendsetter’’ companies that aim to through a special concern on Environmental aspects
improve both of them at the same time (Shukla et al., (Wognum et al. 2011). Most of the papers prepare a dis-
2010; Shukla et al., 2019). In our survey in dairy industries in crete structure and different numbers of criteria and sub-
Iran, both types of criteria for flexibility and sustainability criteria related to their case study. Bai and Sarkis (2010)
have been considered. The dairy supply chain is a crucial and prepared a framework considering three aspects of eco-
economic part of the agri-food supply chain with interna- nomic, environmental and social issues. The economic
tional attention to it and is highly regulated and accordingly, criteria are related to common business aspects such as
several environmental legislations and standards have been cost, flexibility, innovativeness, time and quality, organi-
released during the last years from both sides of European zational criteria as culture, technology and relationships.
and international directives. The dairy industry also received The environmental dimension consists of control of pol-
highly environmental-related attention regarding Methane lution, prevention of pollution, management of the envi-
emission. These several legislations and standards obligate ronmental system, usage of resources and created pollutant
the dairy companies to observe control and specify all the material. The social aspects consist of participation in
environmental actions (Yu & Huatuco, 2016). To the best of employment, safety and health, and the penetration of local
our knowledge, only a few studies have been accomplished communities and participants (Bai & Sarkis, 2010; An-
on sustainable suppliers related to dairy industries. Michael barasan and Sushil, 2018).
Bourlakis surveyed sustainability performance in the supply Zimmer et al. (2016) also constructed the same three-
chain regarding the Greek dairy sector (Bourlakis et al., dimensional criteria in their survey: business, environ-
2014). An investigation for social responsibility adaptation mental and social-related aspects. In their business part,
in supplier development by institutional theory has been management, organization, external perception, financial
conducted by Sadaat Ali Yawar in the dairy supply chain in capabilities and performance have been compromised. The

123
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management (June 2021) 22(2):113–126 115

social aspects comprise internal, external social practices illustrated responsiveness in three sub-criteria as the ability
and social performance (Zimmer et al., 2016). Awasthi of replyıng ın lead time, capability of responsiveness in
et al. (2018) proposed two different aspects to the previous delivering to the specific point, the capability of dispensing
issues as risks: environmental, social, and global risk and a multitude of goods. Finally, product quality was men-
the quality of the relationship. In the economic section, tioned in their survey in detail by grade of raw material,
they considered innovativeness, quality, flexibility and grade of company’s product, product maintenance dura-
cost. In the quality of relationships, effectiveness of com- tion, consistency in the traceability of an order, warehouse,
munication, EDI and trust has been compromised. Their and delivery condition, quality of firm’s products
environmental criteria consist of biodiversity, water, packaging.
material, energy, emissions, waste and environmental fac-
tors. Social criteria consist of labor practices, responsibility Fuzzy Sustainability for Supplier Assessment
of the product, social procedure for supplier selection,
human rights. In the end, global risk factors in their survey Luthra et al. (2017) conducted a survey of sustainability in
consist of currency risk, disruption risk for political insta- supplier selection. They mentioned that the majority of the
bility, cultural incompatibility and terrorism (Awasthi papers in this issue were MCDM based (Luthra et al.,
et al., 2018). 2017). Furthermore, the fuzzy set theory could be an ap-
Luthra et al. (2017) summarized all the previous studies propriate tool when quantifying is not clear and brings
according to sustainable supplier selection in 22 separable ambiguity and also in the cases when we want finally crisp
criteria. In the economic criteria, they addressed quality of outputs as a solution for decision-makers (Ghadimi et al.,
good, cost, flexibility, dispatching, technical capability, 2017). In sustainability aspect, scholars have accompanied
production, service, location and position, market, finance, by the fuzzy set theory with other MCDM techniques such
organizational management, communication and attitude. as TOPSIS, DEA and AHP. Here, we reviewed some of the
The culmination for the environmental aspect of sustain- sustainability works which have been done during recent
able supplier selection would have been management for years. Azadnia et al. (2015) proposed sustainability in their
environmental system, pollution control, resource utiliza- supplier selection and order allocation model which com-
tion, pollution production, reduction and recycling, eco- bined with multi-period multi-product lot-sizing problems.
design and green proficiency. Finally, the social aspect for In their mathematical model fuzzy AHP has been accom-
sustainable supplier selection mentioned as internal aspect panied with multi-objective mathematical programming
with the attention and rights of staff, health and security, (Azadnia et al., 2015). Ghadimi et al. (2017) evaluated and
supportive activities, and the external aspects consisted of selected the most sustainable suppliers in the automotive
local districts impact, stakeholder impacts, and Information spare part industry. They considered economic, environ-
disclosure (Luthra et al., 2017). mental and social aspects both with the audition checklist
Yawar and Kauppi (2018) conducted a study on the and FIS system (Ghadimi et al., 2017). Mavi et al. (2017)
adaptation of socially responsible supplier development in investigated the sustainability of the third party (3pl)
the dairy industry in India. They surveyed the similarity of logistics provider through fuzzy SWARA and MOORA
social responsibility enhancement activities in private and techniques. Their research which was conducted in the
public dairy manufacturers in India. In their definition, plastic industry completely considered triple sustainability
private scale meant those farmers who owned small land factors (Mavi et al., 2017). Rao et al. (2017) developed a
and had restricted livestock to support their families on a linguistic fuzzy type 2 with grey correlation degree for
daily basis. Bourlakis et al. (2014) examined sustainability their assessment of the sustainability in the proposed sup-
performance in the supply chain for Greek dairy sector. plier selection problem. Fallahpour et al. (2017) proposed a
They investigated sustainability assessment criteria asso- sustainable supplier selection model under uncertainty for
ciated with relevant comprehension of experts and finalized textile. Singh et al. (2016) developed a system for evalu-
them in: Product quality, flexibility, efficiency and ation of sustainability in the small and medium manufac-
responsiveness. Finally, they evaluate suppliers in dairy turing companies by taking advantage of the fuzzy
products in Greece regarding the mentioned factors. The inference system.
main sustainability factors which have been considered by Awasthi et al. (2018) utilized fuzzy AHP-VIKOR for
dairy companies in Greece were efficient and flexibility in sustainable assessment of suppliers considering global
six sub-criteria: Raw material and manufacturing cost, net risks. Banaeian et al. (2018) conducted a comparison
and gross profit, warehousing cost, dispense and delivery between three uncertain methods as fuzzy TOSIS, fuzzy
cost, waste cost, economic costs, respectively. They also VIKOR and GRA for the agri-food industries through

123
116 Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management (June 2021) 22(2):113–126

economic and environmental aspects. The results illus- ~

trated similarity in both three mentioned methods, where
the GRA method had less complexity in calculation.
Hendiani and Bagherpour (2019) applied fuzzy logic to
determine the importance of every social index in supplier
selection. Finally, they applied their proposed method for
finding social barriers against the supplier selection in
construction projects. Rashidi and Cullinane (2019) used
two different means for supplier selection as fuzzy DEA
and fuzzy TOPSIS and compared them in the complexity
of calculation and sensitivity to the magnitude of the
number of suppliers. Ahmed Mohammed et al. (2019)
illustrated an integrated MCDM and FMOO method for
sustainable assessment of the suppliers and order alloca-
tion. Owing to the ranking of suppliers, they suggested a Fig. 1 Triangular fuzzy number membership function
hybrid fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS method (Mohammed et al.,
2019). Najafi et al. (2020) developed an integrated sus- 8
tainable and flexible supplier evaluation model under < ðx  lÞ=ðm  lÞ; l  x  m
uncertainty applying game theory and subjective/objective lA~ðXÞ ¼ ðu  xÞ=ðu  mÞ; m  x  u ; ð1Þ
:
data and they applied their proposed model in the Iranian 0; otherwise
casting industry. Tseng et al. (2012) utilized a combination where A~ is triangular fuzzy number (TFN). In Eq. (1), l, u
of TODIM and TFNs to select green suppliers in the supply represent the lower and upper bound of the fuzzy number
chain. Tosun and Akyüz (2015) illustrated a TODIM based ~ and m is the modal value for A~, (as Fig. 1). So TFN
A,
fuzzy model for supplier assessment and they utilized their could be presented by A~ ¼ ðl; m; uÞ.
model in a case study on a furniture manufacturing com- The operational laws of TFN A~1 ¼ ðl1 ; m1 ; u1 Þ and
pany. Qin et al.(2017) proposed an extended TODIM ~
A2 ¼ ðl2 ; m2 ; u2 Þ are displayed as follows: Eqs. (2)–(3).
behavior decision method to green supplier selection. Li Addition of the fuzzy number 
et al. (2018) explored a novel assessment model for sus-
tainability by taking advantage of the extended TODIM A~1  A~2 ¼ ðl1 ; m1 ; u1 Þ  ðl2 ; m2 ; u2 Þ
: ð2Þ
method. Liang et al. (2019) extended an improved multi- ¼ ðl1 þ l2 ; m1 þ m2 ; u1 þ u2 Þ
granularity interval 2-tuple TODIM approach and utilized
For subtraction of two fuzzy numbers by symbol H, we
it for assessment of the greenness in the suppliers.
have:
A~1 HA~2 ¼ ðl1 ; m1 ; u1 ÞHðl2 ; m2 ; u2 Þ
Methodology of the Research ¼ ðl1  u2 ; m1  m2 ; u1  l2 Þ: ð3Þ

Fuzzy Time Function (FTF)

In our proposed method, we taking advantage of fuzzy
decision making, fuzzy time function, TODIM method and
Owing to the fact that some of the criteria will be changed
interval-value triangular fuzzy numbers which are illus-
during the time and according to many political, social, and
trated here in detail as follows.
scientific limitations and obligations, we need to reconsider
our criteria, and some of the older may be deleted and part
A Brief Review on Fuzzy Numbers
of them get stronger for the future. Under these circum-
stances, we have to consider dynamic decisions through
Fuzzy set theory has been presented by Zadeh (1965) as an
time observation. If executıves would not accompany these
extension to the set theory where every element has a
changes, companies have to pay extra costs, penalties, or
degree of membership for the nominated set whereas in
even lose the market. Under these circumstances, using a
classic set theory belonging to an element to a specific set
fuzzy time function will be an appropriate tool for fore-
was bivalent (Liou et al., 2008; Zadeh, 1965).
~ the membership function on R telling future changes and a company with future changes.
For a fuzzy number A,
De Figueiredo et al. (1997) applied fuzzy time function in
depicted by lA~ðXÞ : ! ½0; 1 is equal to following Eq. (1):
fault and timing analysis (Perkusich & De Figueiredo,
1997). Yoneyama (2007) applied the uncertain Takagi–
Sugeno fuzzy model for the time-delay system (Yoneyama,

123
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management (June 2021) 22(2):113–126 117

2007). Here, a new aspect of fuzzy time function accom- Table 1 Linguistic variable in triangular fuzzy numbers
panied by triangular fuzzy numbers (TFN) will be pre- Linguistic terms Fuzzy scores
sented. A fuzzy time function will be explained in three
non-cross-parts as optimistic, normal and pessimistic Very poor (VP) (0, 0, 1)
related to time. Here, all are depicted in blue, red and green Poor (P) (0,1,3)
lines, respectively (Fig. 2). By using the FTF definition we Medium poor (MP) (1,3,5)
could consider variation in strength and weakness of cri- Fair (F) (3,5,7)
teria regarding experts’ opinions during the time horizon. Medium good (MG) (5,7,9)
According to the aforementioned description, the FTF Good (G) (7,9,10)
for every criterion is as: Very good (VG) (9,10,10)
8
< F1 for Optimistic
F ¼ F2 for Normal ð4Þ
:  
F3 for Pesimistic
xa if x [ 0
vðxÞ ¼ : ð6Þ
Equation (4) describes the triangular fuzzy number hðxÞb if x\0
during the time as:
In Eq. (6), a and b are parameters related to gain and
A~ ¼ ða1; a2; a3Þ ! F ðF1; F2; F3Þ: ð5Þ loss, respectively. The parameter h shows the risk factor
which must be greater than 1. As obvious in Fig. 3, the
Here, for computing the FTF, we taking advantage of the
mean slope of our lines related to the time horizons which prospect value function is concave and S shape. According
to Gomes et al (2009), there could be n alternatives which
are gathered from the experts opinions. For accumulation
would be evaluated based on the qualitative or quantitative
of the related expert’s notions, fuzzy linguistic priorities
will be extracted based on Table 1 for the importance of all criteria. In this model, we fix one of these criteria as a
reference. Steps of the TODIM method are as follows:
the criteria.
In summary, here we will have these steps, respectively. In order to evaluate the alternatives based on the criteria,
the experts are asked to assess the contribution of each
According to the experts’ opinion, the importance of
alternative I for the qualitative criterion c.
every criterion is determined based on the optimistic,
average and pessimistic opinions. The matrix of the evaluation will be prepared after all the
alternatives have been assessed regarding the criteria.
Regarding part a, average for all opinions are calculated
To get the normalized and standard comparison, the
Based on the demanded horizons, a linear forecasting
qualitative criteria evaluated on a verbal scale are
equation is calculated
transformed into a cardinal scale based on the Gomes
By taking advantage of center of gravity method which
method (Gomes et al., 2009). This normalization proce-
turns a fuzzy number as a(l,m,u) to a defuzzified number
dure would be performed by the division of the value for
as: a crisp = l ? [(m - l) ? (u - l)]/3, final ranking of
every alternative by the sum of all alternatives. Finally, a
the criteria for different horizons are clarified.
matrix will be extracted, which would present normal-
ized alternatives’ scores related to the criteria.
TODIM Method P = [Pnm], where n indicates the number of alternatives
and m referred to the number of criteria. A schematic
The TODIM method is a discrete multi-criteria method figure is depicted in Table 2.
based on the prospect theory. TODIM is an experimental Calculating the partial dominance matrices.
method that expands based on the treatment of people in The decision-makers must specify a specific criterion r as
risky conditions. In this method, pairwise comparisons the reference one, for the calculations according to the
associated with the elimination of occasional inconsistency relative importance assigned to each criterion. Normally,
will be regarded. Thanks to the hierarchy of criteria, the highest priority criterion would be selected as the
interdependence relationship among the alternatives, verbal reference. Thus, wrc is the weight of criterion c divided
value judgments will be formed. TODIM function shape is by the weight of the reference criterion r.
identical to the prospect theory’s gain and loss function. Calculating the final dominance matrices
The shape and the value function are depicted in Fig. 3 and Calculating the final dominance of each alternative Ai
Eq. (6), respectively. over alternative Aj, now incorporated to prospect theory,
is illustrated by Eq. (7). That measurement is given by a
sum of relative gain and loss.

123
118 Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management (June 2021) 22(2):113–126

Chart Title sum of the elements of the diverse matrices.

8
7
Preparing the final rank of the alternatives:
Fuzzy Scores (0-10)

6
5
At the end, Eq. (9) determines the final rank of the
4 alternatives.
3
2
Pn P
n
dðAi ; Aj Þ  min dðAi ; Aj Þ
1
j¼1 j¼1
0 ni ¼ : ð9Þ
10 20 30 40 P
n P
n
max dðAi ; Aj Þ  min dðAi ; Aj Þ
Customer sasfaconDuring Time j¼1 j¼1

pessimisc Normal Opmisc

Interval-Value Triangular Fuzzy Numbers
Fig. 2 Fuzzy time function (FTF)
In the fuzzy set theory, we often encounter triangular or
trapezoidal fuzzy numbers. The TFN is based on a three-
Depicting the gain and the loss part of the value function value judgment: the minimum, the mean and the maximum
by Eq. (8), where dðAi ; Aj Þ defines the dominance of Ai possible values a1, a2, a3, respectively. But by the ordinary
over Aj fuzzy number, some of the linguistic terms and uncertainty
  X m   in the linguistic notions would not be covered clearly. To
d Ai ; Aj ¼ /c Ai ; Aj ; 8i; j ð7Þ overcome these necessities and adding uncertainty in the
c¼1
0 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 1 fuzzy sets. Interval-valued fuzzy sets were suggested for
  P m the first time by Türkşen & Bilgiç (1996). The interval
B wrc Pic  Pjc = wrc ; if Pic [ Pjc C
B c¼1 C TFN values which will be applied in our research contain
B C
/c ¼ B
B 0
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi if P ic ¼ Pjc C:
C five parameters; on the other hand, these are two TFN
B m  C
@ P   A numbers that have the same middle point. In this survey, all
ð1=hÞ wrc Pic  Pjc =wrc ; if Pic \Pjc
c¼1 the experts will be asked about the advantage of the
ð8Þ alternatives in comparison to each other, which brings
more vagueness and inconsistency in their notions. By
using this type of TFN as interval TFN (ITFN) this concern
Here, m shows the number of criteria and c is every will be eliminated. Table 3 illustrates all the linguistic
criterion. For c = 1,…,m, wrs refers to division of wc by wr, terms related to interval TFN.
where r is the reference criterion; Pic and Pjc illustrate the
cij expressed
 as aninterval  - value TFN where Cij
performance of alternative Ai, Aj related to c; h is the
¼ a1 ; a01 ; a2 ; a3 ; a03 ð10Þ
attenuation index of the losses. /c ðAi ; Aj Þ illustrates the
contribution of the criterion c in the function dðAi ; Aj Þ. and normalized performance rating is:
In a comparison of alternative i with alternative j, if " ! !#
aij a0ij bij a0ij aij
(Pic - Pjc) [ 0, the gain function will be the first part of reij ¼ ; ; ; ; ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . .m; j ¼ 1; 2; . . .; n
djþ djþ djþ djþ djþ
Eq. (8). And if (Pic - Pjc) = 0, there is no loss or gain and " ! !#
aj aj aj aj aj
elsewhere there would be a specific loss which is illustrated reij ¼ ; ; ; ; ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . .m; j ¼ 1; 2; . . .; n
dij dij0 bij a0ij aij
in the last part of Eq. (8). Taking advantage of the function
/c ðAi ; Aj Þ actually gives an adjustment of the data to the ð11Þ
value function in the prospect theory. After calculating the djþ
¼ maxfcij ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . .mg and a
¼ minfaij ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . .; mgÞ
j
h i  
diverse partial matrices of dominance, the final dominance where rij ¼ lij ; lij ; mij ; uij ; u0ij ; R ¼ rij mn
0 :
matrix of the general element dðAi ; Aj Þ is obtained by the R0 ¼ ðr01 ; r02 ; . . .; ron Þ ¼ ½ð1; 1Þ; 1; ð1; 1Þ½ð1; 1Þ; 1; ð1; 1Þ::::½ð1; 1Þ; 1; ð1; 1Þ
ð12Þ
The distance between the reference value and each
Table 2 Normalized alternatives’ scores against criteria
comparison value, here in the case of interval fuzzy
C1 C2 … Cm triangular numbers would be expressed as follows:
A1 P11 P12 … P1m
A2 P21 P22 … P2m
… … … … …
An An1 An2 … Anm

123
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management (June 2021) 22(2):113–126 119

Table 3 Corresponding I-TFNS for linguistic preferences Step 1 An appropriate survey on the criteria and subjects
Linguistic terms Fuzzy scores
related to sustainability and special topics related to
dairy in literature review accompanied with getting
Very poor (VP) [(0, 0), 0, (1, 1.5)] experts’ opinions and finding the most significant
Poor (P) [(0, 0.5), 1, (2.5, 3.5)] criteria.
Medium poor (MP) [(0, 1.5), 3, (4.5, 5.5)] Step 2 Collect the DM opinions with linguistic variables
Fair (F) [(2.5, 3.5), 5, (6.5, 7.5)] and define FTF for each important criterion based on the
Medium good (MG) [(4.5, 5.5), 7, (8, 9.5)] specific horizon times.
Good (G) [(5.5, 7.5), 9, (9.5, 10)] Step 3 According to fuzzy time function, prepare the
Very good (VG) [(8.5, 9.5), 10, (10, 10)] appropriate fuzzy timeline for forecasting horizons.
Step 4 Applying defuzzification methods such as the
center of gravity, and normalization weights for the
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi criteria during the specified time, the horizon will be
ð1Þ
2  2 2 done.
dij ¼ ð1=3Þ l0ij  1 þ mij  1 þ u0ij  1 Step 5 Gather expert opinions on alternatives regarding
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi : criteria by taking advantage of interval TFN,
h 2  2  2 i
ð2Þ normalization.
dij ¼ ð1=3Þ lij  1 þ mij  1 þ uij  1
Step 6 Based on the weight vector for the criteria on step
ð13Þ 3 and changing the linguistic interval triangular fuzzy
numbers in step 4, here TODIM method would be
By taking the advantage of the above distance, the
applied to find the final weights of the alternatives.
difference between reference values and a specific value
According to more than a weight vector which is created
would be specified. Therefore, a new interval TFN for
on step 3 based on the fuzzy time function (FTF), here
every TFN will be illustrated as dij = [d(1)ij,d(2)ij].The
we would have more than one priority set for
forthcoming process by Zhang et al. (2011) will illustrate
alternatives.
the weight of the alternatives in comparison with the
specific criteria:
ð1Þ
ð1Þ dmin þ fdð1Þ
max
nij ¼ ð1Þ
Illustrative Example
dij þ fdð1Þ
max
ð14Þ
ð2Þ
dmin þ fdð2Þ Here, in this section, we discuss a real case study in the
ð2Þ max
nij ¼ ð2Þ private and limited dairy industries in Iran. Here, we
dij þ fdð2Þ
max encounter four dairy companies which will be mentioned
dð1Þ ð2Þ ð1Þ ð2Þ as A1 to A4 in the forthcoming part. All the information
max ¼ max dij ; dmax ¼ max dij
ij ij about the previous survey in the literature which are
ð1Þ ð1Þ ð2Þ ð2Þ ð15Þ completely illustrated in ‘‘Sustainability of the Suppliers in
dmin ¼ min dij ; dmin ¼ min dij
ij ij
the Dairy Industries’’ section as sustainability of the sup-
n ¼ 0:5 pliers in the dairy industries by Bourlakis et al. (2014),
Luthra et al. (2017) and Yawar and Kauppi (2018) have
finally
been presented for the experts and managers and some of
ð1Þ ð2Þ
nij þ nij the senior engineers in these companies. After a survey on
wij ¼ P
m P
n ð16Þ literature review, summarizing managerial attitudes and
ð1Þ ð2Þ
nij þ nij experts’ opinions by dispensing questionnaires and even
i¼1 j¼1
some direct sessions, these nine criteria have been con-
which would be the importance of the alternative i in cluded as the first level. Major specifications for sustain-
comparison with criterion j. able–flexible supplier selection are illustrated in Table 4.
Step 1
Problem Solving Method Table 4.
Step 2
Regarding the above-mentioned sections, here we sum- In this stage, we accumulate all the experts’ opinions
marized our steps to find sustainable suppliers in dairy and get their vague notions and attitudes by TFN for the
industries as follows: specific time horizons and summarize them in Table 5.

123
120 Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management (June 2021) 22(2):113–126

Table 4 A summary of sustainable–flexible criteria

Target Sub-criteria Detailed criteria

Sustainability–flexibility Economic Total profit (C1)

Quality (C2)-quality of production/warehousing/packaging/delivering and cold transit system
Flexibility: The supplier must be flexible enough to withstand market changes (C3)
Environmental Environmental management system (C4)
Pollution reduction (C5)
Green footprint (C6)
Social Information disclosure (C7)
Internal supportive activities/health and safety of HR (C8)
Local community impact (C9)

Table 5 Experts attitudes on criteria through time horizon

Criteria Short term (6 months) Mid-term (18 months) Long term (30 months)

C1 VG,G,G,F F,F,G,MG MG,MG,MG,F

C2 VG,MG,F,F G,F,G,MG VG,VG,MG,G
C3 MG,MP,VP,MG P,F,VP,MG MG,MG,MG,F
C4 MG,P,P,P MP,P,F,MG MG,MG,MG,G
C5 VP,P,P,P MP,P,P,G MG,G,F,G
C6 VP,VP,VP,VP F,MP,MP,P G,VG,F,G
C7 VP,P,VP,MP F,MP,F,VP G,G,G,VG
C8 F,MP,G,F G,F,MP,G MG,G,G,VG
C9 MP,MP,P,F F,F,G,VG MG,G,G,VG

In our data gathering system, we used 4 experts’ notions will be cleared. Therefore, we get opinions based on
so, in every cell of Table 5, four different fuzzy terms are Table 5. During the FTF calculation, we define our time
presented. Here, we aim to predict and establish our functions and finally, we will have a Table 6 for the median
appropriate weights for the criteria during these time fuzzy opinions of our experts.
horizons (milestones) to sign the contract with the suppli- Step 3
ers. According to the increasing attention to the environ- Based on the data in Table 6, here we can create our
mental and social responsibilities, the weights of the linear equations related to them every time horizons dis-
criteria would be changed. By means of fuzzy time func- creetly. Here, for the first criterion, two linear equations
tion, the capability of having fluctuation and variation in should address our experts treatments during every specific
the criteria’ weights during the time for different periods timeline from 6 months up to 18 months and 18 months up

Table 6 Summary of the experts results in TFN

SHORT T = 6 MIDDLE T = 18 LONG T = 30

C1 6.5 8.25 9.25 4.5 6.5 8.25 4.5 6.5 8.5

C2 5 6.75 8.25 5.5 7.5 9 7.5 9 9.75
C3 2.75 4.25 6 2 3.25 5 7.5 9 9.75
C4 1.25 2.5 4.5 2.25 4 6 5.5 7.5 9.25
C5 0 0.75 2.5 2 3.5 5.25 5.5 7.5 9
C6 0 0 1 1.25 3 5 6.5 8.25 9.25
C7 0.25 1 2.5 1.75 3.25 5 7.5 9 10
C8 3.5 5.5 7.25 4.5 6.5 8 7 8.5 9.75
C9 1.25 3 5 5.5 7.25 8.5 7 8.75 9.75

123
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management (June 2021) 22(2):113–126 121

Table 7 Triangular fuzzy numbers based on FTF

T = 12 T = 24

C1 5.5 7.375 8.75 4.5 6.5 8.375

C2 5.25 7.125 8.625 6.5 8.25 9.375
C3 2.375 3.75 5.5 4.75 6.125 7.375
C4 1.75 3.25 5.25 3.875 5.75 7.625
C5 1 2.125 3.875 3.75 5.5 7.125
C6 0.625 1.5 3 3.875 5.625 7.125
C7 1 2.125 3.75 4.625 6.125 7.5
C8 4 6 7.625 5.75 7.5 8.875
C9 3.375 5.125 6.75 6.25 8 9.125

Table 8 Final ranks of criteria for different horizons

T = 12 T = 24
def.weight Nor.weight Rank def.weight Nor.weight Rank

C1 7.21 0.19 1 6.46 0.11 4

C2 7 0.18 2 8.04 0.14 1
C3 3.88 0.1 5 6.08 0.1 5
C4 3.42 0.09 6 5.75 0.1 5
C5 2.33 0.06 7 5.46 0.09 8
C6 1.71 0.04 9 5.54 0.09 8
C7 2.29 0.06 7 6.08 0.1 5
C8 5.88 0.15 3 7.38 0.13 2
C9 5.08 0.13 4 7.79 0.13 2

Table 9 Final crisp weights for interval TFN values

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9

A1 0.02458 0.026 0.02677 0.03495 0.03556 0.03325 0.02283 0.02258 0.03467

A2 0.02617 0.0228 0.026 0.026 0.03391 0.02179 0.02347 0.02354 0.01821
A3 0.02412 0.02155 0.02364 0.02617 0.0242 0.02333 0.02051 0.03304 0.03467
A4 0.0242 0.03495 0.0373 0.03 0.03 0.02637 0.03603 0.03391 0.03295

to 30 months, respectively. Here, for the first part, we We took advantage of the center of gravity method
encounter two pints (6, 6.5) and (18, 4.5), respectively, which turns a fuzzy number as: a(l,m,u) to a defuzzified
which brings us the lower(pessimistic) fuzzy part of our number as: acrisp = l ? [(m - l) ? (u - l)]/3.
triangular fuzzy number for month 12 based on the linear As it is obvious here, regarding the changes in experts’
equation between these two points as 5.5. In the same way, notions, in Tables 5 and 6 for different time horizons and
we can calculate all the rows and columns for the pes- applying the fuzzy time function we encounter some
simistic, average and optimistic for all the C1 up to C9. All changes in the priority of the criteria.
the data are depicted in Table 7 for time horizons, 12 and Step 5
24 months. In this step according to the interval triangular fuzzy
Step 4 numbers method which is illustrated with Zhang, we got
Hereby applying defuzzification method and normal- experts’ opinions according to the status of the alternative
ization, we finalized our weights for the criteria regarding company regarding every criterion (c1–c9).
time horizons = 12, 24, respectively, in Table 8. Here, you will find in Tables 9, 14 and 15 (see ‘‘Ap-
pendix’’ for Tables 14, 15), interval triangular fuzzy

123
122 Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management (June 2021) 22(2):113–126

Table 10 Normalized comparison table regarding criteria

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9

A1 0.248 0.247 0.235 0.298 0.288 0.317 0.222 0.2 0.288

A2 0.264 0.217 0.229 0.222 0.274 0.208 0.228 0.208 0.151
A3 0.243 0.205 0.208 0.223 0.196 0.223 0.199 0.292 0.288
A4 0.244 0.332 0.328 0.256 0.243 0.252 0.35 0.3 0.273

Table 11 Detail data related to dðAi ; Aj Þ for T = 12

T = 12 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9

Fi(A1,A2) - 0.2901861 0.0734715 0.02448792 0.0827331 0.02899285 0.06610553 - 0.3161177 - 0.231006 0.13343558
Fi(A1, A3) 0.03082253 0.08693266 0.05194671 0.082187 0.07432258 0.0613887 0.03716129 - 0.7833793 0
FI(A1,A4) 0.06164506 - 0.6873076 - 0.96464 0.06150312 0.05197962 0.05104829 - 1.460085 - 0.8167294 0.04415267
FI(A2,A3) 0.06316739 0.04646746 0.04581269 - 0.1053726 0.06843435 - 0.6116755 0.04172784 - 0.7485448 - 1.0267127
FI(A2,A4) 0.06164506 - 0.7994487 - 0.9952711 - 0.6144223 0.04314274 - 1.0476152 - 1.4254535 - 0.7833793 - 0.9688768
FI(A2,A1) 0.05513702 - 0.4083216 - 0.2450188 - 0.9186166 - 0.4828777 - 1.6488787 0.01898027 0.03463114 - 1.0267127
FI(A3,A4) - 0.0725465 - 0.8401243 - 1.0957575 - 0.6053192 - 0.8847531 - 0.8505003 - 1.5858482 - 0.231006 0.04415267
FI(A3,A1) - 0.162219 - 0.4831326 - 0.5197634 - 0.9125531 - 1.2378473 - 1.5312263 - 0.6189236 0.11743992 0
FI(A3,A2) - 0.33245 - 0.2582452 - 0.4583882 0.00949014 - 1.1397785 0.02452281 - 0.6949797 0.11221772 0.13343558
FI(A4,A1) - 0.1450931 0.12367097 0.09640902 - 0.6828922 - 0.8657239 - 1.2733041 0.08766613 0.12243958 - 0.3397303
FI(A4,A2) - 0.324438 0.14384913 0.09947038 0.05533653 - 0.718545 0.04200015 0.0855868 0.11743992 0.125919
FI(A4,A3) 0.01378426 0.1511681 0.10951329 0.05451669 0.05312217 0.03409758 0.09521718 0.03463114 - 0.3397303

Table 12 Detail data related to dðAi ; Aj Þ for T = 24

T = 24 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9

Fi(A1,A2) - 0.37942 0.0651313 0.0246124 0.0875961 0.0356778 0.0995515 - 0.24378 - 0.246779 0.134152
Fi(A1,A3) 0.0235736 0.0770643 0.0522107 0.0870179 0.0914594 0.0924482 0.0481883 - 0.836868 0
FI(A1,A4) 0.0210848 - 0.775319 - 0.959762 0.0651182 0.0639647 0.076876 - 1.12597 - 0.872496 0.0443897
FI(A2,A3) 0.0483114 0.0411926 0.0460455 - 0.099523 0.0842135 - 0.406173 0.0541099 - 0.799655 - 1.02123
FI(A2,A4) 0.0471471 - 0.90182 - 0.990238 - 0.580312 0.0530903 - 0.695652 - 1.099264 - 0.836868 - 0.963703
FI(A2,A1) 0.0421697 - 0.460608 - 0.24378 - 0.867619 - 0.392401 - 1.094911 0.0246124 0.0324177 - 1.02123
FI(A3,A4) - 0.094855 - 0.947705 - 1.090216 - 0.571714 - 0.718976 - 0.564761 - 1.222955 - 0.246779 0.0443897
FI(A3,A1) - 0.212102 - 0.544999 - 0.517135 - 0.861892 - 1.005911 - 1.016786 - 0.477294 0.1099336 0
FI(A3,A2) - 0.43468 - 0.291314 - 0.45607 0.010048 - 0.926217 0.0369301 - 0.535946 0.1050452 0.134152
FI(A4,A1) - 0.18971 0.1096323 0.096899 - 0.644981 - 0.703513 - 0.845517 0.1136797 0.1146138 - 0.337916
FI(A4,A2) - 0.424204 0.1275199 0.099976 0.0585892 - 0.583911 0.06325 0.1109834 0.1099336 0.126595
FI(A4,A3) 0.0105424 0.134008 0.1100699 0.0577211 0.0653707 0.0513492 0.1234714 0.0324177 - 0.337916

numbers, normal data regarding I-TFN, and the final crisp According to Eq. (9). All the ni related to two separate
weights based on Eq. (16), respectively. T = 12 and T = 24 will be calculated and is summarized in
Step 6 Table 13.
In this step, Table 10 illustrates all the normalized data
regarding criteria c1…c9.
Regarding Eqs. (7) and (8), we have Tables 11 and 12
for T = 12, T = 24, respectively.

123
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management (June 2021) 22(2):113–126 123

Table 13 Alternative ranking based on the criteria and different time horizons
Alternative ni Normalized weight and Rank, T = 12 Normalized weight and Rank, T = 24
T = 12 T = 24 Weight (%) Rank Weight (%) Rank

A1 - 0.2384 - 0.254 18 2 9 2
A2 - 1.5915 - 1.541 3 3 1 3
A3 - 2.607 - 2.253 2 4 1 3
A4 - 0.542 - 0.025 78 1 89 1

Sensitivity Analysis and Managerial Insight

Up to now, we surveyed experts opinions on criteria and

expert notions on alternatives by interval TFN. By uti-
lization of Eqs. 10–14, our expert’s notions are expressed
in Table 15. Furthermore through Eqs. 15–16, our final
ranking for alternatives has been clarified separately for
time horizons as, T = 12, T = 24.
In this section, some more detail according to the final
solution and managerial insight will be clarified as follows:
Two completely separate weights have been calculated
Fig. 3 TODIM value function
for the criteria, which could be utilized for future
decision making and contracts with the suppliers.
0.2 These distinctive weighting for the criteria which have
0.18 been performed based on the TFN accompanied with
0.16 FTF, would be appropriate for the managers to find the
0.14 best investment priorities for the organizations and
0.12 assessment of suppliers in the coming years
0.1 T=12
Even though in our real case problem, the final ranking
0.08 T=24
of the suppliers have not been modified, but as it is
0.06 integrally obvious from our future weights that, invest-
0.04
ment and even having a closer partnership with the A4,
0.02
would be recommended as its grade will empower in the
0
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9
next year according to the changes in the criteria weights
and some new significant topics in the future. These
Fig. 4 Variation of the criteria importance during the time horizon merits for company 4(A4) will come through the
(T = 12,24) advantageous of the social responsibility and related
criteria in this issue and social responsibilities of the
companies.
In the following plot, the modifications and the status for
1
the T = 12, T = 24 will be depicted (Fig. 4).
0.9
0.8 As it is clear from Fig. 5, the status of the A4 will be
0.7 empowered in the coming years and also the status of the
0.6 A1, A2, A3 will be decreased, which means that working
0.5 T=12
with A2, A3 will not be reasonable even for T = 12.
0.4 T=24
0.3
0.2 Conclusion
0.1
0
Sustainability plays an important role in the prosperity of
A1 A2 A3 A4
enterprises, companies and plants. One of the critical points
Fig. 5 Status of the companies during the time through this line of success would be suppliers. Here, in

123
124 Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management (June 2021) 22(2):113–126

this study, we focus on the sustainability factors in the theory and utilization of loss and gain function in its pro-
dairy industries in Iran for the small and medium compa- cess, the final priorities of the suppliers have been clarified.
nies. Here, we practiced to find the vital criteria in the This model will demonstrate a mathematical structure for
coming years and in comparison with today during litera- the companies to prioritize their plans and programs for the
ture review and expert notions. In this survey, we finalized assessment, qualification, promotion and auditing and
our mentioned criteria as total profit, quality which consist signing contracts/renew contracts with the suppliers based
of the quality of production, warehousing, cold transfer, on their future status. This status will be addressed by the
flexibility, in environmental criteria, environmental man- ranking of the suppliers in the future according to the value
agement system, pollution reduction, green footprint, and and importance of every criterion in the future.
in social section, information disclosure, internal support-
ive activities/health and safety of human resources and Acknowledgements I would like to thank the esteemed reviewers for
their valuable and unique contribution by providing critical feedback
local community impact. and comments to improve the manuscript. I would like to thank the
According to these criteria and applying the fuzzy time editors and editor-in-chief for their encouragement and framework for
function, different weights regarding two-time horizons keeping the paper in shape.
(T = 12, T = 24) have been prepared for the criteria which
Declarations
acquire worthwhile information for the executives of the
companies. As receiving opinions in linguistic, verbal and Conflict of interest The author declares that he has no conflict of
qualitative factors increase uncertainty, we took the interest.
advantage of the interval triangular fuzzy (I-TFN) numbers
and record all the experts opinions for comparisons of four
selected dairy suppliers on finalized criteria. Finally, as Appendix
TODIM is a helpful means in multi-criteria decision See Tables 14 and 15.
making particularly by taking advantage of the prospect

Table 14 Interval TFN for alternatives based on criteria

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5

A1 4.5 5.5 6 6.5 7.5 5.5 6 6 6.5 7.5 5.5 6 6.5 6.5 7.5 6.5 7 8 8.5 9 7 7.7 7.5 8 8.5
A2 4.5 5.5 7 7 7.5 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 5.5 6 6 6.5 7.5 5.5 6 6 6.5 7.5 6.5 7 7.7 8 8.5
A3 4 5.5 6 6.5 7.5 3.5 4.5 5 6.5 7 4.5 5 5.5 7 7.5 4.5 5.5 7 7 7.5 4.5 5 6 7 7
A4 3.5 5 6.5 7 8 6.5 7 8 8.5 9 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 6 6.5 7 7.5 8
C6 C7 C8 C9

A1 6.5 7 8 8.5 9 3.5 5 6.5 7 8 3.5 5 6.5 7 8 7 7.5 8 8.5 9

A2 5.5 6 6 6.5 7.5 5.5 6 6 6.5 7.5 5.5 6 6 6.5 7.5 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5
A3 4.5 5.5 7 7 7.5 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.7 7.5 8 8.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9
A4 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 6.5 7 8 8.5 9 6.5 7 8 8.5 9

Table 15 Normalized data

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5

A1 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.9
A2 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9
A3 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8
A4 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 1 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9
C6 C7 C8 C9

A1 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 1
A2 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7
A3 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 1
A4 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 1 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1

123
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management (June 2021) 22(2):113–126 125

References using fuzzy logic. Journal of Cleaner Production, 230, 647–662.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.055
Anbarasan, P., & Sushil (2018). Stakeholder engagement in sustain- Kaur, H., Singh, S. P., & Glardon, R. (2016). An integer linear
able enterprise: Evolving a conceptual framework, and a case program for integrated supplier selection: A sustainable flexible
framework. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management,
study of ITC. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(3),
282–299. 17(2), 113–134.
Amindoust, A., Ahmed, S., Saghafinia, A., & Bahreininejad, A. Li, J., Fang, H., & Song, W. (2018). Sustainability evaluation via
(2012). Sustainable supplier selection: A ranking model based on variable precision rough set approach: A photovoltaic module
supplier case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 192,
fuzzy inference system. Applied Soft Computing, 12(6),
1668–1677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2012.01.023 751–765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.248
Awasthi, A., Govindan, K., & Gold, S. (2018). Multi-tier sustainable Liang, Y., Liu, J., Qin, J., & Tu, Y. (2019). An improved multi-
global supplier selection using a fuzzy AHP-VIKOR based granularity interval 2-tuple TODIM approach and its application
approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 195, to green supplier selection. International Journal of Fuzzy
106–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.10.013 Systems, 21(1), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-018-0
Azadnia, A. H., Saman, M. Z. M., & Wong, K. Y. (2015). Sustainable 546-8
supplier selection and order lot-sizing: An integrated multi- Liou, J. J., Yen, L., & Tzeng, G.-H. (2008). Building an effective
objective decision-making process. International Journal of safety management system for airlines. Journal of Air Transport
Production Research, 53(2), 383–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/00 Management, 14(1), 20–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtram
207543.2014.935827 an.2007.10.002
Lu, D., Ding, Y., Asian, S., & Paul, S. K. (2018). From supply chain
Bai, C., & Sarkis, J. (2010). Integrating sustainability into supplier
selection with grey system and rough set methodologies. integration to operational performance: The moderating effect of
International Journal of Production Economics, 124(1), market uncertainty. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Man-
252–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2009.11.023 agement, 19(Suppl 1), S3–S20.
Banaeian, N., Mobli, H., Fahimnia, B., Nielsen, I. E., & Omid, M. Luthra, S., Govindan, K., Kannan, D., Mangla, S. K., & Garg, C. P.
(2018). Green supplier selection using fuzzy group decision (2017). An integrated framework for sustainable supplier
making methods: A case study from the agri-food industry. selection and evaluation in supply chains. Journal of Cleaner
Computers & Operations Research, 89, 337–347. https://doi.org/ Production, 140, 1686–1698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcle
10.1016/j.cor.2016.02.015 pro.2016.09.078
Bourlakis, M., Maglaras, G., Gallear, D., & Fotopoulos, C. (2014). Mavi, R. K., Goh, M., & Zarbakhshnia, N. (2017). Sustainable third-
Examining sustainability performance in the supply chain: The party reverse logistic provider selection with fuzzy SWARA and
fuzzy MOORA in plastic industry. The International Journal of
case of the Greek dairy sector. Industrial Marketing Manage-
ment, 43(1), 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.201 Advanced Manufacturing Technology Manufacturing Technol-
3.08.002 ogy, 91(5–8), 2401–2418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-016-
Chai, J., Liu, J. N., & Ngai, E. W. (2013). Application of decision- 9880-x
Mittal, S. (2019). Role of continuity, specificity and frequency of
making techniques in supplier selection: A systematic review of
literature. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(10), 3872–3885. firm–supplier exchanges in customer fulfilment: evidence from
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.12.040 Latin America. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management,
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Papadopoulos, T., Childe, S. J., Shibin, 20(Suppl 1), S25–S37.
K., & Wamba, S. F. (2017). Sustainable supply chain manage- Mohammed, A., Harris, I., & Govindan, K. (2019). A hybrid MCDM-
ment: Framework and further research directions. Journal of FMOO approach for sustainable supplier selection and order
Cleaner Production, 142, 1119–1130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. allocation. International Journal of Production Economics, 217,
jclepro.2016.03.117 171–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.02.003
Fallahpour, A., Olugu, E. U., Musa, S. N., Wong, K. Y., & Noori, S. Najafi, N. V., Khamseh, A. A., Mirzazadeh, A. (2020). An integrated
(2017). A decision support model for sustainable supplier sustainable and flexible supplier evaluation model under uncer-
selection in sustainable supply chain management. Computers tainty by gametheory and subjective/objective data: Iranian
casting industry. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Manage-
& Industrial Engineering, 105, 391–410. https://doi.org/10.10
16/j.cie.2017.01.005 ment, 21(4):309–322
Ghadimi, P., Dargi, A., & Heavey, C. (2017). Sustainable supplier Perkusich, A., & De Figueiredo, J. C. (1997). G-Nets: A Petri net
performance scoring using audition check-list based fuzzy based approach for logical and timing analysis of complex
inference system: A case application in automotive spare part software systems. Journal of Systems and Software, 39(1),
industry. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 105, 12–27. 39–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0164-1212(96)00162-8
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2017.01.002 Qin, J., Liu, X., & Pedrycz, W. (2017). An extended TODIM multi-
Gomes, L. F. A. M., Rangel, L. A. D., & Maranhão, F. J. C. (2009). criteria group decision making method for green supplier
Multicriteria analysis of natural gas destination in Brazil: An selection in interval type-2 fuzzy environment. European
application of the TODIM method. Mathematical and Computer Journal of Operational Research, 258(2), 626–638. https://doi.
Modelling, 50(1–2), 92–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.200 org/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.09.059
Rao, C., Xiao, X., Goh, M., Zheng, J., & Wen, J. (2017). Compound
9.02.013
Govindan, K., Rajendran, S., Sarkis, J., & Murugesan, P. (2015). mechanism design of supplier selection based on multi-attribute
Multi criteria decision making approaches for green supplier auction and risk management of supply chain. Computers &
evaluation and selection: A literature review. Journal of Cleaner Industrial Engineering, 105, 63–75. https://doi.org/10.10
16/j.cie.2016.12.042
Production, 98, 66–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.0
6.046 Rashidi, K., & Cullinane, K. (2019). A comparison of fuzzy DEA and
Hendiani, S., & Bagherpour, M. (2019). Developing an integrated fuzzy TOPSIS in sustainable supplier selection: Implications for
index to assess social sustainability in construction industry sourcing strategy. Expert Systems with Applications, 121,
266–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2018.12.025

123
126 Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management (June 2021) 22(2):113–126

Shojaie, A. A., Babaie, S., Sayah, E., & Mohammaditabar, D. (2018). company. In Paper presented at the International Conference on
Analysis and prioritization of green health suppliers using Fuzzy Sustainable Design and Manufacturing. https://doi.org/10.10
ELECTRE method with a case study. Global Journal of Flexible 07/978-3-319-32098-4_41.
Systems Management, 19(1), 39–52. Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3),
Shukla, A. C., Deshmukh, S., & Kanda, A. (2010). Flexibility and 338–353.
Sustainability of supply chains: Are they together? Global Zahraee, S. M., Mamizadeh, F., & Vafaei, S. A. (2018). Greening
Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 11(1–2), 25–37. assessment of suppliers in automotive supply chain: An empir-
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03396576 ical survey of the automotive industry in Iran. Global Journal of
Shukla, S. K., Sushil, & Sharma, M. K. (2019). Managerial paradox Flexible Systems Management, 19(3), 225–238.
toward flexibility: Emergent views using thematic analysis of Zhang, S.-F., Liu, S.-Y., & Zhai, R.-H. (2011). An extended GRA
literature. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, method for MCDM with interval-valued triangular fuzzy
20(4), 349–370. assessments and unknown weights. Computers & Industrial
Singh, J. S., Koushal, S., Kumar, A., Vimal, S. R., & Gupta, V. K. Engineering, 61(4), 1336–1341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.20
(2016). Book review: Microbial inoculants in sustainable 11.08.008
agricultural productivity-Vol. II: Functional application. Fron- Zhu, Q., & Sarkis, J. (2006). An inter-sectoral comparison of green
tiers in Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.02105 supply chain management in China: Drivers and practices.
Tosun, Ö., & Akyüz, G. (2015). A fuzzy TODIM approach for the Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(5), 472–486. https://doi.org/
supplier selection problem. International Journal of Computa- 10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.01.003
tional Intelligence Systems, 8(2), 317–329. https://doi.org/10.10 Zimmer, K., Fröhling, M., & Schultmann, F. (2016). Sustainable
80/18756891.2015.1001954 supplier management—A review of models supporting sustain-
Trollman, H., & Colwill, J. A. (2020). A transformational change able supplier selection, monitoring and development. Interna-
framework for developing ecologically embedded manufactur- tional Journal of Production Research, 54(5), 1412–1442.
ing. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 21(4), https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1079340
341–368.
Tseng, M. -L., Tan, K. -H., Lina, R. -J., & Gengb, Y. (2012). Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
WITHDRAWN: Multicriteria analysis of green supply chain jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
management using interval-valued fuzzy TODIM.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2012.08.018.
Türkşen, İ, & Bilgiç, T. (1996). Interval valued strict preference with Key Questions
Zadeh triples. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 78(2), 183–195.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(95)00167-0
Van Kleef, E., Frewer, L. J., Chryssochoidis, G. M., Houghton, J. R., 1. What would be the advantages of a time-dependent system in
Korzen-Bohr, S., Krystallis, T., Lassen, J., Pfenning, U., & supplier selection?
Rowe, G. (2006). Perceptions of food risk management among 2. What would be the aggregation of flexibility and
key stakeholders: Results from a cross-European study. Appetite, sustainability in the supplier selection system in Dairy
47(1), 46–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2006.02.002 industries?
Wognum, P. N., Bremmers, H., Trienekens, J. H., van der Vorst, J. G.,
& Bloemhof, J. M. (2011). Systems for sustainability and
transparency of food supply chains—Current status and chal- Dr. Alireza Arshadi Khamseh got his Ph.D. in
lenges. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 25(1), 65–76. 2006 in Industrial Engineering from Amirkabir
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2010.06.001 University, Tehran, Iran, and has several years of
Yawar, S. A., & Kauppi, K. (2018). Understanding the adoption of experience of working in Industrial Engineering
socially responsible supplier development practices using insti- Department of Kharazmi University of Tehran,
tutional theory: Dairy supply chains in India. Journal of Iran, and also in Istanbul Gelisim University,
Purchasing and Supply Management, 24(2), 164–176. Istanbul, Turkey, as an associate professor. He is
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2018.02.001 working for more than 8 years in Supply Chain
Yoneyama, J. (2007). Robust stability and stabilization for uncertain Management and Logistic Engineering. He has published several
Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy time-delay systems. Fuzzy Sets and papers in prestigious international journals. His interest areas are
Systems, 158(2), 115–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fss.2006.0 Resiliency in SCM, Network Design and Pricing.
9.004
Yu, C., & Huatuco, L. H. (2016). Supply chain risk management
identification and mitigation: A case study in a Chinese dairy

123