PublishedIRMJ2 Watermark1

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/354842839
An Examination of Halal Fashion Supply Chain Management

Risks Based on the Fuzzy Best-Worst Approach
Article in Information Resources Management Journal · September 2021

DOI: 10.4018/IRMJ.2021100104
CITATIONS READS
15 267
4 authors, including:
Eli Sumarliah Bailin Wang

Al-Ihya Islamic University University of Science and Technology Beijing
32 PUBLICATIONS 175 CITATIONS 41 PUBLICATIONS 164 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Indriya Indriya
Universitas Ibn Khaldun Bogor
15 PUBLICATIONS 68 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Hijab fashion View project
scheduling View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Eli Sumarliah on 09 December 2021.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Information Resources Management Journal
Volume 34 • Issue 4
An Examination of Halal Fashion Supply

Chain Management Risks Based on
the Fuzzy Best-Worst Approach
Elie Sumarliah, University of Science and Technology, Beijing, China
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8680-8558
Tieke Li, University of Science and Technology, Beijing, China

Bailin Wang, University of Science and Technology, Beijing, China
Indriya Indriya, Ibn Khaldun University, Bogor, Indonesia
ABSTRACT
Risk management is indispensable. Halal fashion is an emerging business globally, yet studies of Halal
fashion supply chain (HFSC) risk management are scarce. An in-depth literature review discovered
40 risk factors in the HFSC. A group of professionals active in the field classified these risks into
seven categories. The fuzzy best-worst approach was then used to rank the risk categories and risk
factors. Manufacturing and design risks have the highest significance in HFSC management, and
risks in the financial and sustainability categories the lowest. The paper contributes significantly by
delivering an extensive inventory of HFSC management risks and their relative rankings that can
serve as a foundation for the development of a large number of theoretical studies.
Keywords
Fuzzy Best-Worst Method, Halal Fashion, Halal Supply Chain Management, Hijab, Risk Assessment, Risk
Mitigation, Supply Chain
INTRODUCTION
In the latest decade, scholars have focused on risk management in numerous study areas, including
supply chain (SC) management (Mangla et al., 2015; Vian et al., 2017). The rapid growth in industry
situation, modernization, internationalization, extensive technological changes, and innovation
increase the risk in nearly all human life components (Wu and Blackhurst, 2009). Likewise, this rapid
growth enhances the risk that exists in SC. The complexity of SC’s network system, subcontracting
activities, and internationalization influence SC activities, functions, and anticipated purposes,
e.g., operationally responsive business activity and operating expense (Ganguly and Kumar, 2019).
Therefore, Christopher and Lee (2004) confirm that managing risk is a vital component of SC
management to prevent SC risks’ undesirable effects on SC processes. Therefore, Christopher and
Lee (2004) confirm that managing risk is a vital component of SC management to prevent SC risks’
undesirable effects on SC processes.
The halal fashion supply chain (HFSC) is similar to a traditional supply chain coping with
the crucial risks. HFSC enables the manufacture of halal fashion goods and distributes them to
the customer. Halal goods are not limited to food, but also inclusive beverages, pharmaceuticals,
DOI: 10.4018/IRMJ.2021100104 *Corresponding Author

Copyright © 2021, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

69
cosmetics, and especially fashion products (apparel, shoes, bags, and accessories). Such commodities
are associated with human wellbeing and faith (Khan et al., 2020). For example, clothing might contain
harmful materials that can cause skin irritation or cancer (Bendix, 2019); meanwhile, halal fashion
should be made of lawful materials to protect customers from skin cancer (Dumas, 2016), and its design
also should be extended, loose, and modest to accommodate Islamic faith (Hwang and Kim, 2020).
Thus, any risk influencing HFSC could harm customers’ wellbeing and brand image. Accordingly,
managing risks has become a vital part of the HFSC management to handle these susceptibilities.
Many present-day studies concentrate on managing risks in the traditional SC and particular SC,
e.g., food SC and green SC (Kumar and Kansara, 2018; Mangla et al., 2015). Some events associated
with halal goods’ production and consumption generated numerous problems, causing the HFSC
management riskier than traditional SC management. For example, although many famous global
brands have started creating halal fashion in the past five years (Sumarliah et al., 2021a), and a pro-
Hijab movement has also been promoted in the US recently (Hwang and Kim, 2020), hijab (i.e., the
most well-known type of halal fashion) is still banned in some non-Muslim countries such as France
(Dumas, 2016). Regardless of this issue, risk management in the perspective of the HFSC is not
receiving significant consideration from scholars and practitioners.
Some literature has been focused on managing risks of halal product SC. For example, Ali et al.
(2014) investigated the integrity risk through SC integration in halal food, while Haleem et al. (2018)
examine the risks in implementing halal practices in logistics operations. The market size of halal
fashion goods is increasing globally: Muslim spending on halal fashion (apparel and footwear) was
$283 billion in 2018 and estimated to reach $402 billion in 2024 (“State of,” 2020). Regardless of a
big halal fashion business, there is still a scarcity in research concentrated on halal fashion goods in
the field of SC risk management.
The existing studies show that conventional SC risk management mostly examines SC with the
conventional SC risk management model. Particular SC, e.g., risk management frameworks for halal
SC, copes with halal food integrity and food safety (Ali et al., 2014; Soon et al., 2017; Wahyuni et al.,
2020). Much research has been conducted in SC risk management to tackle and alleviate the risk of
incidences’ negative impacts. Due to the fixed quality characteristic of halal goods, it is problematic
for customers to ensure their integrity even after using them (Haleem et al. 2020). Even though
managing risk is meaningfully vital for halal SCs because of issues linked to halal integrity, it is
somewhat surprising that research focused on halal SC has obtained comparatively less attention.
This paper sees risk management from the halal fashion supply chain (HFSC) viewpoint. The risk in
the HFSC includes the unsuccessfulness to supply the fashion products that fulfil halal ethics, such
as fashion design, which should be in line with the Islamic dress code and the fabrics/leathers which
should be made of halal materials. Consequently, there is a necessity for HFSC risk management
research to examine the complete assessment of SC risks. Thus, the paper aims to measure risks for
the HFSC by conducting a comprehensive assessment.
The primary purposes of the study include: (1) verify the crucial risk categories and risk factors
in the halal fashion supply chain management (HFSC), and (2) Prioritize/rank the verified risk
factors, applying the Fuzzy Best-Worst approach. The research attempts to pay full attention to risk
control for the HFSC by examining the SC risk and halal fashion-related risks by accomplishing the
purposes mentioned.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Risk Management: An Overview

As an existent part of industries, risk is a well-known issue for scholars and business leaders.
Nevertheless, SC management’s development has considered the increasing necessity for risk control
in recent years. Generally, risk control/management signifies the classification and examination of
70
risks and their influences. Dong and Cooper (2016) classify the conventional studies on SC risk control
into the following categories: (1) ex-post SC risk and (2) ex-ante SC risk management. The initial
category emphasizes pre-emptive scheming by recognizing and examining risks in the beginning, later
develops the SC management by implementing suitable approaches, i.e., SC incorporation, multilevel
inventory management, and procuring tactics. The next category is applied after a particular risk
has arisen; it manages to deal with the arisen risks by conveying and selecting the risk alleviation
strategies. This paper employs the ex-ante method for assessing the risks linked to HFSC management.
The SC management field risks should be clarified because they could trigger SC obstacles,
which consecutively leads to unforeseen transformation inflow caused by disruptions from external
or internal sources (Christopher and Lee, 2004; Min et al., 2019). Such disturbances can be in the
short-run or long run and generate minor and significant risks to the company (Bjørnsen et al., 2020;
Mital et al., 2016). The present-day global SC is coming to be less resistant and more at risk of facing
interruptions due to the companies’ primary focus on making the SC more economical (Ravulakollu
et al., 2018). Moreover, the upsurge in risk occurrences, i.e., pandemic, ecological disasters, business
instability, economic downturn, augmented offshoring/outsourcing, leads to more challenging
circumstances (Khan et al., 2020). Hence, managing risks is more concentrated on the present day
and needs to be viewed from different standpoints.
Despite numerous studies related to risk control in the field of SC risks, studies considering the
entire risks in SC management simultaneously remain scarce (Khan et al., 2020). The entire SC risks
involve the entire SC management components from preparation to distribution of the products, and
the paper involves the same for characterizing these risks.
Risk Management in Light of Halal Fashion Supply Chain (HFSC)

As mentioned above, HFSC risk management is not receiving the expected consideration in the
literature, and it remains rare. Besides the common SC risk, including the risks in preparing and
manufacturing products and demand, HFSC risk has several additional risks associated with halal
integrity. Halal integrity is the primary attention of HFSC management, mostly due to raw material
procurement and global outsourcing/subcontracting with numerous suppliers worldwide. Exclusively,
risks associated with halal integrity signify the unforeseen incidents that could interrupt the products’
halal status, from their beginning/resourcing stage to the end/consumer stage (Khan et al., 2020).
Risks associated with halal integrity arise in SC’s diverse phases, i.e., procurement, manufacture,
and distribution/logistics (Khan et al., 2020; Tieman, 2017). Those risks could trigger haram (not
halal) production, unclean/polluted, and low-quality fashion goods that might harm the brand image
and somehow influence the business operation’s effectiveness.
Halal fashion is a type of fashion product which follows Islamic dress code (Sumarliah et al., 2020;
Sumarliah et al., 2021a). It can also be identified as hijab fashion (Sumarliah et al., 2021b; Sumarliah
et al., 2021c) or modest fashion (Sumarliah et al., 2021d). Based on Islamic clothing standard, halal
fashion products must meet focus the following conditions to be lawfully manufactured: (i) the design
for women’s clothing should be modest, long, loose, and covering all body parts except face and palms;
while men’s garments should not include pure silk, gold, and golden ornaments, (ii) raw materials
for fashion products like the bag, shoes, and belt should not comprise haram/non-halal animals’ hair
and skin such as pigskin, (iii) clothes and textiles should be washed cleanly and free from impure
materials and pollution from non-halal goods (“The Principles”, n.d.). With the growing halal fashion
business worldwide, prominent leaders are examining their supply chains to discover methods to better
adhere to the mentioned Islamic principles regarding their business practices (Seth, 2016). Along
with the emergence of halal certification bodies devoted to the halal fashion segment (Textile, n.d.),
firms are planning to be attentively reviewed for halal ethics in their HFSCs (Seth, 2016) to meet the
conditions set for halal fashion products. Thus, leaders should improve risk management to reduce
the risks that can disrupt the halal standard’s implementation in their business activities.
71
Among several scientific research focusing on risk control in halal SC management, only two
notable works are exclusive to halal fashion. Firstly, Dewi et al. (2015) identified four categories
of halal fashion risks: design and production risk, financial risk, management risk, and marketing
risk. They found 22 critical risk factors from the four categories and further provided 19 strategies
in alleviating the risks. Secondly, Isfianadewi et al. (2018) distinguished 11 critical risk factors in
the new product development stage and suggested relevant strategies to alleviate those risks. Apart
from halal fashion SC management, this study also considers research related to other halal products
SC management, e.g., halal food SC, to identify HFSC risks. It is because the halal standards should
be applied to all products consumed by Muslims, not only limited to food but also including fashion
products; thus, the characteristic of halal integrity of the other halal product SC is consistent with
that of halal fashion SC (Sumarliah et al., 2021a). For example, it is strictly forbidden to use non-
halal ingredients such as pig parts in the procuring stage of halal food SC; so is in of halal fashion
SC: the leather fashion products (e.g., jacket, shoes, bags) contained pig parts is also considered
unlawful (Sumarliah et al., 2021a). Studies on other halal product SC include Ali et al. (2014), who
identified halal integrated risks in six categories, i.e., raw material risk, outsourcing risk, manufacture
risk, service risk, logistics risk, and food safety risk, which were suggested to be handled by SC
integration. Khan et al. (2020) also verified and examined six types of risks or barriers linked to
halal product SC, i.e., management support risks, halal certifying bodies risks, halal SC partners
integration risks, resources risks, technological support risks, and government support risks. Tieman
(2017) suggested an inclusive risk anticipation cycle for halal SC by lessening halal integrity risks,
including SC business process risks, logistic control risks, resources risks, and SC network structure
risks. Wahyuni et al. (2020) revealed and examined 19 risks associated with halal food safety using
the Bayesian-network approach.
RESEARCH FRAMEWORK
This study applies a two-stage methodology to achieve study purposes. First, the main risk categories
of HFSC management and their factors are verified. The critical risk factors are identified via an in-
depth literature review on ‘halal fashion SC risks’, other halal product SC risks’ and ‘general halal
SC risk management.’ Following the discovery of risk factors, the finalization of the factors is carried
out through professionals. Next, those risk factors are classified into main categories according to
their characteristics by the professionals’ recommendation.
Secondly, the risk category of the HFSC management and their related risk factors are ranked
according to their significance. The Fuzzy Best–Worst approach is employed to rank the risk factors.
This approach is applied because it needs fewer contrasts than other MCDM approaches (e.g., AHP).
Thus, it saves a vital expanse of time and cost of the professionals. Moreover, this technique makes
the pairwise contrast organized by allowing professionals to make decisions more effortlessly and
consistently (Khan et al., 2020; Rezaei, 2016). The research proposes that the Fuzzy Best-Worst
approach can deliver a more dependable ranking because of the constant contrast of the elements
(Guo and Zhao, 2017; Khan et al., 2020; Rezaei, 2016). While the best-worst approach has those
benefits, it does not manage the professional’s opinion’s ambiguity and fuzziness. Hence, the research
addresses this problem using Fuzzy numbers’ competence, which can deal with the ambiguity and
vagueness in the professional’s opinion. Next, the paper uses the Fuzzy Best-Worst approach to rank
the risk categories and related risk factors. A survey questionnaire was given to the professionals
to get feedback for adopting the Fuzzy Best-Worst approach. Figure 1 presents the research model
suggested in this paper.
72
Figure 1. The research model of the study
METHODOLOGY
This paper examines HFSC management’s risks using the Fuzzy Best-Worst approach with the
following six steps based on Guo and Zhao (2017). First, it identifies a set of decisive factors (‘n’
number of the standard: S1, S2, S3, . . ..Sn) which is critical in the decision making of the recognized
issue via literature review and professional opinion. Second, it finalizes the worst and the best factor
of the entire decisive factors. SW signifies the worst standard, while SB acts for the best standard. The
professionals do this step as decision-makers. Third, it determines the fuzzy suggestion assessments
for the best factor via the linguistic scales (with professionals’ response) and converts them into the
Triangular Fuzzy Number (TFN) according to Table 1. The following vector form represents the best
factor’s fuzzy preference:
= (a , a , …a )
A (1)
B B1 B2 Bn
where ÃB the fuzzy best-to-others vectors, ãBj indicates the fuzzy priority of the best standard B above
standard j, and ãBB = (1,1,1).
The next step is determining the fuzzy suggestion assessments via the linguistic scales (with
professionals’ response) and converts into TFN according to Table 1. The following vector form
represents the best factor’s fuzzy preference:
= (a , a , …a )
A (2)
W 1W 2W nW
where ÃW the fuzzy worst-to-others vectors, ãjW indicates the fuzzy preference of the worst standard
W over standard j, and ãWW = (1,1,1).
Further, this paper determines the optimum weight (W1* , W2* ,... Wn* ). The optimum weight for
every standard is the one where for every pair W /W and W /W , it must have W /W = ã and
B j j W B j Bj
Wj /WW = ãjW. To meet this requirement for the entire j, highest absolute disparities minimalized of
73
WB Wj
the group {| − ãBj|, | . − .ãjW|}. Respecting WB , WW and Wj as TFN and Wj* = (l jw , m wj ,
W W
j W
u ) to signify the factor j fuzzy weight. It can be signified as follows:

w
j
 n
( )
∑R Wj* = 1
 j =1
W W w
min max {| B − ãBj|, | J − ãjW|} s.t. l j < m j < u j
w w
(3)
WJ WW  w
 lj ≥ 0

 j = 1, 2, …n
where W̃B = (lB , mB , uB ), W̃j = (l j , m j , u wj ), W̃W = (lWw , mWw , uWw ), ãBj = (lBj, mBj, uBj) and ãjW
w w w w w
= (ljw, mjw, ujw).

Equation (3) can be converted into a linear model as follows:
 W
 B
 − aBj ≤ εfor all j
 j W
 W
 j a
 W − jW ≤ εfor all j
 W
Min ε s.t.  n (4)

 ( ) ∑ R Wj* = 1
 j =1
 l jw < m wj < u wj

 l jw ≥ 0

j = 1, 2, …n


where ε = {l , m , nᶓ}. ᶓ ᶓ
Based on lᶓ<mᶓ<nᶓ it is assumed ᶓ*= (k*, k*, k*), k* ≤ .lᶓ; thus, Model (4) becomes:
 lW , mW , uW
( )
 B B B
(
 W W W − (lBj , mBj , uBj ) ≤ k , k , k ) * * *
( )
 l j , m j , u j
 W W W
( )
 l j , m j , u j
( )
 W W W − (l jW , m jW , u jW ) ≤ k * , k * , k *
(
Min ε * s.t. ε  W W W
 l ,m ,u) (5)
  * 


∑ j =1 R W j  = 1
n 
 lW < mWj < uWj
 j
 lW ≥0
 j
 j = 1, 2,...n

By resolving Model (5), the optimum fuzzy weights (W1* , W2* ,... Wn* ) and the optimum value
of ε * is gained. The weights should be changed into crisp values employing the graded mean
integration representation (GMIR). Below is the model to calculate the fuzzy weight Wi * = (liw , miw ,
u w ) and the GMIR R (W * ) of TFN W * :
i i i
74
(l *
+ 4mi* + ui* )
R (Wi * ) =
i
(6)
6
Next, the consistency ratio (CR) is employed to check the pairwise comparisons’ consistency
level. A fuzzy comparison is completely reliable if ãBj x ãjW = ãBW, while the inconsistency occurs if
ãBj x ãjW ≠ ãBW, and it becomes full ( ε value) if ãBj and ãjW are the same as ãBW. The following
Equation (7) is obtained based on the equivalence:
WB Wj WB

× ×
Wj WW WW
(a
Bj )( ) (
− ε × ajW − ε = aBW + ε ) (7)
Equation (7) can be presented in the following model for the highest fuzzy inconsistency ãBj =
ãjW = ãBW:
(a
BW ) ( ) (
− ε × aBW − ε = aBW + ε ) (8)
Equation (8) is rearranged to become as follows:
(
ε2 + 1 + 2a ε + a2 − a
BW BW BW
= 0 ) (9)
where ε = {lᶓ, mᶓ, nᶓ}, ãBW = (lBW, mBW, uBW).

The highest potential fuzzy value is (7/2,4,9/2), signifying that 9/2 is the highest value of lBW,
mBW, and uBW. Every data associated with TFN, ãBW can apply the consistency index by employing
upper-bound uBW of inconsistency index computation, while ε is signified a crisp number of ᶓ. Thus,
we should calculate Equation (9) for every uBW to measure the consistency level in the Fuzzy best-
worst method:
ε2 + 1 + 2u ε + u 2 − u
( BW ) BW BW(= 0 ) (10)
where uBW = 1,3/2, 5/2, 7/2 and 9/2, correspondingly.

Equation (10) is solved for dissimilar uBW, to find the highest likely ᶓ, which is applied as the
Fuzzy Best-Worst’s consistency index. Table 1 presents the achieved consistency index (CI) regarding
various linguistic scales of the Fuzzy Best-Worst decision-makers.
The implemented Fuzzy Best-Worst approach for this study is presented in the Appendix.
75
Table 1. Consistency index (CI) for fuzzy best-worst method
Linguistic scales Equal Moderate Essential Very Absolute

importance importance importance (ES) importance (VS) importance
(EQ) (MO) (AB)
ãBW (1,1,1) 2/3,1,3/2) (3/2,2,5/2) (5/2,3/7/2) (7/2,4,9/2)
CI 3.0 3.8 5.29 6.69 8.04
FINDINGS
Classification of the Risks in the HFSC Management

The HFSC’s leading risk factors are discovered via an in-depth literature review of ‘halal SC risk
management,’ ‘halal fashion SC risk,’ and ‘other halal product risk management’ employing the
Scopus record. Next, a professional group is created, comprising eight participants in the halal
fashion field in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) countries (e.g., Indonesia, Malaysia,
Turkey). Six participants are corporate leaders, and the other two are researchers. Table 2 presents
the professionals’ details.
Table 2. Professional’s profile
No. Organization, Country Position Education Professional field Years of

Work
1 A halal fashion (hijab) SC manager Masters’ degree SC management 16 years
company, Indonesia
2 A halal fashion (hijab) production Masters’ degree Manufacture of halal 11 years
company, Turkey manager fashion goods
3 A halal certification body, associate Doctoral degree Certification of halal 08 years
Indonesia director goods
4 A halal certification body, general Master’s degree Certification of halal 15 years
Indonesia manager goods
5 A halal fashion (hijab) operation Bachelor degree Production of halal 07 years
company, Turkey supervisor fashion goods
6 A halal fashion (hijab) owner and Doctoral degree Design of halal fashion 20 years
company, Indonesia designer goods
7 A public university, professor Doctoral degree Halal SC management 31 years
Malaysia
8 A public university, associate Doctoral degree Halal SC risk 05 years
Malaysia professor management
Initially, the authors discover 76 risk factors, present those risk factors on the professionals’
sheet, and request them to complete critical risk factors in HFSC management. According to the risks’
characteristics, 40 risk factors are confirmed and classified into seven main categories following the
interview. Table 3 presents the discovered risk category and risk factors with their definition and
supporting literature.
76
Table 3. Risk categories with related risk factors in HFSC management
Risk categories Risks factors Definition Risk scopes Supporting Literature

Managerial and The failures of policy It denotes the risks linked to the failures of *HSCM Ali et al.
planning risks and plan (MG1) management policy and plan to adopt the HFSC (2017);
(MG) system. Khan et al. (2020)
Responsibility issue It represents the lack of responsibility among top *HFSC, Dewi et al. (2015);
(MG2) managers to handle the company’s HFSC operations. *OHSC Tan et al. (2017)
Team coordination issue It signifies the risks at the managerial level to *HFSC Dewi et al. (2015);
(MG3) ascertain good coordination within the team. Isfianadewi et al.
(2018)
Company inattention to It implies the shortage of firms’ attention on *HFSC Dewi et al. (2015)
risks (MG4) responding to the emergent risks in the HFSC.
Government’s The government or other policing unions apply the *HSCM Ab Talib et al. (2015)
restriction (MG5) restriction via regulations on halal fashion goods.
Ineffective demand Risk linked to inconsistency between real and *HSCM Khan et al. (2020)
prediction (MG6) predicted demand for halal fashion goods.
Political instability Risk of the political unsteadiness caused by a trade *HSCM
(MG7) barrier or war in the exporting/importing nations.
Procurement risks (PN) Suppliers’ quality It denotes the risks of low-quality suppliers, i.e., *HFSC Dewi et al. (2015);
problems (PN1) delays, long lead times, and order fulfillment not in Isfianadewi et al.
accordance. (2018)
The shortage of The absence of suppliers for halal materials/fabrics is *OHSC Ali & Suleiman (2018)
suppliers for halal risky to the HFSC.
fabrics (PN2)
Inaccessibility of halal Halal fabrics’ shortage or unavailability causes the *OHSC Isfianadewi et al.
fabrics (PN3) risks of applying the haram/non-halal raw materials (2018); Tan et al.
(cotton, leathers) for fashion goods. (2017); Tieman (2011)
Inadequate information The source of the fabrics/textiles/leathers is not *HSCM Ali et al. (2017); Soon
on raw materials (PN4) trustworthy or not delivered by the suppliers. et al. (2017)
Supplier bankruptcies It includes risks of the leading suppliers’ failures that *OHSC Khan et al. (2020)
(PN5) can stop halal fashion companies’ working activities.
Impurity and low Low quality, impure, unclean, non-sterile raw *OHSC Ali & Suleiman,
quality of raw materials materials cause risks for making halal fashion goods. (2018); Khan et al.
(PN6) (2018); van der Spiegel
et al. (2012)
Manufacturing and The less-developed The risks related to the design concept should be *HFSC Dewi et al. (2015);
design risks (MD) design concept for halal evolving based on the continuously and swiftly Isfianadewi et al.
fashion goods (MD1) changing fashion trends. (2018)
Shared facilities for the Shared facilities, e.g., sewing machines, cutting *OHSC Khan et al. (2020);
halal & haram goods machines, and scissors, can cause the risk of pollution Tieman et al. (2012)
(MD2) of halal fashion goods from haram/non-halal goods.
Insufficient It signifies inadequate facilities, machines, and *HFSC Dewi et al. (2015)
manufacturing facilities equipment for manufacturing halal fashion goods.
(MD3)
Errors in the production It includes risks of errors in halal fashion making, *HFSC Isfianadewi et al.
(MD4) such as pattern cutting errors that increase costs. (2018)
The lack of competent It means inadequate employees’ knowledge *HFSC, Dewi et al. (2015);
workers (MD5) concerning the quality of halal fashion products or *HSCM Khan et al. (2018)
manufacturing techniques.
Packaging risks (MD6) Risk in the packaging of halal fashion goods, i.e., *OHSC Tieman (2011)
using non-halal packaging materials.
Logistic risks (LR) Extended lead times Risk of long lead times in the delivery of halal *OHSC Haleem et al. (2018)
(LR1) fashion products.
Cross-pollution with Risk of cross-contamination with haram/non-halal *FHSC, Sumarliah et al.
non-halal goods (LR2) products during outsourcing of fabrics, warehousing, *OHSC (2021a);
transportation, and retailing/displaying the halal Ali & Suleiman,
fashion goods. (2018);
Tieman (2011).
Improper segregation Using the same storage/warehouse for the halal and *FHSC, Sumarliah et al.
for the halal and non- haram raw materials and fashion goods is a leading *OHSC (2021a);
halal goods (LR3) risk for the HFSC due to the possibility of cross- Tieman et al.
pollution and the change of product status from halal (2012); Khan et al.
to haram. (2020)
continued on following page
77
Table 3. Continued
Risk categories Risks factors Definition Risk scopes Supporting Literature

Marketing risks (MT) Demand fluctuation Risks of demand unpredictability of the halal fashion *HFSC Dewi et al. (2015)
(MT1) product make it problematic for the halal fashion
manufacturers to assess the demands.
The rapid fashion trends It implies risks of the fast-changing development of *HFSC
(MT2) fashion and trends.
Inadequate product It implies risks of the shortage of product knowledge *HFSC
knowledge and customer about halal fashion goods among customers and
preference (MT3) customer preferences on halal fashion products’ types
and styles.
Sales workers It signifies the companies’ limited sales workers’ *HFSC
incompetence (MT4) risks to market halal fashion products and the
salespersons’ inadequate qualification.
Main customers failures The primary customer failures can cause significant *HSCM Khan et al. (2020)
(MT5) risks for halal fashion firms.
Customer needs’ It includes risks of customer needs diversity *HFSC Dewi et al. (2015)
diversity (MT6) regarding halal fashion goods.
Counterfeit labeling Risk of the counterfeit halal logo on the products *OHSC Ali & Suleiman (2018)
(MT7) issued by the manufacturers or unreliable halal
certifying bodies.
Reliance on a narrow It encompasses the risk of dependence on limited *HSCM Khan et al. (2020)
range of customers customers caused by small demands for specific halal
(MT8) fashion goods.
Information technology Information inaccuracy It signifies misrepresentation and postponement in *HSCM
risks (IN) (IN1) information processing and broadcast.
Poor knowledge sharing It means the dearth of knowledge sharing between the *HSCM
(IN2) HFSC entities/colleagues.
The absence of Information integrity means the act of delivering *HSCM Ali et al. (2017); Fan et
information integrity the facts and being truthful to the customers in al. (2017)
(IN3) broadcasting information about halal fashion goods.
Information flow An ineffective information system can delay the *HSCM Khan et al. (2020)
inefficiency (IN4) information flow among HFSC entities.
Financial and Halal fashion product Risk is caused by the prohibition of wearing or *HFSC Professional opinion
sustainability risks (FS) embargo (hijab ban) buying halal fashion products, e.g., hijab, as a
(FS1) complaint manifestation, typically for political and
societal aims.
Improper recycling / Inadequate capability for the appropriate recycling/ *HSCM Haleem et al. (2020)
waste disposal scheme waste disposal of the rejected/returned goods.
(FS2)
Individual dishonesty in Lack of individual integrity implies the dishonesty *OSCM Ali et al. (2017)
HFSC (FS3) and low ethics shown by a person in the HFSC.
Workforce strike (FS4) Risk of labor strike caused by laborer-manager *HSCM Khan et al. (2020)
disagreement.
Higher resources costs Risk of rising prices of the halal raw materials for *HFSC; Dewi et al. (2015);
(FS5) halal fashion goods *OHSC Khan et al. (2020)
Foreign currency risk Risk of currency exchange rates in global trading of *HFSC
(FS6) halal fashion goods/fabrics
Note: *HFSC= risk specific to halal fashion products; *OHSC=Risk specific to other halal products; *HSCM= risk associated with halal supply chain
management.
78
Priority Order of the Risk Categories and Risk Factors

This study verifies the worst and the best risk categories and related risk factors in HFSC management
employing eight professionals’ viewpoints, as presented in Table 4. The worst and best risk categories
and factors are identified according to their significance; then, professionals must deliver their
preferences of the best categories among the entire categories with the linguistic scales, as displayed
in Table 1. Table 5 presents the findings collected from each participant. Eight professionals suggest
Fuzzy Best-to-Others vectors according to their preferences.
Similarly, the professionals delivered their preferences of the entire categories on the worst-risk
category with linguistic scales, as shown in Table 6. Eight professionals provide fuzzy Others-to-
Table 4. Professional choices of best and worst risk categories
Professional Best- Category MG PN MD LR MT IN FS

worst
Professional 1 Best PN MG1 PN1 MD3 LR2 MT2 IN2 FS5
Worst FS MG5 PN2 MD5 LR3 MT5 IN4 FS2
Professional 4 Best MD MG1 PN1 MD3 LR2 MT1 IN2 FS5
Professional 5 Best MD MG1 PN1 MD3 LR2 MT1 IN1 FS1
Worst IN MG2 PN3 MD5 LR3 MT5 IN4 FS2
Professional 6 Best MG MG6 PN1 MD3 LR1 MT4 IN1 FS5
Table 5. Linguistic preference for HFSC’s best risk category over its other risk categories
Professional Best MG PN MD LR MT IN FS
Professional 1 PN ES EQ MO ES MO VS AB
Professional 2 PN ES EQ MO MO VS VS AB
Professional 3 PN ES EQ MO VS ES VS AB
Professional 4 MD ES MO EQ ES MO VS AB
Professional 5 MD ES MO EQ VS ES VS AB
Professional 6 MG EQ ES MO VS ES AB VS
Professional 7 PN ES EQ MO ES MO VS AB
Professional 8 PN MO EQ MO ES ES VS AB
79
Table 6. Linguistic preference for HFSC’s other risk categories over its worst risk category
Risk categories Professional

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Worst FS IT FS FS IN FS FS FS
MG ES ES ES ES ES AB ES ES
PN AB AB AB VS VS ES AB AB
MD VS VS VS AB AB VS VS VS
LR MO MO MO MO MO ES VS ES
MT ES ES VS ES ES VS MO VS
IN EQ EQ MO MO MO EQ MO VS
FS EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ MO EQ EQ
Worst vectors according to their preferences. According to the Fuzzy Best-to-Others and Others-to-
Worst vectors, to achieve the optimum fuzzy weight for each risk category, nonlinearly constrained
optimization problems are resolved according to Equation (2) for every professional. The next step is
finding the entire risk categories’ consistency ratio/index and fuzzy weights. Equation (3) presents the
conversion of those fuzzy weights into crisp values applies the graded mean integration representation
(GMIR). Table 7 displays the results of every category’s consistency index and weight. Likewise,
Table 8 presents the overall and particular weights of every risk factor. Every risk factor’s overall
weight is computed by multiplying the related risk category weight by the risk factor’s particular
weight. The received answers and intermediary stages are not presented because of limited spaces.
DISCUSSION ON THE FINDINGS
Manufacturing and Design Risks (MD)

The research finds that manufacturing and design risk is the most vital risk category among the
HFSC management’s verified risk categories. Numerous factors are increasing the risk in the HFSC
manufacturing and design stage. Those risk factors should be prioritized for effectively functioning
Table 7. Risk categories’ weights and consistency ratios
Risk Category Professional Mean Rank

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
MG 0.11607 0.16324 0.12399 0.11948 0.12969 0.25468 0.11487 0.16455 0.14832 3
PN 0.21239 0.17144 0.20809 0.24183 0.25505 0.20208 0.21309 0.22661 0.21632 2
MD 0.24627 0.24216 0.26059 0.21192 0.21993 0.13891 0.24517 0.23215 0.22464 1
LR 0.10219 0.10128 0.09267 0.10048 0.08946 0.09978 0.19165 0.14707 0.11557 5
MT 0.16346 0.16326 0.16426 0.16506 0.15054 0.16116 0.08594 0.09766 0.14392 4
IN 0.09831 0.09585 0.08765 0.09575 0.08735 0.05913 0.08394 0.06663 0.08433 6
FS 0.06296 0.06376 0.06376 0.06646 0.06897 0.08538 0.06636 0.06636 0.06800 7
CR* 0.07380 0.03685 0.05297 0.06108 0.03685 0.05297 0.06969 0.06108
Note: CR indicates the consistency ratio
80
Table 8. Position of the HFSC’s risk categories and risk factors
Risk categories Weight Risk factors Particular weight Particular rank Overall weight Overall rank
MG2 0.09033 6 0.01338 29
MG7 0.11843 4 0.01755 22
MG6 0.10414 5 0.01543 26
MG 0,14832 MG3 0.22039 2 0.03265 12
MG4 0.17569 3 0.02603 17
MG1 0.23009 1 0.03409 10
MG5 0.06094 7 0.00903 37
PN1 0.27130 1 0.06087 2
PN2 0.14947 4 0.03354 11
PN4 0.22426 2 0.05032 4

PN 0,21632
PN6 0.14193 5 0.03184 14
PN5 0.16230 3 0.03642 7
PN3 0.05075 6 0.01139 31
MD3 0.31428 1 0.06791 1
MD6 0.11300 4 0.02442 19
MD4 0.10239 5 0.02213 21

MD 0,22464
MD2 0.16160 3 0.03492 8
MD1 0.25795 2 0.05574 3
MD5 0.05078 6 0.01097 33
LR2 0.37452 1 0.04322 5
LR 0,11557 LR3 0.27964 3 0.03227 13
LR1 0.34584 2 0.03991 6
MT4 0.18021 3 0.02590 18
MT8 0.06772 6 0.00973 34
MT6 0.09818 5 0.01411 27
MT1 0.20843 2 0.02996 15

MT 0,14392
MT2 0.24091 1 0.03463 9
MT3 0.10966 4 0.01576 25
MT7 0.05533 7 0.00795 39
MT5 0.03957 8 0.00569 40
IN1 0.28865 2 0.02428 20
IN2 0.34537 1 0.02907 16

IN 0,08433
IN3 0.20516 3 0.01728 23
IN4 0.16082 4 0.01361 28
FS5 0.23734 1 0.01614 24
FS2 0.13146 6 0.00894 38
FS6 0.16376 3 0.01113 32

FS 0,06800
FS4 0.14194 4 0.00965 35
FS1 0.19052 2 0.01295 30
FS3 0.13497 5 0.00918 36
81
the HFSC management in today’s dynamic international market. In this risk category, the ‘lack
and breakdown of facilities (machine, equipment) to produce halal fashion goods (MD3) is the
most significant risk factor that can be alleviated with the appropriate upholding approaches, i.e.,
precautionary maintenance of equipment and usage of backup components for the equipment’s
disastrous breakdown. Mangla et al. (2015) also give a comparable recommendation for evading the
breakdown of facilities.
The ‘less developed design concept for halal fashion goods (MD1)’ is the next risk that can be
alleviated by analyzing the fashion development, inventing fashion designs which are always developed
based on the rapidly changing fashion trends, recruiting highly innovative fashion designers, and
designing the long-lasting styles of halal fashion goods. The third highest priority risk factor is the
‘shared facilities for the halal & haram fashion goods (MD2)’ that can be managed by providing
segregated facilities for the halal and haram stuff. Also, the appropriate cleansing of equipment is
useful before shifting the halal and haram products, as Tieman (2017) suggests. The ‘packaging
risk (MD6)’ can be alleviated using halal packaging materials and reliable package for halal fashion
products. The ‘production errors (MD4)’ and the ‘lack of competent workers (MD5)’ are the next
two significant risks for halal fashion products’ manufacturing. Both can be managed by providing
the training and competence education agendas to the employees and adopting advanced technologies
to lessen human errors.
Procurement Risks (PN)

The second most vital risk category in HFSC management is procurement risks. The procurement/
sourcing is a preliminary concrete stage of the HFSC, which will affect the other succeeding
manufacture and logistic operations. The highest risk factor in this category is ‘suppliers’ quality
problems (PN1)’, which can be alleviated by regularly guiding the suppliers for quality maintenance
and choosing the international business’s capable suppliers. Another important risk factor is the
‘inadequate information about raw materials (PN4)’, and mitigating this risk integrates a valuable
traceability scheme all over HFSC. Ali et al. (2017) and Khan et al. (2020) also deliver the same
suggestion. When the number of suppliers of halal materials (e.g., halal fabrics, leather) is limited, the
‘bankruptcies of the main suppliers (PN5)’ is an extra main risk factor. This issue can be mitigated
by implementing numerous sourcing/procurement tactics and improving suppliers’ manageability.
The ‘shortage of suppliers for halal raw materials (PN2)’ is the next main risk. It can be alleviated by
promoting the halal brands in the international marketplace, attracting other suppliers to implement
the halal systems, and increasing the halal suppliers’ availability. Additional procurement risk is the
‘impurity and low quality of raw materials/fabrics (PN6)’. It can be mitigated by choosing suppliers
based on credibility and quality instead of costs, selecting suppliers that can offer pure and hygienic
raw materials, and increasing consciousness about the hygiene and purity among the initial producers
and supply partners. Khan et al. (2020) also suggest the same. The lowest impact risk factor in this
category is the ‘inaccessibility of halal raw materials (PN3)’, which can arise because of the particular
halal fashion goods’ small demands. It can be alleviated by adopting several alternatives for those
materials/fabrics in the halal scope, for example, using synthetic leather as a substitute for halal cow
leather (to avoid haram pig leather).
Managerial and Planning Risks (MG)

Managerial and planning is the initial and significant segment of SC processes; thus, its risks rank the
third main category of the verified risk categories that mainly influences the risk control in HFSC. As
the first stage in HFSC management, risks associated with this category are influenced by SC’s other
stages (e.g., procurement, manufacturing). Hence, these risks require strong focus. The ‘failures of
policy and plan (MG1)’ is the most significant risk in this category. It can be mitigated by gathering
reliable information about the halal fashion business, making optimistic societal perceptions about
halal fashion, and enriching knowledge of the halal performances presented in the company. The
82
second risk factor is the ‘lack of team coordination (MG3)’ inside the company, which can be mitigated
by improving communication throughout the team, monitoring goal achievement, and using better
technology to enhance information exchange among the team members. Next, the ‘shortage of company
attention on HFSC risks (MG4)’ can be alleviated by applying an active corporate culture, responding
quickly to extreme situations in the planning process, and clearly defining the risk before starting the
project. It is also suggested by Dewi et al. (2015). The fourth risk factor is ‘political instability (MG7)’,
which can influence any industry and create several severe halal fashion companies’ circumstances.
The ‘ineffective demand prediction (MG6)’ is the next risk that can be alleviated with the precise and
trustworthy information gathered from the marketplace and examine it with marketing professionals’
discussion. The ‘lack of responsibility to manage the HFSC (MG2)’ is the next risk factor entirely
in control inside the company. The consciousness can increase the managers’ dedication to the halal
fashion business’s scope and the societal insinuations of halal fashion products’ utilization. Khan
et al. (2020) suggest comparable advice. The lowest priority risk factor in the managerial category
is ‘restriction by governments and other policing unions (MG5)’ that can be controlled by applying
versatile instrument for HFSC processes and tactical business performances.
Marketing Risks (MT)

Marketing risks are the fourth most vital risk categories of HFSC management that are immediately
associated with the brand image and high costs/budgets. The most significant risk related to the
marketing stage of HFSC is ‘the fast-changing fashion trends (MT2)’. It can be mitigated by reducing
product life cycles, accelerating time to market the halal fashion products, and better-developing
marketing channels, as recommended by Dewi et al. (2015). The next significant risk is ‘demand
fluctuation (MT1), which can be alleviated by making a better commitment to customers, building
effective communication with customers about the benefits of the halal fashion products, analyzing
the external settings such as competitors and customers. The ‘incompetence of sales workers’ (MT4)’
is the third crucial risk which can be mitigated by providing an effective and regular training program
to increase sales workers skill in marketing halal fashion products. The ‘lack of product knowledge
and customer preferences (MT3)’ is the fourth risk that can be alleviated through developing effective
communication with customers about the information of halal fashion goods’ advantages, both by
advertisements, words of mouth, celebrity endorsements on social media, and or by providing product
info on the product package. The ‘customer need diversity (MT6)’ is the next risk that can be handled
by increasing the product variety/diversification to accommodate various customers’ demands and
building efficient communication with customers about the product benefits. The other risk is the
‘reliance on a narrow range of customers (MT8),’ which can be mitigated by efficient marketing and
sales tactics and promoting the essential features of the halal fashion products, e.g., natural and safe
to wear/not causing skin irritations. The next risk is the ‘fake labeling (MT7)’ that affects customers’
trust. Public consciousness and disciplining the bodies which provide unlawful practices should be
the mitigation strategies for this risk. The government also needs to discover the counterfeit halal
certification organizations and remove false logos practices via regulations. The lowest risk in the
HFSC marketing stage is the ‘main customer failures (MT5)’ that may reduce customers’ trust towards
the halal fashion brands, and it can be handled by relevant promotion.
Logistic Risks (LR)

Risks related to logistics are also a significant risk category, both within the HFSC management and
beyond the companies. The highest risk in this category is the ‘cross-pollution with non-halal goods
(LR2)’, which can happen during the outsourcing of raw materials or warehousing, transportation,
and retailing/display halal fashion goods. The cross-contamination of halal by the haram/non-halal
goods during logistic and transportation activities is highly risky for the halal fashion products’
status and quality; it can change the halal status into haram (Sumarliah et al., 2021a). This risk can be
alleviated by implementing halal-certified logistics and outsourcing companies, e.g., halal-certified
83
shipping and warehouse facilities. The ‘long delivery lead-times (LR1)’ is another significant risk to
be controlled by the appropriate timetabling of procurement, manufacturing, storage, and other SC
stages. The ‘improper segregation for the halal and non-halal goods (LR3)’ is the next crucial risk
associated with logistics. For example, a halal leather jacket that is stored together with (not separated
from) a non-halal leather jacket (e.g., jacket made of pigskin) can make the halal jacket polluted
and become haram/unlawful (Sumarliah et al., 2021a). This risk can be managed using the different
storage/warehouse/containers/display racks for the halal and haram fashion products. It can also be
tackled by using resilient packaging to avoid halal products’ pollution from their environments. An
alternative strategy is selecting halal-certified warehouse and shipping facilities devoted to only the
halal fashion products. These strategies are also recommended by Khan et al. (2020).
Information Technology Risks (IN)

Risks related to information technology (IN) are crucial and needed consideration since they influence
most HFSC operations. The highest IN risk is the ‘poor knowledge sharing (IN2), ‘which can be
alleviated by building trust between the SC partners and implementing an effectual knowledge sharing
technology. The second risk factor is the ‘information inaccuracy (IN1)’, which can be handled by
adopting a helpful traceability scheme throughout the HFSC. The third risk factor is the ‘absence
of information integrity (IN3),’ which can also be mitigated by developing trusts among the HFSC
partners. Moreover, innovative technology is necessary to uphold data integrity; for instance, the
adoption of blockchain technology in HFSC management. The fourth risk is the ‘information flow
inefficiency (IT4), ‘which can be alleviated by implementing the sophisticated technology for data/
information generation and communication, improving human resource competencies in technologies,
and hiring experts who comprehend advanced technologies the maintenance advantages. Those
strategies are also suggested by Khan et al. (2020) and Dewi et al. (2015).
Financial and Sustainability Risks (FS)

The risks associated with the financial aspect and sustainability are significant in HFSC management.
Although the risks in this category are less critical than other risks (e.g., risks linked to manufacturing,
managerial, and procurement stages), it is necessary to involve them for more efficient HFSC
management. The ‘higher resource costs (FS5)’ is the most significant risk in this category, which can
be alleviated by increasing the halal materials for halal fashion goods. The second top risk factor is
‘halal fashion product embargo (hijab ban) (FS1) ‘, which fits the sustainability societal factor. It can
be alleviated by developing public consciousness and supporting societal ethics in the community, such
as the recent ‘pro-hijab movement’ that has promoted the USA’s halal fashion business (Hwang and
Kim, 2020). The third risk is ‘foreign currency (FS6)’, which can be handled via the steady financial
system. The ‘workforce strike (FS4)’ is the next risk seldom found today; it can be mitigated by
developing an agreement between managers and laborers. Next is the risk of ‘individual dishonesty
in HFSC (FS3)’ that can be tackled by developing a knowledgeable and ethically sound community.
Finally, the lowest priority risk factor is the ‘improper recycling/waste disposal scheme (FS2)’ that
can be tackled by establishing the appropriate recycling/waste disposal scheme and utilizing returned
goods for producing bioenergy or composts for sustainable damping or organic agriculture.
IMPLICATIONS
Practical Implications
The research discovers the main risk categories and the related factors of HFSC management. The
verified risk factors help corporate leaders discover the risks in their supply chains (SCs). The authors
hope to guide practitioners, leaders, and policymakers of HFSC to verify and rank the risk factors
extant in their SCs. The verified risk categories and their related risk factors are general and can be
84
implemented to HFSC management in specific Muslim-majority countries that pay serious attention
to the halal fashion industry, such as Indonesia, UAE, Malaysia, and Turkey. The ranking of risk
categories and risk factors can assist corporate leaders in deciding the risk alleviation strategies.
Several valuable recommendations are proposed, which can be applied immediately to alleviate the
risks in their HFSC. The research reveals a necessity to tackle manufacturing and design risks of the
highest importance. Leaders participating in the halal fashion business can use the research findings
to establish alleviation strategies and improve the HFSC resilience.
Theoretical Implications
The research raises the existing studies focusing on halal fashion (modest fashion) from the risk
management viewpoint. The suggested risk management model can direct scholars to comprehend
risks in their other related scopes, i.e., in a specific halal fashion company or a particular country.
Verifying the risk categories and risk factors in HFSC management is beneficial for other researchers
working in the same field. The paper also gives direction to other academicians to employ the
Fuzzy Best-Worst approach for risk assessment. Moreover, the research’s result recommends that
manufacturing and design risks are the top priority/rank, helping scholars expand risk management
methods. Lastly, this research provides several recommendations to alleviate the risks that can be
useful to the future academicians focusing on HFSC management.
CONCLUSION, SHORTCOMING, AND FUTURE DIRECTION
Examining the risks in the HFSC is vital to risk management and SC management. The purpose of
the research is to assess and manage the risks in the HFSC by providing an inclusive assessment of
various risk categories. Specifically, the research aims at identifying and ranking the risk categories
and risk factors of HFSC management. Therefore, 40 risk factors are verified through literature review
and professional viewpoints. Those factors are classified into seven main categories to obtain critical
understandings; then, they are ranked by employing the Fuzzy Best-Worst approach. Following the
examination, the results show that manufacturing and design risks have the most significant of all
discovered risks. Last, alleviation strategies are proposed according to the risks’ ranking, which can
help scholars, corporate leaders, and policymakers focus on the halal fashion industry.
The research has several shortcomings to be considered in further studies. Firstly, several
risk factors associated with HFSC management might not be included in this paper because of the
incomplete literature. This limitation can be tackled in the next research by involving other references,
i.e., websites and news articles associated with HFSC management. Secondly, professionals’ opinions
may be subjective, unclear, and vague. This weakness can be lessened by using the progressive form
of Fuzzy numbers, i.e., neutrosophic numbers, grey number, and type 2 Fuzzy number.
The future research can be developed for HFSC management in a specific Muslim-majority
country where halal fashion is the leading industry, or in a non-Muslim country where halal fashion
is an emerging business with many high-end brands have created halal fashion, such as UK and US
(Sumarliah et al., in press). Scholars also can assess the risk factors and risk categories in further
studies using different MCDM methods, i.e., PIV, TOPSIS, and AHP. Future researchers can also
apply Bow Tie and Fault Tree methods to assess the verified risks in HFSC management. Moreover,
the proposed alleviation strategies can be examined by the prioritizing, cost-benefits, and cause-effect
frameworks.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors confirm no possible conflict of interest.
85
REFERENCES
Ab Talib, M. S., Abdul Hamid, A. B., & Ai Chin, T. (2015). Motivations and limitations in implementing Halal
food certification: A Pareto analysis. British Food Journal, 117(11), 2664–2705. doi:10.1108/BFJ-02-2015-0055
Ali, M. H., & Suleiman, N. (2018). Eleven shades of food integrity: A halal supply chain perspective. Trends in
Food Science & Technology, 71, 216–224. doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2017.11.016
Ali, M. H., Tan, K. H., & Ismail, M. D. (2017). A supply chain integrity framework for halal food. British Food
Journal, 119(1), 20–38. doi:10.1108/BFJ-07-2016-0345
Ali, M. H., Tan, K. H., Pawar, K., & Makhbul, Z. M. (2014). Extenuating Food Integrity Risk through Supply
Chain Integration: The Case of Halal Food. Industrial Engineering and Management Systems, 13(2), 154–162.
doi:10.7232/iems.2014.13.2.154
Bendix, A. (2019). 7 toxic chemicals hiding in your waterproof, stain-resistant, and wrinkle-free clothes. Retrieved
from https://www.businessinsider.com/toxic-chemicals-in-clothes-cancer-2019-7?r=US&IR=T
Bjørnsen, K., Jensen, A., & Aven, T. (2018). Using qualitative types of risk assessments in conjunction with
FRAM to strengthen the resilience of systems. Journal of Risk Research, 23(2), 153–166. doi:10.1080/13669
877.2018.1517382
Christopher, M., & Lee, H. (2004). Mitigating supply chain risk through improved confidence. International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 34(5), 388–396. doi:10.1108/09600030410545436
Dewi, D. S., Syairudin, B., & Nikmah, E. N. (2015). Risk management in the fashion industry’s new product
development process: A case study in hijab industry. Procedia Manufacturing, 4, 383–391. doi:10.1016/j.
promfg.2015.11.054
DinarStandard. (2020). State of the International Islamic Economy Report. Salaam gateway. Retrieved from
https://ceif.iba.edu.pk/pdf/state-of-international-islamic-economyreport-2019-20.pdf
Dong, Q., & Cooper, O. (2016). An orders-of-magnitude AHP supply chain risk assessment framework.
International Journal of Production Economics, 182, 144–156. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.08.021
Dumas, D. (2016). Non-Muslims flock to buy burkinis as French bans raise the profile of the modest swimwear
style. Retrieved from https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/nonmuslims-flock-to-buy-burkinis-as-french-bans-raise-
profile-of-the-modest-swimwear-style-20160819-gqwx95.html
Fan, H., Li, G., Sun, H., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2017). An information processing perspective on supply chain risk
management: Antecedents, mechanism, and consequences. International Journal of Production Economics,
185, 63–75. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.11.015
Ganguly, K., & Kumar, G. (2019). Supply chain risk assessment: A fuzzy AHP approach. Operations and Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, 12(1), 1–13. doi:10.31387/oscm0360217
Global Halal Tourism. (n.d.). Textile & Clothing. Retrieved from https://globalhalaltourism.org/cloth_textiles.php
Guo, S., & Zhao, H. (2017). Fuzzy best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method and its applications.
Knowledge-Based Systems, 121, 23–31. doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2017.01.010
Halalworld Institute. (n.d.). The Principles of Halal Standard in Textile and Clothes. Retrieved from: https://
halalworldinstitute.org/standard/detail/34?lang=en#.X93C8dgzbIU
Haleem, A., Imran Khan, M., Khan, S., & Hafaz Ngah, A. (2018). Assessing Barriers to Adopting and
Implementing Halal Practices in Logistics Operations. IOP Conference Series. Materials Science and Engineering,
404, 012012. doi:10.1088/1757-899X/404/1/012012
Haleem, A., Khan, M. I., & Khan, S. (2020). Conceptualizing a framework linking halal supply chain management
with sustainability: an India centric study. Journal of Islamic Marketing. 10.1108/JIMA-07-2019-0149
Hwang, C., & Kim, T. H. (2020). Muslim Women’s Purchasing Behaviors Toward Modest Activewear in the
United States. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal. 10.1177/0887302X20926573
86
Isfianadewi, D., Pambudi, A., Siswanti, Y., Surjanti, J., & Muafi, M. (2018). Risk mitigation in design &
production of the new product development process (case study: Hijab company in Yogyakarta). International
Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology, 9(6), 57–66. http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/issues.asp?J
Type=IJMET&VType=9&IType=6
Khan, M. I., Haleem, A., & Khan, S. (2018). Defining Halal Supply Chain Management. Supply Chain Forum:
An International Journal, 19(2), 122–131. doi:10.1080/16258312.2018.1476776
Khan, S., Haleem, A., & Khan, M. I. (2020). Assessment of Risk in the management of Halal supply chain
using fuzzy BEST-WORST method. Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal, 1–17. doi:10.1080/1625
8312.2020.1788905
Kumar, R., & Kansara, S. (2018). Information technology barriers in Indian sugar supply chain: An AHP and
fuzzy AHP approach. Benchmarking, 25(7), 1978–1991. doi:10.1108/BIJ-01-2017-0004
Mangla, S. K., Kumar, P., & Barua, M. K. (2015). Risk analysis in the green supply chain using fuzzy AHP approach:
A case study. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 104, 375–390. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.01.001
Min, S., Zacharia, Z. G., & Smith, C. D. (2019). Defining Supply Chain Management: In the Past, Present, and
Future. Journal of Business Logistics, 40(1), 44–55. doi:10.1111/jbl.12201
Mital, M., Del Giudice, M., & Papa, A. (2018). Comparing supply chain risks for multiple product categories
with cognitive mapping and Analytic Hierarchy Process. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 131,
159–170. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.036
Ravulakollu, A. K., Urciuoli, L., Rukanova, B., Tan, Y.-H., & Hakvoort, R. A. (2018). Risk-based framework
for assessing resilience in a complex multi-actor supply chain domain. Supply Chain Forum: An International
Journal, 19(4), 266–281. doi:10.1080/16258312.2018.1540913
Rezaei, J. (2016). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model. Omega,
64, 126–130. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2015.12.001
Soon, J. M., Chandia, M., & Regenstein, J. M. (2017). Halal integrity in the food supply chain. British Food
Journal, 119(1), 39–51. doi:10.1108/BFJ-04-2016-0150
Sumarliah, E., Khan, S. U., & Khan, I. U. (2021b). Online hijab purchase intention: The influence of the
Coronavirus outbreak. Journal of Islamic Marketing. Advance online publication. doi:10.1108/jima-09-2020-0302
Sumarliah, E., Khan, S. Z., & Khan, R. U. (2021d). Modest wear e-commerce: Examining online purchase intent
in Indonesia. Research Journal of Textile and Apparel., doi:10.1108/rjta-11-2020-0121
Sumarliah, E., Li, T., & Wang, B. (2020). Hijab fashion supply chain: A theoretical framework traversing
consumers’ knowledge and purchase intention. MATEC Web of Conferences, 308, 04004. DOI: doi:10.1051/
matecconf/202030804004
Sumarliah, E., Usmanova, K., Mousa, K., & Indriya, I. (2021c). E-commerce in the fashion business: The roles
of the COVID-19 situational factors, hedonic and utilitarian motives on consumers’ intention to purchase online.
International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education., doi:10.1080/17543266.2021.1958926
Sumarliah, E., Li, T., Wang, B., Moosa, A., & Sackey, I. (2021a). The Impact of Customer Halal Supply Chain
Knowledge on Customer Halal Fashion Purchase Intention. Information Resources Management Journal, 34(3).
Tan, K. H., Ali, M. H., Makhbul, Z. M., & Ismail, A. (2017). The impact of external integration on halal food
integrity. Supply Chain Management, 22(2), 186–199. doi:10.1108/SCM-05-2016-0171
Tieman, M. (2011). The application of Halal in supply chain management: In‐depth interviews. Journal of
Islamic Marketing, 2(2), 186–195. doi:10.1108/17590831111139893
Tieman, M. (2017). Halal Risk Management: Combining Robustness and Resilience. Journal of Islamic
Marketing, 8(3), 461–475. doi:10.1108/JIMA-06-2015-0041
Tieman, M., van der Vorst, J. G. A. J., & Che Ghazali, M. (2012). Principles in halal supply chain management.
Journal of Islamic Marketing, 3(3), 217–243. doi:10.1108/17590831211259727
87
Van der Spiegel, M., van der Fels-Klerx, H. J., Sterrenburg, P., van Ruth, S. M., Scholtens-Toma, I. M. J., & Kok,
E. J. (2012). Halal assurance in food supply chains: Verification of halal certificates using audits and laboratory
analysis. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 27(2), 109–119. doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2012.04.005
Vian, T., Kohler, J. C., Forte, G., & Dimancesco, D. (2017). Promoting transparency, accountability, and
access through a multi-stakeholder initiative: Lessons from the medicines transparency alliance. Journal of
Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice, 10(1), 18. Advance online publication. doi:10.1186/s40545-017-0106-x
PMID:28588896
Wahyuni, H. C., Vanany, I., Ciptomulyono, U., & Purnomo, J. D. T. (2020). The integrated risk to food safety
and halal using a Bayesian Network model. Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal, 21(4), 260–273.
doi:10.1080/16258312.2020.1763142
Wu, T., & Blackhurst, J. (Eds.). (2009). Managing Supply Chain Risk and Vulnerability. Springer Science &
Business Media., doi:10.1007/978-1-84882-634-2
88
APPENDIX
The Fuzzy Best-Worst method adoption in this study is presented below (for the IN risks):
Phase 1: The IN risk factors are verified and symbolized as IN1, IN2, IN3, and IN4.
Phase 2: Professional 1 selects’ IN2ʹ and ‘IN4ʹ as the best and worst risk factor, correspondingly.
Phase 3: The fuzzy priority of IN2 (the best risk factor) is decided over the entire risks in IN category
employing linguistic scales as presented in Table 9.
Table 9. The best risk factor’s fuzzy preference in the IN-risk category
Risk factors IN1 IN2 IN3 IN4

Best risk factor: IN2 ES EQ MO AB
) is achieved:
Based on Table 1 employing Equation (1), the Fuzzy Best-to-Others vector ( AB
= (3 / 2, 2, 5 / 2), (1, 1, 1), (2 / 3, 1, 3 / 2), (7 / 2, 4, 9 / 2)

AB  
Phase 4: IN-risk factors’ fuzzy priority is decided over IN4 (the worst risk factor) employing linguistic
scales as displayed in Table 10.
Based on Table 1 employing Equation (2), the fuzzy Others-to-Worst vector is achieved:
= (3 / 2, 2, 5 / 2), (7 / 2, 4, 9 / 2), (2 / 3, 1, 3 / 2), (1, 1, 1)

AW  
Phase 5: Equation (3) is used to formulate the below nonlinearly constrained optimization model to
obtain the optimum fuzzy weights for all risk factors:
Table 10. Fuzzy preference of IN-risk factors over the worst risk factor
Risk factors Worst risk factor: IN4

IN1 ES
IN2 AB
IN3 MO
IN4 EQ
89
 lW , mW , uW
 2 ( )
 W W W − (l21, m21, u21 ) ≤ k * , k * , k *
2 2
( )
(
 l1 , m1 , u1

)
(
 lW , mW , uW )
 2 2 2
(
 lW , mW , uW − (l22 , m22 , u22 ) ≤ k , k , k ) * * *
(  2 ) 2 2
 W W W
( )
 l2 , m2 , u2
(
 W W W − (l23 , m23 , u23 ) ≤ k , k , k ) * * *
( )
 l 3 , m 3 , u 3

( )
 lW , mW , uW
 2
 lW , mW , uW
2 2
( )
− (l24 , m24 , u24 ) ≤ k * , k * , k *
(  4 ) 4 4
 W W W
( )
 l1 , m1 , u1
(
 W W W − (l14 , m14 , u14 ) ≤ k , k , k ) * * *
Min ε s.t.  4
* ( )
 l , m4 , u4

( )
 lW , mW , uW
 2 2
(
 W W W − (l24 , m24 , u24 ) ≤ k , k , k
2
) * * *
( ) l 4 , m 4 , u 4
 W W W
( )  l 3 , m 3 , u 3
 ( )
− (l 34 , m 34 , u 34 ) ≤ k * , k * , k *
( )  lW , mW , uW
 4 4 4
( )  lW , mW , uW
 4 4
( )
 W W W − (l 44 , m 44 , u 44 ) ≤ k , k , k
4 * * *
( )  l 4 , m 4 , u 4
  * 
 ∑ 4
R W =1
 j −1  j 

 lW
j
≤ mWj ≤ uWj
 lW ≥0
 j
 j = 1, 2, 3, 4

Then, insert the values of A and A in the above model and get the optimization model below:
B W
90
Table 11. IN-risk factors’ weights
IN risk Professionals Mean

factors weight
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
(Particular)
IN1 0.30284 0.17857 0.41231 0.30295 0.26035 0.36093 0.26032 0.23090 0.28865
IN2 0.37246 0.38270 0.29258 0.37264 0.36075 0.26017 0.36076 0.36093 0.34537
IN3 0.20950 0.29751 0.17786 0.11590 0.23042 0.23042 0.23043 0.14929 0.20516
IN4 0.11520 0.14122 0.11724 0.20850 0.14849 0.14849 0.14850 0.25887 0.16082
 l2 − 1.5 ∗ u1 ≤ k ∗ u1 ; l2 − 1.5 ∗ u1 ≥ −k ∗ u1


 m 2
− 2 ∗ m1 ≤ k ∗ m1 ; m2 − 2 ∗ m1 ≥ −k ∗ m1

 u2 − 2.5 ∗ l1 ≤ k ∗ l1 ; u2 − 2.5 ∗ l1 ≥ −k ∗ l1
 l2 − 0.67 ∗ u 3 ≤ k ∗ u 3 ; l2 − 0.67 ∗ u 3 ≥ −k ∗ u 3

 m2 − 1 ∗ m 3 ≤ k ∗ m 3 ; m2 − 1 ∗ m 3 ≥ −k ∗ m 3

 u2 − 2.5 ∗ l 3 ≤ k ∗ l 3 ; u2 − 2.5 ∗ l 3 ≥ −k ∗ l 3

 l2 − 3.5 ∗ u 4 ≤ k ∗ u 4 ; l2 − 3.5 ∗ u 4 ≥ −k ∗ u 4

 m2 − 4 ∗ m 4 ≤ k ∗ m 4 ; m2 − 4 ∗ m 4 ≥ −k ∗ m 4
 u2 − 4.5 ∗ l 4 ≤ k ∗ l 4 ; u2 − 4.5 ∗ l 4 ≥ −k ∗ 4

 l1 − 1.5 ∗ u 4 ≤ k ∗ u 4 ; l1 − 1.5 ∗ u 4 ≥ −k ∗ u 4
Min k * s.t. 
 m1 − 2 ∗ m 4 ≤ k ∗ m 4 ; m1 − 2 ∗ m 4 ≥ −k ∗ m 4

 u1 − 2.5 ∗ l 4 ≤ k ∗ l 4 ; u1 − 2.5 ∗ l 4 ≥ −k ∗ l 4
 l 3 − 0.67 ∗ u 4 ≤ k ∗ u 4 ; l 3 − 0.67 ∗ u 4 ≥ −k ∗ u 4

 m 3 − 1 ∗ m 4 ≤ k ∗ m 4 ; m 3 − 1 ∗ m 4 ≥ −k ∗ m 4

 u 3 − 1.5 ∗ l 4 ≤ k ∗ l 4 ; u 3 − 1.5 ∗ l 4 ≥ −k ∗ l 4

 1 ∗ l + 4 ∗ m + 1 ∗ u + 1 ∗ l + 4 ∗ m + 1 ∗ u +
 6 1 6 1
6 1 6 2 6 2
6 2

 1 ∗ l + 4 ∗ m + 1 ∗ u + 1 ∗ l + 4 ∗ m + 1 ∗ u = 1
 6 3 6 3 3 4 4 4
 l ≤ m ≤ u ; l ≤ 6m ≤ u ;6l ≤ m 6≤ u ; l ≤6m ≤ u
 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4
 l1 > 0; l2 > 0; l 3 > 0; l 4 > 0; k ≥ 0

The authors use the excel solver to solve the above optimization model and obtain the optimum IN
risk factors’ fuzzy weights as presented below:
W1* = (0.24997, 0.29903, 0.37095)
W2* = (0.36125, 0.36125, 0.42851)
W3* = (0.19301, 0.20161, 0.25756)
W4* = (0.11182, 0.11182, 0.13211)
ε* = 0.79083, 0.79083, 0.79083

( )
91
Equation 6 is used to convert those fuzzy weights into crisp numbers:
W1* = 0.30284
W2* = 0.37246
W3* = 0.20950
W4* = 0.11520
The W1* ,W2* ,W3* and W4* , signify the particular weights for the risk factors IN1, IN2, IN3, and IN4.
Phase 6: Since the aWB = (7 / 2, 4, 9 / 2) , and the consistency indexed by 8.04 (see Table 1); thus,
0.79083
the consistency ratio = = 0.09836 .
8.04
The computation above is made using the Professional 1’ viewpoint, and the authors repeat a similar
technique for the other viewpoints (Professional 2-8) and obtain the IN risk factors’ weights. Next,
the mean weights are obtained and presented in Table A3. These mean weights are taken as the IN
risks’ particular weights.
Eli Sumarliah is a PhD candidate at the School of Economics and Management, University of Science and
Technology Beijing (USTB), China. Her interests are Supply Chain Management, marketing, e-commerce, consumer
behavior, halal fashion, Hijab fashion, modest fashion. (Research ID: AAS-2473-2020) ORCID ID: https://orcid.
org/0000-0002-8680-8558.
Tieke Li is a professor of Management Science and Engineering at the University of Science and Technology
Beijing (USTB), China. His research interests are ERP & MES System, Information Strategy, Lean Production,
E-Business, Network Marketing, Internet of Things, and Intelligent Manufacturing.
Bailin Wang is an associate professor of Management Science and Engineering at the University of Science and
Technology Beijing (USTB), China. Her research interests are Advanced Manufacturing Management, Production
Planning & Scheduling, and Intelligent Optimization Methods.
Indriya Indriya is a lecturer and researcher at the Faculty of Islamic Studies, Universitas Ibn Khaldun, Bogor
Indonesia. Her research interests include Islamic Fashion, Halal Fashion, Islamic Studies, and Quran Studies.
92
View publication stats
Eli Sumarliah is a PhD researcher at the School of

Economics and Management, University of Science
and Technology Beijing (USTB), Beijing, China. Her
interests are Supply Chain Management, Information
Management, E-commerce, and Consumer Behavior.
(Research ID: AAS-2473-2020) ORCID ID:
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8680-8558.
Tieke Li is a professor of Management Science and

Engineering at the School of Economics and
Management, University of Science and Technology
Beijing (USTB), Beijing, China. His research interests
are ERP & MES System, Information Strategy, Lean
Production, E-Business, Network Marketing, Internet of
Things, and Intelligent Manufacturing.
Bailin Wang is an associate professor of Management

Science and Engineering at at the School of
Economics and Management, University of Science
and Technology Beijing (USTB), Beijing, China. Her
research interests are Advanced Manufacturing
Management, Production Planning & Scheduling, and
Intelligent Optimization Methods.
Indriya Indriya is an Indonesian renowned fashion

designer, lecturer and researcher at the Faculty of
Islamic Studies, Universitas Ibn Khaldun (UIKA),
Bogor, Indonesia. Her research interests include
Islamic Fashion, Halal Fashion/Hijab Fashion/Modest
Fashion, Islamic Studies, and Quran Studies.

PublishedIRMJ2 Watermark1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

PublishedIRMJ2 Watermark1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PublishedIRMJ2 Watermark1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

An Examination of Halal Fashion Supply Chain Management

Article in Information Resources Management Journal · September 2021

Eli Sumarliah Bailin Wang

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Hijab fashion View project

scheduling View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

An Examination of Halal Fashion Supply

Tieke Li, University of Science and Technology, Beijing, China

DOI: 10.4018/IRMJ.2021100104 *Corresponding Author

Risk Management: An Overview

Risk Management in Light of Halal Fashion Supply Chain (HFSC)

Figure 1. The research model of the study

u ) to signify the factor j fuzzy weight. It can be signified as follows:

= (ljw, mjw, ujw).

WB Wj WB

Equation (8) is rearranged to become as follows:

where ε = {lᶓ, mᶓ, nᶓ}, ãBW = (lBW, mBW, uBW).

where uBW = 1,3/2, 5/2, 7/2 and 9/2, correspondingly.

Table 1. Consistency index (CI) for fuzzy best-worst method

Linguistic scales Equal Moderate Essential Very Absolute

Classification of the Risks in the HFSC Management

Table 2. Professional’s profile

No. Organization, Country Position Education Professional field Years of

Table 3. Risk categories with related risk factors in HFSC management

Risk categories Risks factors Definition Risk scopes Supporting Literature

continued on following page

Risk categories Risks factors Definition Risk scopes Supporting Literature

Priority Order of the Risk Categories and Risk Factors

Table 4. Professional choices of best and worst risk categories

Professional Best- Category MG PN MD LR MT IN FS

Risk categories Professional

DISCUSSION ON THE FINDINGS

Manufacturing and Design Risks (MD)

Table 7. Risk categories’ weights and consistency ratios

Risk Category Professional Mean Rank

Table 8. Position of the HFSC’s risk categories and risk factors

MG2 0.09033 6 0.01338 29

MG7 0.11843 4 0.01755 22

MG6 0.10414 5 0.01543 26

MG 0,14832 MG3 0.22039 2 0.03265 12

MG4 0.17569 3 0.02603 17

MG1 0.23009 1 0.03409 10

MG5 0.06094 7 0.00903 37

PN1 0.27130 1 0.06087 2

PN2 0.14947 4 0.03354 11

PN4 0.22426 2 0.05032 4

PN5 0.16230 3 0.03642 7

PN3 0.05075 6 0.01139 31

MD3 0.31428 1 0.06791 1

MD6 0.11300 4 0.02442 19

MD4 0.10239 5 0.02213 21

MD1 0.25795 2 0.05574 3

MD5 0.05078 6 0.01097 33

LR2 0.37452 1 0.04322 5

LR 0,11557 LR3 0.27964 3 0.03227 13

LR1 0.34584 2 0.03991 6

WB Wj WB

where ε = {lᶓ, mᶓ, nᶓ}, ãBW = (lBW, mBW, uBW).

= (3 / 2, 2, 5 / 2), (1, 1, 1), (2 / 3, 1, 3 / 2), (7 / 2, 4, 9 / 2)

= (3 / 2, 2, 5 / 2), (7 / 2, 4, 9 / 2), (2 / 3, 1, 3 / 2), (1, 1, 1)

W1* = (0.24997, 0.29903, 0.37095)

W2* = (0.36125, 0.36125, 0.42851)

W3* = (0.19301, 0.20161, 0.25756)

W4* = (0.11182, 0.11182, 0.13211)

ε* = 0.79083, 0.79083, 0.79083