Garg 2018

Environment, Development and Sustainability
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-0261-5
Sustainable outsourcing partner selection and evaluation

using an integrated BWM–VIKOR framework
Chandra Prakash Garg1 · Archana Sharma2
Received: 31 July 2017 / Accepted: 26 September 2018

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018
Abstract
Sustainable practices in supply chain management are gaining momentum because of envi-
ronmental concern, enforced regulations, pressures from consumers and communities,
social issues and corporate citizenship; these practices are broadly implemented by organi-
zations through sustainable outsourcing partners (SOPs). Hence, systematic evaluation sys-
tem for SOP selection is required for companies’ supply chain perspectives. This paper
makes an attempt to select SOP. This work proposes a combined model based on best–
worst method for evaluation and ranking of the selection criteria and Vlsekriterijumska
Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje for the final selection of partner. A case of Electron-
ics Company of India demonstrates the application of the proposed framework. Sensitivity
analysis is also performed to verify the robustness of the proposed approach. This study
may benefit managers and business professionals not only in SOP evaluation process but
also in the selection of the efficient SOP while achieving efficiency and effectiveness in
sustainable practices.
Keywords Supply chain management · Sustainable outsourcing partners (SOPs) · MCDM ·

BWM · VIKOR · Indian electronics industry
1 Introduction
In recent years, there has been growing attention to incorporate sustainable business
practices into supply chain activities due to emphasis on environment and social issues.
Environmental issues such as climate change, increased pollution and wastages and
depletion of natural resources have resulted in a pressing demand for constant focus on
environmental concerns by organizations (Shen et al. 2013). Corporations cannot ignore
their social obligations and responsibility toward harmonious development of society
* Chandra Prakash Garg

cpgarg86@gmail.com
Archana Sharma
jmdarchanasharma@gmail.com
1
Department of Transportation Management, School of Business, University of Petroleum
and Energy Studies (UPES), Dehradun 248007, India
2
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Banasthali University, Banasthali, Rajasthan, India
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
C. P. Garg, A. Sharma
(Büyüközkan and Çifçi 2011). The activities pertaining to supply chain operations per-
formed by these firms have a comprehensive effect on environmental ecology that in
turn impacts current social and human life and may affect future generations as well
(Hutchins and Sutherland 2008). Hence, sustainability considerations into supply chain
activities are needed.
Additionally, firms’ performances directly depend on their sustainable production,
distribution and consumption activities (Hsu et al. 2013). Therefore, sustainable supply
chain management (SSCM) is viewed as a pragmatic approach which integrates envi-
ronmental, social and economic issues and practices into supply chain (SC) components
in order to improve financial performance and corporate citizenship (Kumar and Garg
2017). Moreover, extended producers’ responsibilities and enforced waste manage-
ment regulations increased the attention of management to integrate these sustainable
dimensions into strategic decisions (Garg et al. 2017). To start with SC decision, the
outsourcing partner (supplier) selection is one of the grave decisions encountered by
supply chain managers and experts in order to incorporate sustainable philosophy and
partnership into it as well as assist organizations to improve their competitive positions
(Luthra et al. 2017; Govindan et al. 2013). The outsourcing partner (supplier) selec-
tion decision directly affects downstream, upstream and reverse supply chain operations.
Therefore, outsourcing partner (supplier) selection needs careful exploration of both
qualitative and quantitative factors which are conflicting in nature and very vaguely
defined (Prakash and Barua 2016a). Further, due to renewed emphasis on sustainability
has augmented the problem for focal firms to select the best sustainable outsourcing
partners (SOPs). Since partners play crucial role in supply chain, their selection directly
affects the implementation of sustainable initiatives. Therefore, firms have to consider
sustainability criteria based on economic, environmental and social factors to evaluate
and analyze their suppliers or outsourcing partners’ performances in order to implement
successful sustainable business practices (Büyüközkan and Çifçi 2011; Govindan et al.
2013). Sustainable initiatives not only focus on forward supply chain but also integrate
reverse supply chain in order to implement effective return management practices which
can help achieve efficient resource recovery options and environmental protection. Also,
organizations have understood that downstream activities of supply chain are a major
source of waste generation. Prakash and Barua (2016b) identified that focal firms need
to work in close coordination with outsourcing partners in order to manage customer’s
pressure and integrate business process. Luthra et al. (2017) suggested that firms must
share their resources and capabilities to guide and train their partners in the area of sus-
tainable initiatives, environmental management systems, social responsibilities of the
firms, and green and technological innovations. Govindan et al. (2013) identified that
firms need to invest in sustainable initiatives for their suppliers so that they can comply
with the regulations, adhere to social commitments and meet customers’ requirements.
However, due to lack of financial and other resources, firms are unable to spend much
on their suppliers for sustainable innovations in supply chain. Therefore, these firms
need to carefully analyze the SOPs selection process.
Considering these facts, this study has the objectives, as follows:
• To recognize and analyze the criteria of outsourcing partner selection in order to imple-
ment sustainable initiatives in Indian context
• To measure the relative importance of each criteria for sustainable initiatives.
• To choose the best SOP among number of alternatives.
• To propose managerial and practical implications of the work.
13
Sustainable outsourcing partner selection and evaluation…
In order to fulfill the above-mentioned objectives, this work utilized integrated hybrid
approach comprising best–worst method (BWM) and VIKOR for evaluation and selection
of the SOP. The BWM method is used to rank and analyze the selection criteria based on
sustainable innovations, and VIKOR is applied to prioritize and select the best SOP. BWM
is a novel MCDM technique which provides better results as compared to AHP (Rezaei
2016). VIKOR is an efficient approach used in many studies for prioritizing the alternatives
with respective criteria. There are many studies which have utilized combined approach
for selecting the best alternatives (For details see Table 1). To demonstrate the proposed
framework for sustainable outsourcing partner selection, a pragmatic example of electron-
ics industry has been taken in Indian context. The case industry aims to evaluate with the
criteria of sustainable outsourcing partner selection and select the best partner among alter-
natives in order to achieve sustainable innovations into supply chain.
The rest of this paper is arranged as follows:
Section 2 highlights the literature review. Section 3 describes the research framework,
and illustrative example for the partner selection is reported in Sect. 4. The discussion
of the results is done in Sect. 5. Sensitivity analysis is conducted in Sect. 6. Managerial
insights of the study and conclusion of the work are given in Sects. 7 and 8, respectively.
2 Literature review
This part includes the past studies on supplier/outsourcing partner selection based on
sustainable initiatives and integrated approaches used in supplier/outsourcing partner
selection.
2.1 SSCM and selection criteria of SOP
Recently, researchers and practitioners have understood, identified and addressed the sus-
tainability requirements in supply chain operations (Carter and Rogers 2008; Govindan
et al. (2016a, b); Gobbo et al. 2014; Prakash and Barua 2015; Kwatra et al. 2016; Prakash
and Barua 2016c, d). Carter and Rogers (2008) have developed framework for sustain-
ability implementation into supply chains by integrating environmental, social and eco-
nomic dimensions to achieve long-term organizational success. They have utilized different
theories such as transaction cost economics, population ecology, resource-based view of
the firm and resource dependence theory to support sustainable supply chain framework.
Govindan et al. (2016a, b) have identified that investment in sustainability initiatives of
supply chain operations helped organizations to get more success in future. Gobbo et al.
(2014) suggested that SSCM can reduce negative environmental impacts of the firm apart
from nurturing social and economic benefits. Kwatra et al. (2016) have developed sustain-
ability development index considering three dimensions, namely economic, environment
and social. They have considered nineteen sub-dimensions under these three dimensions to
measure sustainability. Moreover, sustainable development and management is an impor-
tant concept for today’s organizations that could be accomplished by employing sustain-
able initiatives into supply chain operations (Prakash and Barua 2015, 2016c). Most of the
literature on sustainability suggested that organizations have to focus on three dimensions,
namely economic, environmental and social in order to implement sustainable initiatives
into SC operations (Govindan et al. 2014). Hutchins and Sutherland (2008) have explored
that firms which are committed toward social sustainability are putting in efforts to create
13

Table 1 Evaluation criteria and sub-criteria for SOPs selection. Sources: Combined results of the studies of Gupta and Barua (2017), Kushwaha and Sharma (2016), Gomes
et al. (2015), Kopnina (2017), Sengar et al. (2018), Kumar and Garg (2017), Mani et al. (2016), Govindan et al. (2015), Govindan et al. (2016a, b), Diabat and Govindan
(2011), Shen et al. (2013), Brandenburg et al. (2014), Rostamzadeh et al. (2015) and inputs of the decision-making team
13
S. no. Criteria Sub-criteria Brief description
1 Economic factors (ECF) Outsourcing cost and benefits (OCB) Overall cost of outsourcing, actual manufacturing cost of the product, price of the
products including transportation and logistics cost. Benefits and profit on the
products
2 Financial and resources capacity (FRC) Financial and resources capability of the firm to invest in infrastructure and
facility requirements. Ability to have modern and advanced materials handling
equipment’s
3 Service delivery and access (SDA) Ability of the firm to deliver fast, prompt, efficient and customized service. Man-
age customers’ complaints effectively. Access to cover wide areas, destinations,
and markets. Its presence and network structure
4 Technical and communication ability (TCA) Technical capability of partner to develop integrated system to monitor and imple-
ment state-of-the-art technology for processing outsourcing activities
5 Firm performance and reputation (FPR) Capability of the firm to manage quality, quantity and timing of production sched-
ule and capacity planning and flexible enough to handle capacity. Image and
history of partner in market. Ability to share risks and rewards. Aligned with
culture and structure of organization
6 Environmental factors (ENF) Green purchasing and designing (GPD) Ability of the partner to provide the products which have recovery options such
as reuse, recycle and free from hazardous materials. Design of the products has
green or environmental thinking or features so ecological impacts of the prod-
ucts can be reduced through the products life cycle
7 Energy efficiency and cleaner technology (EECT) Capability of the outsourcing partner to produce energy efficient products so mini-
mum environmental impacts occurs and energy used. Environmental friendly
and cleaner production technology employs to conserve natural resources and
environment
8 Reverse logistics and waste minimization (RLWM) Ability of outsourcing provider to implement and adopt reverse logistics practices
in order to recover material, minimize waste and dispose in environmental
friendly manner
9 Emission and pollution minimization (EPM) Characteristics and traits of production systems to minimize emission and pollu-
tion to reduce negative impacts on environment
Table 1 (continued)
S. no. Criteria Sub-criteria Brief description
10 Green certification and accreditation (GCA) Outsourcing suppliers have certifications on environmental management systems
for example ISO 14001 series. Firm is capable enough to implement principles,
policies and protocols related to environmental management systems
11 Green practices and packaging (GPP) Ability of outsourcing partner to implement green practices into supply chain
activities. This provides joint green planning, combined green knowledge on
product development and green innovations and packaging
12 Green manufacturing and marketing (GMM) Capability of the outsourcing partner to have production or operation system
fully devoted to environmental or green manufacturing practices. Firm is able
to market the products as green products in order to enhance environmental
performance of firm
13 Social factors (SOF) Safety, working conditions and health (SWCH) Ability of the firm to provide good working atmosphere and ambience with in the
firm and promote and encourage safety and health policies to the workers while
working for the firm or the clients
14 Rights to employees and fair wages (REFW) Partner’s ability to provide employment opportunities to local region and its social
acceptance. Firm must support human values and their rights and offer competi-
tive wages and salaries

15 Social welfare and development (SWD) Capability of the partner to undertake corporate social responsibility (CSR) activi-
ties and initiatives for societal and community development
16 Women specific issues and codes (WSIC) Firm must promote and practice gender parity and able to deal specific issues
related to women. Firm has transparent policies and fair codes of conduct
17 Equity of employee and community (EEC) Firm has robust appraisal and development opportunities for workers and employ-
ees and has unbiased gender ratios, diversity and community involvement
18 Community connection and support (CCS) Ability of the partner to generate and promote harmonious and healthy environ-
ment. Firm has easy access to community and able to maintain connectivity and
support from society
19 Ethical and transparent practices (ETP) Firm must provide full information of the products to their clients and has ethical,
philanthropy and transparent practices
13
more social impacts and such firms are performing better than other firms. They are tak-
ing great pressure to implement social initiatives into supply chain operations, creating a
constructive and positive image of the firms that do not render negative impacts on envi-
ronment, society and humans while simultaneously maintaining their economic potentials.
Moreover, government is putting pressure and enforcing stringent regulations on manufac-
turers to abate activities with negative environmental and social impacts and incorporate
and promote sustainable business practices (Kaur and Sharma 2018; Prakash and Barua
2017). However, many authors have suggested that integration of green initiatives, green
design and green manufacturing, resource recovery and reverse logistics process into sup-
ply chain can provide environmental and economic advantages besides improving the cor-
porate citizenship of the firm and complying with the directives (Kushwaha and Sharma
2016; Govindan et al. 2013). In today’s competitive environment, resources sharing could
provide financial benefits to the focal firms apart from good services and more customer
satisfaction. Hence, many firms with limited resources and capabilities outsource their
major supply chain activities to outsourcing partners (Luthra et al. 2017). Prakash and
Barua (2016c) suggested that sustainable development and management can be achieved
if all the members or partners of supply chain work together and share their responsibili-
ties, rewards and risks. In addition to this, partners need to be educated, trained and guided
to implement sustainable initiatives, environmental management systems and green and
technological innovations in their operations. But due to lack of resources, financial and
other constraints, firms have to strategically outsource various business functions (Luthra
et al. 2017, 2018). Such outsourcing suppliers/partners could be beneficial to focal firms
to achieve the goal of sustainable initiatives throughout the supply chain activities. There
are many studies related to supplier/outsourcing partner selection, and very few studies are
available which have concentrated on sustainable outsourcing partner selection (Trapp and
Sarkis 2016). Govindan et al. (2013) observed that sustainable outsourcing partner (SOP)
can implement green innovations in their operations that would support focal firms to
attain sustainable supply chain. Bai and Sarkis (2010) analyzed supplier selection frame-
work through integrating sustainability. Büyüközkan and Çifçi (2011) studied the suppliers
selection criteria based on sustainability. Luthra et al. (2017) identified 22 selection criteria
of sustainable supplier selection based on three dimensions, namely economic, social and
environmental. Gold et al. (2010) suggested that there are lakhs of empirical-based SOP
selection studies especially in electronics industry. Hence, there is a need of such studies
which can support policy makers and experts to assist in further decision making.
Based on wide literature search, various criteria of SOP selection are identified (please
see Table 1)
2.2 Modeling techniques used in supplier/outsourcing partner selection
The benefits of supplier or outsourcing partner selection and development have been high-
lighted by many researchers and authors in order to implement sustainable initiatives apart
from achieving efficiency in supply chain practices (Prakash and Barua 2016a; Garg 2016).
There are many studies in the literature on supplier selection which have used several eval-
uation models based on MCDMs, analytic methods, linear/mixed integer/goal/linear pro-
gramming, matrix, clusters, statistical and other soft computing methods (Govindan et al.
2013). Prakash and Barua (2016a) presented various combined techniques used in the liter-
ature for supplier selection. A supplier selection framework based on ANN and fuzzy AHP
is highlighted by Efendigil et al. (2008). Yan (2009) proposed green supplier development
13
and selection process using AHP and GA soft computing technique. Shaw et al. (2012)
used fuzzy AHP and fuzzy MOLP approaches for selection of supplier for low carbon sup-
ply chain. Amindoust et al. (2012) applied fuzzy set theory for selection of the sustain-
able suppliers. Tsui and Wen (2014) presented AHP- and ELECTRE III-based framework
for the selection of the suppliers. Rezaei et al. (2016) proposed BWM-based framework
for the selection of the suppliers. Fallahpour et al. (2016) presented DEA- and GA-based
green supplier selection process considering dimensions such as green innovation, green
image, environmental management, green competencies’ and eco-design. Hashemi et al.
(2015) proposed green supplier selection process on the basis of technology, innovative-
ness, eco-design and environmental management system framework and applied ANP and
grey theory. Awasthi and Kannan (2016) proposed supplier selection process considering
green initiatives and applied fuzzy NGT and VIKOR approach to select the best green sup-
plier. Govindan et al. (2013) presented sustainable supplier selection framework under
three dimensions, namely environmental, social and economical and used fuzzy TOPSIS
approach for final selection of supplier from alternatives. Recently, Luthra et al. (2017)
proposed AHP-VIKOR-based framework for supplier selection in sustainability and con-
sidered various dimensions such as environmental costs, price and quality of the products
and environmental competencies. Another study conducted by Gupta and Barua (2017)
presented BWM-fuzzy TOPSIS-based framework for evaluation and selection of supplier
selection based on green innovation for SMEs industry, India.
2.3 Research gaps
Supplier selection decisions are crucial because they affect the effectiveness and respon-
siveness of supply chain activities. Supplier/partner selection strategies may influence
sustainability initiatives implementation into supply chain operations (Luthra et al. 2017).
SSCM not only addresses economic goals of the firm but also incorporates social and eco-
logical concerns. In order to implement sustainable practices into supply chain operations,
outsourcing partner or supplier may play crucial role. Therefore, focal firms have to choose
and evaluate their partners’ not only considering traditional selection criteria but need to
add more sustainability-based criteria to achieve success (Azadi et al. 2015).
Based on past literature, this study tries to explore these research gaps.
• There is a dearth of qualitative papers from growing nations, particularly from India
related to SOP evaluation and selection. The literature also lacks economic–ecologi-
cal–social criteria for outsourcing partner selection and evaluation; most of the selec-
tion criteria are focusing on economic dimensions or environment dimensions only
(Prakash and Barua 2016a; Govindan et al. 2013). Studies lack in considering social
dimensions in SOP selection and evaluation which highlights obvious gap in the con-
sideration of all three important dimensions, namely economic, social and environmen-
tal for sustainable outsourcing partner selection and evaluation.
• The criteria of SOP selection and evaluation may vary across countries, regions and
firms because of different market dynamics, varied nature of resources, competencies
and capabilities of the firms (Luthra et al. 2017; Prakash and Barua 2016a). As Indian
electronics sector is the fastest growing market, this sector is contributing enormously
in overall production and consumption. The high GDP growth, presence of large mid-
dle-class population, rising younger generation and increasing disposable income have
galvanized high growth of consumer electronics items in India. Moreover, Govt. initia-
13
tives such as MAKE IN INDIA, e-governance scheme promoting the increase in pro-
duction of electronics items/products and gadgets in India and selling them at national
and international level to augment global market share are a shot in the arm. Sustain-
ability in supply chain initiates with sustainable procurement decision that affects later
stages of the supply chain process. In this line, SOP selection and evaluation criteria
are very important for Indian electronics firm so that negative impact of such products
on environment and society can be minimized apart from reaping economic benefits.
Thus, it is evident that there is a lack of studies in the spectrum of SOP selection crite-
ria for Indian electronics industry.
• There is no doubt that integrated approach has been applied in decision making related
to supplier selection in literature (for details please refer Table 2). This work proposes
combined novel BWM–VIKOR framework for evaluation of sustainable outsourcing
partner. The literature lacks in such study which has evaluated SOP selection criteria
utilizing the combined BWM–VIKOR method and explored robustness of the frame-
work in context of Indian scenario.
3 Methodology
In this work, a novel three-phase methodology (See Fig. 1) has been proposed for sustainable
outsourcing partners (SOPs) evaluation and selection. In phase first, identification and finali-
zation of the evaluation criteria have been done by group of experts (including industry pro-
fessionals and academicians) with the support of existing literature and discussions. In phase
second, selection criteria are evaluated and respective weights of the criteria and sub-criteria
are determined by using BWM, and in phase third, ranking of the SOPs is done by using
VIKOR approach. Though criteria evaluation and alternative selection can be done by other
MCDM methods, i.e., AHP, ANP, TOPSIS, MAUT, etc., these approaches involve many pair-
wise comparisons which require large amount of data and frequent consistency checks (Khe-
drigharibvand et al. 2017; Prakash and Barua 2016b). To address this issue, a novel MCDM
approach is proposed named best–worst method (Rezaei 2015). This approach utilizes less
amount of the data and provides more consistent results as compared to AHP (Rezaei 2015).
Additionally, many authors have applied BWM technique for the selection of the suppliers
Table 2 Recently integrated modeling techniques utilized in supplier/outsourcing partner selection

S. no. Authors (year) Combined techniques Context
1 Liou and Chuang (2010) VIKOR-ANP-DEMATEL Outsourcing partner selection

2 Kuo et al. (2010) DEA-AHP-ANP Green supplier selection
3 Punniyamoorthy et al. (2011) SEM-fuzzy AHP Supplier selection
4 Liou (2012) DEMATEL-ANP-grey theory Outsourcing partner selection
5 Rajesh and Malliga (2013) AHP-QFD Supplier selection
6 Senthil et al. (2014) AHP-fuzzy TOPSIS Contractor selection in RL
7 Dobos and Vörösmarty (2014) DEA-composite indicators Green supplier selection
8 Ayhan and Kilic (2015) FAHP-MILP Supplier selection
9 Prakash and Barua (2016b) FAHP-VIKOR Partner selection in RL
10 Luthra et al. (2017) AHP-VIKOR Sustainable supplier selection
11 Gupta and Barua (2017) BWM-FTOPSIS Green supplier selection
13
Fig. 1 Graphic representation of the proposed methodology
(Rezaei 2016; Gupta and Barua 2017). Moreover, VIKOR technique has been widely utilized
for the selection of the alternatives (Luthra et al. 2017). It works on compromise program-
ming which makes this technique better as compared to other technique. VIKOR is preferred
13
in alternatives selection as compared to other MCDMs, i.e., TOPSIS, ANP, ELECTRE, etc.,
because it measures closeness to positive ideal solution which reduces the risk in decision
making and optimizes the decision makers’ choice (Prakash and Barua 2016c). Moreover,
VIKOR approach chooses the best alternative with accuracy and optimizes the results. Fur-
ther, SOPs selection can be done by single MCDM only (Qureshi et al. 2018) but integrating
one MCDM with other decision tools can improve the quality of decision. Thus, fitness of this
methodology in such situation forces us to use this approach. The detail of each phase is dis-
cussed below. Figure 1 shows a graphic representation of the proposed method.
3.1 Phase I identification and finalization of SOPs criteria
The extensive literature search has been done to identify the evaluation criteria. After literature
review on sustainable suppliers or partners and brainstorming sessions, three main evaluation
criteria along with 19 sub-criteria were presented to group of the experts for validation. This
decision group has finalized them. All in all, they seem to be satisfied with the list and were
not agreed for including any other. Hence, a total of 19 sub-criteria under three main criteria
relevant to the SOP selection in the electronics industry supply chain were selected.
The next phase involves calculation of the weights of the criteria and sub-criteria.
3.2 Phase II best–worst method
The calculation of the weights of the criteria and sub-criteria has been done by BWM
technique.
Best–worst method approach is recently introduced by Rezaei (2016); it is a quantitative
technique that deals with complex problems. This technique possess some unique features
such as it offers better results when decision related to pair-wise comparison of the vectors,
uses less information and involves decision makers as compared to other techniques such as
AHP, TOPSIS and DEMATEL. Recently, this approach is used by Rezaei et al. (2016) in sup-
plier selection and Gupta and Barua (2016) in evaluation of technological innovation factors.
Since, BWM utilizes only two pair-wise comparisons: first, the best criterion is compared
with other criteria and second, other criteria are compared with worst criterion; hence, it
reduces the efforts as not comparing all the criteria. Then based on this comparison system,
optimization model is developed and optimal weights and consistency ratios are determined
(For detail of consistency ratios please see Table 2). The steps of this process are discussed
below:
Step 1 The group of experts identifies a set of the decision criteria [D1, D2,…Dn]
Step 2 The decision group determines the best and worst criteria among all identified
criteria in step 1
Step 3 Decision group assigns the rating to the best criterion and all other criteria
through pair-wise comparison using a number between 1 and 9. The step provides
comparison results between best-to-others preference, and it is represented as:
( )
ZB = zB1 , zB2 , … zBn
where zBj represents the best selected criterion B over criterion j and obviously zBB = 1.
Step 4 Similarly, decision group assigns the rating to the all the criteria and worst cri-
terion through pair-wise comparison using a number between 1 and 9. The step
13
provides comparison results between others-to-worst preferences, and it is repre-

sented as:
( )T
ZW = z1W , z2W , … znW
where zjW represents the criteria j over the worst selected[criterion w and] here also zWW = 1.
Step 5 Calculate the optimal weights of all the criteria W1∗ , W2∗ … Wn∗
[ To determine the optimal weights

] of each criterion, the maximum absolute differences
| | | |
|WB − ZBj Wj |, |Wj − ZjW WW | have to be minimized. This can be formulated as optimiza-
| | | |
tion model.
[ ]
| | | |
min max |WB − ZBj Wj |, |Wj − ZjW WW |
| | | |
s.t.
n
∑ (3.2.1)
Wj = 1
j=1
Wj ≥ 0, for all j.
Obtained model (1) can be converted into linear programming [ model, and] this linear model
can be solved for the optimal weights of the criteria, i.e., W1∗ , W2∗ … Wn∗ and optimal con-
sistency ratio 𝛿 ∗.
min𝛿
s.t.
| |
|WB − ZBj Wj | ≤ 𝛿, for all j
| |
| |
|Wj − ZjW WW | ≤ 𝛿, for allj
| | (3.2.2)
n
∑
Wj = 1
j=1
Wj ≥ 0, for all j.
3.3 Phase III VIKOR
Management is responsible for decision-making process which is very complex due to

involvement of multiple attributes. However, MCDM approach could be very helpful in
dealing with conflicting management objectives (Deng and Chan 2011). There are many
MCDM approaches among them VIKOR method is a compromise priority approach help-
ful in optimization of multiple responses. It is based on multi-attribute ranking index
obtained from the comparison of the closeness of each attributes to the ideal alternative
(Liou et al. 2011; Wu and Liu 2011). The VIKOR process in step-wise manner is discussed
below (Table 3):
13
Table 3 Scale for the pair-wise Linguistic variables Impor-

matrix tance
rating
Equally important (EI) 1

Moderately important (MI) 2
Strongly important (SI) 3
Very strongly important (VSI) 4
Extremely important (EXI) 5
Table 4 The pair-wise judgment matrix for specific criteria category, i.e., best-to-others (BO) and others-to-
worst (OW)
BO ECF ENF SOF
Best criterion 5 1 2
Environmental factor (ENF)
OW Worst criterion:
economic factor
(ECF)
ECF 1
ENF 5
SOF 3
Step 1 Allocate rating given in Table 4 to the linguistic variables and obtained pair-wise
matrix for the alternatives w.r.t. each criterion
Step 2 Final decision matrix is constructed using Eq. 3.321

k
1∑
A= A (3.321)
k k=1 k
Step 3 Obtain the best fb∗ and the worst fb− values of the all criteria, b = 1,2,……n
( )
fb∗ = Max fab (3.331)
( )
fb− = Min fab (3.332)
where fb∗ indicates the PIS and fb− indicates the NIS for bth criterion.
Step 4 Obtain the values of Sa , and Ra for a = 1,2,……m using these Eqs. (3.341 and
3.342)
n [ ]
∑ fb∗ − fab
Sa = Wb (3.341)
b=1
fb∗ − fb−
13
[ ( ∗ )]
f − fab
Ra = Maxb Wb b∗ (3.342)
fb − fb−
where Sa indicates the rate of distance of ath alternative to the PIS, Ra indicates the rate of
distance of the ath alternative to the NIS, and Wb indicates the weight of the each criterion
calculated by BWM.
Step 5 Calculate the values of Qa , for a = 1,2,……m using this Eq. 3.351
Sa − S∗ Ra − R∗
Qa = v + (1 − v) (3.351)
S− − S∗ R− − R∗
where S− = Maxa Sa , S∗ = Mina Sa , R− = Maxa Ra , R∗ = Mina Ra , and v denotes the weight
of the course of action or maximum set utility. In this case, we assumed v = 0.5.
Step 6 Ranking the alternatives on Qa basis values
Step 7 The ranking is obtained by considering minimum value of Q subject to satisfy the
following two conditions:
Condition 1: Q(A(1)) alternative is accepted if Q(A(2)) − Q(A(1)) ≥ 1/n − 1 where A(2)

alternative has second rank in the ranking list and n represents the number of alterna-
tives.
Condition 2: Q(A(1)) alternative is considered firm choice of the decision makers if it is
also got first rank in Sa and Ra.
Step 8 Selection of the alternatives is done on the basis of descending values of Qa

alternatives.
4 Application of the proposed method through illustrative example
An Electronics Company of India (named as XYZ) was undertaken to empirically ana-

lyze the SOPs selection and evaluation process. The company has pan India supply of
their products. Some of the products are also sold in South Asian countries. Company
has evolved into a multi-product manufacturing of consumer durables and appliances.
The main products manufactured by the company are LED/LCD/plasma TVs, DVDs,
washing machines, air conditioners, microwave ovens and mobile phones. It provides
customer-oriented products to major Indian market through company owned or other
marketing channels. However, in spite of more than 20 years of experience in Indian
market, company has poor partner selection framework based on the convinced crite-
ria which provides sustainable initiatives into company’s operations. Owing to green
concerns, environmental awareness and social issues, company is committed to imple-
ment sustainable initiatives into their business process at its end. In order to achieve
this objective of sustainability, company also requires its partners to follow sustaina-
ble business processes and operations. This work provides the framework for sustain-
able outsourcing partners’ selection and evaluation for company, so the management
of the company utilizes this robust framework for the selection of the best SOP among
13
available alternatives. The framework for the partner selection is highlighted in Fig. 2.
The discussed BWM–VIKOR methodology for the case company is illustrated in below
subsections.
4.1 Calculation of the criteria weights using BWM
The group of the experts has to select the best criteria, i.e., the most preferred one and
the worst criteria, i.e., the least desirable one through pair-wise comparison of three
criteria and 19 sub-criteria. Decision group has assigned the relative rating of each cri-
teria and sub-criteria using the scale provided to them through mutual discussions and
consensus. Based on the mutual considerations of all the members of decision-making
group, environmental factor (ENF) is recognized as the best criteria and economic fac-
tor (ECF) as worst criteria among the main criteria. Later selecting the best and the
Sustainable outsourcing partner (SOP) selection
Environmental Factors Social Factors (SOF) Economic Factors

(ENF) (ECF)
GPD SWCH
OCB
EECT
REFW
FRC
RLWM
SWD
EPM WSIC SDA
GCA EEC
TCA
GPP CCS
GMM FPR
ETP
SOP1 SOP2 SOP3 SOP4 SOP5
Fig. 2 Hierarchy model
13
Table 5 The pair-wise judgment matrix for specific economic factor criteria category, i.e., best-to-others
(BO) and others-to-worst (OW)
BO OCB FRC SDA TCA FPR
Best criterion 2 1 4 2 8
FRC
OW Worst
criterion:
FPR
OCB 4
FRC 8
SDA 3
TCA 4
FPR 1
Table 6 The pair-wise judgment matrix for specific environmental factor criteria category, i.e., best-to-oth-
ers (BO) and others-to-worst (OW)
BO GPD EECT RLWM EPM GCA GPP GMM
Best criterion 1 6 2 4 8 9 5
FRC
OW Worst crite-
rion: GPP
GPD 9
EECT 2
RLWM 8
EPM 3
GCA 2
GPP 1
GMM 4
worst criteria from the main criteria, decision group has assigned the preference rat-
ing to the best criterion and all other criteria and other criteria to worst criterion using
1–9 scale given in Table 4. Similar pair-wise comparison and preferential ratings have
been assigned to sub-criteria. These comparison matrices of the sub-criteria are given in
Tables 5, 6 and 7.
Further, optimal weights of criteria and sub-criteria are obtained through formulating
the linear model of preferential ratings for criteria and their respective sub-criteria using
Eq. 3.2.2. This model is solved to determine optimal weights of criteria and sub-criteria.
The solution obtained for each criterion and their optimal weights i.e. W1∗ , W2∗ , W3∗ and con-
sistency ratio 𝛿 with ranking is given in Table 8.
After calculating the optimal weights, it was found that environmental factor of SOPs
rank at 1 with the weight of 0.5746. Similarly, social factor rank at 2 (0.314) followed by
economical factor (0.1114) of SOPs criteria and consistency ratio is 0.0745 (Please refer
Table 8).
13
Table 7 The pair-wise judgment matrix for specific social factor criteria category, i.e., best-to-others (BO)
and others-to-worst (OW)
BO SWCH REFW SWD WSIC EEC CCS ETP
Best criterion 1 5 4 8 4 3 2
FRC
OW Worst crite-
rion: GPP
SWCH 8
REFW 4
SWD 7
WSIC 1
EEC 3
CCS 2
ETP 5
Table 8 Ranking of criteria of Criteria Optimal weights Ranking 𝛿

SOP selection
ECF 0.1114 3 0.0745
ENF 0.5746 1
SOF 0.3140 2
Same process was applied to obtain the weights of the sub-criteria which are given in
Table 9, 10 and 11.
It shows that ranking of sub-criteria of economic factor is
FRC > OCB > TCA > SDA > FPR. In economic factor, FRC (financial and resources capac-
ity) rank at 1 (0.41565) followed by OCB (outsourcing cost and benefits—0.22087) and
TCA (technical and communication ability—0.19478) at ranks 2 and 3 and ranking of
other sub-criteria can be seen through Table 9.
It shows that ranking of sub-criteria of environmental factor is GPD > RLWM > EP
M > GMM > EECT > GCA > GPP. In environmental factor, GPD (green purchasing and
designing) received rank at 1 (0.33819) followed by RLWM (reverse logistics and waste
minimization—0.30445) and EPM (emission and pollution minimization—0.12335)
at ranks 2 and 3, respectively. These dimensions are most important when considering
environmental sustainability. GCA (green certification and accreditation—0.05165) and
GPP (green practices and packaging—0.3296) were found having the least importance
and are at ranks 6 and 7, respectively (For details please see Table 10).
Table 9 Ranking of sub-criteria Factors Preference weights Ranking

of economic factors
OCB 0.22087 2
FRC 0.41565 1
SDA 0.11999 4
TCA 0.19478 3
FPR 0.04869 5
13
Table 10 Ranking of sub-criteria Factors Preference weights Ranking

of environmental factors
GPD 0.33819 1
EECT 0.06047 5
RLWM 0.30445 2
EPM 0.12335 3
GCA 0.05165 6
GPP 0.03296 7
GMM 0.09038 4
Table 11 Ranking of categories Factors Preference weights Ranking

of social factors
SWCH 0.31276 1
REFW 0.06355 5
SWD 0.15638 3
WSIC 0.03127 7
EEC 0.15561 4
CCS 0.06155 6
ETP 0.21886 2
It shows that ranking of sub-criteria of social factor is SWCH > ETP > SWD > EE

C > REFW > CCS > WSIC. In social factor category, SWCH (safety, working condi-
tions and health) received rank at 1 followed by ETP (ethical and transparent practices)
and SWD (social welfare and development) at ranks 2 and 3, respectively. The least
important social sustainability dimensions are CCS (community connection and sup-
port—0.06155) and WSIC (women specific issues and codes—0.03127). Ranking of
other factors can be seen through Table 11.
In order to get the overall priorities of the factors with respect to the sustainability
of supply chain, the global weights of sub-factor and the final ranking are presented
in Table 12. These rankings are calculated by multiplying the factors weight with the
weight of its category. For example, for the economic factor OCB.
The weight of GPD in its category is 0.33819 (Table 10), and weight of environment
category is 0.5746 (Table 8). By multiplying these two weights with each other, the
final global weight is 0.194324 (Table 12). Similarly, weights and ranking of all other
SOPs criteria under environmental, social and economic factors are calculated (For
details please see Table 12).
It shows that GPD (green purchasing and designing) is at rank 1 in environmental
category as well as in overall global ranking. RLWM (reverse logistics and waste mini-
mization) has been found at rank 2 followed by SWCH (safety, working conditions and
health), EPM (emission and pollution minimization) and ETP (ethical and transparent
practices). By looking at Table 12, it is found that there is a shift in focus toward the
sustainability. Other factors ranking can be seen through Table 12.
13

13
Table 12 Final ranking for specific indicators
Factors category Relative preference Relative rank Specific factors Relative preference Relative rank- Global preference Global ranking
weights weights ing weights
Environmental factor 0.5746 1 GPD 0.33819 1 0.194324 1

EECT 0.06047 5 0.034746 10
RLWM 0.30445 2 0.174937 2
EPM 0.12335 3 0.070877 4
GCA 0.05165 6 0.029678 11
GPP 0.03296 7 0.018939 16
GMM 0.09038 4 0.051932 6
Social factor 0.3140 2 SWCH 0.31276 1 0.098207 3
REFW 0.06355 5 0.019955 14
SWD 0.15638 3 0.049103 7
ESIC 0.03127 7 0.009819 18
EEC 0.15561 4 0.048862 8
CCS 0.06155 6 0.019327 15
ETP 0.21886 2 0.068722 5
Economic factor 0.1114 3 OCB 0.22087 2 0.024605 12
FRC 0.41565 1 0.046303 9
SDA 0.11999 4 0.013367 17
TCA 0.19478 3 0.021698 13
FPR 0.04869 5 0.005424 19
Table 13 Linguistics variables Sub-criteria GPD EECT RLWM … … SDA TCA FPR

ratings matrix for the alternatives
(Expert 1) Alternatives
SOP1 SI MI EI … … SI VSI MI
SOP2 MI EI EI … … MI SI VSI
SOP3 MI SI VSI … … VSI SI EXI
SOP4 MI SI MI … … SI EI MI
SOP5 SI EXI MI … … MI VSI SI
Table 14 Evaluation matrix of Criteria OCB FRC SDA … … EEC CCS ETP

the ratings for the alternatives
(Expert 1) Alternatives
SOP1 3 2 1 … … 3 4 2
SOP2 2 1 1 … … 2 3 4
SOP3 3 2 4 … … 4 3 5
SOP4 2 3 2 … … 3 1 2
SOP5 3 5 2 … … 2 4 3
4.2 Selection of the best SOP using VIKOR
A matrix of the alternatives is developed as per linguistic rating given in Table 3 (See
Table 13). Due to space constraint, only one expert weighted matrix as specified (See
Table 14). Then, aggregate weighted matrix is determined by using Eq. 3.321 and is pre-
sented in Table 15. The best ratings fb∗ and the worst ratings fb− values of all criteria are
obtained by using Eqs. 3.331 and 3.332 which is given in Table 12. S and R values are
determined by using Eqs. 3.341 and 3.342 which is given in Table 16. To calculate the val-
ues of S and R, weights of each criterion are multiplied which were calculated by BWM.
Now the values of Q for all alternatives are calculated by considering the maximum group
utility weight v = 0.5, which is also given in Table 16. Now final ranking of SOPs are
derived according to descending values of S, R and presented in Table 17. The selection
of the sustainable outsourcing partners (SOPs) has been done through Qa values, which is
given in Table 18. This whole procedure followed phase III method. According to crisp Qa
index values, the final ranking of SOPs is obtained which shows SOP3 is the best sustain-
able partner among others (Please see Table 17). And both conditions, i.e., C1 and C2, are
fulfilled, which is Q (RLP6)–Q (RLP7) ≥ 1/7-1 and also SOP3 is the first choice by R and
S.
5 Results and discussions
Sustainable initiatives are gaining increased attention across industries including electron-
ics. Sustainable outsourcing partner selection is a necessary part of supply chain manage-
ment which would ultimately affect the image and performance of the firm. This work pre-
sents robust framework of sustainable outsourcing partner selection and evaluation process
for Indian electronics industry. The group of experts suggested various specific criteria and
13
Table 15 Aggregate decision Sub-criteria OCB FRC SDA … … EEC CCS ETP

matrix ratings for the alternatives
Alternatives
SOP1 2.5 2.5 2.25 … … 2.75 2.75 2
SOP2 1.75 2 2 … … 2.25 2 3.5
SOP3 3 2.5 4 … … 3.5 3.25 3.25
SOP4 2.25 2.75 2.25 … … 2 2.5 1.75
SOP5 2.75 3 2 … … 3 2.25 3
fb∗ 3 3 4 … … 3.5 3.25 3.5
fb− 2.25 2 2 … … 1.5 1.25 1.5
Table 16 S, R and Q values of Alternatives S R Qa

the alternatives
SOP1 0.59849 0.15307 0.38615
SOP2 0.95526 0.32387 1.00000
SOP3 0.26265 0.08418 0.00000
SOP4 0.59772 0.19432 0.47166
SOP5 0.55373 0.17494 0.39945
S− = 0.95526 R− = 0.32387
S∗ = 26265 R∗ = 0.08418
Table 17 Ranking of the Alternatives S Rank R Rank Q Rank

alternatives based on S, R and Q
values
SOP1 0.59849 3 0.15307 2 0.38615 2
SOP2 0.95526 5 0.32387 5 1.00000 5
SOP3 0.26265 1 0.08418 1 0.00000 1
SOP4 0.59772 4 0.19432 4 0.47166 4
SOP5 0.55373 2 0.17494 3 0.39945 3
sub-criteria for SOPs selection and evaluation. Three well-recognized main criteria based
on environment, social and economic factors and 19 sub-criteria under them have been
finalized from available literature. Earlier, it was easy for organizations to concentrate on
economic factors without worrying about social and environmental factors while choosing
outsourcing partners for supply chain operations. But time has changed as government reg-
ulations, customer and societal awareness and ecological concerns created pressure on the
firms; so they must emphasize more on sustainable business practices. A novel technique
BWM has been used for criteria evaluation, and VIKOR is used for final selection.
From Table 8, the weights and ranking of the criteria are obtained which shows envi-
ronmental factor (ENF) criteria with highest weighted value (0.5746) have first rank, social
factor (SOF) criteria have second rank with weighted value (0.3140), and economical fac-
tor (ECF) criteria have third rank with weighted value (0.1114). It indicates that attentions
of the firms are shifting from economic sustainability to environmental and social sustain-
ability. It also reflects on decision related to selection of outsourcing partners. Among the
13
Table 18 Sensitivity analysis results

Alternatives v = 0.1 Rank v = 0.2 Rank v = 0.3 Rank v = 0.4 Rank v = 0.5 Rank
SOP1 0.3072 2 0.3269 2 0.3467 2 0.3664 3 0.3862 2

SOP2 1.0000 5 1.0000 5 1.0000 5 1.0000 5 1.0000 5
SOP3 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1
SOP4 0.4620 4 0.4644 4 0.4668 4 0.4692 4 0.4717 4
SOP5 0.3828 3 0.3870 3 0.3911 3 0.3953 2 0.3995 3
Alternatives v = 0.6 Rank v = 0.7 Rank v = 0.8 Rank v = 0.9 Rank v = 1.0 Rank
SOP1 0.4059 3 0.4256 3 0.4454 3 0.4651 3 0.4849 4

SOP2 1.0000 5 1.0000 5 1.0000 5 1.0000 5 1.0000 5
SOP3 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1
SOP4 0.4741 4 0.4765 4 0.4789 4 0.4814 4 0.4838 3
SOP5 0.4036 2 0.4078 2 0.4119 2 0.4161 2 0.4203 2
criteria of SOPs selection, economical factors are occupying low rank, while environmen-
tal factors are at the top slot of the rankings. This shows that environmental factor is the
most important criterion among other criteria while selecting SOP. The environmental
considerations would help companies to comply with the environmental regulations and
sustain the performance in the long run. Thus, implementation of environmental business
strategies will support organizations to improve their corporate image and show their con-
tribution toward sustainability (Li et al. 2016; Kushwaha and Sharma 2016). Further, it has
been stated that environmental practices have a positive effect on the sustainable supply
chain (Chouhan et al. 2017; Sengar et al. 2018). The importance of this environmental fac-
tor was also revealed by one of the industrial experts, e.g.,
Effective environmental or green implementation into supply chain activities
improves the organizational performance of the firm and adoption of GSCM and
environmental initiatives helps to conquer the goal of sustainable development and
management practices.
Focal firms and supply chain partners should conform to the current standards of environ-
mental protection and practices and focus more on green practices into supply chain activi-
ties (Rostamzadeh et al. 2015). It indicates that managers have to critically examine partner
company resources, capabilities and skills set to employ and adhere to green initiatives and
innovations while selecting it as a partner. Under environmental factors, there are seven
sub-factors and their sorting is GPD > RLWM > EPM > GMM > EECT > GCA > GPP in
descending order. It shows that GPD (green purchasing and designing) followed by RLWM
(reverse logistics and waste minimization) and EPM (emission and pollution minimization)
dimensions is very crucial while making decision related to outsourcing partner. Owing to
increased industrial activities, especially in the electronics sector, firms have been directed
to procure and design the products considering green or environmental aspects in order to
minimize environmental impacts of products during their entire life cycle (Eltayeb et al.
2011). Thus, focal firm should assess the partner ability on sustainability issues such as
green purchasing and designing of the products. Moreover, increasing electronic waste
(e-waste) sourcing inland and illegal imports can be considered as a danger to human and
environment (Dasgupta et al. 2017). That requires sound recovery and disposal system in
13
which effective RL implementation would provide better e-waste management and han-
dling. Similarly, Tsai et al. (2008), Fernández et al. (2009) and Gunasekaran and Spalan-
zani (2011) have also identified that adoption of reverse logistics practices has numerous
benefits such as efficient resource utilization and ecological protection. Hence, company
has to evaluate outsourcing partner capability and resources to provide successful adoption
of RL practices and utilize environmental friendly materials and components which gener-
ate minimum emission and pollution in their life cycle and end of life.
Green initiatives and innovations in supply chain activities support organizations to
have sustainable production and consumption process which provides excellent opportuni-
ties to improve the performance of the firms and to achieve the goal of sustainable business
practices. The social factors attained second rank in the evaluation process. This shows that
social issues have important role into supply chain process and supplier selection consid-
eration. These issues needed to be managed properly in order to ensure long-term existence
of the firm. This social inclusion should integrate supply chain operations of the firm with
supplier and customer cycle activities. The upstream and downstream activities such as
supplier and outsourcing selection should also address the social aspects in which focal
firms are operating (Carter and Rogers 2008). Without societal consideration, sustainable
development and management concept is merely myth.
The prominence of this factor was also cited by one of the industrial professionals, e.g.,
The existence of the organization is totally depends on how the organization is
responsible to the broad society. Firms have to incorporate social aspects into their
entire supply chain related decisions whether upstream activities, internal process
and downstream operations. Now a day’s organizations are aiming to achieve the
goal of sustainable business practices that can only be attained if organization has
full commitment towards social inclusion.
Thus, management outsourcing decisions favor that partner who covers and implements
these societal issues into their operations. These social issues are sorted as SWCH > ET
P > SWD > EEC > REFW > CCS > WSIC. In social factor category, considerations of
SWCH (safety, working conditions and health), ETP (ethical and transparent practices) and
SWD (social welfare and development) are very important while decision making related
to partner. The development of high technological products has reduced the life cycle of
electronic and electrical items. India is the fifth largest country in the world in terms of
e-waste generation. Moreover, more than 96% of e-waste generated in India is processed by
unorganized, informal sector and scrap dealers which create hazardous waste and pollution
leading to enormous damage to the health of people working in these areas. This informal
sector employs poor children, women and unemployed people for dismantling, process-
ing and recycling in India. These traders use informal and traditional recycling techniques
or methods and unscientific ways in order to recover values from the returned products/
items. These techniques are highly dangerous and unsafe for health and create pollution
by releasing hazardous toxins into the environment (Prakash and Barua 2016a). Therefore,
focal firm has to select such a partner who can implement sustainable business practices
and provides safe and better working conditions to their employees. The partner should
be ethical and have transparent practices. He should also able to contribute toward social
welfare and development. Economic factor has received third rank which means firm has
to maintain his economic viability in order to sustain through a long journey. The motive
behind the running organization is to provide better values to their stakeholders apart from
other goals. In which financial aspect is primary. Thus, management has to do cost and
benefit analysis in order to select the best sustainable partner. The sorting of sub-criteria
13
of economic factor is FRC > OCB > TCA > SDA > FPR. In economic factor, FRC (finan-

cial and resources capacity), OCB (outsourcing cost and benefits) and TCA (Technical and
communication ability) are the important dimensions of decision related to outsourcing
partner. Financial and resources capacity means partner must be financially sound and able
to invest in required resources and infrastructure requirements. Focal firm has to analyze
commercial feasibility of partner and critically assess the economic and financial benefits
to choose the sustainable outsourcing partner. Since, the nature of electronic products is
highly technical, so the partner must be able enough to employ advanced IT system, new
and innovative technologies, communication system and other technological up-gradation
and innovations.
The findings of BWM and importance of the factors and sub-factors have been verified
by industrial experts with the objective to understand each dimension minutely of selection
criteria of sustainable outsourcing partner which will support in the selection process, and
hence, improve the sustainable business practices of the organization.
The weighted values of the criteria obtained from BWM technique are used in VIKOR
for SOPs selection. This paper proposed five potential SOPs for the case company, and
weighted matrix of selection alternatives is obtained. Partners are selected on the basis
of S, R and Q values arranging in ascending order as discussed above in methodology
part. According to S values, SOPs ranking is SOP3 > SOP5 > SOP1 > SOP4 > SOP2. The
ranking of SOPs based on R values SOP3 > SOP1 > SOP5 > SOP4 > SOP2 is in descending
order. And according to crisp Qa index values, the final ranking of SOPs is arranged as SOP
3 > SOP1 > SOP5 > SOP4 > SOP2 (Please see Table 17). It indicates that in all index values
of S, R and Q, SOP3 is the potential partner for the case company. This robust framework
would enable decision makers to select and evaluate sustainable outsourcing partners for
the case company.
6 Sensitivity analysis
The robustness of the proposed framework can be analyzed through sensitivity runs. It ena-
bles to understand and interpretate the reasons for selection of SOPs. Moreover, it pro-
vides insight for why this framework has selected particular partner. It is also observed that
minor fluctuation in weighted values would reflect major fluctuations in the final ranking
(Vishwakarma et al. 2015; Kumari et al. 2018; Garg 2016). Since inputs from experts are
considered to determine the weighted means for SOPs selection and evaluation, it is sug-
gested to measure the variation in final ranking by assigning different weighted values in
order to check consistency and experts influence in decision-making process (Mahtani and
Garg 2018).
The outcome of the sensitivity evaluation shows that SOP3 has a maximum priority
at all the conditions, when v varies from 0.1 to 0.3, and v = 0.5 obtained final ranking as
SOP3 > SOP1 > SOP5 > SOP4 > SOP2, which shows that SOP3 and SOP1 are qualified
partners in five experiments (Please see Table 18). And when v varies from 0.4, 0.6 to
0.9, obtained final ranking as SOP3 > SOP5 > SOP1 > SOP4 > SOP2, which indicates
that SOP3 and SOP5 are two potential partners preferences in these five experiments. But
when v = 1 then obtained ranking is SOP3 > SOP5 > SOP4 > SOP1 > SOP2. The results of
the sensitivity analysis show that SOP3 is the best sustainable partner for case company
(please refer Fig. 3). It verifies the robustness of the proposed framework and suggests that
results are less influence by experts rating.
13
Fig. 3 Results of sensitivity Ranking of SOPs

analysis 1
5
10 4 2
SOP1
3
2 SOP2
9 3
1
0 SOP3
8 4
SOP4
SOP5
7 5
7 Managerial and practical implications
Sustainable practices are very essential in electronics industry due to enforced regulations,
increased pollution and e-waste. Moreover, changing nature of the products, technological
innovations and changing human lifestyle have reduced life cycle of electronics products that
led to develop, integrate and manage sustainable business practices into supply chain effec-
tively. All the partners of supply chain can work in collaboration to achieve the goal of sustain-
able innovations. In this regard, selection of suitable partners can support the goals of sus-
tainable initiatives in the supply chain. This work proposes robust framework selection and
evaluation of the SOPs. The finalized criteria for SOPs selection are specific to electronics
industry. The evaluation of selection criteria shows that for sustainable initiatives to thrive,
focal firm has to look into the partners’ capability to implement environmental innovations
such as green purchasing and designing, reverse logistics and waste minimization, emis-
sion and pollution minimization and green manufacturing and marketing; social factors like
safety, working conditions and health, social welfare and development, ethical and transparent
practices and rights to employees and fair wages and economic factors such as financial and
resources capacity, outsourcing cost and benefits and service delivery and access. Manage-
ment and industry professionals get benefits from the proposed framework by easily under-
standing the vital dimensions for sustainable innovations in supply chain; therefore, focus-
ing on these dimensions will improve their sustainable image. The proposed framework and
obtained results have been verified by industry professionals, and they found it meaningful
for case company. Manufacturers of allied industries such as automobile, pharmaceuticals and
other industries may utilize this framework in their respective areas for similar analysis.
13
8 Conclusions, limitations and scope of future work
In today’s scenario, it is necessary for company to integrate its business process with
sustainable practices. Inclusion of environmental, social and economic activities in
supply chain management is a step toward achieving sustainability. Moreover, organi-
zations are continuously thriving and seeking ways to implement sustainable innova-
tions into supply chain operations. Since adoption of sustainable practices into supply
chain would require collaboration and cooperation of the partners of the supply chain, it
demands huge modifications at partners end. Therefore, it is very challenging for a firm
to select suitable partners from many alternatives to fulfill the goal of sustainability.
Hence, organization aims to select such SOP which would collaborate and are capa-
ble enough in performing and realizing sustainable activities efficiently and effectively.
That is why a systematic evaluation process for partner selection is needed in order to
determine their suitability for business organizations. In this work, three-phase meth-
odology is proposed based on BWM–VIKOR framework for selection of the suitable
sustainable partner for the case company. Evaluation of the selection criteria is done
by BWM which indicates that environmental factors are very important criteria among
other criteria while selecting SOP, whereas economic factors are the least preferred
selection criteria. These weightage values obtained from BWM are used as inputs in
VIKOR for final SOPs selection. The values of S, R and Q are used to determine the
most preferable partner among alternatives which shows that partner SOP3 is the best
partner for the case company. Additionally, sensitivity analysis is performed in order to
measure the experts’ influence on the final ranking. We found there is no serious bias on
the influence of ratings given by supply chain analysts.
From a management point of view, the reliability and rationality of the proposed frame-
work is revealed by considering real case analysis of an electronics company. Further, flex-
ibility of the proposed framework allows many possible extensions of this study for the
suppliers’/partners’ selection in other similar industries.
This work utilized BWM–VIKOR approach for sustainable outsourcing partner selec-
tion. All pair comparisons in BWM–VIKOR have been assigned by decision group.
Through literature review and discussions with experts, various criteria to select sustain-
able outsourcing partner in Indian electronics industry have been identified and ranked.
Therefore, it is expected; views of experts may be subjective. Different MCDM approaches
may be applied using several approaches such as AHP, ANP, ELECTRE, MAUT, TOP-
SIS and IRP for the similar problem, and outcomes/results can be matched in the further
studies. These MCDMs models can be further enhanced using fuzzy theory based frame-
work for criteria evaluation as well as in partner selection. The sensitivity analysis can be
performed to observe the influence of the preferences given by the decision makers for
the selection of sustainable outsourcing partners. Further, this study can be extended by
including more number of quantitative and qualitative criteria.
References
Amindoust, A., Ahmed, S., Saghafinia, A., & Bahreininejad, A. (2012). Sustainable supplier selection: A
ranking model based on fuzzy inference system. Applied Soft Computing, 12(6), 1668–1677.
Awasthi, A., & Kannan, G. (2016). Green supplier development program selection using NGT and VIKOR
under fuzzy environment. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 91, 100–108.
13
Ayhan, M. B., & Kilic, H. S. (2015). A two stage approach for supplier selection problem in multi-item/
multi-supplier environment with quantity discounts. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 85, 1–12.
Azadi, M., Jafarian, M., Saen, R. F., & Mirhedayatian, S. M. (2015). A new fuzzy DEA model or evaluation
of efficiency and effectiveness of suppliers in sustainable supply chain management context. Comput-
ers and Operations Research, 54, 274–285.
Bai, C. A., & Sarkis, J. (2010). Integrating sustainability into supplier selection with grey system and rough
set methodologies. International Journal of Production Economics, 124(1), 252–264.
Brandenburg, M., Govindan, K., Sarkis, J., & Seuring, S. (2014). Quantitative models for sustainable supply
chain management: Developments and directions. European Journal of Operational Research, 233(2),
299–312.
Büyüközkan, G., & Çifçi, G. (2011). A novel fuzzy multi-criteria decision framework for sustainable sup-
plier selection with incomplete information. Computers in Industry, 62(2), 164–174.
Carter, C. R., & Rogers, D. S. (2008). A framework of sustainable supply chain management: Moving
toward new theory. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 38(5),
360–387.
Chouhan, H. A., Parthasarathy, D., & Pattanaik, S. (2017). Urban development, environmental vulnerability
and CRZ violations in India: Impacts on fishing communities and sustainability implications in Mum-
bai coast. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 19(3), 971–985.
Dasgupta, D., Debsarkar, A., Hazra, T., Bala, B. K., Gangopadhyay, A., & Chatterjee, D. (2017). Scenario
of future e-waste generation and recycle-reuse-landfill-based disposal pattern in India: A system
dynamics approach. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 19(4), 1473–1487.
Deng, Y., & Chan, F. T. (2011). A new fuzzy dempster MCDM method and its application in supplier selec-
tion. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(8), 9854–9861.
Diabat, A., & Govindan, K. (2011). An analysis of the drivers affecting the implementation of green supply
chain management. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55(6), 659–667.
Dobos, I., & Vörösmarty, G. (2014). Green supplier selection and evaluation using DEA-type composite
indicators. International Journal of Production Economics, 157, 273–278.
Efendigil, T., Onut, S., & Kongar, E. (2008). A holistic approach for selecting a third-party reverse logistics
provider in the presence of vagueness. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 54, 269–287.
Eltayeb, T. K., Zailani, S., & Ramayah, T. (2011). Green supply chain initiatives among certified companies
in Malaysia and environmental sustainability: Investigating the outcomes. Resources, Conservation
and Recycling, 55(5), 495–506.
Fallahpour, A., Olugu, E. U., Musa, S. N., Khezrimotlagh, D., & Wong, K. Y. (2016). An integrated model
for green supplier selection under fuzzy environment: Application of data envelopment analysis and
genetic programming approach. Neural Computing and Applications, 27(3), 707–725.
Fernández, E., Kalcsics, J., Nickel, S., & Ríos-Mercado, R. Z. (2009). A novel maximum dispersion terri-
tory design model arising in the implementation of the WEEE- directive. Journal of the Operational
Research Society, 61(3), 503–514.
Garg, C. P. (2016). A robust hybrid decision model for evaluation and selection of the strategic alliance part-
ner in the airline industry. Journal of Air Transport Management, 52(2016), 55–66.
Garg, C. P., Sharma, A., & Goyal, G. (2017). A hybrid decision model to evaluate critical factors for suc-
cessful adoption of GSCM practices under fuzzy environment. Uncertain Supply Chain Management,
5(1), 59–70.
Gobbo, S. C. D. O., Fusco, J. P. A., & Gobbo Junior, J. A. (2014). An analysis of embeddedness in the value
creation in interorganisational networks: An illustrative example in Brazil. International Journal of
Advanced Operations Management, 6(2), 178–198.
Gold, S., Seuring, S., & Beske, P. (2010). Sustainable supply chain management and inter-organizational
resources: A literature review. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,
17(4), 230–245.
Gomes, C. M., Kneipp, J. M., Kruglianskas, I., da Rosa, L. A. B., & Bichueti, R. S. (2015). Management for
sustainability: An analysis of the key practices according to the business size. Ecological Indicators,
52, 116–127.
Govindan, K., Azevedo, S. G., Carvalho, H., & Cruz-Machado, V. (2014). Impact of supply chain manage-
ment practices on sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 85, 212–225.
Govindan, K., Garg, K., Gupta, S., & Jha, P. C. (2016a). Effect of product recovery and sustainability
enhancing indicators on the location selection of manufacturing facility. Ecological Indicators, 67,
517–532.
Govindan, K., Khodaverdi, R., & Jafarian, A. (2013). A fuzzy multi criteria approach for measuring
sustainability performance of a supplier based on triple bottom line approach. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 47, 345–354.
13
Govindan, K., Paam, P., & Abtahi, A. R. (2016b). A fuzzy multi-objective optimization model for sus-
tainable reverse logistics network design. Ecological Indicators, 67, 753–768.
Govindan, K., Rajendran, S., Sarkis, J., & Murugesan, P. (2015). Multi criteria decision making
approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review. Journal of Cleaner Pro-
duction, 98, 66–83.
Gunasekaran, A., & Spalanzani, A. (2011). Sustainability of manufacturing and services: Investigations
for research and applications. International Journal of Production Economics, 140, 35–47.
Gupta, H., & Barua, M. K. (2016). Identifying enablers of technological innovation for Indian MSMEs
using best–worst multi criteria decision making method. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 107, 69–79.
Gupta, H., & Barua, M. K. (2017). Supplier selection among SMEs on the basis of their green innova-
tion ability using BWM and fuzzy TOPSIS. Journal of Cleaner Production, 152, 242–258.
Hashemi, S. H., Karimi, A., & Tavana, M. (2015). An integrated green supplier selection approach with
analytic network process and improved Grey relational analysis. International Journal of Production
Economics, 159, 178–191.
Hsu, C.-W., Kuo, T.-C., Chen, S.-H., & Hu, A. H. (2013). Using DEMATEL to develop a carbon manage-
ment model of supplier selection in green supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production,
56, 164–172.
Hutchins, M. J., & Sutherland, J. W. (2008). An exploration of measures of social sustainability and their
application to supply chain decisions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15), 1688–1698.
Kaur, A., & Sharma, P. C. (2018). Social sustainability in supply chain decisions: Indian manufacturers.
Environment, Development and Sustainability, 20(4), 1707–1721.
Khedrigharibvand, H., Azadi, H., Teklemariam, D., Houshyar, E., De Maeyer, P., & Witlox, F. (2017).
Livelihood alternatives model for sustainable rangeland management: A review of multi-cri-
teria decision-making techniques. Environment, Development and Sustainability. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10668-017-0035-5.
Kopnina, H. (2017). Sustainability: New strategic thinking for business. Environment, Development and
Sustainability, 19(1), 27–43.
Kumar, D., & Garg, C. P. (2017). Evaluating sustainable supply chain indicators using fuzzy AHP: Case
of Indian automotive industry. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 24(6), 1742–1766.
Kumari, A., Garg, C. P., & Singh, S. (2018). Modelling the critical success factors of women entrepre-
neurship using fuzzy AHP framework. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 10(1),
81–116.
Kuo, R. J., Wang, Y. C., & Tien, F. C. (2010). Integration of artificial neural network and MADA meth-
ods for green supplier selection. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(12), 1161–1170.
Kushwaha, G. S., & Sharma, N. K. (2016). Green initiatives: A step towards sustainable development
and firm’s performance in the automobile industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 121, 116–129.
Kwatra, S., Kumar, A., Sharma, P., Sharma, S., & Singhal, S. (2016). Benchmarking sustainability using
indicators: An Indian case study. Ecological Indicators, 61, 928–940.
Li, Y., Cheng, H., Beeton, R. J., Sigler, T., & Halog, A. (2016). Sustainability from a Chinese cultural
perspective: The implications of harmonious development in environmental management. Environ-
ment, Development and Sustainability, 18(3), 679–696.
Liou, J. J. (2012). Developing an integrated model for the selection of strategic alliance partners in the
airline industry. Knowledge-Based Systems, 28, 59–67.
Liou, J. J., Tsai, C. Y., Lin, R. H., & Tzeng, G. H. (2011). A modified VIKOR multiple-criteria deci-
sion method for improving domestic airlines service quality. Journal of Air Transport Management,
17(2), 57–61.
Liou, J. J. H., & Chuang, Y. T. (2010). Developing a hybrid multi-criteria model for selection of out-
sourcing providers. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(5), 3755–3761.
Luthra, S., Govindan, K., Kannan, D., Mangla, S. K., & Garg, C. P. (2017). An integrated framework for
sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140,
1686–1698.
Luthra, S., Mangla, S. K., Shankar, R., Prakash Garg, C., & Jakhar, S. (2018). Modelling critical success
factors for sustainability initiatives in supply chains in indian context using Grey-DEMATEL. Produc-
tion Planning & Control, 29(9), 705–708.
Mahtani, U. S., & Garg, C. P. (2018). An analysis of key factors of financial distress in airline companies in
India using fuzzy AHP framework. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 117(2018),
87–102.
13
Mani, V., Agarwal, R., Gunasekaran, A., Papadopoulos, T., Dubey, R., & Childe, S. J. (2016). Social sus-
tainability in the supply chain: Construct development and measurement validation. Ecological Indica-
tors, 71, 270–279.
Prakash, C., & Barua, M. K. (2015). Integration of AHP-TOPSIS method for prioritizing the solutions of
reverse logistics adoption to overcome its barriers under fuzzy environment. Journal of Manufacturing
System, 37(2015), 599–615.
Prakash, C., & Barua, M. K. (2016a). An analysis of integrated robust hybrid model for third-party
reverse logistics partner selection under fuzzy environment. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
108(2016), 63–81.
Prakash, C., & Barua, M. K. (2016b). A combined MCDM approach for evaluation and selection of third-
party reverse logistics partner for Indian electronics industry. Sustainable Production and Consump-
tion, 7(2016), 66–78.
Prakash, C., & Barua, M. K. (2016c). A robust multi-criteria decision making framework for evaluation of
the airport service quality enablers for ranking the airports. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospital-
ity and Tourism, 17(3), 351–370.
Prakash, C., & Barua, M. K. (2016d). A multi criteria decision making approach for prioritizing reverse
logistics adoption barriers under fuzzy environment: Case of Indian electronics industry. Global Busi-
ness Review, 17(5), 1–18.
Prakash, C., & Barua, M. K. (2017). Flexible modelling approach for evaluating reverse logistics adoption
barriers using fuzzy AHP and IRP framework. International Journal of Operational Research, 30(2),
151–171.
Punniyamoorthy, M., Mathiyalagan, P., & Parthiban, P. (2011). A strategic model using structural equation
modeling and fuzzy logic in supplier selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(1), 458–474.
Qureshi, M. R. N., Singh, R. K., & Hasan, M. A. (2018). Decision support model to select crop pattern for
sustainable agricultural practices using fuzzy MCDM. Environment, Development and Sustainability,
20(2), 641–659.
Rajesh, G., & Malliga, P. (2013). Supplier selection based on AHP QFD methodology. Procedia Engineer-
ing, 64, 1283–1292.
Rezaei, J. (2015). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega, 53, 49–57.
Rezaei, J. (2016). Economic order quantity and sampling inspection plans for imperfect items. Computers &
Industrial Engineering, 96, 1–7.
Rezaei, J., Nispeling, T., Sarkis, J., & Tavasszy, L. (2016). A supplier selection life cycle approach integrat-
ing traditional and environmental criteria using the best worst method. Journal of Cleaner Production,
135, 577–588.
Rostamzadeh, R., Govindan, K., Esmaeili, A., & Sabaghi, M. (2015). Application of fuzzy VIKOR for eval-
uation of green supply chain management practices. Ecological Indicators, 49, 188–203.
Sengar, V. S., Garg, C. P., & Raju, T. B. (2018). Assessment of sustainable initiatives in Indian ports using
AHP Framework. International Journal of Business Excellence, 16(1), 110–126.
Senthil, S., Srirangacharyulu, B., & Ramesh, A. (2014). A robust hybrid multi-criteria decision making
methodology for contractor evaluation and selection in third-party reverse logistics. Expert Systems
with Applications, 41(1), 50–58.
Shaw, K., Shankar, R., Yadav, S. S., & Thakur, L. S. (2012). Supplier selection using fuzzy AHP and fuzzy
multi-objective linear programming for developing low carbon supply chain. Expert Systems with
Applications, 39(9), 8182–8192.
Shen, L., Olfat, L., Govindan, K., Khodaverdi, R., & Diabat, A. (2013). A fuzzy multi criteria approach for
evaluating green supplier’s performance in green supply chain with linguistic preferences. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, 74, 170–179.
Trapp, A. C., & Sarkis, J. (2016). Identifying robust portfolios of suppliers: A sustainability selection and
development perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 2088–2100.
Tsai, W. H., Chou, W. C., & Hsu, W. (2008). The sustainability balanced scorecard as a framework for
selecting socially responsible investment: An effective MCDM model. Journal of the Operational
Research Society, 60(10), 1396–1410.
Tsui, C. W., & Wen, U. P. (2014). A hybrid multiple criteria group decision-making approach for green
supplier selection in the TFT-LCD industry. Mathematical Problems in Engineering. https://doi.
org/10.1155/2014/709872.
Vishwakarma, V., Prakash, C., & Barua, M. K. (2015). A fuzzy-based multi criteria decision making
approach for supply chain risk assessment in Indian pharmaceutical industry. International Journal of
Logistics Systems and Management, 25(2), 245–265.
13
Wu, M., & Liu, Z. (2011). The supplier selection application based on two methods: VIKOR algorithm with
entropy method and Fuzzy TOPSIS with vague sets method. International Journal of Management
Science and Engineering Management, 6(2), 109–115.
Yan, G. (2009). Research on green suppliers’ evaluation based on AHP and genetic algorithm. In Interna-
tional conference on SPS, IEEE 15–17 May, 2009 (pp. 615–619).
13

Garg 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Garg 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environment, Development and Sustainability

Sustainable outsourcing partner selection and evaluation

Received: 31 July 2017 / Accepted: 26 September 2018

Keywords Supply chain management · Sustainable outsourcing partners (SOPs) · MCDM ·

* Chandra Prakash Garg

2.1 SSCM and selection criteria of SOP

tive wages and salaries

2.2 Modeling techniques used in supplier/outsourcing partner selection

Table 2 Recently integrated modeling techniques utilized in supplier/outsourcing partner selection

1 Liou and Chuang (2010) VIKOR-ANP-DEMATEL Outsourcing partner selection

Fig. 1 Graphic representation of the proposed methodology

3.1 Phase I identification and finalization of SOPs criteria

3.2 Phase II best–worst method

provides comparison results between others-to-worst preferences, and it is repre-

[ To determine the optimal weights

3.3 Phase III VIKOR

Management is responsible for decision-making process which is very complex due to

Table 3 Scale for the pair-wise Linguistic variables Impor-

Equally important (EI) 1

Condition 1: Q(A(1)) alternative is accepted if Q(A(2)) − Q(A(1)) ≥ 1/n − 1 where A(2)

Step 8 Selection of the alternatives is done on the basis of descending values of Qa

4 Application of the proposed method through illustrative example

An Electronics Company of India (named as XYZ) was undertaken to empirically ana-

4.1 Calculation of the criteria weights using BWM

Sustainable outsourcing partner (SOP) selection

Environmental Factors Social Factors (SOF) Economic Factors

EPM WSIC SDA

SOP1 SOP2 SOP3 SOP4 SOP5

Table 8 Ranking of criteria of Criteria Optimal weights Ranking 𝛿

Table 9 Ranking of sub-criteria Factors Preference weights Ranking

Table 10 Ranking of sub-criteria Factors Preference weights Ranking

Table 11 Ranking of categories Factors Preference weights Ranking

It shows that ranking of sub-criteria of social factor is SWCH > ETP > SWD > EE

Environmental factor 0.5746 1 GPD 0.33819 1 0.194324 1

Table 13 Linguistics variables Sub-criteria GPD EECT RLWM … … SDA TCA​ FPR

Table 14 Evaluation matrix of Criteria OCB FRC SDA … … EEC CCS ETP

4.2 Selection of the best SOP using VIKOR

Table 15 Aggregate decision Sub-criteria OCB FRC SDA … … EEC CCS ETP

Table 16 S, R and Q values of Alternatives S R Qa

Table 17 Ranking of the Alternatives S Rank R Rank Q Rank

Table 18 Sensitivity analysis results

SOP1 0.3072 2 0.3269 2 0.3467 2 0.3664 3 0.3862 2

SOP1 0.4059 3 0.4256 3 0.4454 3 0.4651 3 0.4849 4

of economic factor is FRC > OCB > TCA > SDA > FPR. In economic factor, FRC (finan-

Fig. 3 Results of sensitivity Ranking of SOPs

7 Managerial and practical implications

8 Conclusions, limitations and scope of future work

You might also like

2.1 SSCM and selection criteria of SOP

2.2 Modeling techniques used in supplier/outsourcing partner selection

Table 2 Recently integrated modeling techniques utilized in supplier/outsourcing partner selection

Fig. 1 Graphic representation of the proposed methodology

3.1 Phase I identification and finalization of SOPs criteria

3.2 Phase II best–worst method

3.3 Phase III VIKOR

Table 3 Scale for the pair-wise Linguistic variables Impor-

Step 8 Selection of the alternatives is done on the basis of descending values of Qa

4 Application of the proposed method through illustrative example

4.1 Calculation of the criteria weights using BWM

Table 8 Ranking of criteria of Criteria Optimal weights Ranking 𝛿

Table 9 Ranking of sub-criteria Factors Preference weights Ranking

Table 10 Ranking of sub-criteria Factors Preference weights Ranking

Table 11 Ranking of categories Factors Preference weights Ranking

Table 13 Linguistics variables Sub-criteria GPD EECT RLWM … … SDA TCA FPR

Table 14 Evaluation matrix of Criteria OCB FRC SDA … … EEC CCS ETP

4.2 Selection of the best SOP using VIKOR

Table 15 Aggregate decision Sub-criteria OCB FRC SDA … … EEC CCS ETP

Table 16 S, R and Q values of Alternatives S R Qa

Table 17 Ranking of the Alternatives S Rank R Rank Q Rank

Table 18 Sensitivity analysis results

Fig. 3 Results of sensitivity Ranking of SOPs

7 Managerial and practical implications

8 Conclusions, limitations and scope of future work