Professional Documents
Culture Documents
10.1007@s12652 020 01751 3
10.1007@s12652 020 01751 3
10.1007@s12652 020 01751 3
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-020-01751-3
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Abstract
In recent years, supplier selection has been significantly important with respect to dimensions and criteria of sustainability.
Organizations need to try to choose their suppliers based on how well their performances are in each of the economic, social,
and environmental criteria. On the other hand, since the methods of supplier selection depend on the experts’ opinions, which
have the potential of uncertainty and ambiguity, using Fuzzy sets to evaluate the criteria can be useful. Apart from considering
experts’ opinions on a fuzzy basis, probabilities are considered in experts’ opinions via Z-numbers in order to increase the
reliability of the data and the results. In this paper, after reviewing the literature, identifying the sustainability criteria, and
step-by-step explaining the presented method, a numerical example is studied for more clarification. Moreover, the results
of the conventional fuzzy sets are obtained and have been compared with those considering the probabilities (Z-number)
leading to the conclusion that applying the experts’ opinions will be effective in ranking the suppliers.
1 Introduction one of the criteria that have been especially noted in recent
years (Humphreys et al. 2003). The concept of sustainability
Supplier selection is considered one of the key concepts in means to wisely use the resources in a framework consist-
supply chain management. Given that the suppliers’ perfor- ing of environmental, economic, and social factors with the
mances fundamentally influence the success or failure a sup- aim of preventing the waste of resources and improving the
ply chain, supplier selection is recognized as a strategic duty quality of current life along with preserving the quality of
(Sarwar et al. 2017). Two important reasons increasing the the next generations’ lives (Erdoğan and Namlı 2019). Due
significance of the supplier selection issue are that in many to the increase in preserving the environment and the aware-
organizations, the cost of the material and the purchased ness of social occupations, this concept has turned into a
goods are more than 60% of the cost of the sold goods (Bur- necessary philosophy for several industrial sectors (Haider
ton 1988), and also over 50% of the total qualitative defects et al. 2019). Economic aspects such as cost reduction are
may be attributed to the purchased material (Lascelles and emphasized in designing the supply chain. With the increase
Dale 1989). Different criteria (quantitative and qualitative) in customers’ knowledge about environmental and social
must be taken into consideration when selecting appropriate problems in addition to the stringency of politicians with
suppliers since it is clear that a supplier cannot have the best respect to the mentioned issues, these concepts are gain-
efficiency for all of the selected criteria. Sustainability is ing considerable attention in designing the supply chains
(Amindoust et al. 2012). Therefore, considering the concept
* Seyed Farid Ghannadpour of sustainability in the supply chain has made the supplier
ghannadpour@iust.ac.ir selection problem a challenging subject. Accordingly, the
Ali Reza Hoseini starting point to achieve sustainability in the supply chain
Ali_RezaHoseini@ind.iust.ac.ir is to choose the suppliers based on sustainability principals
Roya Ghamari (Büyüközkan and Çifçi 2011). Choosing inappropriate sup-
roya_ghamari@ind.iust.ac.ir pliers, which lack the three levels of sustainability perfor-
mance, ruins the decent image of a company in the eyes of
1
Department of Industrial Engineering, Iran University the public. Therefore, identifying and signing contracts with
of Science and Technology, Tehran 16846‑13114, Iran
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
A. R. Hoseini et al.
the most appropriate sustainable suppliers play a crucial role information under uncertainty (Zhu et al. 2019). Fuzzy sets
to guarantee success in designing the supply chain (Lee et al. are briefly introduced as follows:
2009). Thus, it is not possible to choose the required supplier
by trial and error, like the past, since the damages resulting Definition 2.1 A fuzzy set A is defined on a universe X and
from inappropriate supplier selection are irreversible. Hence, is indicated as (Zadeh 1965): Eq. (1):
the most desirable supplier has to be chosen by using deci-
sion making approaches and prioritizing the required criteria
A = {⟨x, 𝜇A (x)⟩�x ∈ X} (1)
according to the importance of the organization (Humphreys
et al. 2003). In regards to the fact that the criteria of supply where 𝜇A ∼X → [0, 1] is the membership function A . The
selection evaluation are usually ambiguous, qualitative, and membership value 𝜇A (x) describes the degree of belonging-
oral, multi-criteria decision making approaches can be used ness of x ∈ X in A. Occasionally, the special fuzzy set, e.g.
(Ho et al. 2010). On the one hand, deciding on technical triangular fuzzy number, and trapezoidal fuzzy number are
problems is full of complexity and has various dimensions. used to express the main idea of the experts, we define them
This complexity consists of quantitative and qualitative as follows:
parameters and criteria at the same time, as a result of which
achieving definite and explicit judgments faces difficulties, Definition 2.2 A triangular fuzzy number à can be defined
especially in mental and non-discrete issues. Therefore, by a triplet (a1 , a2 , a3), where the membership can be speci-
human decisions are accompanied by uncertainties (Kang fied as Eq. (2) (Chen 1994):
et al. 2019). Therefore, fuzzy logic is used in these subjects
in order that the method would be more compatible with real ⎧ 0, � �
x ∈ � −∞, a�1
situations. In this way, the approach would further reflect ⎪ x−a1
⎪ 2 −a1 , x ∈ a1 , a2
the opinions of experts apart from dealing with the exist- 𝜇Ã (x) = ⎨ ac−x � � (2)
ing restrictions of these types of problems (Joshi 2019) On ⎪ a3 −a2 , x ∈ a2 , a3
� �
the other hand, considering the possibility and uncertainty ⎪ 0, x ∈ a3 , +∞
⎩
of fuzzy numbers is crucial for making the model as close
to reality as possible (Qiao et al. 2019). Z-number (Zadeh Similarly, we can define trapezoidal fuzzy number as
2011) is an extension of fuzzy sets that involves probability below:
levels in fuzzy numbers since experts’ judgments and lin-
guistic expressions always include uncertainties (Hendiani Definition 2.3( A trapezoidal ) fuzzy number A is defined by
̃
and Bagherpour 2019b). a quadruplet a1 , a2 , a3 , a4 , where the membership can be
Therefore, the innovations of this article are: specified as Eq. (3) AND Fig. 1 (Wang et al. 2006):
2 Literature review
2.1 Fuzzy set
13
Sustainable supplier selection by a new possibilistic hierarchical model in the context of…
The notion of Z-numbers defined in (Zadeh 2011) is mostly Kahraman (2003) there has been a large number of stud-
used to model uncertain information; and is different from ies relating to the supply selection so far. The focus of this
what proposed by (Mahler 1968) as Z-number. Their innate article is on selecting the supplier considering fuzzy logic
meaning and definition is indicated below: Eq. (4): because noting possibilities in linguistic variables is needed
( ) to get closer to reality and better decision making. (Chen
Z = (A, B) = Z + A, 𝜇A .pXA is B (4) et al. 2006) represent a multiple-criteria decision-making
(MCDM) method regarding economic criteria and Fuzzy-
This definition states that for an arbitrary variable XA, if
sets theory. A Fuzzy TOPSIS was applied, and it was shown
Z is an indicator of a Z +-number (Zadeh 2011), where pXA
+
that the proposed method is an appropriate tool for deci-
is the probability of random variable XA for fuzzy set A. the
sion making. A Fuzzy Technique for Order of Preference
membership function of fuzzy set A is denoted as 𝜇A (x), such
by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) was applied, and
that x ∈ XA and x ∈ R, where R is the real value domain, the
it was shown that the proposed method is an appropriate tool
membership function of fuzzy set B is denoted as 𝜇B (x), such
for decision making. (Shemshadi et al. 2011) set to solve the
that x ∈ XB and x ∈ R, in which R is the(real value domain.
Furthermore, 𝜇A ⋅ pXA is B indicates 𝜇B ∫ 𝜇A (x).pXA (x)dx .
) supplier selection problem via the Multi-criteria Optimiza-
tion and Compromise Solution (VIKOR) in a fuzzy envi-
If XA is chosen arbitrary, the notion of Z-number will be
ronment based on Shannon entropy notion, and finally, the
explicated as Eq. (5):
application of the presented framework was shown through
( )
Z = Z + A, 𝜇A ⋅ pXA is B (5) a numerical illustration. (Chang et al. 2011) tried to find
critical factors to choose and evaluate the suppliers by Fuzzy
A simple Z-number is shown in Fig. 2. A number of pro- decision making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMA-
found works have been investigated relying on the above TEL) and then by using questionnaires applied the arrayed
definition of Z-numbers like: the Z-number Extension of method for the electronic industry. The results showed that
Best–Worst method (ZBWM) for supplier assessment the continuous delivery of goods has the most influence on
(Aboutorab et al. 2018), combination of Z-numbers and other factors. (Dursun and Karsak 2013) worked on multi-
Bayesian decision theory (Marhamati et al. 2018), using criteria decision making using quality function deployment
the Z-number Extension of Multi-criteria Optimization (QFD). They first identify the relevant factors of the sup-
and Compromise Solution (Z-VIKOR) for decision making plier evaluation and then weighted factors via the fuzzy
(Shen and Wang 2018), stochastic multi criteria acceptabil- weighted average (FWA). In the end, the presented method
ity analysis (SMAA) model for decision supporting (Yang was applied to a real supply selection problem. (Öztürk
and Wang 2018), data envelopment analysis (DEA) and neu- and Özçelik 2014) performed the supplier selection prob-
ral network to assess a supply chain stability (Yazdanparast lem considering three aspects of the economy, environment
et al. 2018) and portfolio selection model (Jirofti and Najafi and society, and sustainability and chose the best supplier
2018). for an energy company using the Fuzzy TOPSIS method.
(Mehregan et al. 2014) investigated the interaction and
13
A. R. Hoseini et al.
impacts of the sustainability factors to select the supplier relational analysis (GRA) methods in choosing the supplier
applying interpretive structural modeling (ISM), and Fuzzy for an agri-food sector considering green and economic cri-
DEMATEL then tried it for a case study to show the effi- teria. And the results showed that ranking the suppliers using
ciency of the presented framework. (Galankashi et al. 2015) each of the three methods was the same beside Fuzzy GRA
paid attention to the green criteria and used Fuzzy Analytical has the least complexity in calculations respecting the two
Network Process to evaluate and investigate the significance other methods. (Hendiani and Bagherpour 2019a) proposed
of economic and environmental factors in decision making a framework to select the supplier due to social criteria and
for the supply selection. In recent years, other sustainability identified the significant amount of every social criterion via
criteria like environmental and economic criteria were taken Fuzzy logic and, in the end, presented suggestions for facing
into accounts. There has been considerable attention to other the social barriers, which are in front of the supply selec-
criteria of sustainability in recent years. (Wang Chen et al. tion for construction projects. (Rashidi and Cullinane 2019)
2016) presented a combinational framework consisting of compared the two methods of the Fuzzy DEA and the Fuzzy
Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and Fuzzy TOPSIS TOPSIS for choosing the sustainable supplier and concluded
to select the supplier noting the economic and environmen- that the Fuzzy TOPSIS method performance is better both
tal criteria and applied it for a supplier selection problem in the complexity of the calculations and the sensitivity to
in the Learning Enrichment Foundation (LEF) industry to the number of the suppliers. A brief of the number of papers
show the appropriateness of this decision-making method. worked on the supplier selection field regarding the Fuzzy
(Fallahpour et al. 2017) used questionnaires to find the sus- sets, and the MCDM methods were placed in the Table 1.
tainability indices in economic, environmental, and social Regarding the table of papers abstracts, this paper focuses
dimensions. The efficiency of the questionnaires was evalu- on the Z-numbers hierarchy approach using the sustainabil-
ated by statistical tests, and the factors were weighted by ity criteria. The reason for this approach is to engage prob-
Fuzzy Preference Programming. Then the suppliers of a real abilities to fuzzy opinions of the experts causing the results
case study were ranked and evaluated via the Fuzzy TOPSIS will be close to reality, and there is not a paper with this
method. (Awasthi et al. 2018) selected the sustainable sup- approach to choosing the suppliers.
plier considering the aspects of the triple sustainability cri-
teria and the global risks. Fuzzy AHP-VIKOR method was
presented for this effort. The results showed that the eco- 3 Methodology
nomic criteria have the most weight and importance, and the
global risks have the least ones in choosing the best supplier. The process of the research method is as in Fig. 3.
The latter matter shows that the global risks are not under
great scrutiny in the supplier selection issue. (Banaeian et al.
2018) set to compare Fuzzy TOPSIS, VIKOR, and grey
Table 1 A survey on several papers worked on the supplier selection field
Row References years Fuzzy-approach Sustainability
Environmental Social Economic
13
Sustainable supplier selection by a new possibilistic hierarchical model in the context of…
3.1 Identification of sustainable criteria supplier Regarding probability rules, the complement of the Z is
selection Z’. In effect,
( as an)example, the complement of Z-number
(A, B) is A� , 1 − B or (events in R except A� , 1 − B) (Fig. 4)
In this article, all three economic, environmental, and social The concept of Z +-number which is closely relevant
dimensions have been considered in selecting the suppliers. with the concept of Z-numbers is basically an ordered
First, sub-criteria were identified in every dimension of sus- pair of (A, R) in which A plays the same role that it does in
tainability by reviewing the literature. The criteria of the eco- Z-numbers and R is the probability distribution of a random
nomic dimension were considered to increase the benefits and number (Zadeh 2011).( Furthermore,
) a Z +-number could be
revenues of the organizations by minimizing the costs. Social defined as a pair 𝜇A , pX in which - A plays the role of the
criteria dealt with social problems an organization faces, and membership function of A and px indicates the probability
the environmental criteria is related to issues such as recycling distribution of X . Actually, the difference between Z-number
the materials, using the recyclable materials, and designing and Z +-number is the fact that in Z-numbers, px (probabil-
systems that produce the least possible pollution during the ity distribution) is unknown; however, the probability value
production process, (Gören 2018) researchers have applied of A is recognized (Zadeh 2011). The relations between
several criteria to select suppliers in their studies, most of Z + -number and Z-number are elucidated in Eq. (6) as fol-
which have considered these three dimensions. The sub-cri- lows (Azadeh and Kokabi 2016; Zadeh 2011):
teria which have been addressed and used were chosen, and a ( )
brief description has been presented in Tables 2, 3, 4. Z(A, B) = Z + A, 𝜇A .pX is B (6)
13
A. R. Hoseini et al.
Step 1
Linguistic variables and Linguistic possibilities and Linguistic variables and
corresponding fuzzy sets their corresponding fuzzy corresponding fuzzy sets
)Performance rating( sets )Importance Weights(
Identification of
Sustainable Criteria
Supplier Selection
Supplier Ranking
Step 5
13
Sustainable supplier selection by a new possibilistic hierarchical model in the context of…
Cost Elements of cost related to the purchase, transportation cost, manufacturing cost, ordering cost, inventory cost, and
warehouse cost
Quality Quality certification, inspection and control, rejection amount of the Product, etc
Delivery Delivery delays, delivery reliability, on-time delivery
Service Customer service, time to resolve the problems of customer
Flexibility Flexibility of providing material, price of the provided material, etc
Technology/Capability Technological facilities and development of the supplier, capability of R&D, technological compatibility
Sources Shemshadi et al. (2011), Chen et al. (2006), Mehregan et al. (2014), Banaeian et al. (2018), Fallahpour et al. (2017)
Environmental management systems Environmental certificates, green procedure planning, environmental guide-
lines, environmental performance assessment
Resource consumption Consumption of raw materials, energy and water, using renewable resources
Eco-design The effort of designing a system that decrease the environmentaleffects of
products, recycle of designed goods
Reduce, reuse and recycle Decrease the use of harmful materials, hazardous wastes, waste water, etc.
Sources Fallahpour et al. (2017), Mehregan et al. (2014), Öztürk and Özçelik (2014)
Occupational health and safety Employment quality of health and safety system, providing secure working suites
Employee right and welfare Employees’ contract, work insurance and compensation, overtime payment
Information disclosure Disclosure of information like the materials used, pollutants released during manufacturing, etc
Sources Mehregan et al. (2014), Hendiani and Bagherpour (2019a), Fallahpour et al. (2017), Zhou and Xu (2018)
The indices are summarized and coded and color code for criteria and enabler and Target in Table 5 for ease of work
13
A. R. Hoseini et al.
with a good performance has a high possibility, (good, most Table 7 Linguistic possibilities and their corresponding fuzzy sets
likely) is represented using Tables 6 and 7. (Hendiani and Bagherpour 2019b)
For the rest of the article, we provide a numerical value Linguistic possibilities Corresponding possibilities
for every corresponding possibility relating to each linguistic
possibility using the presented method by (Kang et al. 2012) Unlikely [0.1, 0.2, 0.2, 0.3]
which is shown in Table 8. After using Eq. (8) we apply Fairly impossible [0.3, 0.4, 0.4, 0.5]
Weak [0.4, 0.5, 0.5, 0.6]
these possibilities to the variables in Table 6 and the results
Maybe [0.5,0.6,0.6,0.7]
are formed as Table 9.
Likely [0.7, 0.8, 0.8, 0.9]
Providing the same method for importance weights and
Most likely [0.8, 0.9, 0.9, 1]
using Z numbers resulted in Table 10. These tables are, of
Certainly [1, 1, 1, 1]
course, a basic model to apply the Z numbers for Fuzzy sets,
and the other models can be shown based on the experts’
opinions. After identifying the linguistic variables, fuzzy
criteria can result in each enabler via Eq. (9).
∑� �
Wijk + Pijk �� � 4 An illustrative case
Pij = ∑� � where Wijk = 1 (9)
Wijk
In this section, for further clarification, the presented method
After calculating the values for criteria and enablers, has been applied on a numerical example. In this example,
using the Eq. (9), the Z-sustainability indices and then the 10 suppliers are available, among which the best is selected
total Z-sustainability index is calculated (Fig. 5). based on the 13 criteria in Table 5. Afterwards, for each of
13
Sustainable supplier selection by a new possibilistic hierarchical model in the context of…
Table 8 The centroid of each possibility measure calculated by these criteria, a linguistic description has been made for each
Eq. (7) in order to convert Z-numbers supplier’s performance by 4 decision makers (DMs) using
√ the linguistic variables and probabilities in Tables 6 and 7,
Linguistic possibilities Corresponding possibilities 𝛼 𝛼
and the results have been shown in Tables 11, 12, 13, and
Unlikely (U) [0.1, 0.2, 0.2, 0.3] 0.2 0.447 14. These results have been turned into the Z-numbers in
Fairly impossible (FI) [0.3, 0.4, 0.4, 0.5] 0.4 0.632 Tables 9 and 10 to be mathematically calculable in the next
Weak (W) [0.4, 0.5, 0.5, 0.6] 0.5 0.707 stage to be replaced with the linguistic variables which have
Maybe (M) [0.5,0.6,0.6,0.7] 0.6 0.774 been shown in Table 12 for the decision maker (1). After cal-
Likely (L) [0.7, 0.8, 0.8, 0.9] 0.8 0.894 culating the weights on which the possibilities are applied,
Most likely (ML) [0.8, 0.9, 0.9, 1] 0.9 0.948 the weights relating to criteria and enablers are calculated
Certainly (C) [1, 1, 1, 1] 1 1 using Eq. (9) for all three sustainability dimensions followed
by that for the total z-sustainability index. For example, to
calculate the Fuzzy index of the Social criteria ( Zl3) for DM
(1) and Supplier (1) the following is obtained using Eq. (9):
Table 9 Converted performance Z-numbers with applied possibilities using Eq. (8)
Performance rating
Linguistic variable Corresponding Z-applied set Linguistic variable Corresponding Z-applied set
Worst-unlikely (W, U) [0, 0, 0.447, 0.894] Fair-likely (F, L) [3.576, 4.47, 4.47, 5.364]
Worst-fairly impossible (W, FI) [0, 0, 0.632, 1.264] Fair-most likely (F, ML) [3.792, 4.74, 4.74, 5.688]
Worst-weak (W, W) [0, 0, 0.707, 1.414] Fair-certainly (F, C) [4, 5, 5, 6]
Worst-maybe (W, M) [0, 0, 0.774, 1.548] Good-unlikely (G, U) [2.235, 2.682, 3.129, 3.576]
Worst-likely (W, L) [0, 0, 0.894, 1.788] Good-fairly impossible (G, FI) [3.16, 3.792, 4.424, 5.056]
Worst-most likely (W, ML) [0, 0, 0.948, 1.896] Good-weak (G, W) [3.535, 4.242, 4.949, 5.656]
Worst-certainly (W, C) [0, 0, 1, 2] Good-maybe (G, M) [3.87, 4.644, 5.418, 6.192]
Very poor-unlikely (VP, U) [0.447, 0.894, 0.894, 1.341] Good-likely (G, L) [4.47, 5.364, 6.258, 7.152]
Very poor-fairly impossible (VP, FI) [0.632, 1.264, 1.264, 1.896] Good-most likely (G, ML) [4.74, 5.688, 6.636, 7.584]
Very poor-weak (VP, W) [0.707, 1.414, 1.414, 2.121] Good-certainly (G, C) [5, 6, 7, 8]
Very poor-maybe (VP, M) [0.774, 1.548, 1.548, 2.322] Very good-unlikely (VG, U) [3.129, 3.576, 3.576, 4.023]
Very poor-Likely (VP, L) [0.894, 1.788, 1.788, 2.682] Very good-fairly impossible (VG, FI) [4.424, 5.056, 5.056, 5.688]
Very poor-most likely (VP, ML) [0.948, 1.896, 1.896, 2.844] Very good-weak (VG, W) [4.949, 5.656, 5.656, 6.363]
Very poor-certainly (VP,C) [1, 2, 2, 3] Very good-maybe (VG, M) [5.418, 6.192, 6.192, 6.966]
Poor-unlikely (P,U) [0.894, 1.341, 1.788, 2.235] Very good-likely (VG, L) [6.258, 7.152, 7.152, 8.046]
Poor-fairly impossible (P, FI) [1.264, 1.896, 2.528, 3.16] Very good-most likely (VG, ML) [6.636, 7.584, 7.584, 8.532]
Poor-weak (P, W) [1.414, 2.121, 2.828, 3.535] Very good-certainly (VG, C) [7, 8, 8, 9]
Poor-maybe (P, M) [1.548, 2.322, 3.096, 3.87] Excellent-unlikely (E,U) [3.576, 4.023, 4.47, 4.47]
Poor-likely (P, L) [1.788, 2.682, 3.576, 4.47] Excellent-fairly impossible (E, FI) [5.056, 5.688, 6.32, 6.32]
Poor-most likely (P, ML) [1.896, 2.844, 3.792, 4.74] Excellent-weak (E, W) [5.656, 6.363, 7.07, 7.07]
Poor-certainly (P,C) [2, 3, 4, 5] Excellent-maybe (E,M) [6.192, 6.966, 7.74,7.74]
Fair-unlikely (F, U) [1.788, 2.235, 2.235, 2.682] Excellent-likely (E, L) [7.152, 8.046, 8.94, 8.94]
Fair-fairly impossible (F, FI) [2.528, 3.16, 3.16, 3.792] Excellent-most likely (E,ML) [7.584, 8.532, 9.48, 9.48]
Fair-weak (F, W) [2.828, 3.535, 3.535, 4.242] Excellent-certainly (E, C) [8, 9, 10,10]
Fair-maybe (F, M) [3.096, 3.87, 3.87, 4.644]
13
A. R. Hoseini et al.
Table 10 Converted weights Z-numbers with applied possibilities using Eq. (8)
Importance weights
Linguistic variable Corresponding Z-applied set Linguistic variable Corresponding Z-applied set
Very low-unlikely (V, LU) [0, 0, 0.0447, 0.0894] Medium-likely (M, L) [0.3576, 0.447, 0.447, 0.5364]
Very low-fairly impossible (VL, FI) [0, 0, 0.0632, 0.1264] Medium-most likely (M, ML) [0.3792, 0.474, 0.474, 0.5688]
Very low-weak (VL, W) [0, 0, 0.0707, 0.1414] Medium-certainly (M, C) [0.4, 0.5, 0.5, 0.6]
Very low-maybe (VL, M) [0, 0, 0.0774, 0.1548] Fairly high-unlikely (FH, U) [0.2235, 0.2682, 0.3129, 0.3576]
Very low-likely (VL, L) [0, 0, 0.0894, 0.1788] Fairly high-fairly impossible (FH, [0.316, 0.3792, 0.4424, 0.5056]
FI)
Very low-most likely (VL,ML) [0, 0, 0.0948, 0.1896] Fairly high-weak (FH, W) [0.3535, 0.4242, 0.4949, 0.5656]
Very low-certainly (VL, C) [0, 0, 0.1, 0.2] Fairly high-maybe (FH, M) [0.387, 0.4644, 0.5418, 0.6192]
Low-unlikely (L, U) [0.0447, 0.0894, 0.0894, 0.1341] Fairly high-likely (FH, L) [0.447, 0.5364, 0.6258, 0.7152]
Low-fairly impossible (L, FI) [0.0632, 0.1264, 0.1264, 0.1896] Fairly high-most likely (FH, ML) [0.474, 0.5688, 0.6636, 0.7584]
Low-weak (L, W) [0.0707, 0.1414, 0.1414, 0.2121] Fairly high-certainly (FH, C) [0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8]
Low-maybe (L, M) [0.0774, 0.1548, 0.1548, 0.2322] High-unlikely (H, U) [0.3129, 0.3576, 0.3576, 0.4023]
Low-likely (L, L) [0.0894, 0.1788, 0.1788, 0.2682] High-fairly impossible (H, FI) [0.4424, 0.5056, 0.5056, 0.5688]
Low-most likely(L, ML) [0.0948, 0.1896, 0.1896, 0.2844] High-weak (H, W) [0.4949, 0.5656, 0.5656, 0.6363]
Low-certainly (L, C) [0.1, 0.2, 0.2, 0.3] High-maybe (H, M) [0.5418, 0.6192, 0.6192, 0.6966]
Fairly low-unlikely (FL, U) [0.0894, 0.1341, 0.1788, 0.2235] High-likely (H, L) [0.6258, 0.7152, 0.7152, 0.8046]
Fairly low-fairly impossible (FL, [0.1264, 0.1896, 0.2528, 0.316] High-most likely (H, ML) [0.6636, 0.7584, 0.7584, 0.8532]
FI)
Fairly low-weak (FL, W) [0.1414, 0.2121, 0.2828, 0.3535] High-certainly (H, C) [0.7, 0.8, 0.8, 0.9]
Fairly low-maybe (FL, M) [0.1548, 0.2322, 0.3096, 0.387] Very high-unlikely (VH, U) [0.3576, 0.4023, 0.447, 0.447]
Fairly low-likely (FL, L) [0.1788, 0.2682, 0.3576, 0.447] Very high-fairly impossible (VH, FI) [0.5056, 0.5688, 0.632, 0.632]
Fairly low-most likely (FL, ML) [0.1896, 0.2844, 0.3792, 0.474] Very high-weak (VH, W) [0.5656, 0.6363, 0.707, 0.707]
Fairly low-certainly (FL, C) [0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5] Very high-maybe (VH, M) [0.6192, 0.6966, 0.774, 0.774]
Medium-unlikely (M, U) [0.1788, 0.2235, 0.2235, 0.2682] Very high-likely (VH, L) [0.7152, 0.8046, 0.894, 0.894]
Medium-fairly impossible (M, FI) [0.2528, 0.316, 0.316, 0.3792] Very high-most likely (VH, ML) [0.7584, 0.8532, 0.948, 0.948]
Medium-weak (M, W) [0.2828, 0.3535, 0.3535, 0.4242] Very high-certainly (VH, C) [0.8, 0.9, 1, 1]
Medium-maybe (M, M) [0.3096, 0.387, 0.387, 0.4644]
13
Sustainable supplier selection by a new possibilistic hierarchical model in the context of…
ZI11 (VH,ML) (VG, ML) (VP, ML) (G, W) (E, M) (P, W) (VP, ML) (VG, C) (F, M) (W, U) (VG, ML)
ZI12 (FH,L) (E, FI) (F, ML) (P, W) (G, FI) (VG, C) (P, FI) (VP, U) (G, L) (E, FI) (G, U)
ZI13 (M,L) (F, C) (G, M) (E, FI) (F, M) (VP, FI) (VP, L) (E, M) (W, L) (G, C) (P, U)
ZI1 (VH,ML)
ZI14 (FH,FI) (P, C) (W, U) (F, M) (VG, ML) (E, W) (P, U) (F, ML) (VG, C) (F, ML) (E, W)
ZI15 (FL,W) (G, W) (VP, C) (VG, FI) (E, W) (F, U) (VG, C) (G, L) (VP, U) (E, W) (P, C)
ZI16 (L,U) (F, M) (E, M) (P, ML) (VP, U) (E, C) (E, M) (P, W) (F, L) (VG, C) (F, U)
ZI21 (M,FI) (E, L) (P, U) (G, FI) (VG, FI) (P, U) (VG, M) (VP, C) (E, FI) (P, U) (VP, M)
ZI22 (FH,M) (P, M) (VG, U) (VP, U) (F, ML) (G, U) (E, ML) (G, C) (P, L) (F, C) (VG, FI)
ZI2 (H,L)
ZI23 (H,ML) (VP, FI) (F, M) (VG, L) (P, W) (VG, M) (F, ML) (F, ML) (G, C) (VP, U) (E, ML)
ZI24 (H,C) (VG, L) (E, FI) (VP, C) (VP, U) (VP, L) (G, L) (P, L) (E, ML) (P, FI) (G, M)
ZI31 (FH,ML) (G, FI) (P, ML) (F, ML) (G, ML) (F, FI) (W, M) (VG, ML) (P, W) (VG, U) (VP, C)
ZI3 ZI32 (FH,M) (M,M) (W, FI) (G, FI) (W, M) (P, L) (W, U) (G, C) (E, M) (VP, U) (VP, FI) (F, L)
ZI33 (FH,L) (VP, W) (VG, L) (E, ML) (W, U) (G, FI) (F, ML) (W, W) (VG, M) (G, L) (W, C)
And also, the calculation of the sustainable index for the results attained by DMs is obtained for each supplier.
the first supplier is in the followings (based on the DM1’s The resulting numbers are close to each other and a precise
opinions): conclusion cannot be deduced by comparing them; hence,
The results of these calculations for all ten suppliers are DeFuzzy methods are used for making the attained results
represented in Tables 13 and 14 in a questionnaire filled comparable. In this study, 5 of the most conventional and
by DM1. This operation has been done for all other DMs, useful DeFuzzy methods presented in Table 16 are utilized
and the brief results are placed in Table 15 similarly as (Fig. 8).
the performed calculations for DM1. How to calculate the The attained results from defuzzification have been rep-
Sustainability Z-Index (S ZI) of each Supplier and for each resented in Table 17. As it is observed, the rankings gained
decision-maker in Figs. 6, 7. (Continue to Appendix A). by all these five DeFuzzy methods have the same result such
In order to decide which supplier has had the best per- that S7 > S10 > S4 > S3 > S9 > S1 > S8 > S2 > S5 > S6 the
formance based on the sustainability criteria, the average of diagrams of which have been depicted in the Fig. 9.
13
13
Table 12 The converted Z-numbers substituted with corresponding linguistic terms for DM1
Sustainability Linguistic weights Linguistic performance Criteria
target
Enabler Criteria Enabler Criteria S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10
[0.948, [3.535, [6.192, [1.414, [0.948,
[0.76, 0.85, [6.64, 7.58, [3.096, 3.87, [0, 0, 0.447, [6.64, 7.58,
ZI11 1.896, 1.896, 4.242, 4.949, 6.966, 7.74 2.121, 2.828, 1.896, 1.896, [7, 8, 8, 9]
0.95, 0.95] 7.58, 8.53] 3.87, 4.644] 0.894] 7.58, 8.53]
2.844] 5.656] ,7.74] 3.535] 2.844]
[1.414, [3.16, 3.792, [1.264, [0.447, [4.47, 5.364, [5.056,
[0.72, 0.81, [5.06, 5.69, [3.792, 4.74, [2.24, 2.68,
ZI12 2.121, 2.828, 4.424, [7, 8, 8, 9] 1.896, 2.528, 0.894, 0.894, 6.258, 5.688, 6.32,
0.9, 0.89] 6.32, 6.32] 4.74, 5.688] 3.13, 3.58]
3.535] 5.056] 3.16] 1.341] 7.152] 6.32]
[0.894,
[3.87, 4.644, [5.056, [0.632, [0.894, [6.192,
[0.36, 0.45, [3.096, 3.87, [0, 0, 0.894, 1.341,
ZI13 [4, 5, 5, 6] 5.418, 5.688, 6.32, 1.264, 1.264, 1.788, 1.788, 6.966, 7.74 [5, 6, 7, 8]
0.45, 0.54] 3.87, 4.644] 1.788] 1.788,
6.192] 6.32] 1.896] 2.682] ,7.74]
[0.76, 0.85, 2.235]
ZI1 0.95, 0.95] [6.636, [5.656, [0.894, [5.656,
[0.32, 0.38, [0, 0, 0.447, [3.096, 3.87, [3.792, 4.74, [3.792, 4.74,
ZI14 [2, 3, 4, 5] 7.584, 7.584, 6.363, 7.07, 1.341, 1.788, [7, 8, 8, 9] 6.363, 7.07,
0.44, 0.51] 0.894] 3.87, 4.644] 4.74, 5.688] 4.74, 5.688]
8.532] 7.07] 2.235] 7.07]
[3.535, [4.424, [5.656, [1.788, [4.47, 5.364, [0.447, [5.656,
[0.14, 0.21,
ZI15 4.242, 4.949, [1, 2, 2, 3] 5.056, 5.056, 6.363, 7.07, 2.235, 2.235, [7, 8, 8, 9] 6.258, 0.894, 0.894, 6.363, 7.07, [2, 3, 4, 5]
0.28, 0.35]
5.656] 5.688] 7.07] 2.682] 7.152] 1.341] 7.07]
[1.788,
[6.192, [1.896, [0.447, [6.192, [1.414,
[0.04, 0.09, [3.096, 3.87, [3.576, 4.47, 2.235,
ZI16 6.966, 7.74 2.844, 3.792, 0.894, 0.894, [8, 9, 10 ,10] 6.966, 7.74 2.121, 2.828, [7, 8, 8, 9]
0.09, 0.13] 3.87, 4.644] 4.47, 5.364] 2.235,
,7.74] 4.74] 1.341] ,7.74] 3.535]
2.682]
[0.774,
[7.152, [0.894, [3.16, 3.792, [4.424, [0.894, [5.418, [5.056, [0.894,
[0.25, 0.32, 1.548,
ZI21 8.046, 8.94, 1.341, 1.788, 4.424, 5.056, 5.056, 1.341, 1.788, 6.192, 6.192, [1, 2, 2, 3] 5.688, 6.32, 1.341, 1.788,
index
0.32, 0.38] 1.548,
8.94] 2.235] 5.056] 5.688] 2.235] 6.966] 6.32] 2.235]
2.322]
Z-Sustainability
[4.424,
[1.548, [3.129, [0.447, [2.235, [7.584, [1.788,
[0.39, 0.46, [3.792, 4.74, 5.056,
ZI22 2.322, 3.096, 3.576, 3.576, 0.894, 0.894, 2.682, 3.129, 8.532, 9.48, [5, 6, 7, 8] 2.682, 3.576, [4, 5, 5, 6]
[0.63, 0.72, 0.54, 0.62] 4.74, 5.688] 5.056,
ZI2 3.87] 4.023] 1.341] 3.576] 9.48] 4.47]
0.72, 0.80] 5.688]
[0.632, [6.258, [1.414, [5.418, [0.447, [7.584,
[0.66, 0.76, [3.096, 3.87, [3.792, 4.74, [3.792, 4.74,
ZI23 1.264, 1.264, 7.152, 7.152, 2.121, 2.828, 6.192, 6.192, [5, 6, 7, 8] 0.894, 0.894, 8.532, 9.48,
0.76, 0.85] 3.87, 4.644] 4.74, 5.688] 4.74, 5.688]
1.896] 8.046] 3.535] 6.966] 1.341] 9.48]
[6.258, [5.056, [0.447, [0.894, [4.47, 5.364, [1.788, [7.584, [1.264, [3.87, 4.644,
[0.7, 0.8,
ZI24 7.152, 7.152, 5.688, 6.32, [1, 2, 2, 3] 0.894, 0.894, 1.788, 1.788, 6.258, 2.682, 3.576, 8.532, 9.48, 1.896, 2.528, 5.418,
0.8, 0.9]
8.046] 6.32] 1.341] 2.682] 7.152] 4.47] 9.48] 3.16] 6.192]
[3.16, 3.792, [1.896, [4.74, 5.688, [6.636, [1.414, [3.129,
[0.47, 0.57, [3.792, 4.74, [2.528, 3.16, [0, 0, 0.774,
ZI31 4.424, 2.844, 3.792, 6.636, 7.584, 7.584, 2.121, 2.828, 3.576, 3.576, [1, 2, 2, 3]
0.67, 0.76] 4.74, 5.688] 3.16, 3.792] 1.548]
5.056] 4.74] 7.584] 8.532] 3.535] 4.023]
[3.16, 3.792, [1.788, [6.192, [0.447, [0.632,
[0.39, 0.46, [0.31, 0.39, [0, 0, 0.632, [0, 0, 0.774, [0, 0, 0.447, [3.576, 4.47,
ZI3 ZI32 4.424, 2.682, 3.576, [5, 6, 7, 8] 6.966, 7.74 0.894, 0.894, 1.264, 1.264,
0.54, 0.62] 0.39, 0.46] 1.264] 1.548] 0.894] 4.47, 5.364]
5.056] 4.47] ,7.74] 1.341] 1.896]
[0.707, [6.258, [7.584, [3.16, 3.792, [5.418, [4.47, 5.364,
[0.72, 0.80, [0, 0, 0.447, [3.792, 4.74, [0, 0, 0.707,
ZI33 1.414, 1.414, 7.152, 7.152, 8.532, 9.48, 4.424, 6.192, 6.192, 6.258, [0, 0, 1, 2]
0.89, 0.89] 0.894] 4.74, 5.688] 1.414]
2.121] 8.046] 9.48] 5.056] 6.966] 7.152]
A. R. Hoseini et al.
Sustainable supplier selection by a new possibilistic hierarchical model in the context of…
Table 13 The obtained performance criteria and enabler weights for 10 suppliers by DM1
Sustainability Linguistic weights Linguistic performance Criteria
target
Enabler Enabler S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10
ZI2
5 Discussions and validation has been represented in the Fig. 12, triangular fuzzy sets
consider one point on the highest membership degree which
As it is shown in the Fig. 10, fuzzy numbers are placed results sensitivity in the calculations. Instead, trapezoidal
before Z-numbers when 𝛼 > 1 (“𝛼 ”s are obtained by Eq. (7)) fuzzy sets consider an interval for the highest membership
since the root square of the “𝛼 > 1”s shown in Table 8 are degree, which makes it closer to reality in decision-making.
multiplied by fuzzy numbers resulting in smaller Z-numbers. The findings of this study can help the experts and deci-
Z-numbers and fuzzy numbers are equal when 𝛼 = 1, and the sion makers in the supplier selection in order to choose the
diagrams in Fig. 11 coincide. sustainable supplier considering the probabilities in the lin-
A comparison of the results obtained from the case guistic variables. Furthermore, the presented method can be
where fuzzy numbers are considered without probabilities applied in various industries regarding the experts’ criteria
with the case where Z-numbers are applied is summarized related to the industry. The highlights of this study include
in Table 18. As mentioned, exerting probabilities in fuzzy the following:
numbers leads to more reliable results. When the experts
select the linguistic variables associated with their opin- • Decision makers can use the presented framework for the
ions with high uncertainty, exerting Z-numbers can lead supplier selection considering the sustainability criteria
to different results. Although when linguistic variables are instead of the traditional supplier selection methods. This
selected with high certainty the results from fuzzy numbers is due to the fact that merely considering the traditional
and Z-numbers have no significant differences, it is better economic factors is not enough to choose the appropri-
to use z-numbers for more reliable results since it is never ate supplier nowadays. As such, other criteria such as
pre-determined how much uncertainty exists in the opinions. environmental and social criteria must be taken into con-
The comparison of the results obtained by these two condi- sideration.
tions are presented as the diagrams in Table 18. • This study has proposed the possibilistic linguistic terms
In this article, trapezoidal fuzzy membership function which can make the results more precise. These possibili-
has been used since although triangular membership func- ties come along with two pairs of performance rates and
tions will lead to simpler mathematical calculations, as it importance weights which are selected by the experts.
13
A. R. Hoseini et al.
DM4
[3.21, 3.86, 4.16, 4.70]
Average
• The presented approach can help future studies related current model helps the decision makers achieve more reli-
to Fuzzy sets to achieve more precise results by applying able results which are closer to the real world. Using prob-
Z-numbers in their work. Moreover, it is better for the abilities in the presented model can lead to completely dif-
experts to use the presented method to gain more reliable ferent results, especially when there is ambiguity and high
results due to probabilities in decision making, especially uncertainty in the experts’ opinions. In this article, linguistic
in the conditions where the experts suffer from lack of terms and corresponding fuzzy numbers for each criterion
high certainty when answering the questionnaires. The and suppliers were used by the method presented by (Shem-
experts can represent their opinions about performance shadi et al. 2011) and the Z-numbers have been turned into
rate and weights of attributes using Tables 9 and 10. possibilistic fuzzy sets by applying the method presented by
• The presented method has less complexity in calculations (Kang et al. 2012) in order to obtain a basic model in which
than many conventional decision making methods which, the experts present their opinions about the sustainablity
in turn, will reduce the time spent during the supplier criteria as linguistic variables considering the probability of
selection process. each variable. Findings of this study propose a model that
produces more practical and more reliable results in com-
parison with conventional fuzzy approaches. The implica-
6 Conclusions and further tions of this paper are summarized as the following:
recommendations
• A new method for supplier selection considering the sus-
In this article, a model was presented based on Fuzzy sets tainability criteria was presented in which, by exerting
considering the probabilities to select the supplier consid- probabilities in the experts’ opinions about the indices,
ering the sustainability criteria. Exerting Z-numbers in the
13
Sustainable supplier selection by a new possibilistic hierarchical model in the context of…
Economic Criteria
(Ec.C)
ΣEc.CW
Enabler
(E) =
Economic
Enabler Weight
Economic
Enabler Performance
ΣEn.CP×En.CW
(Ec.EP)
ΣEP×EW
(EW)
ΣEn.CW
Environmental Criteria
Environmental ΣEW Environmental (En.C)
Enabler Weight Enabler Performance
(En.EP) (EW)
Social
Social Enabler Weight
Enabler Performance
(So.EP)
(EW)
Social Criteria
(So.C)
ΣSo.CP×So.CW
=
ΣSo.CW
Sustainability Z-Index
(S ZI)
more logical and more precise results can be obtained results of the suppliers’ ranking were represented based
than by the conventional fuzzy models. on their performances in each sustainability dimension.
• In this article, trapezoidal fuzzy membership function • Finally, the mean value of the output weights for all 10
was used instead of triangular fuzzy set. suppliers were defuzzified by a number of most famous
• The presented method was applied in a numerical exam- and practical Defuzzy methods, and it was observed that
ple consisting of 10 suppliers and 13 sustainability cri- the resulted ranking from all methods lead to the same
teria attained by reviewing the literature so that the pre- findings.
sented model would be explained more explicitly, and the
13
A. R. Hoseini et al.
Z-Value Criteria
For Environmental Resource Consumption
Reduce, Reuse And Recycle
Aspect
Supplier
Z-Sustainability
Z-Value Criteria
For Social Aspect Technology Capability Z-Value Criteria For
Economic Aspect
Information Disclosure Delivery
Flexibility
Y2 (A) = ∫ M A𝛼 d𝛼
5 Yager’s approaches hgt(A) ( ) Yager (1979)
0
13
Sustainable supplier selection by a new possibilistic hierarchical model in the context of…
Defuzzy
2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Supplier
Fig. 9 Comparison of rankings Comparison of results using Fuzzy sets and Z-numbers
using Fuzzy sets and Z-numbers
12
10 10
9 9
8 8 8
Ranking
7 7
6 6 6
5 5
4 4 4
3 3
2 2
1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Supplier
Fuzzy numbers Z_numbers
13
A. R. Hoseini et al.
Table 18 Comparison of results Supplier Fuzzy DeFuzzy Ranking Z-number DeFuzzy Ranking
using fuzzy sets and Z-numbers
S1 [4.14, 5.01, 5.46, 6.20] 5.232 5 [3.21, 3.86, 4.16, 4.70] 4.009 6
S2 [3.60, 4.54, 4.97, 5.97] 4.753 9 [2.90, 3.66, 4.0, 4.8] 3.8315 8
S3 [4.08, 4.97, 5.61, 6.46] 5.29 3 [3.13, 3.87, 4.37, 5.05] 4.1235 4
S4 [4.03, 4.92, 5.48, 6.28] 5.2005 6 [3.25, 3.96, 4.41, 5.04] 4.1865 3
S5 [3.93, 4.82, 5.41, 6.23] 5.1135 7 [2.92, 3.56, 3.97, 4.57] 3.7655 9
S6 [3.46, 4.41, 4.89, 5.87] 4.649 10 [2.73, 3.49, 3.88, 4.67] 3.684 10
S7 [4.36, 5.28, 5.80, 6.65] 5.5355 1 [3.47, 4.18, 4.56, 5.23] 4.3725 1
S8 [3.84, 4.76, 5.14, 6.09] 4.952 8 [3.08, 3.79, 4.09, 4.82] 3.937 7
S9 [4.01, 4.93, 5.57, 6.34] 5.252 4 [3.11, 3.84, 4.34, 4.93] 4.0885 5
S10 [4.12, 5.03, 5.60, 6.45] 5.317 2 [3.30, 4.03, 4.51, 5.20] 4.269 2
13
Sustainable supplier selection by a new possibilistic hierarchical model in the context of…
Appendix
See Tables 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30.
ZI11 (VH, ML) (E, W) (VP, C) (G, L) (F, ML) (P, U) (VP, FI) (VG, C) (VP, ML) (G, L) (F, L)
ZI12 (FH, L) (VG, W) (W, M) (P, C) (G, M) (E, U) (P, C) (F, W) (VG, ML) (E, ML) (P, ML)
ZI13 (M, L) (P, C) (F, U) (VP, M) (E, L) (F, C) (VP, ML) (P, M) (G, L) (P, ML) (W, C)
ZI1 (VH, ML)
ZI14 (FH, FI) (G, W) (E, L) (G, W) (P, U) (G, M) (P, ML) (VG, U) (VG, C) (VP, C) (G, L)
ZI15 (FL, W) (E, U) (VP, L) (VG, ML) (G, U) (VG, ML) (F, W) (VP, M) (VP, L) (VG, M) (VP, M)
ZI16 (L, U) (F, L) (G, FI) (F, ML) (E, C) (VP, W) (VG, ML) (G, ML) (E, ML) (G, C) (VG, W)
ZI21 (M, FI) (P, L) (VG, L) (G, L) (VG, W) (F, ML) (G, U) (VP, W) (VG, W) (VG, W) (F, FI)
ZI22 (FH, M) (VG, ML) (P, C) (W, ML) (F, ML) (F, W) (VG, M) (P, ML) (G, W) (W, U) (E, U
ZI2 (H, L)
ZI23 (H, ML) (G, U) (F, C) (E, L) (VG, ML) (W, FI) (F, C) (E, C) (F, M) (F, U) (P, C)
ZI24 (H, C) (F, L) (E, L) (P, L) (VP, C) (G, U) (G, FI) (G, L) (P, U) (E, FI) (VP, L)
ZI31 (FH, ML) (VP, W) (VG, C) (F, U) (P, FI) (VP, W) (W, W) (F, W) (W, FI) (P, C) (VG, W)
ZI3 ZI32 (FH, M) (M, M) (W, M) (G, M) (VG, ML) (W, L) (P, FI) (G, U) (W, ML) (F, W) (VP, FI) (G, C)
ZI33 (FH, L) (VP, C) (P, C) (VP, C) (VP, L) (VP, FI) (E, C) (E, M) (P, U) (F, W) (E, L)
ZI11 (VH, ML) (F, W) (VG, ML) (VP, U) (P, M) (E, L) (W, M) (F, M) (VP, FI) (P, ML) (G, ML)
ZI12 (FH, L) (VG, L) (VP, ML) (G, M) (E, L) (P, W) (F, M) (G, U) (VG, FI) (VP, FI) (F, W)
ZI13 (M, L) (E, U) (VG, FI) (VG, M) (G, M) (W, FI) (P, W) (VP, FI) (F, FI) (VG, ML) (E, FI)
ZI1 (VH, ML)
ZI14 (FH, FI) (P, C) (W, L) (G, C) (E, C) (P, FI) (G, W) (F, U) (P, FI) (G, W) (VG, FI)
ZI15 (FL, W) (VG, FI) (P, L) (F, U) (P, ML) (E, ML) (F, ML) (VG, M) (G, L) (VG, L) (G, ML)
ZI16 (L, U) (G, W) (G, C) (E, W) (F, C) (F, U) (G, FI) (VP, C) (E, L) (W, W) (E, M)
ZI21 (M, FI) (E, U) (F, L) (VP, C) (VG, U) (VP, ML) (E, W) (G, U) (VG, U) (F, M) (P, L)
ZI22 (FH, M) (P, U) (E, ML) (VG, W) (F, M) (G, M) (VG, W) (P, U) (E, C) (G, U) (F, M)
ZI2 (H, L)
ZI23 (H, ML) (F, L) (G, W) (P, L) (G, C) (VG, ML) (VP, ML) (E, C) (G, L) (P, M) (VP, M)
ZI24 (H, C) (G, FI) (VP, ML) (F, M) (VG, U) (F, M) (P, W) (W, FI) (F, C) (E, FI) (W, FI)
ZI31 (FH, ML) (VP, U) (P, ML) (E, L) (VP, C) (G, ML) (VG, W) (E, ML) (P, FI) (F, M) (VG, ML)
ZI3 ZI32 (FH, M) (M, M) (W, M) (F, ML) (P, ML) (W, C) (VG, M) (E, M) (P, ML) (VP, ML) (VP, L) (P, L)
ZI33 (FH, L) (VP, C) (E, ML) (W, L) (VP, L) (VP, U) (VP, M) (VG, FI) (W, M) (E, L) (VP, ML)
13
A. R. Hoseini et al.
ZI11 (VH, ML) (VG, L) (W, U) (P, M) (VP, W) (W, L) (VG, L) (VP, L) (W, M) (E, FI) (E, ML)
ZI12 (FH, L) (P, FI) (VP, M) (E, W) (F, ML) (VG, W) (VP, ML) (F, U) (VP, U) (G, W) (W, ML)
ZI13 (M, L) (G, U) (P, L) (VP, C) (VP, M) (P, L) (E, L) (VG, W) (F, ML) (VG, M) (VP, U)
ZI1 (VH, ML)
ZI14 (FH, FI) (E, FI) (VG, M) (F, M) (VG, M) (G, U) (E, ML) (P, C) (G, FI) (P, FI) (G, W)
ZI15 (FL, W) (VG, FI) (E, M) (VP, ML) (G, W) (VP, FI) (G, ML) (VP, U) (P, ML) (E, M) (P, W)
ZI16 (L, U) (F, C) (F, ML) (VG, U) (F, ML) (E, ML) (F, U) (F, M) (G, C) (G, W) (E, C)
ZI21 (M, FI) (G, FI) (VG, C) (F, W) (P, W) (G, C) (P, L) (E, FI) (P, M) (VG, L) (F, W)
ZI22 (FH, M) (VP, L) (E, ML) (G, ML) (VG, W) (E, C) (VG, C) (G, FI) (VG, L) (VP, L) (G, M)
ZI2 (H, L)
ZI23 (H, ML) (E, M) (G, U) (W, M) (G, C) (VG, M) (G, U) (W, C) (E, C) (F, ML) (VP, L)
ZI24 (H, C) (F, FI) (P, W) (VG, C) (E, L) (F, U) (P, ML) (G, M) (F, FI) (VP, L) (VG, L)
ZI31 (FH, ML) (W, FI) (G, W) (P, W) (P, M) (P, M) (F, M) (E, W) (VG, ML) (P, M) (F, W)
ZI3 ZI32 (FH, M) (M, M) (VP, FI) (F, M) (G, W) (E, U) (VP, FI) (VP, C) (P, M) (E, FI) (W, L) (P, L)
ZI33 (FH, L) (P, W) (VP, U) (E, U) (W, L) (F, ML) (W, L) (VG, L) (VP, C) (F, C) (VG, FI)
13
Table 22 The converted Z-numbers substituted with corresponding linguistic terms for DM2
[0.76, 0.85, [5.656,6.363, [4.47,5.364,6. [3.792,4.74,4. [0.894,1.341, [0.632,1.264, [0.948,1.896, [4.47,5.364,6. [3.576,4.47,4.
ZI11 [1,2,2,3] [7,8,8,9]
0.95, 0.95] 7.07,7.07] 258,7.152] 74,5.688] 1.788,2.235] 1.264,1.896] 1.896,2.844] 258,7.152] 47,5.364]
[0.72, 0.81, [4.949,5.656, [0,0,0.774,1.5 [3.87,4.644,5. [3.576,4.023, [2.828,3.535, [6.636,7.584, [7.584,8.532, [1.896,2.844,
ZI12 [2,3,4,5] [2,3,4,5]
0.9, 0.89] 5.656,6.363] 48] 418,6.192] 4.47,4.47] 3.535,4.242] 7.584,8.532] 9.48,9.48] 3.792,4.74]
[0.14, 0.21, [3.576,4.023, [0.894,1.788, [6.636,7.584, [2.235,2.682, [6.636,7.584, [2.828,3.535, [0.774,1.548, [0.894,1.788, [5.418,6.192, [0.774,1.548,
ZI15 0.28, 0.35] 4.47,4.47] 1.788,2.682] 7.584,8.532] 3.129,3.576] 7.584,8.532] 3.535,4.242] 1.548,2.322] 1.788,2.682] 6.192,6.966] 1.548,2.322]
[0.04, 0.09, [3.576,4.47,4. [3.16,3.792,4. [3.792,4.74,4. [0.707,1.414, [6.636,7.584, [4.74,5.688,6. [7.584,8.532, [4.949,5.656,
ZI16 [8,9,10,10] [5,6,7,8]
0.09, 0.13] 47,5.364] 424,5.056] 74,5.688] 1.414,2.121] 7.584,8.532] 636,7.584] 9.48,9.48] 5.656,6.363]
[0.25, 0.32, [1.788,2.682, [6.258,7.152, [4.47,5.364,6. [4.949,5.656, [3.792,4.74,4. [2.235,2.682, [0.707,1.414, [4.949,5.656, [4.949,5.656, [2.528,3.16,3.
ZI21 0.32, 0.38] 3.576,4.47] 7.152,8.046] 258,7.152] 5.656,6.363] 74,5.688] 3.129,3.576] 1.414,2.121] 5.656,6.363] 5.656,6.363] 16,3.792]
index
Sustainable supplier selection by a new possibilistic hierarchical model in the context of…
[0.39, 0.46, [6.636,7.584, [0,0,0.948,1.8 [3.792,4.74,4. [2.828,3.535, [5.418,6.192, [1.896,2.844, [3.535,4.242, [0,0,0.447,0.8 [3.576,4.023,
Z-Sustainability
ZI22 [2,3,4,5]
0.54, 0.62] 7.584,8.532] 96] 74,5.688] 3.535,4.242] 6.192,6.966] 3.792,4.74] 4.949,5.656] 94] 4.47,4.47]
[0.63, 0.72,
ZI2 0.72, 0.80]
[0.66, 0.76, [2.235,2.682, [7.152,8.046, [6.636,7.584, [0,0,0.632,1.2 [3.096,3.87,3. [1.788,2.235,
ZI23 [4,5,5,6] [4,5,5,6] [8,9,10,10] [2,3,4,5]
0.76, 0.85] 3.129,3.576] 8.94,8.94] 7.584,8.532] 64] 87,4.644] 2.235,2.682]
[0.7, 0.8, [3.576,4.47,4. [7.152,8.046, [1.788,2.682, [2.235,2.682, [3.16,3.792,4. [4.47,5.364,6. [0.894,1.341, [5.056,5.688, [0.894,1.788,
ZI24 [1,2,2,3]
0.8, 0.9] 47,5.364] 8.94,8.94] 3.576,4.47] 3.129,3.576] 424,5.056] 258,7.152] 1.788,2.235] 6.32,6.32] 1.788,2.682]
[0.47, 0.57, [0.707,1.414, [1.788,2.235, [1.264,1.896, [0.707,1.414, [0,0,0.707,1.4 [2.828,3.535, [0,0,0.632,1.2 [4.949,5.656,
ZI31 [7,8,8,9] [2,3,4,5]
0.67, 0.76] 1.414,2.121] 2.235,2.682] 2.528,3.16] 1.414,2.121] 14] 3.535,4.242] 64] 5.656,6.363]
[0.39, 0.46, [0.31, 0.39, [0,0,0.774,1.5 [3.87,4.644,5. [6.636,7.584, [0,0,0.894,1.7 [1.264,1.896, [2.235,2.682, [0,0,0.948,1.8 [2.828,3.535, [0.632,1.264,
ZI3 ZI32 [5,6,7,8]
0.54, 0.62] 0.39, 0.46] 48] 418,6.192] 7.584,8.532] 88] 2.528,3.16] 3.129,3.576] 96] 3.535,4.242] 1.264,1.896]
13
13
Table 23 The converted Z-numbers substituted with corresponding linguistic terms for DM3
[0.76, 0.85, [2.828,3.535, [6.636,7.584, [0.447,0.894, [1.548,2.322, [7.152,8.046, [0,0,0.774,1.5 [3.096,3.87,3. [0.632,1.264, [1.896,2.844, [4.74,5.688,6.
ZI11 0.95, 0.95] 3.535,4.242] 7.584,8.532] 0.894,1.341] 3.096,3.87] 8.94,8.94] 48] 87,4.644] 1.264,1.896] 3.792,4.74] 636,7.584]
[0.72, 0.81, [6.258,7.152, [0.948,1.896, [3.87,4.644,5. [7.152,8.046, [1.414,2.121, [3.096,3.87,3. [2.235,2.682, [4.424,5.056, [0.632,1.264, [2.828,3.535,
ZI12 0.9, 0.89] 7.152,8.046] 1.896,2.844] 418,6.192] 8.94,8.94] 2.828,3.535] 87,4.644] 3.129,3.576] 5.056,5.688] 1.264,1.896] 3.535,4.242]
[0.36, 0.45, [3.576,4.023, [4.424,5.056, [5.418,6.192, [3.87,4.644,5. [0,0,0.632,1.2 [1.414,2.121, [0.632,1.264, [2.528,3.16,3. [6.636,7.584, [5.056,5.688,
ZI13 0.45, 0.54] 4.47,4.47] 5.056,5.688] 6.192,6.966] 418,6.192] 64] 2.828,3.535] 1.264,1.896] 16,3.792] 7.584,8.532] 6.32,6.32]
[0.76, 0.85,
ZI1 0.95, 0.95]
[0.32, 0.38, [0,0,0.894,1.7 [1.264,1.896, [3.535,4.242, [1.788,2.235, [1.264,1.896, [3.535,4.242, [4.424,5.056,
ZI14 [2,3,4,5] [5,6,7,8] [8,9,10,10]
0.44, 0.51] 88] 2.528,3.16] 4.949,5.656] 2.235,2.682] 2.528,3.16] 4.949,5.656] 5.056,5.688]
[0.14, 0.21, [4.424,5.056, [1.788,2.682, [1.788,2.235, [1.896,2.844, [7.584,8.532, [3.792,4.74,4. [5.418,6.192, [4.47,5.364,6. [6.258,7.152, [4.74,5.688,6.
ZI15 0.28, 0.35] 5.056,5.688] 3.576,4.47] 2.235,2.682] 3.792,4.74] 9.48,9.48] 74,5.688] 6.192,6.966] 258,7.152] 7.152,8.046] 636,7.584]
[0.25, 0.32, [3.576,4.023, [3.576,4.47,4. [3.129,3.576, [0.948,1.896, [5.656,6.363, [2.235,2.682, [3.129,3.576, [3.096,3.87,3. [1.788,2.682,
ZI21 [1,2,2,3]
0.32, 0.38] 4.47,4.47] 47,5.364] 3.576,4.023] 1.896,2.844] 7.07,7.07] 3.129,3.576] 3.576,4.023] 87,4.644] 3.576,4.47]
index
[0.39, 0.46, [0.894,1.341, [7.584,8.532, [4.949,5.656, [3.096,3.87,3. [3.87,4.644,5. [4.949,5.656, [0.894,1.341, [2.235,2.682, [3.096,3.87,3.
Z-Sustainability
ZI22 [8,9,10,10]
0.54, 0.62] 1.788,2.235] 9.48,9.48] 5.656,6.363] 87,4.644] 418,6.192] 5.656,6.363] 1.788,2.235] 3.129,3.576] 87,4.644]
[0.63, 0.72,
ZI2 0.72, 0.80]
[0.66, 0.76, [3.576,4.47,4. [3.535,4.242, [1.788,2.682, [6.636,7.584, [0.948,1.896, [4.47,5.364,6. [1.548,2.322, [0.774,1.548,
ZI23 [5,6,7,8] [8,9,10,10]
0.76, 0.85] 47,5.364] 4.949,5.656] 3.576,4.47] 7.584,8.532] 1.896,2.844] 258,7.152] 3.096,3.87] 1.548,2.322]
[0.7, 0.8, [3.16,3.792,4. [0.948,1.896, [3.096,3.87,3. [3.129,3.576, [3.096,3.87,3. [1.414,2.121, [0,0,0.632,1.2 [5.056,5.688, [0,0,0.632,1.2
ZI24 [4,5,5,6]
0.8, 0.9] 424,5.056] 1.896,2.844] 87,4.644] 3.576,4.023] 87,4.644] 2.828,3.535] 64] 6.32,6.32] 64]
[0.47, 0.57, [0.447,0.894, [1.896,2.844, [7.152,8.046, [4.74,5.688,6. [4.949,5.656, [7.584,8.532, [1.264,1.896, [3.096,3.87,3. [6.636,7.584,
ZI31 [1,2,2,3]
0.67, 0.76] 0.894,1.341] 3.792,4.74] 8.94,8.94] 636,7.584] 5.656,6.363] 9.48,9.48] 2.528,3.16] 87,4.644] 7.584,8.532]
[0.39, 0.46, [0.31, 0.39, [0,0,0.774,1.5 [3.792,4.74,4. [1.896,2.844, [5.418,6.192, [6.192,6.966, [1.896,2.844, [0.948,1.896, [0.894,1.788, [1.788,2.682,
ZI3 ZI32 [0,0,1,2]
0.54, 0.62] 0.39, 0.46] 48] 74,5.688] 3.792,4.74] 6.192,6.966] 7.74,7.74] 3.792,4.74] 1.896,2.844] 1.788,2.682] 3.576,4.47]
[0.72, 0.80, [7.584,8.532, [0,0,0.894,1.7 [0.894,1.788, [0.447,0.894, [0.774,1.548, [4.424,5.056, [0,0,0.774,1.5 [7.152,8.046, [0.948,1.896,
ZI33 [1,2,2,3]
0.89, 0.89] 9.48,9.48] 88] 1.788,2.682] 0.894,1.341] 1.548,2.322] 5.056,5.688] 48] 8.94,8.94] 1.896,2.844]
A. R. Hoseini et al.
Table 24 The converted Z-numbers substituted with corresponding linguistic terms for DM4
[0.76, 0.85, [6.258,7.152, [0,0,0.447,0.8 [1.548,2.322, [0.707,1.414, [0,0,0.894,1.7 [6.258,7.152, [0.894,1.788, [0,0,0.774,1.5 [5.056,5.688, [7.584,8.532,
ZI11 0.95, 0.95] 7.152,8.046] 94] 3.096,3.87] 1.414,2.121] 88] 7.152,8.046] 1.788,2.682] 48] 6.32,6.32] 9.48,9.48]
[0.72, 0.81, [1.264,1.896, [0.774,1.548, [5.656,6.363, [3.792,4.74,4. [4.949,5.656, [0.948,1.896, [1.788,2.235, [0.447,0.894, [3.535,4.242, [0,0,0.948,1.8
ZI12 0.9, 0.89] 2.528,3.16] 1.548,2.322] 7.07,7.07] 74,5.688] 5.656,6.363] 1.896,2.844] 2.235,2.682] 0.894,1.341] 4.949,5.656] 96]
[0.36, 0.45, [2.235,2.682, [1.788,2.682, [0.774,1.548, [1.788,2.682, [7.152,8.046, [4.949,5.656, [3.792,4.74,4. [5.418,6.192, [0.447,0.894,
ZI13 [1,2,2,3]
0.45, 0.54] 3.129,3.576] 3.576,4.47] 1.548,2.322] 3.576,4.47] 8.94,8.94] 5.656,6.363] 74,5.688] 6.192,6.966] 0.894,1.341]
[0.76, 0.85,
ZI1 0.95, 0.95]
[0.32, 0.38, [5.056,5.688, [5.418,6.192, [3.096,3.87,3. [5.418,6.192, [2.235,2.682, [7.584,8.532, [3.16,3.792,4. [1.264,1.896, [3.535,4.242,
ZI14 [2,3,4,5]
0.44, 0.51] 6.32,6.32] 6.192,6.966] 87,4.644] 6.192,6.966] 3.129,3.576] 9.48,9.48] 424,5.056] 2.528,3.16] 4.949,5.656]
[0.14, 0.21, [4.424,5.056, [6.192,6.966, [0.948,1.896, [3.535,4.242, [0.632,1.264, [4.74,5.688,6. [0.447,0.894, [1.896,2.844, [6.192,6.966, [1.414,2.121,
ZI15 0.28, 0.35] 5.056,5.688] 7.74,7.74] 1.896,2.844] 4.949,5.656] 1.264,1.896] 636,7.584] 0.894,1.341] 3.792,4.74] 7.74,7.74] 2.828,3.535]
[0.25, 0.32, [3.16,3.792,4. [2.828,3.535, [1.414,2.121, [1.788,2.682, [5.056,5.688, [1.548,2.322, [6.258,7.152, [2.828,3.535,
ZI21 [7,8,8,9] [5,6,7,8]
0.32, 0.38] 424,5.056] 3.535,4.242] 2.828,3.535] 3.576,4.47] 6.32,6.32] 3.096,3.87] 7.152,8.046] 3.535,4.242]
index
Sustainable supplier selection by a new possibilistic hierarchical model in the context of…
[0.39, 0.46, [0.894,1.788, [7.584,8.532, [4.74,5.688,6. [4.949,5.656, [3.16,3.792,4. [6.258,7.152, [0.894,1.788, [3.87,4.644,5.
Z-Sustainability
ZI22 [8,9,10,10] [7,8,8,9]
0.54, 0.62] 1.788,2.682] 9.48,9.48] 636,7.584] 5.656,6.363] 424,5.056] 7.152,8.046] 1.788,2.682] 418,6.192]
[0.63, 0.72,
ZI2 0.72, 0.80]
[0.66, 0.76, [6.192,6.966, [2.235,2.682, [0,0,0.774,1.5 [5.418,6.192, [2.235,2.682, [3.792,4.74,4. [0.894,1.788,
ZI23 [5,6,7,8] [0,0,1,2] [8,9,10,10]
0.76, 0.85] 7.74,7.74] 3.129,3.576] 48] 6.192,6.966] 3.129,3.576] 74,5.688] 1.788,2.682]
[0.7, 0.8, [2.528,3.16,3. [1.414,2.121, [7.152,8.046, [1.788,2.235, [1.896,2.844, [3.87,4.644,5. [2.528,3.16,3. [0.894,1.788, [6.258,7.152,
ZI24 [7,8,8,9]
0.8, 0.9] 16,3.792] 2.828,3.535] 8.94,8.94] 2.235,2.682] 3.792,4.74] 418,6.192] 16,3.792] 1.788,2.682] 7.152,8.046]
[0.47, 0.57, [0,0,0.632,1.2 [3.535,4.242, [1.414,2.121, [1.548,2.322, [1.548,2.322, [3.096,3.87,3. [5.656,6.363, [6.636,7.584, [1.548,2.322, [2.828,3.535,
ZI31 0.67, 0.76] 64] 4.949,5.656] 2.828,3.535] 3.096,3.87] 3.096,3.87] 87,4.644] 7.07,7.07] 7.584,8.532] 3.096,3.87] 3.535,4.242]
[0.39, 0.46, [0.31, 0.39, [0.632,1.264, [3.096,3.87,3. [3.535,4.242, [3.576,4.023, [0.632,1.264, [1.548,2.322, [5.056,5.688, [0,0,0.894,1.7 [1.788,2.682,
ZI3 ZI32 [1,2,2,3]
0.54, 0.62] 0.39, 0.46] 1.264,1.896] 87,4.644] 4.949,5.656] 4.47,4.47] 1.264,1.896] 3.096,3.87] 6.32,6.32] 88] 3.576,4.47]
[0.72, 0.80, [1.414,2.121, [0.447,0.894, [3.576,4.023, [0,0,0.894,1.7 [3.792,4.74,4. [0,0,0.894,1.7 [6.258,7.152, [4.424,5.056,
ZI33 [1,2,2,3] [4,5,5,6]
0.89, 0.89] 2.828,3.535] 0.894,1.341] 4.47,4.47] 88] 74,5.688] 88] 7.152,8.046] 5.056,5.688]
13
Z-Sustainability Z-Sustainability
index
target
index
target
13
ZI3
ZI2
ZI1
ZI3
ZI2
ZI1
Enabler
Enabler
Sustainability
Sustainability
[0.39, 0.46, 0.54, 0.62] [0.63, 0.72, 0.72, 0.80] [0.76, 0.85, 0.95, 0.95] [0.39, 0.46, 0.54, 0.62] [0.63, 0.72, 0.72, 0.80] [0.76, 0.85, 0.95, 0.95]
weights
Enabler
weights
Enabler
Linguistic
Linguistic
S1
S1
[0.62,1.20,1.38,2.09] [2.91,3.56,3.85,4.44] [3.99,4.72,4.96,5.61] [0.70,1.37,1.56,2.37] [3.50,4.27,4.63,5.40] [4.43,5.09,5.61,6.00]
S2
S2
[2.71,3.38,3.86,4.45] [3.20,4.12,4.66,5.42] [3.33,4.08,4.25,5.11] [3.92,4.90,5.25,6.27] [5.21,6.14,6.57,7.30] [1.68,2.32,2.72,3.50]
S3
S3
[3.09,3.74,4.61,5.20] [3.41,4.27,4.88,5.55] [3.06,3.80,4.13,4.89] [2.26,3.02,3.14,3.91] [3.60,4.29,4.77,5.42] [3.14,4.07,4.82,5.68]
S4
S4
[1.47,2.22,2.35,3.21] [2.86,3.48,3.78,4.54] [4.56,5.38,6.22,6.68] [2.53,3.21,3.84,4.37] [3.02,3.77,3.96,4.82] [3.92,4.76,5.12,5.77]
S5
S5
[2.62,3.19,3.57,4.44] [4.39,5.23,5.53,6.38] [3.42,4.06,4.92,5.23] Table 26 The obtained performance criteria and enabler weights for 10 suppliers by DM3 [2.56,3.26,3.71,4.14] [1.56,2.07,2.40,3.06] [2.94,3.63,4.06,4.68]
Table 25 The obtained performance criteria and enabler weights for 10 suppliers by DM2
S6
S6
S7
S7
target
(ZI) (ZI) (ZI)
target
target
target
ZI3
ZI2
ZI1
Enabler
S1
S1
S1
[3.04, 3.65, 3.97, 4.472] [2.87, 3.51, 3.72, 4.29] [3.28, 3.95, 4.29, 4.84]
Sustainability
[0.39, 0.46, 0.54, 0.62] [0.63, 0.72, 0.72, 0.80] [0.76, 0.85, 0.95, 0.95]
weights
Enabler
Linguistic
S2
S2
S2
[2.40, 3.12, 3.52, 4.28] [3.15, 3.93, 4.29, 5.04] [3.42, 4.26, 4.59, 5.51]
S1
S3
S3
S3
[3.05, 3.71, 4.2, 4.78] [3.19, 3.95, 4.49, 5.19] [3.11, 3.91, 4.39, 5.13]
S2
S4
S4
S4
[2.93, 3.62, 3.97, 4.67 [3.29, 3.99, 4.48, 5.04] [3.30, 4.06, 4.43, 5.08]
S3
S5
S5
S5
[2.79, 3.44, 3.81, 4.53] [3.59, 4.27, 4.79, 5.41] [2.369, 3.0, 3.43, 3.99]
S5
S6
S6
[3.28, 4.04, 4.45, 5.17] [2.75, 3.51, 3.85, 4.67] [2.33, 3.03, 3.45, 4.20] S6
Table 27 The obtained performance criteria and enabler weights for 10 suppliers by DM4
S7
S7
S7
[3.01, 3.73, 4.18, 4.89] [3.02, 3.67, 4.08, 4.66] [3.76, 4.41, 4.75, 5.34]
Linguistic performance Criteria
S7
S8
S8
S8
[3.22, 3.99, 4.28, 5.17] [2.51, 3.17, 3.46, 4.16] [2.95, 3.64, 3.84, 4.53]
S8
S9
S9
S9
[3.05, 3.75, 4.21, 4.83] [3.13, 3.93, 4.39, 5.06] [3.26, 3.97, 4.51, 5.09]
S9
S10
S10
S10
[3.28, 3.94, 4.39, 5.08] [3.28, 4.033, 4.59, 5.30] [3.14, 3.96, 4.52, 5.33] [3.37,4.04,4.24,4.90] [3.26,4.07,4.29,5.10] [3.25,3.78,4.55,5.00]
S10
13
A. R. Hoseini et al.
13
Sustainable supplier selection by a new possibilistic hierarchical model in the context of…
Wang Chen HM, Chou S-Y, Luu QD, Yu TH-K (2016) A fuzzy neural network for assessment of supply chain resilience: a case
MCDM approach for green supplier selection from the eco- study. Central Eur J Oper Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1010
nomic and environmental aspects. Math Prob Eng. https://doi. 0-018-0596-x
org/10.1155/2016/8097386 Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy Sets. Inf Control 8:338–353
Wang Y-M, Yang J-B, Xu D-L, Chin K-S (2006) On the centroids of Zadeh LA (2011) A note on Z-numbers. Inf Sci 181:2923–2932
fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy Sets Syst 157:919–926 Zhou X, Xu Z (2018) An integrated sustainable supplier selection
Xiao F (2018) A hybrid fuzzy soft sets decision making method in approach based on hybrid information aggregation. Sustainabil-
medical diagnosis IEEE. Access 6:25300–25312 ity 10:2543
Yang Y, Wang J-Q (2018) SMAA-based model for decision aiding Zhu K, Shen J, Yao X (2019) A three-echelon supply chain with asym-
using regret theory in discrete Z-number context. Appl Soft Com- metric information under uncertainty. J Ambient Intell Human
put 65:590–602 Comput 10:579–591
Yager RR (1979) Ranking fuzzy subsets over the unit interval. In:
1978 IEEE conference on decision and control including the Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remainsneutral with regard to
17th symposium on adaptive processes. https://doi.org/10.1109/ jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
CDC.1978.268154
Yazdanparast R, Tavakkoli-Moghaddam R, Heidari R, Aliabadi
L (2018) A hybrid Z-number data envelopment analysis and
13