sustainability

Article
Environmental and Social Factors in Supplier Assessment:
Fuzzy-Based Green Supplier Selection
Torky Althaqafi

College of Business, University of Jeddah, Jeddah 22425, Saudi Arabia; [email protected]

Abstract: Supplier selection is a key process that entails selecting suppliers who provide high-quality,
cost-effective products or services with predetermined schedules and quantities. Organisations are
currently reconsidering their supply chain strategies in order to incorporate environmental and
ecological issues into their operations. This involves a shift towards environmentally conscientious
providers as well as the incorporation of environmental requirements into daily practises. This
research paper investigates supplier evaluation strategies and selection criteria in depth. This study
presents a novel methodology for assessing supply chain risk management in the setting of supplier
management. This study’s focuses are cost, quality, delivery time, environmental performance,
and social responsibility. The incorporation of administrative observation into supplier selection is
illustrated, with the results compared to those of traditional methods. Our findings highlight the
synergies between administrative observation and quantitative metrics, providing crucial insights into
supplier sustainability performance and improving decision making. Finally, this study emphasises
the importance of managerial observation in sustainable supplier selection, emphasising the relevance
of subjective ratings to improve awareness of suppliers’ sustainability practises and minimise risks
associated with weak quantitative assessments.

Keywords: supply chain management; resilience; supply chain risk; sustainability; Fuzzy TOPSIS

1. Introduction
Across all industries, supply chain management (SCM) is essential to the success and
Citation: Althaqafi, T. Environmental
and Social Factors in Supplier
long-term viability of organisations. The choice of suppliers is an important component of
Assessment: Fuzzy-Based Green
SCM since it has a direct impact on the effectiveness, price, and quality of the goods and
Supplier Selection. Sustainability 2023,
services that a company offers. The significance of choosing a sustainable supplier—one
15, 15643. https://doi.org/10.3390/ that takes into account environmental, social, and economic factors—has recently come
su152115643 to be well understood. By incorporating sustainability concepts into the decision-making
process, sustainable supplier selection strives to ensure that suppliers are in line with
Academic Editor: Shu-Chu Liu
an organization’s values and long-term goals. Historically, choosing a supplier has been
Received: 2 September 2023 largely based on quantitative factors like price, quality, delivery time, and reliability [1–3].
Revised: 15 October 2023 However, as organisations and society at large grow more conscious of the environmental
Accepted: 27 October 2023 and social effects of their operations, there is a need to go beyond just economic considera-
Published: 6 November 2023 tions when choosing suppliers. Organisations are becoming aware of how unsustainable
supply chain practises can eventually result in cost increases, reputational harm, and legal
problems. As a result, there is an increasing need for techniques and frameworks that make
it possible to incorporate sustainability factors into supplier selection procedures [4–6].
Copyright: © 2023 by the author.
Supplier qualification is critical in the supply chain management process to ensuring that
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
selected suppliers meet particular criteria, such as requirements for quality and sustain-
This article is an open access article
ability practises, in order to meet consumer demand successfully. Later-stage supplier
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
monitoring is as crucial for maintaining continuous supplier compliance, efficiency, and
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
responsiveness, allowing organisations to react to changing market conditions and mitigate
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ possible hazards. Supplier qualification and monitoring processes work together to create a
4.0/). strong and dependable supply chain. This ensures the timely and high-quality distribution

Sustainability 2023, 15, 15643. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152115643 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 17
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15643 2 of 17

monitoring processes work together to create a strong and dependable supply chain. This
ensures
of goods the
andtimely and
services to high-quality
satisfy client distribution of goods
needs efficiently. and
Figure services
1 below to satisfy
shows client
the supply
needsmanagement
chain efficiently. Figure 1 below shows the supply chain management process.
process.

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Supply
Supply chain
chain management
management process.
process.

The
The incorporation
incorporation of of administrative
administrative observation
observation intointo supplier
supplier selection
selection procedures
procedures
is one strategy
is one strategy with a lot of potential in this context. The direct examination
context. The direct examination and andevalua-
evalu-
ation
tion ofof prospective
prospective suppliers
suppliers depending
depending on their operational practises, practises, including
including their
their
performance
performance in in terms
terms of of sustainability,
sustainability, isis accomplished
accomplished through
through administrative
administrative observa-
observa-
tion
tion [7,8].
[7,8]. Organisations
Organisations can can acquire
acquire useful
useful information
information aboutabout thethe suppliers’
suppliers’ adherence
adherence to to
environmental
environmentallaws, laws,labour
labour standards,
standards, health and and
health safetysafety
procedures, as wellas
procedures, as well
their as
general
their
commitment to sustainable
general commitment business practises
to sustainable businessby performing
practises on-site visitson-site
by performing and inspections.
visits and
Organisations may make better decisions and ensure that their
inspections. Organisations may make better decisions and ensure that their supply supply chains supportchains
their
sustainability objectives by using this first-hand knowledge [9–12].
support their sustainability objectives by using this first-hand knowledge [9–12]. This This research paper’s
goal is to paper’s
research investigategoalhowis tomanagement
investigate how observation
managementcan beobservation
added to SCM’s can besustainable
added to
supplier selection process.
SCM’s sustainable supplierThis research
selection paperThis
process. attempts to highlight
research the keyto
paper attempts difficulties
highlight
and opportunities associated with incorporating management observation
the key difficulties and opportunities associated with incorporating management obser- by performing a
thorough analysis of the existing literature on sustainable supplier
vation by performing a thorough analysis of the existing literature on sustainable sup- selection. Additionally,
itplier
aimsselection.
to build aAdditionally,
framework that businesses
it aims to buildmay utilise to successfully
a framework that businessesintegrate
may adminis-
utilise to
trative observation into their supplier selection procedures. The suggested
successfully integrate administrative observation into their supplier selection procedures. framework takes
into account a number of factors, including the selection criteria,
The suggested framework takes into account a number of factors, including the selection evaluation techniques,
data gathering, and decision-making procedures.
criteria, evaluation techniques, data gathering, and decision-making procedures.
This study acknowledges the growing importance of considering environmental
This study acknowledges the growing importance of considering environmental
and social factors alongside traditional quantitative criteria for supplier selection. We
and social factors alongside traditional quantitative criteria for supplier selection. We
used a mixed-methods approach to accomplish this, integrating quantitative data from
used a mixed-methods approach to accomplish this, integrating quantitative data from
questionnaires and secondary sources with qualitative information from case studies as
questionnaires and secondary sources with qualitative information from case studies as
well as interviews. The main emphasis is on learning from businesses that have effectively
well as interviews. The main emphasis is on learning from businesses that have effec-
included administrative observation into their supplier selection procedures and evaluating
tively included administrative observation into their supplier selection procedures and
the results of these initiatives [13–15]. By emphasising the role of management monitoring
evaluating the results of these initiatives [13–15]. By emphasising the role of management
as a useful tool for assessing suppliers’ sustainability performance, this research article
monitoring as a useful tool for assessing suppliers’ sustainability performance, this re-
ultimately aims to add to the body of knowledge on sustainable supplier selection in SCM.
search article ultimately aims to add to the body of knowledge on sustainable supplier
This article will assist organisations in selecting suppliers more wisely and sustainably by
selectionuseful
offering in SCM. This article
guidance through willtheassist organisations
suggested framework,in selecting
therebysuppliers
enhancingmore wisely
the overall
and sustainably by offering useful guidance
sustainability and resilience of their supply chains. through the suggested framework, thereby
enhancing the overall
By providing sustainability
a more holistic and andnuanced
resilience of their
view supply chains.
of supplier sustainability, the pro-
posed model of administrative observation tackles the constraints sustainability,
By providing a more holistic and nuanced view of supplier the pro-
and limits of standard
posed modelassessment
quantitative of administrative observation
approaches. tackles the constraints
While quantitative and limits concentrate
methods frequently of standard
on numerical data, administrative observation supplements these metrics by offering quali-
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15643 3 of 17

tative insights into a supplier’s practices and behaviour. Organizations may ensure that the
identified supplier selection variables are applied consistently and reliably by defining the
criteria and guidelines within their supply chain management and procurement processes.
This could include creating standardized assessment processes, performing regular audits,
and encouraging supplier engagement. Organizations might apply weights or rankings
according to their specific aims to align these factors with sustainability goals. Typically,
this is accomplished using a multi-criteria decision-making technique in which experts or
stakeholders give importance to each variable based on the organization’s sustainability
priorities. This methodical approach assists in ensuring that supplier selection matches
with an organization’s sustainability goals and objectives while preserving its dependability
and consistency.
The remaining sections of the paper are organized as follows: Section 2 provides an
overview of related works that have been conducted in the field. Section 3 delves into the
Materials and Methods employed in this research study, encompassing the Fuzzy TOPSIS
approach and the hierarchy for the selection process. Section 4 presents the findings that
have emerged from this study, highlighting the outcomes and results obtained. In Section 5,
a comprehensive discussion is presented, analysing and interpreting the findings in the
context of the research objectives. Finally, in Section 6, the paper concludes by summarizing
the key findings, discussing any limitations encountered during the study, and proposing
avenues for future research and study in the subject area.

2. Related Works
The related works section provides a thorough analysis of the literature and research
on sustainable supplier selection in supply chain management. This section highlights
notable studies, methodologies, and frameworks that have aided in the comprehension
of sustainable supplier selection practises. We intend to acquire insight into the many
approaches, challenges, and possibilities within this sector by delving into the existing
body of knowledge, while also identifying gaps for future research. The subsections
that follow provide a detailed examination of relevant studies, categorising them accord-
ing to their emphasis on sustainable criteria and decision-making processes, as well as
practical implications.
Luthra et al. [16] introduced an integrated strategy that combined the analytical hier-
archy process (AHP) and ViseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR)
to evaluate sustainable supplier selection. Their work began by identifying 22 sustainable
supplier selection factors across economic, environmental, and social dimensions. The
framework was illustrated using a real-world case study in the Indian automobile industry,
emphasizing the top five factors influencing sustainable supplier selection. This research
provides valuable insights for managers and professionals seeking to differentiate crit-
ical supplier selection factors and identify the most effective and sustainable suppliers.
Tavana et al. [17] introduced an innovative integrated multi-criteria decision-making ap-
proach to address the challenges of selecting sustainable suppliers. Their model system-
atically analysed the interplay of sustainable factors, creating a hierarchical structure for
these variables. It weighted choice criteria based on customer requirements, followed by a
ranking of suppliers through a multi-objective optimization process. This research paper
highlights the adaptability of this approach for businesses with similar characteristics.
Hashemi et al. [18] presented a comprehensive strategy for selecting green suppliers,
addressing both economic and environmental factors. They employed the analytic network
process (ANP) to handle criteria dependencies and an enhanced grey relational analysis
(GRA) to address the inherent uncertainty in supplier selection decisions. This unique
approach actively involves decision makers and integrates linguistic evaluations into the
supplier selection process, as demonstrated in an automotive sector case study. Badri
Ahmadi et al. [19] designed a structured decision approach for assessing sustainable suppli-
ers in the telecommunications sector. Their integration of the analytical hierarchy process
(AHP) with an enhanced grey relational analysis (IGRA) allowed for the determination of
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15643 4 of 17

sustainability criteria importance and supplier ranking. The model’s sensitivity analysis
tested its robustness in the context of sustainable supplier selection in Southern Iran.
Freeman and Chen [20] emphasized the creation of a model for green supplier selec-
tion, balancing traditional selection criteria with environmental concerns. Their approach
aligns with green supply chain management (GSCM) principles, offering a systematic
method for integrating eco-friendly suppliers while complying with environmental reg-
ulations. Zimmer et al. [21] conducted an extensive review of research on sustainable
supplier management (SSM), emphasizing formal models for the selection, monitoring, and
improvement of sustainable suppliers. This content analysis of 143 peer-reviewed publica-
tions from 1997 to 2014 reveals increased academic interest, particularly in methodologies
like the analytic hierarchy process, analytic network process, and fuzzy-based methods. It
underscores the significance of the evaluation and decision process and the potential for
the further exploration of social and quantitative variables.
Wang et al. [22] introduced a supplier selection paradigm emphasizing information
integration for supply chain management, integrating building information modelling
(BIM) and geographic information systems (GIS) to create a resilient building supply chain.
The framework combines the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and grey relational analysis
(GRA) for supplier evaluation with a sensitivity analysis to identify key factors impacting
supplier selection preferences. Fallahpour et al. [23] explored the use of hybrid artificial-
intelligence-based systems for supplier evaluations, introducing a model combining a data
envelopment analysis (DEA) with genetic programming (GP). This innovative approach
overcame the limitations of traditional DEA-AI models, offering a potent tool for supplier
efficiency assessments.
Song et al. [24] developed a comprehensive methodology combining rough numbers,
the pairwise contrast method, the decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMA-
TEL), and pairwise comparative procedures for assessing relative importance. A case study
in the solar air conditioner industry demonstrated the effectiveness of this methodology.
Yazdani et al. [25] proposed an integrated method for selecting green suppliers, utilizing the
decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) approach to establish a rela-
tionship structure. Quality function deployment (QFD) determined the degree of connection
among the supplier selection criteria and customer requirements, followed by a complex
proportional assessment (COPRAS) for ranking and prioritizing alternative suppliers.
These studies collectively contribute to the evolving field of sustainable supplier selec-
tion by introducing innovative approaches and addressing various facets of sustainability
in supplier management. Several other authors [26–29] have employed MCDM approaches
to address intricate problems in recent years. It is also important to highlight that the Fuzzy
Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) method is used
in our research to choose suppliers. For decision-making issues, particularly in complex
and unpredictable situations, the Fuzzy TOPSIS technique is widely acknowledged and
used. This approach can manage confusing and inaccurate data by incorporating fuzzy
logic, which is frequently encountered while evaluating sustainability criteria in supplier
selection. The Fuzzy TOPSIS method has been successfully used in numerous studies to
rank suppliers according to sustainability criteria such as price, quality, and environmental
performance, as well as social responsibility. By incorporating administrative observation
into the Fuzzy TOPSIS technique, our research expands on this basis by improving the
thoroughness and precision of the supplier selection procedure. Our research adds to the
literature by putting the benefits of the Fuzzy TOPSIS method and management observa-
tion together to propose a novel strategy that helps organisations to choose sustainable
suppliers efficiently and make decisions based on many factors.

3. Materials and Methods

This section used a hierarchical structure and the Fuzzy Technique for Order of Prefer-
ence by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) to assist with sustainable supplier selection
in supply chain management. The term “fuzzy” signifies the presence of uncertainty as
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15643 5 of 17

well as imprecision in decision making. When reviewing and ranking suppliers by con-
sidering environmental and social factors, this strategy handles ambiguous or imprecise
information. The supplier assessment criteria’s inherent uncertainties and ambiguity were
addressed using the Fuzzy TOPSIS approach, and the hierarchical structure offered a struc-
tured framework for managing the decision-making process [26–30]. This study aims to
make informed decisions by leveraging the experience of 55 managerial-level professionals,
including top-level managers, business analysts, and senior researchers. Expert profiles
were created to collect raw data based on their qualifications, expertise, and relevance to
the research subject. We conducted structured interviews with these experts, utilizing a
pre-determined list of questions covering major parts of the research issue. To gain expert
opinions, we conducted in-depth interviews with each professional, allowing us to tap into
their significant knowledge and experience in the field. The process for using the Fuzzy
TOPSIS approach within the hierarchical structure is described in this part, including the
selection of criteria, criteria weighting, fuzzy evaluation, and final supplier ranking.

3.1. Fuzzy TOPSIS Approach

Due to its capacity to deal with the inherent uncertainty as well as imprecision in-
volved with decision-making processes, the Fuzzy TOPSIS technique has drawn substantial
interest in the context of supplier selection in supply chain management. The Fuzzy TOPSIS
method offers a methodical process for assessing and ranking potential suppliers based on
a variety of factors, taking into account both their positive and negative performance char-
acteristics [31–34]. An overview of the Fuzzy TOPSIS approach and a mathematical model
of the steps are given in this section. Fuzzy normalisation, fuzzy similarity measurements,
and the computation of Fuzzy TOPSIS scores are some of the mathematical operations
included in the Fuzzy TOPSIS technique. Fuzzy set theory, aggregation operators, and
weighted average methods serve as the foundation for these calculations. This research
article will derive and explain in detail the particular mathematical formulas and equations
utilised in the Fuzzy TOPSIS approach, ensuring a thorough comprehension of the system’s
mathematical foundation and implementation.
This research study intends to give a strong and efficient technique for integrating
administrative observation into sustainable supplier selection in supply chain management
by utilising the Fuzzy TOPSIS method and its mathematical model. Organisations will
be able to use the mathematical framework to make defensible judgements based on am-
biguous and unclear data, taking into account a variety of factors including environmental
dimensions [35–40]. This scale is composed of a standard group of expressions that have
been organised in a certain sequence. These expressions serve to depict specific phenom-
ena, states as expressions that are equally spaced from the determined value. Making
a comprehensive list of selection criteria for the sustainable supplier is the first stage in
the process. Choosing criteria for a model is one of the major challenges. As a result,
by reading the literature and utilising the findings of earlier studies, the standards for
evaluating sustainable suppliers are created. In accordance with the organization’s strategy
and requirements, local experts’ opinions are considered to identify the most efficient
criteria for choosing suppliers among the examined criteria. Five criteria for the sustainable
suppliers were chosen from the predetermined criteria after the requisite interviews. The
best sustainable supplier was then chosen using an evaluation based on the fuzzy scale. The
Fuzzy TOPSIS-based supply chain management strategy for sustainable supplier selection
is depicted in Figure 2.
 Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 17

fuzzy scale. The Fuzzy TOPSIS-based supply chain management strategy for sustainable
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15643 6 of 17
supplier selection is depicted in Figure 2.

Figure2.2.Fuzzy-TOPSIS-based
Figure Fuzzy-TOPSIS-based framework
framework for sustainable
for sustainable supplier
supplier selection
selection in chain
in supply supply chain man-
management.
agement.
3.2. Hierarchical Model for the Selection of Sustainable Supplier
3.2. Hierarchical Model for organize
In order to properly the Selection
theofselection
Sustainable Supplier
process of sustainable supplier, a hierar-
chicalInmodel
orderistoproposed,
properly taking
organize into account
the selectiontheprocess
multi-faceted charactersupplier,
of sustainable of sustainable
a hier-
supplier selection.
archical model The introduction
is proposed, taking into ofaccount
an innovative and thorough
the multi-faceted supplier
character selection
of sustainable
framework based onThe
supplier selection. fiveintroduction
important aspects—cost,
of an innovative quality,
anddelivery
thorough time, environmental
supplier selection
performance,
framework based and social
on fiveresponsibility—is
important aspects—cost, intended to revolutionize
quality, delivery time,long-term supply
environmental
chain management.
performance, This specific
and social framework includes
responsibility—is intended cutting-edge approaches
to revolutionize and adheres
long-term supply
to sustainability,
chain management. ethical,
Thisand efficiency
specific principles.
framework The first
includes element, cost,
cutting-edge goes beyond
approaches and the
ad-
traditional method of focusing
heres to sustainability, ethical, exclusively
and efficiency on principles.
purchasingThe price.
firstInstead,
element, it cost,
incorporates
goes be-
total
yondcosttheoftraditional
ownershipmethod
(TCO) of assessment, which includes
focusing exclusively procurement,
on purchasing shipping,
price. Instead,inven-
it in-
tory keeping, and other pertinent costs. Organizations can
corporates total cost of ownership (TCO) assessment, which includes procurement,make better-informed choices
that match with
shipping, their financial
inventory keeping,objectives
and other as well as long-term
pertinent costs. profitability
Organizations by evaluating
can make
suppliers via this holistic
better-informed choices cost
thatlens.
match Quality
with remains an essential
their financial criterion
objectives in theasframework,
as well long-term
emphasising
profitability by evaluating suppliers via this holistic cost lens. Quality remains an Using
the consistency and dependability of suppliers’ products or services. essen-
sophisticated
tial criterion in quality management
the framework, approachesthe
emphasising such as Six Sigma
consistency andand Statistical Process
dependability of sup-
Control, suppliersorwith
pliers’ products a solid
services. tracksophisticated
Using record of regularly
qualitydelivering
management high-quality
approaches goods suchandas
services can be identified. Delivery time, in addition to cost and quality,
Six Sigma and Statistical Process Control, suppliers with a solid track record of regularly appears to be a
critical element in the framework. For efficiency in operations, meeting
delivering high-quality goods and services can be identified. Delivery time, in addition to customer demand,
and
costlowering lead appears
and quality, times, timely
to bedelivery
a criticaliselement
critical. The
in thehierarchical
framework. model employs perfor-
For efficiency in op-
mance data
erations, and cutting-edge
meeting delivery tracking
customer demand, tools to
and lowering findtimes,
lead suppliers
timely who can consistently
delivery is critical.
meet tight deadlines.
The hierarchical model employs performance data and cutting-edge delivery tracking
The innovative supplier selection framework is also the first to incorporate environ-
tools to find suppliers who can consistently meet tight deadlines.
mental performance as a critical factor. The environmental impact of suppliers is thoroughly
The innovative supplier selection framework is also the first to incorporate envi-
analysed through life cycle analyses and environmental certifications, including green-
ronmental performance as a critical factor. The environmental impact of suppliers is
house gas emissions, water usage, and waste generation. Suppliers who exhibit a strong
commitment to sustainability and have embraced eco-friendly practises can be prioritised
by organisations. Additionally, the framework prioritises social responsibility, emphasising
suppliers’ ethical behaviour and social impact. Labour practises, human rights compliance,
 thoroughly analysed through life cycle analyses and environmental certifications, in-
cluding greenhouse gas emissions, water usage, and waste generation. Suppliers who
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15643 exhibit a strong commitment to sustainability and have embraced eco-friendly practises 7 of 17
can be prioritised by organisations. Additionally, the framework prioritises social re-
sponsibility, emphasising suppliers’ ethical behaviour and social impact. Labour prac-
tises, human rights compliance, diversity and inclusion activities, and interaction with
diversity and inclusion activities, and interaction with local communities are all evaluated.
local communities are all evaluated. Organisations may cultivate a positive reputation,
Organisations may cultivate a positive reputation, increase their brand value, and posi-
increase their brand value, and positively contribute to society by cooperating with so-
tively contribute to society by cooperating with socially responsible suppliers. This specific
cially responsible suppliers. This specific supplier selection framework’s incorporation of
supplier selection framework’s incorporation of cost, quality, delivery time, environmental
cost, quality, delivery time, environmental performance, and social responsibility as the
performance, and socialan
main pillars symbolises responsibility
innovation inassupply
the main
chainpillars symbolises
management. an innovation
Organisations can in
supply chain management. Organisations can accomplish sustainable
accomplish sustainable procurement practises, make responsible decisions, and formprocurement prac-
tises, makepartnerships
long-term responsible with
decisions, and that
suppliers formalign
long-term partnerships
with their ethical as with suppliers
well as businessthat
align with their ethical as well as business goals by adopting this comprehensive
goals by adopting this comprehensive strategy. Furthermore, this novel approach ushers strategy.
Furthermore, this novel approach ushers in the next phase of supply chain
in the next phase of supply chain sustainability by empowering organisations to set thesustainability
by empowering
standard organisations
for corporate to set the standard
social responsibility forenvironmental
as well as corporate social responsibility
stewardship. The as
well as environmental stewardship. The hierarchy makes it possible to evaluate
hierarchy makes it possible to evaluate suppliers holistically, ensuring that all pertinent suppliers
holistically,
criteria areensuring that account
taken into all pertinent
and criteria are taken
given the properinto account and
weighting given
during thethedeci-
proper
weighting during the decision-making process. The hierarchical representation
sion-making process. The hierarchical representation for choosing a sustainable supplier for choosing
aissustainable supplier
shown in Figure is shown in Figure 3 below.
3 below.

Figure3.3.Hierarchy
Figure Hierarchy model
model for
for the
theselection
selectionofofsustainable
sustainablesuppliers.
suppliers.

3.2.1.Criteria
3.2.1. Criteria Identification
Identification
The main
The main goals
goals of this
this part
part were
weretotodevelop
developand anddefine
definethethe
essential
essentialstandards
standards for for
assessing suppliers’
assessing suppliers’ sustainability
sustainabilityperformance
performanceininsupplysupply chain
chain management.
management. Given
Giventhe the
importance of
importance of taking
taking into
into account
accountmany
manysustainability-related
sustainability-related factors, a methodical
factors, a methodical ap- ap-
proachwas
proach was used
used to
to identify
identify the
the pertinent
pertinentstandards.
standards.The process
The process used to determine
used to determine the the
criteriaisisdescribed
criteria describedin inthis
thissection,
section,which
which included
included aa thorough
thorough assessment
assessment of of the
the literature,
litera-
ture, discussions
discussions with business
with business professionals,
professionals, andand consideration
consideration of organisational
of organisational goals.This
goals.
This section establishes the groundwork for a rigorous and inclusive evaluation
section establishes the groundwork for a rigorous and inclusive evaluation framework by frame-
work bya thorough
defining defining aset thorough setensuring
of criteria, of criteria,
thatensuring that sustainability-related
all pertinent all pertinent sustainabil- factors
ity-related factors are taken into account during the supplier
are taken into account during the supplier selection process. The five selection process.
criteriaThe
thatfive
were
criteria that were determined for this research study are listed below.
determined for this research study are listed below.
Cost: This criterion evaluates each supplier’s price strategy, total cost of ownership,
Cost: This criterion evaluates each supplier’s price strategy, total cost of owner-
and overall financial impact. It takes into account things like the cost of the product, the
ship, and overall financial impact. It takes into account things like the cost of the prod-
conditions of payment, discounts, and any supplemental expenses like shipping or cus-
uct, the conditions of payment, discounts, and any supplemental expenses like shipping
tomisation.
or customisation.
Quality: The capacity of the supplier to consistently supply goods or services which
satisfy or go above the predetermined standards is referred to as quality. This criterion
assesses elements including product dependability, compliance with quality control proce-
dures, certifications, and customer satisfaction scores.
Delivery Time: The primary concern of delivery time is the supplier’s capacity to fulfil
orders promptly and adhere to established delivery schedules. It takes into account things
like lead times, production capacity, effective order processing, and delivery performance.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15643 8 of 17

Environmental Performance: This criterion assesses the supplier’s dedication to eco-

friendly business practises. It evaluates elements including carbon footprint, waste management,
energy efficiency, reliance on renewable resources, and adherence to environmental laws.
Social Responsibility: The supplier’s ethical as well as social practises are evaluated
by the social responsibility criterion. It takes into account elements like working conditions,
ethical business practices, diversity and inclusion strategies, health and safety regulations,
and community involvement programmes.

3.2.2. Identification of Alternatives

The selection and identification of potential supplier alternatives to be considered
during the sustainable supplier selection process were the main objectives of this section.
This section covers the methodical process used to find and shortlist the alternatives because
it is crucial to take into account a wide range of options. To create a complete list of potential
suppliers, this approach involved market research, supplier databases, and cooperation
with important parties. In order to ensure that only the alternatives with the greatest
potential for sustainable performance are taken into consideration for further review, the
section also discusses the criteria used to filter and prioritise the alternatives. This part
carefully identifies and chooses the alternatives, laying the groundwork for a thorough and
efficient supplier evaluation procedure. The recognised options for this examination and
selection are listed below.
Supplier A: A reputable supplier with a competitive pricing structure, a proven track
record of supplying high-quality items, and a solid track record of completing orders on
time. They have put in place strategies for environmental sustainability and operate active
social responsibility initiatives.
Supplier B: A reasonable provider with reasonable prices; however, they need to en-
hance their quality control procedures and delivery performance. They have already begun
putting environmental sustainability practises into practise and are currently working to
improve their social responsibility programmes.
Supplier C: A high-end source with more expensive prices, but outstanding product
quality as well as prompt delivery. They actively take part in social responsibility initiatives
and have a strong environmental sustainability policy in place.
Supplier D: A reasonable in terms of pricing, quality, and timeliness of delivery
performance source. They have few social responsibility programmes, and they are just
starting to apply environmental sustainability initiatives.
Supplier E: A provider whose low prices are accompanied by variable product quality
and lengthy delivery windows. They make only modest efforts to uphold social responsi-
bility and implement minimal environmental sustainability practises.
In Fuzzy-TOPSIS-based multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) analysis, identi-
fying criteria and alternatives is critical. The selection of proper criteria is critical since it
establishes the dimensions or traits that will be used to evaluate the options. These criteria
constitute guiding principles that match with the decision making process’s aims and
requirements. A thorough investigation and precise criteria specification guarantee that
all essential parts of the problem are considered, resulting in a more comprehensive and
accurate review. In a comparable manner, proper alternative determination is critical since
they provide prospective solutions or possibilities to be evaluated against the established
criteria. A well-defined set of alternatives guarantees that the decision-making process
covers a wide range of possible consequences, providing a thorough review of prospective
options. This, in turn, enables decision makers to make informed and sound decisions
by taking into account a variety of viable options. In general, methodical identification of
criteria as well as alternatives in Fuzzy-TOPSIS-based MCDM analysis improves decision-
making objectivity and rigour. It enables a more thorough and inclusive review of various
alternatives, enabling the selection of the best option that matches with the decision makers’
interests and values. As an outcome, in complicated and unpredictable decision-making
contexts, this technique assists in making well-informed choices.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15643 9 of 17

4. Results
The evaluation and analysis of the supply chain management’s sustainable supplier
selection procedure are presented in this section along with the conclusions and results that
were reached. This section emphasises the quantitative and qualitative findings from the use
of the chosen evaluation methodology, offering insightful information on the effectiveness
of the examined suppliers. An overview of the data gathered and the precise statistical or
analytical methods used are included in the section’s opening paragraph. The results are
then organised in accordance with the predetermined evaluation criteria and presented
in a clear and plain manner. The analysis of the results offers a thorough understanding
of the performance of the sustainable providers and makes it easier to make comparisons
between various suppliers. Furthermore, any important trends, patterns, or findings are
emphasized and count towards the research study’s final results and ramifications.

4.1. Statistical Outcome

The goal of this research was to use the knowledge of 55 managerial-level specialists
to make educated judgements in this area. The Fuzzy TOPSIS approach was used to
collect and analyse their data in order to identify the best vendors. The research technique
includes identifying five important factors that were thought to be essential for choosing
sustainable suppliers. Five potential solutions were assessed and compared using these
criteria. The ranking of the most advantageous providers was generated using the Fuzzy
TOPSIS approach based on their performance in accordance to the defined criteria. Table 1
is included in the report to provide the characteristics of different criteria used in this
investigation. The various criteria used in the evaluation process are shown in this table
along with the associated weights given to each criterion. The relative weights of each
criterion in the supplier selection process were determined by these weights, which were
very important.

Table 1. Characteristics of criteria.

Name Type Weight

1 Cost + (0.200, 0.200, 0.200)
2 Quality + (0.200, 0.200, 0.200)
3 Delivery Time + (0.200, 0.200, 0.200)
4 Environmental Performance + (0.200, 0.200, 0.200)
5 Social Responsibility + (0.200, 0.200, 0.200)

Table 2 provided below illustrates the specific fuzzy scale employed within the model.

Table 2. Fuzzy Scale.

Code Linguistic Terms L M U

1 Very low 1 1 3
2 Low 1 3 5
3 Medium 3 5 7
4 High 5 7 9
5 Very high 7 9 9

The outcomes of the decision matrix’s examination of the options using different
criteria are shown in Table 3 below. It should be taken into account that the matrix be-
low represents the arithmetic mean of all the experts’ evaluations in situations in which
numerous experts participated in the evaluation process.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15643 10 of 17

Table 3. Decision matrix.

Environmental Social
Cost Quality Delivery Time
Performance Responsibility
Supplier A (4.600, 6.600, 8.000) (4.600, 6.600, 7.600) (3.600, 5.600, 7.200) (3.800, 5.800, 7.200) (4.000, 6.000, 7.400)
Supplier B (3.600, 5.600, 7.200) (4.000, 6.000, 7.200) (4.800, 6.800, 7.800) (4.200, 6.200, 7.600) (2.800, 4.600, 6.200)
Supplier C (5.600, 7.600, 8.200) (4.400, 6.400, 7.800) (4.600, 6.600, 8.000) (3.400, 5.400, 7.000) (3.200, 5.200, 7.200)
Supplier D (3.600, 5.600, 7.400) (3.800, 5.800, 7.400) (3.200, 5.200, 7.000) (4.000, 5.800, 7.400) (3.600, 5.600, 7.000)
Supplier E (2.400, 4.400, 6.400) (3.200, 5.200, 6.600) (3.000, 5.000, 6.600) (4.400, 6.400, 7.600) (3.200, 5.200, 7.000)

The expression that follows can be used to compute a normalised decision matrix
using the positive and negative ideal solutions:
!
aij bij cij
erij = , , ; cj∗ = maxi cij ; Positive ideal solution (1)
cj∗ cj∗ cj∗

aj− aj− aj−

!
erij = , , ; aj− = mini aij ; Negative ideal solution (2)
cij bij aij

Table 4 below presents the normalized decision matrix.

Table 4. A normalized decision matrix.

Environmental Social
Cost Quality Delivery Time
Performance Responsibility
Supplier A (0.561, 0.805, 0.976) (0.590, 0.846, 0.974) (0.450, 0.700, 0.900) (0.500, 0.763, 0.947) (0.541, 0.811, 1.000)
Supplier B (0.439, 0.683, 0.878) (0.513, 0.769, 0.923) (0.600, 0.850, 0.975) (0.553, 0.816, 1.000) (0.378, 0.622, 0.838)
Supplier C (0.683, 0.927, 1.000) (0.564, 0.821, 1.000) (0.575, 0.825, 1.000) (0.447, 0.711, 0.921) (0.432, 0.703, 0.973)
Supplier D (0.439, 0.683, 0.902) (0.487, 0.744, 0.949) (0.400, 0.650, 0.875) (0.526, 0.763, 0.974) (0.486, 0.757, 0.946)
Supplier E (0.293, 0.537, 0.780) (0.410, 0.667, 0.846) (0.375, 0.625, 0.825) (0.579, 0.842, 1.000) (0.432, 0.703, 0.946)

The weighted normalised decision matrix can be calculated by multiplying every

criterion’s weight with the value it corresponds to in the normalised fuzzy decision matrix
using the method given below, taking into consideration the different weights allocated to
each criterion.
v
eij = erij .w
e ij (3)
where w
e ij represents the weight of criterion cj .
The weighted normalized decision matrix is displayed in Table 5 below.

Table 5. The weighted normalized decision matrix.

Environmental Social
Cost Quality Delivery Time
Performance Responsibility
Supplier A (0.112, 0.161, 0.195) (0.118, 0.169, 0.195) (0.090, 0.140, 0.180) (0.100, 0.153, 0.189) (0.108, 0.162, 0.200)
Supplier B (0.088, 0.137, 0.176) (0.103, 0.154, 0.185) (0.120, 0.170, 0.195) (0.111, 0.163, 0.200) (0.076, 0.124, 0.168)
Supplier C (0.137, 0.185, 0.200) (0.113, 0.164, 0.200) (0.115, 0.165, 0.200) (0.089, 0.142, 0.184) (0.086, 0.141, 0.195)
Supplier D (0.088, 0.137, 0.180) (0.097, 0.149, 0.190) (0.080, 0.130, 0.175) (0.105, 0.153, 0.195) (0.097, 0.151, 0.189)
Supplier E (0.059, 0.107, 0.156) (0.082, 0.133, 0.169) (0.075, 0.125, 0.165) (0.116, 0.168, 0.200) (0.086, 0.141, 0.189)

The first positive ideal solution (FPIS) and first negative ideal solution (FNIS) for the
alternatives can be defined as follows:
   
A∗ = { ve1∗ , v
e2∗ , . . . , v
en∗ } = maxvij |i ∈ B , minvij |i ∈ C (4)
j j
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15643 11 of 17

   
−
e1− , v
e2− , . . . , v
en−

A = v = minvij |i ∈ B , maxvij |i ∈ C (5)
j j

where vei∗ is the max value of i for all the alternatives and v
e1− is the min value of i for all the
alternatives. B and C represent the positive and negative ideal solutions, respectively.
Table 6 below showcases the positive and negative ideal solutions.

Table 6. The positive and negative ideal solutions.

Positive Ideal Negative Ideal

Cost (0.137, 0.185, 0.200) (0.059, 0.107, 0.156)
Quality (0.118, 0.169, 0.200) (0.082, 0.133, 0.169)
Delivery Time (0.120, 0.170, 0.200) (0.075, 0.125, 0.165)
Environmental Performance (0.116, 0.168, 0.200) (0.089, 0.142, 0.184)
Social Responsibility (0.108, 0.162, 0.200) (0.076, 0.124, 0.168)

The calculation of the distance between each alternative and the first positive ideal
solution (FPIS) and the distance between each alternative and the first negative ideal
solution (FNIS) is performed as follows:
n
Si∗ = ∑j=1 d (veij , vej∗ ) i = 1, 2, . . . , m (6)

n
Si− = ∑j=1 d (veij , vej− ) i = 1, 2, . . . , m (7)

where d is the distance between two fuzzy numbers. When given two triangular fuzzy
numbers (a1 , b1 , c1 ) and (a2 , b2 , c2 ), the distance between the two can be calculated
as follows:
 r h
e 2 = 1 (a1 − a2 )2 + (b1 − b2 )2 + (c1 − c2 )2
 i
dv M e 1, M (8)
3
   
Note that d v ej∗ and d v
eij , v ej− are crisp numbers.
eij , v
The distances from the positive and negative ideal solutions are presented in Table 7 below.

Table 7. Distance from positive and negative ideal solutions.

Distance from Positive Ideal Distance from Negative Ideal

Supplier A 0.064 0.141
Supplier B 0.099 0.105
Supplier C 0.05 0.157
Supplier D 0.117 0.088
Supplier E 0.164 0.04

The calculation of the closeness coefficient for each alternative is performed using the
following formula:
S−
CCi = + i − (9)
Si + Si
Table 8 below displays the closeness coefficient of each alternative, along with their
corresponding ranking order. It is important to note that the best alternative is the one that
is closest to the first positive ideal solution (FPIS) and farthest from the first negative ideal
solution (FNIS).
 the following formula:
𝑺−
𝒊
𝑪𝑪𝒊 = (9)
𝑺+ −
𝒊 +𝑺𝒊

Table 8 below displays the closeness coefficient of each alternative, along with their
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15643 corresponding ranking order. It is important to note that the best alternative is the one
12 of 17
that is closest to the first positive ideal solution (FPIS) and farthest from the first negative
ideal solution (FNIS).
Table 8. Closeness coefficient.
Table 8. Closeness coefficient.
Ci Rank
Ci Rank
Supplier A 0.686 2
Supplier A 0.686 2
Supplier B Supplier B 0.515
0.515 33
Supplier C Supplier C 0.76
0.76 1
Supplier D Supplier D 0.43
0.43 4
Supplier E Supplier E 0.197
0.197 55

The graph below in Figure 4 illustrates the closeness

closeness coefficient
coefficient of
of each
each alternative.
alternative.

Figure 4. Sustainable supplier selection results in supply chain management.

Figure 4. Sustainable supplier selection results in supply chain management.
Based on the evaluation criteria, Supplier C is identified as the top-ranked alternative.
Based on
In addition thecompetitive
to its evaluation price,
criteria, Supplier Cproduct
outstanding is identified asand
quality, the dependable
top-ranked on-time
alterna-
tive. In addition
delivery, SuppliertoC its competitive
provides price,
all three. Theoutstanding product quality,
strong environmental and dependable
sustainability practises
on-time delivery, Supplier C provides all three. The strong environmental
that they have put in place show their dedication to waste reduction, carbon sustainability
footprint
practises
reduction,thatandthey have put
resource in placeAdditionally,
efficiency. show their dedication
Supplier Ctoactively
waste reduction,
engages incarbonsocial
footprint
responsibility programmes, demonstrating moral workplace policies, fair tradeengages
reduction, and resource efficiency. Additionally, Supplier C actively in
initiatives,
social responsibility programmes, demonstrating moral workplace policies,
and neighbourhood involvement projects. They are the best option for the choice of a fair trade in-
itiatives,
sustainable and neighbourhood
supplier involvement
due to their projects. across
high performance They are the best option
all categories. for the
Additionally,
choice of a sustainable supplier due to their high performance across
Supplier A exhibits competitive pricing and a proven track record of supplying high- all categories. Ad-
ditionally, Supplier A exhibits competitive pricing and a proven track
quality goods. Although they have made considerable improvements in cost effectiveness record of supply-
ing
and high-quality goods.responsibility
quality, their social Although they have made
initiatives considerable sustainability
and environmental improvements in cost
measures
effectiveness and quality, their social responsibility initiatives and environmental
might not be as extensive as those of Supplier C. Supplier A is still an excellent choice, sus-
tainability
especially formeasures
businessesmight
thatnot bemore
give as extensive
weight toascost
those of Supplierand
effectiveness C. Supplier
quality but A less
is still
to
sustainability and social responsibility.
Cost effectiveness and a demonstrated commitment to putting environmental sustain-
ability practises into practise are offered by Supplier B. However, Supplier B lags behind
in terms of their delivery performance and quality control procedures, which may affect
their suitability as a supplier in general for sustainability. Nevertheless, their initiatives to
advance environmental sustainability and launch social responsibility programmes show
promise, making them a potential option for businesses that prioritise sustainable practices
and are prepared to collaborate with suppliers who are proactively raising their game.
Supplier D has products of average cost and mediocre quality, as well as average delivery
performance. Their efforts may not be as far along as those of higher-ranked alternatives,
despite the fact that they are still in the early phases of putting environmental sustainability
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15643 13 of 17

measures into practice. Additionally, they have made few social responsibility efforts.
Organizations looking for reasonable pricing and performance with the possibility for
improvement in sustainability and social responsibility practises might find Supplier D
to be a good fit. Supplier E offers a competitive price; however they fall short in terms
of erratic product quality and protracted delivery timeframes. Additionally, their social
responsibility initiatives are modest and their environmental sustainability practises are
scant. For businesses that put a premium on quality, dependability, and sustainability when
choosing their suppliers, Supplier E might be viewed as less appealing.

4.2. Comparative Analysis

The research paper’s comparative evaluation contrasts the Fuzzy TOPSIS and the
analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approaches in order to validate the study’s findings. This
comparison serves several functions, including determining the consistency, dependability,
and robustness of the produced data. This study compares the ranks produced from these
two independent evaluation procedures in order to detect any discrepancies or similari-
ties. This assessment is critical because it demonstrates the sensitivity of the results to the
chosen assessment method. Furthermore, the reliability and validity of the conclusions are
increased by closely studying the discrepancies in the rankings and examining the under-
lying criteria as well as weighting the variables used in each approach. The comparison
analysis sheds light on the environmental feasibility of the alternatives under consideration.
It promotes a more thorough grasp of the research findings, improves decision making,
and promotes an improved understanding of the analysed options. This research paper
aims to improve the overall reliability of the findings by scrutinising the rankings and
examining the fundamental criteria and weighting variables, which is critical for ensuring
their practical applicability and significance in sustainable supplier selection within supply
chain management. Table 9 below shows the comparative analysis findings in this study.

Table 9. Comparative analysis findings.

Rank Order 1 2 3 4 5
AHP Supplier C Supplier D Supplier A Supplier B Supplier E
Fuzzy TOPSIS Supplier C Supplier A Supplier B Supplier D Supplier E

The results of this investigation suggest some discrepancies in the order of supplier
rankings depending on the supplied rankings from the comparative evaluation of the
AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS techniques. Supplier C is the top-ranked supplier in the AHP
technique, followed by Supplier D, Supplier A, Supplier B, and Supplier E, in that order.
The Fuzzy TOPSIS technique, on the other hand, rates Supplier C as the top supplier as
well, but it places Supplier A second, followed by Supplier B, Supplier D, and Supplier E.
The comparison analysis reveals that the ranks produced by the two approaches are not
totally consistent. While both approaches agree that Supplier C is the top-ranked supplier,
the rankings of the other suppliers differ. Supplier A and Supplier B, in particular, take
opposing stances in the two different strategies. This disparity in ranks highlights the
sensitivity of findings to the evaluation approach used. It implies that the methodology
chosen can have a major impact on the supplier selection decision. To make educated and
trustworthy conclusions, decision makers must carefully analyse the approach utilised
and comprehend the underlying criteria and weighting elements. This research study
improves the credibility and validity of its conclusions by completing this comparison
analysis. It emphasises the significance of assessing and comprehending various assessment
approaches, their ramifications, and the impact they might have on supplier selection
decisions in supply chain management.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15643 14 of 17

5. Discussion
Incorporating administrative observation into sustainable supplier selection has vari-
ous advantages. For instance, it supplements quantitative evaluations by offering subjective
observations and qualitative data on suppliers’ sustainability performance. This provides
decision makers with a more comprehensive insight of a supplier’s practises than simply
numerical indicators. Additionally, administrative observation improves decision making
by providing significant insights that quantitative evaluations alone may not uncover.
Subjective judgements and direct observations help to clarify a supplier’s commitment to
sustainability, social responsibility, and ethical practices. This extra information enables
decision makers to make better-educated supplier selections that match with the organi-
zation’s sustainability objectives and values. Incorporating administrative observation
also helps to mitigate the limits of quantitative evaluations. Quantitative measurements
may not capture the entire scope of a supplier’s sustainable practices, or they may neglect
intangible variables that are critical in evaluating sustainability performance. Adminis-
trative observation closes these discrepancies by providing context, indicating potential
hazards or opportunities for improvement, and providing a comprehensive picture of a
supplier’s overall sustainability profile. Organisations can mitigate the risks linked to
insufficient quantitative assessments by utilizing managerial observation. It enables them
to find suppliers who not only match the quantitative standards but also display a true
commitment to environmental preservation and sustainability.
The results of this study shed a spotlight on how crucial it is to incorporate manage-
ment observation into the process of choosing sustainable suppliers within the framework
of supply chain management. The incorporation of observation enables a thorough evalu-
ation of suppliers’ performance that goes beyond conventional quantitative metrics and
takes into account elements like social responsibility and environmental sustainability. Any
further debate will centre on the most important ramifications of this study’s findings and
how important it is to encourage supply chains to use sustainable practises.
The established criteria first offer a comprehensive framework for assessing prospec-
tive suppliers’ costs, quality, delivery times, environmental performance, and social re-
sponsibility. These requirements are in line with the fundamentals of sustainable supply
chain management, which take economic, environmental, and social concerns into account.
The inclusion of social accountability as well as environmental performance criteria illus-
trates the growing importance of sustainability in modern supply chains and confirms
the premise that businesses should consider suppliers’ whole environmental and societal
impacts. Based on the given criteria, the ranked alternatives provide information about the
relative performance of the suppliers. When it comes to reasonable pricing, outstanding
product quality, on-time delivery, strong environmental sustainability measures, and active
involvement in social responsibility programmes, Supplier C stands out as the best option.
Despite operating well, Supplier A does not have the same level of social responsibility and
environmental sustainability measures as Supplier C. These findings highlight the necessity
for organisations to prioritise suppliers with excellent sustainability practises and ethical
standards in addition to traditional performance indicators.
Despite being cost-effective and dedicated to environmental sustainability, Supplier B
falls short when it comes to quality control procedures and delivery performance. How-
ever, their initiatives to advance sustainability and social responsibility show a promising
trajectory, indicating room for development and the possibility of future cooperation. With
average pricing and performance, Supplier D has few social responsibility programmes
and is just starting to develop sustainability measures. They are a decent option for organi-
sations looking for a compromise between cost effectiveness and sustainability. Supplier
E, on the other hand, offers inexpensive prices but displays variable product quality, de-
layed deliveries, and few socially responsible or sustainable practises. This emphasises the
dangers that could arise from suppliers who are only concerned with cutting costs because
they might forego standards of quality, dependability, and ethics. The long-term effects on
an organization’s reputation and sustainability objectives should be carefully considered
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15643 15 of 17

by organisations looking for sustainable supply chains. These results highlight the signifi-
cance of including sustainability factors in supplier selection procedures. By considering
environmental as well as social factors in addition to traditional issues, businesses can
make well-informed decisions which promote their objectives for sustainability and build
sustainable supply chains. This report stresses the importance of businesses prioritising
suppliers who have a demonstrated track record of delivering high-quality items on time
and with excellent environmental performance.

6. Conclusions
This study looked into how to use management observation in the setting of supply
chain management to choose sustainable suppliers. Organizations can make decisions
that are in line with their sustainability goals by factoring in factors including cost, quality,
delivery time, environmental performance, and social responsibility. This study shows how
important it is to take into account suppliers’ entire social and environmental impacts in
addition to traditional performance indicators. A thorough framework for assessing and
rating alternatives according to the specified criteria has been supplied by our research.
With their low pricing, outstanding product quality, on-time delivery, strong environmental
sustainability measures, and enthusiastic involvement in social responsibility programmes,
Supplier C won the top spot among the alternatives. This underlines how crucial it is
to choose vendors who uphold high moral and ethical standards. Suppliers A, B, D,
and E all showed different levels of performance and sustainability initiatives, allowing
organizations to choose wisely depending on their unique priorities.
It is crucial to recognize the limits of this study, though. First of all, the hypothetical
weights given to the criteria may change depending on the various sectors, organiza-
tions, and sustainability objectives. Our theoretical-framework-supported results would be
bolstered by empirical validations employing actual case studies or data analyses. Further-
more, while our research focuses on a specific set of criteria, there may be other relevant
variables that must be taken into consideration when selecting suppliers. Future research
should examine the incorporation of new criteria and the validation of the suggested
framework in various business environments. Future studies in this area should investigate
how to implement administrative observation in supplier selection procedures and the
practical issues that come with that. It would be beneficial to look at the specific processes
and equipment for gathering and processing information on environmental performance
and social responsibility. Additionally, it would be beneficial to undertake longitudinal
studies to evaluate the long-term effects of supplier selection choices on supply chain
sustainability and performance. Furthermore, given the ongoing evolution of sustainability
practises and stakeholder expectations, future research must focus on integrating flexible
and adaptable supplier selection methods. This would entail creating frameworks that can
adapt to changes in societal needs, environmental regulations, and technological break-
throughs. Investigating how supply chain stakeholders might work together and share
ideas to promote sustainable supplier selection would also add to the body of knowledge
in this field.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15643 16 of 17

References
1. Aissaoui, N.; Haouari, M.; Hassini, E. Supplier selection and order lot sizing modeling: A review. Comput. Oper. Res. 2007, 34,
3516–3540. [CrossRef]
2. Kannan, V.R.; Tan, K.C. Supplier selection and assessment: Their impact on business performance. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2002,
38, 11–21. [CrossRef]
3. Dowlatshahi, S. Designer–buyer–supplier interface: Theory versus practice. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2000, 63, 111–130. [CrossRef]
4. 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. 2013,
47, 355–367. [CrossRef]
5. Zarour, M.; Ansari, T.J.; Alenezi, M.; Sarkar, A.K.; Faizan, M.; Agrawal, A.; Kumar, R.; Khan, R.A. Evaluating the impact of
blockchain models for secure and trustworthy electronic healthcare records. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 157959–157973. [CrossRef]
6. Ansari, M.T.J.; Al-Zahrani, F.A.; Pandey, D.; Agrawal, A. A fuzzy TOPSIS based analysis toward selection of effective security
requirements engineering approach for trustworthy healthcare software development. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 2020, 20,
236. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Vachon, S.; Klassen, R.D. Extending green practices across the supply chain: The impact of upstream and downstream integration.
Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2006, 26, 795–821. [CrossRef]
8. Lee, S.Y.; Klassen, R.D. Drivers and enablers that foster environmental management capabilities in small-and medium-sized
suppliers in supply chains. Prod. Oper. Manag. 2008, 17, 573–586. [CrossRef]
9. Ansari, M.T.J.; Pandey, D.; Alenezi, M. STORE: Security threat oriented requirements engineering methodology. J. King Saud
Univ.-Comput. Inf. Sci. 2022, 34, 191–203. [CrossRef]
10. Locke, R.; Kochan, T.; Romis, M.; Qin, F. Beyond corporate codes of conduct: Work organization and labour standards at Nike’s
suppliers. Int. Labour Rev. 2007, 146, 21–40. [CrossRef]
11. Locke, R.M.; Rissing, B.A.; Pal, T. Complements or substitutes? Private codes, state regulation and the enforcement of labour
standards in global supply chains. Br. J. Ind. Relat. 2013, 51, 519–552. [CrossRef]
12. Nadvi, K.; Raj-Reichert, G. Governing health and safety at lower tiers of the computer industry global value chain. Regul. Gov.
2015, 9, 243–258. [CrossRef]
13. Alzahrani, F.A.; Ahmad, M.; Ansari, M.T.J. Towards design and development of security assessment framework for internet of
medical things. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8148. [CrossRef]
14. Alshahrani, H.M.; Alotaibi, S.S.; Ansari, T.J.; Asiri, M.M.; Agrawal, A.; Khan, R.A.; Mohsen, H.; Hilal, A.M. Analysis and ranking
of IT risk factors using fuzzy TOPSIS-based approach. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 5911. [CrossRef]
15. Agrawal, A.; Khan, R.A.; Ansari, M.T.J. Empowering Indian citizens through the secure e-governance: The digital India initiative
context. In Emerging Technologies in Data Mining and Information Security: Proceedings of IEMIS 2022; Springer Nature: Singapore,
2022; Volume 3, pp. 3–11.
16. 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. 2017, 140, 1686–1698. [CrossRef]
17. Tavana, M.; Yazdani, M.; Di Caprio, D. An application of an integrated ANP–QFD framework for sustainable supplier selection.
Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2017, 20, 254–275. [CrossRef]
18. Hashemi, S.H.; Karimi, A.; Tavana, M. An integrated green supplier selection approach with analytic network process and
improved Grey relational analysis. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2015, 159, 178–191. [CrossRef]
19. Badri Ahmadi, H.; Hashemi Petrudi, S.H.; Wang, X. Integrating sustainability into supplier selection with analytical hierarchy
process and improved grey relational analysis: A case of telecom industry. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2017, 90, 2413–2427.
[CrossRef]
20. Freeman, J.; Chen, T. Green supplier selection using an AHP-Entropy-TOPSIS framework. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2015, 20,
327–340. [CrossRef]
21. Zimmer, K.; Fröhling, M.; Schultmann, F. Sustainable supplier management–a review of models supporting sustainable supplier
selection, monitoring and development. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2016, 54, 1412–1442. [CrossRef]
22. Wang, T.K.; Zhang, Q.; Chong, H.Y.; Wang, X. Integrated supplier selection framework in a resilient construction supply chain:
An approach via analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and grey relational analysis (GRA). Sustainability 2017, 9, 289. [CrossRef]
23. Fallahpour, A.; Olugu, E.U.; Musa, S.N.; Khezrimotlagh, D.; Wong, K.Y. An integrated model for green supplier selection under
fuzzy environment: Application of data envelopment analysis and genetic programming approach. Neural Comput. Appl. 2016,
27, 707–725. [CrossRef]
24. Song, W.; Xu, Z.; Liu, H.C. Developing sustainable supplier selection criteria for solar air-conditioner manufacturer: An integrated
approach. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 79, 1461–1471. [CrossRef]
25. Yazdani, M.; Chatterjee, P.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Zolfani, S.H. Integrated QFD-MCDM framework for green supplier selection.
J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 3728–3740. [CrossRef]
26. Hajiaghaei-Keshteli, M.; Cenk, Z.; Erdebilli, B.; Özdemir, Y.S.; Gholian-Jouybari, F. Pythagorean fuzzy TOPSIS method for green
supplier selection in the food industry. Expert Syst. Appl. 2023, 224, 120036. [CrossRef]
27. Pınar, A.; Babak Daneshvar, R.; Özdemir, Y.S. q-Rung orthopair fuzzy TOPSIS method for green supplier selection problem.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 985. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15643 17 of 17

28. Wang, C.N.; Yang, F.C.; Vo, T.M.N.; Nguyen, V.T.T.; Singh, M. Enhancing Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness: A Groundbreaking
Bi-Algorithm MCDM Approach. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 9105. [CrossRef]
29. Wang, C.N.; Yang, F.C.; Vo, N.T.; Nguyen, V.T.T. Enhancing Lithium-Ion Battery Manufacturing Efficiency: A Comparative
Analysis Using DEA Malmquist and Epsilon-Based Measures. Batteries 2023, 9, 317. [CrossRef]
30. Polychroniou, P.V.; Giannikos, I. A fuzzy multicriteria decision-making methodology for selection of human resources in a Greek
private bank. Career Dev. Int. 2009, 14, 372–387. [CrossRef]
31. Chen, C.T.; Lin, C.T.; Huang, S.F. A fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and selection in supply chain management. Int. J.
Prod. Econ. 2006, 102, 289–301. [CrossRef]
32. 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. 2013, 47, 345–354. [CrossRef]
33. Büyüközkan, G.; Çifçi, G. A novel hybrid MCDM approach based on fuzzy DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS to evaluate
green suppliers. Expert Syst. Appl. 2012, 39, 3000–3011. [CrossRef]
34. Shen, L.; Olfat, L.; Govindan, K.; Khodaverdi, R.; Diabat, A. A fuzzy multi criteria approach for evaluating green supplier’s
performance in green supply chain with linguistic preferences. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2013, 74, 170–179. [CrossRef]
35. Roshandel, J.; Miri-Nargesi, S.S.; Hatami-Shirkouhi, L. Evaluating and selecting the supplier in detergent production industry
using hierarchical fuzzy TOPSIS. Appl. Math. Model. 2013, 37, 10170–10181. [CrossRef]
36. Amiri, M.P. Project selection for oil-fields development by using the AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods. Expert Syst. Appl. 2010, 37,
6218–6224. [CrossRef]
37. Ansari, M.T.J.; Agrawal, A.; Khan, R.A. DURASec: Durable Security Blueprints for Web-Applications Empowering Digital India
Initiative. EAI Endorsed Trans. Scalable Inf. Syst. 2022, 9, e7. [CrossRef]
38. Fuse, K.; Dalsaniya, A.; Modi, D.; Vora, J.; Pimenov, D.Y.; Giasin, K.; Prajapati, P.; Chaudhari, R.; Wojciechowski, S. Integration of
fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods for wire electric discharge machining of titanium (Ti6Al4V) alloy using RSM. Materials
2021, 14, 7408. [CrossRef]
39. Alassery, F.; Alzahrani, A.; Khan, A.I.; Khan, A.; Nadeem, M.; Ansari, M.T.J. Quantitative Evaluation of Mental-Health in Type-2
Diabetes Patients Through Computational Model. Intell. Autom. Soft Comput 2022, 32, 1701–1715. [CrossRef]
40. Alyami, H.; Ansari, T.J.; Alharbi, A.; Alosaimi, W.; Alshammari, M.; Pandey, D.; Agrawal, A.; Kumar, R.; Khan, R.A. Effectiveness
evaluation of different IDSs using integrated fuzzy MCDM model. Electronics 2022, 11, 859. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.