Expert Systems With Applications 225 (2023) 120119

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Expert Systems With Applications

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eswa

A fuzzy multi-objective decision-making model for global green supplier

selection and order allocation under quantity discounts
Hassan Ali , Jingwen Zhang *
School of Management, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an 710072, PR China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The selection of potential suppliers has recently become a big challenge for the manufacturing industries due to
Global green supplier selection the rapid spread of covid-19 and the escalating frequency of natural calamities such as earthquakes and floods.
Order allocation When decision-makers (DMs) consider quantity discounts from multiple sources, things get much more
Quantity discounts
complicated. Although previous studies have looked at selecting suitable suppliers from economic and envi­
Fuzzy analytical hierarchy process
Multi-objective linear programming
ronmental aspects, no one has considered foreign transportation risks while evaluating the textile industry’s
Fuzzy compromise programming global green suppliers. In this regard, for the first time, this study combines economic and environmental factors
with the foreign transportation risk criterion to develop a holistic model for global green supplier selection and
order allocation (SS&OA) in the textile industry under all-unit quantity discounts. Initially, the fuzzy analytical
hierarchy process (FAHP) method is used to calculate the relative weights of the criteria. Second, a multi-
objective linear programming (MOLP) model is developed to reduce the total procurement cost, quality rejec­
tion rate, delivery lateness rate, greenhouse gas emissions from product procurement, and foreign transportation
risks. Subsequently, the developed MOLP model is transformed into a fuzzy compromise programming (FCP)
model to obtain order allocation quantities among selected suppliers with their offered quantity discount rates. A
real-life case study of the Pakistani textile industry is presented to validate the proposed methodology’s appli­
cability by determining the optimal order allocation quantities among multiple suppliers based on two decision-
making attitudes of DMs (neutral and risk-averse). Finally, sensitivity and comparative analyses are carried out to
guarantee that the proposed technique produces accurate and optimal solutions. The final results of the proposed
methodology show that it can effectively manage data uncertainties during SS&OA compared to other existing
approaches. The suggested integrated methodology’s outcomes can assist the supplier organization in over­
coming its current shortcomings and developing a long-term relationship with the buyer organization.

1. Introduction
Supplier selection has always been a vital task for corporate decision-
makers (DMs) due to the increased reliance on outsourcing multifaceted
services and products as it contributes to creating a successful supply
chain (Ulutaş et al., 2022). Outsourcing the products can assist buyer
enterprises in attaining a competitive edge in the market by concen­
trating on their core competencies (Tavana et al., 2021). However, due
to the competitive global market, identifying competent suppliers has
become one of the most time-consuming tasks for manufacturing orga­
nizations. The cost of raw materials primarily determines the final cost
of a product, and choosing the right supplier can significantly cut pro­
curement costs (Amid et al., 2011; Safaeian et al., 2019; Firouzi &
Jadidi, 2021). The fundamental reason is that, on average, materials
procurement costs account for more than half of a product’s total sales
value (Khan et al., 2018; Chang, 2019), whereas it increases to over 70%
in the case of total production cost (Mina et al., 2021; Altan et al., 2017).
As a result, selecting suitable suppliers can save material procurement
costs, improve customer satisfaction, shorten production lead time, and
boost business competitiveness in the marketplace (Wang & Yang, 2009;
Lamba et al., 2019).
With the increasing environmental awareness among the people and
strict government regulations, manufacturing organizations cannot
disregard emerging ecological concerns if they want to survive in the
global market in the long run (Stević et al., 2020; Shoaib et al., 2022).
The manufacturing industries must implement specific measures to
reduce the environmental impact of their goods (Lee et al., 2009; Altan
et al., 2021; Shoaib et al., 2023). In this regard, organizations are now

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: zhangjingwen@nwpu.edu.cn (J. Zhang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.120119
Received 15 January 2021; Received in revised form 15 March 2023; Accepted 8 April 2023
Available online 19 April 2023
0957-4174/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Ali and J. Zhang
gradually attempting to integrate green practices inside their
manufacturing facilities to enhance their economic and environmental
performances and meet customer expectations (Yan et al., 2021;
Bahadori-Chinibelagh et al., 2022). Interestingly, in recent years, over
30,000 million tons of CO2 emissions and 8.5 million tons of hazardous
substances have been released as industrial waste, leading to an
alarming situation of rising environmental deterioration (Kannan et al.,
2020). Manufacturing enterprises’ direct operational activities account
for about 19% of greenhouse gas emissions. In contrast, indirect oper­
ational activities, such as emissions generated by first-tier suppliers and
other supply chain members, account for the remaining 81% of emis­
sions (Shaw et al., 2012). In this aspect, many companies are attempting
to implement various regulatory checks to ensure that the products and
services provided by their suppliers are of high quality and meet spec­
ified environmental standards (Awasthi et al., 2010; Amiri et al., 2021).
So, selecting a competent green supplier can assist manufacturing firms
in lowering production-related carbon emissions (Fu et al., 2019).
Single-sourcing and multiple-sourcing are the two most prevalent
practices for selecting suppliers in manufacturing organizations (Nasr
et al., 2021; Bektur, 2020). A single supplier meets all of the buyer’s
requirements in single sourcing. On the other hand, multiple sourcing
involves approaching multiple suppliers to fulfill the buyer’s purchasing
orders (Firouzi & Jadidi, 2021; Guneri et al., 2009). Regarding quantity
discounts, the product’s unit cost decreases as the order increases.
Supplier organizations’ most dominant quantity discount schemes
include business volume discounts, incremental discounts, and all-unit
quantity discounts. In business volume discounts, the discounted price
of the products corresponds to the total sales value (Ebrahim et al.,
2009). Likewise, in incremental discounts, the reduced price is applied
to the items inside the price breaks quantity. Different prices are applied
for goods belonging to various price breaks (Ayhan & Kilic, 2015;
Safaeian et al., 2019). Finally, if the buyer’s order exceeds a certain
quantity in all-unit quantity discounts, a reduced price is applied to each
unit beginning from the first (Ayhan & Kilic, 2015; Baek & Kim, 2020).
As the all-unit quantity discounts scheme is widely used and more
prominent in everyday life, this study also considers it while allocating
orders among global green suppliers.
Due to low-cost labor, better product quality, and technical inno­
vation, the selection of global suppliers is fast gaining traction among
manufacturing companies to stay competitive in the marketplace (Chan,
Kumar, Tiwari, Lau, & Choy, 2008; Karasu, Altan, Bekiros, & Ahmad,
2020; Altan & Karasu, 2019). Unfortunately, supply chains are suscep­
tible to disastrous events because suppliers are more prone to inevitable
sources of foreign transportation risks, such as the rapid spread of dis­
eases (covid-19, monkeypox, and malaria) and natural catastrophes
(earthquakes and floods) (Hosseini et al., 2019; Ali et al., 2022). So,
selecting multiple global green suppliers by considering economic,
environmental, and foreign transportation risks criteria under all-unit
quantity discounts is challenging for the organizational DMs as it in­
volves quantitative and qualitative factors. Therefore, the primary goal
of this study is to create a novel integrated mathematical approach that
can (1) assists DMs in distributing orders among the chosen suppliers
under two different decision-making attitudes and (2) increase the ac­
curacy of the decision-making process by lowering the likelihood of
human judgment errors during the global green supplier selection and
order allocation (SS&OA). Our research aims to answer the following
questions:
• What are the most important criteria that need to be considered for
assessing the global green suppliers of a textile industry?
• What is the most efficient way of weighing criteria and selecting
appropriate suppliers when the global supply chain faces un­
certainties due to the prevailing pandemic and natural disasters?
• What is the most viable approach for resolving the developed multi-
objective model in the context of data uncertainty that yields opti­
mum solutions?
2
Expert Systems With Applications 225 (2023) 120119
• What is an efficient way to validate the proposed model’s
applicability?
Various techniques have been employed in prior studies to resolve
the SS&OA problem. These techniques can be mainly classified into
three categories: (1) multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods,
(2) mathematical optimization, and (3) intelligent approaches. MCDM
techniques are the most popular among all categories, which mainly
involve the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) (Sarıçam & Yilmaz,
2022; Ikinci & Tipi, 2022), best-worst method (BWM) (Hosseini et al.,
2022; Darvazeh et al., 2022), the technique for order preference by
similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) (Jiang et al., 2022), and many
more. Whereas the mathematical optimization techniques mainly
include goal programming (GP) (Liu et al., 2022a), linear programming
(LP) (Tao et al., 2021), mixed-integer programming (MIP) (Alfares &
Turnadi, 2018; Emirhüseyinoğlu & Ekici, 2019), and multi-objective
programming (Bektur, 2020; Islam et al., 2021), etc. Finally, in the
case of the third category, the main techniques are support vector
regression (SVR) (Cheng et al., 2020), neural networks (NN) (Quan &
Zhang, 2022; Zhang & Chen, 2022), and expert system (ES) (Yigin et al.,
2007). However, the approaches mentioned above have various benefits
and drawbacks in particular scenarios while solving real-life decision-
making issues. To effectively manage the drawbacks of several ap­
proaches, some researchers offered an integrated methodology in which
numerous techniques are merged to provide improved SS&OA solutions
(Ali et al., 2022; Bektur, 2020). However, most of the integrated
methodologies proposed by previous studies have failed to consider the
data uncertainty element during criteria assessment and order allocation
stages and score qualitative and quantitative factors using a single
numeric value. Due to that, the resulting final solutions are more prone
to human judgment errors. Furthermore, most recent articles have uti­
lized a single or bi-objective optimization model, which offers a single
type of order allocation solution without considering the different
decision-making attitudes of DMs. However, solving the multi-objective
model with two decision-making attitudes (neutral & risk averse) by
incorporating two different aggregation operators to select global green
suppliers has not been addressed in the past literature. Likewise, most
prior studies have utilized the Zimmermann aggregation approach to
discover the multi-objective model’s optimal solution. However, the
major drawback of utilizing the aggregation approach introduced by
Zimmermann (1978) is that the outcomes produced by the “min”
operator reflect the worst case and do not guarantee non-dominated
compromise solutions of the multi-objective model. Finally, the meth­
odologies proposed by prior studies have failed to demonstrate the
supplier organizations’ shortcomings, resulting in many supplier orga­
nizations being unable to obtain future contracts from the buyer orga­
nization. To adequately address the limitations mentioned above, the
main theoretical contributions of the proposed research are as follows:
• We proposed an extended version of the FCP approach that can
effectively overcome the drawbacks of the Zimmermann “min” ag­
gregation operator. In this regard, we combined the FCP technique
with two distinct aggregation operators that are designed to consider
the DMs’ neutral and risk-averse decision-making attitudes during
order allocation. Furthermore, compared to the existing techniques,
the proposed FCP technique provides more efficient non-dominated
solutions to the multi-objective models by maximizing the overall
satisfaction level for each objective function.
• This research combined the fuzzy set theory with the proposed in­
tegrated approach, which utilizes the triangular fuzzy numbers
(TFNs) to manage the inherent uncertainty during decision-making
at both criteria assessment and order allocation stages to enhance
the accuracy of the final solutions.
• Instead of developing a single or bi-objective model which doesn’t
effectively depict the real-life situation, we developed a novel multi-
objective mathematical model to manage the global supply chain
H. Ali and J. Zhang
risks and rising ecological challenges. The developed model also
incorporates the all-unit quantity discounts scheme to lower the total
procurement cost.
On the other hand, the main practical contributions of the proposed
research are as follows:
• For the first time, this research amalgamated the economic, envi­
ronmental, and foreign transportation risk factors to assess the per­
formance of textile industry suppliers. Identifying these essential
criteria will guide the managers of similar manufacturing firms about
which criteria must be considered for selecting global green
suppliers.
• The proposed methodology highlights the existing flaws of the sup­
plier organizations, which can assist them in improving their future
performance.
• We provided a real-life case study of the Pakistani textile industry to
demonstrate our proposed approach’s applicability and to assist the
managers in making wise decisions during global green SS&OA.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 in­
cludes the literature review of the relevant research, knowledge gaps in
the prior studies, and the proposed research’s innovative aspects. Like­
wise, section 3 explains the proposed methodology in detail. Section 4
provides a case study of the textile firm. The solution approach for the
practical case study is demonstrated in Section 5. Section 6 discusses the
results obtained with the proposed methodology’s assistance and high­
lights the flaws of the selected supplier organizations. Likewise, Section
7 includes the sensitivity and comparative analyses of the proposed
methodology to emphasize its robustness. Section 8 highlights the pro­
posed research’s main findings and theoretical and practical implica­
tions. Finally, the conclusion, limitations, and future research directions
are presented in section 9.
2. Literature review
This section presents a brief literature review regarding supplier
selection and order allocation (SS&OA). Initially, the methodologies
used by prior studies are highlighted in detail. Second, the studies in
which the order allocation quantity among selected suppliers is deter­
mined based on various quantity discount schemes are discussed
comprehensively. Finally, the proposed research’s innovative aspects
are emphasized based on the prior studies’ knowledge gaps.
2.1. Supplier selection and order allocation methods
Due to escalating market rivalry and customer expectations, a con­
ventional manufacturing business model cannot meet consumers’ ever-
changing requirements (Ali et al., 2022). Manufacturing enterprises
must adjust their current business strategies and strengthen their supply
chain network to handle the varied customer demands on time (Li et al.,
2020). One of the most critical tasks in enhancing an organization’s
supply chain performance is choosing reliable suppliers to provide the
goods and services required for production on time and within budget
(Baek & Kim, 2020). However, SS&OA has always been challenging for
organizational DMs because of various conflicting quantitative and
qualitative factors. Several researchers have developed various mathe­
matical approaches to select appropriate suppliers under diverse cir­
cumstances during the last few decades to address this problem
adequately. In this regard, Hosseini et al. (2022) utilized an integrated
methodology for selecting sustainable suppliers. The authors initially
applied the best-worst method (BWM) to estimate the weights of the
criteria and the evidential reasoning technique to assess suppliers under
uncertainty. Later, a bi-objective mathematical model was developed to
maximize the total purchase value while minimizing the purchasing
costs during order allocation among selected suppliers. Likewise, You
3
Expert Systems With Applications 225 (2023) 120119
et al. (2020) proposed a new integrated methodology (i.e., double hi­
erarchy hesitant linguistic term sets, decision field theory, and MOLP)
for sustainable SS&OA. Hasan et al. (2020) developed a fuzzy multi-
attribute decision-making framework for identifying resilient suppliers
in a logistics 4.0 context. The authors employed the fuzzy TOPSIS
approach to determine the ranking of the suppliers and a multi-choice
goal programming (MCGP) model for allocating orders among them.
Similarly, in response to the unanticipated and rapid spread of the covid-
19 pandemic, Liu et al. (2022b) proposed the multi-criteria group
decision-making (MCGDM) framework for selecting emergency medical
suppliers.
To efficiently evaluate the sustainable suppliers of the forklift truck
manufacturer in China, Shang et al. (2022) utilized the combination of
different MCDM methods, which mainly include: group BWM (to
calculate the subjective criteria weights), fuzzy Shannon entropy
method (to calculate the objective criteria weights) and fuzzy MULTI­
MOORA method (to determine the final rank of selected suppliers).
Similarly, Kumar et al. (2018) mainly used the analytical hierarchy
process (AHP) and linear physical programming methodology for
SS&OA. However, their suggested methodology has failed to account for
data uncertainty and relied heavily on the DMs’ judgment during sup­
pliers’ assessment, which made their final solutions less accurate. Giri
et al. (2022) developed the Pythagorean-based fuzzy DEMATEL (deci­
sion-making trial and evaluation laboratory) approach to assess the
importance of various sustainable criteria for selecting suitable sup­
pliers. For the SS&OA problem with finite production rate and price-
sensitive demand, Ventura et al. (2021) used a mixed-integer non-
linear programming model. Their proposed model only evaluated the
suppliers based on traditional factors. Moheb-Alizadeh and Handfield
(2019) constructed a multi-product, multi-period, and multi-modal
transportation model for sustainable SS&OA. The authors mainly
implemented three mathematical techniques: the ε-constraint method,
the benders decomposition algorithm, and data envelopment analysis to
determine the order allocation quantity among each selected supplier.
Tang and Yang (2021) proposed the interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy
preference relation (IVPFPR) method to select recycling suppliers of an
e-bike sharing company. Rezaei et al. (2020) integrated the AHP and
FAHP techniques to evaluate lean criteria and suppliers of an automo­
tive company. Later the authors employed a bi-objective mathematical
model for order allocation among the selected suppliers.
To effectively evaluate the green-resilient suppliers of a laboratory
instrumentation original equipment manufacturing company, Moham­
med et al. (2021) utilized the AHP, TOPSIS, and multi-objective pro­
gramming techniques. Their supplier evaluation and order allocation
model mainly relied on a single quantitative value which is impractical
while solving real-life decision-making issues, resulting in less accurate
outcomes due to human judgment errors. Kaur and Singh (2021) sug­
gested a multi-stage hybrid model to resolve the SS&OA problem by
incorporating disruptive risks and technology factors. Their proposed
methodology considered data ambiguity during supplier evaluation but
not during order allocation. Ali et al. (2022) employed the combination
of FAHP, FTOPSIS, and MCGP techniques to select suitable suppliers for
the automotive industry. Although the authors attempted to address the
data uncertainty factor during supplier evaluation, they neglected to
include the quantity discount aspect during order allocation, making
their model less realistic. Tayyab and Sarkar (2021) proposed an inter­
active weighted fuzzy goal programming model for SS&OA under cost,
quality, and time factors. The textile sector was the main focus of their
proposed research. To summarize, none of the aforementioned studies
considers the order allocation solution in terms of two different decision-
making attitudes of DMs, which is the necessity of the current era when
the supply chain network of businesses is suffering from various un­
certainties. So, our proposed study tries to overcome this gap by
providing optimal order allocation solutions in terms of two decision-
making attitudes.
H. Ali and J. Zhang
2.2. Supplier selection and order allocation under quantity discounts
Recent natural catastrophes and infectious diseases have signifi­
cantly influenced several countries’ economies, directly impacting
consumers’ purchasing patterns (Rafigh et al., 2022). Furthermore,
procuring raw materials from suppliers accounts for a significant portion
of the product’s manufacturing cost (Mina et al., 2021). In this regard,
considering quantity discounts can help manufacturing firms lower the
product’s ultimate cost and attract the customers’ attention by providing
them with cost-effective products. As quantity discount is a significant
aspect for any organization to lower procurement-related expenditures,
several authors tried to incorporate different quantity discount schemes
in their suggested methodology. In this regard, Jadidi et al. (2021)
presented a mixed-integer non-linear programming model for joint
pricing and sourcing decision issues with multiple suppliers and quan­
tity discount schemes. The authors used various numerical examples to
demonstrate the practical implications of their suggested work. Like­
wise, Teymouri et al. (2020) used the Taguchi method and genetic al­
gorithm to solve the SS&OA problem under all-unit quantity discounts.
Due to increased atmospheric pollution and unsustainable use of natural
resources, Lakshmanpriya et al. (2022) proposed a multi-item and multi-
period mathematical model for green supplier selection under linear
discount. Chen et al. (2021) developed an integrated methodology for
acquiring automobile components from diverse sources. The authors
first used a combination of data envelopment analysis (DEA) and the
TOPSIS technique to screen prospective suppliers. Subsequently, a fuzzy
mixed-integer programming model with all-unit quantity discounts was
presented to distribute the optimal order quantity among potential
suppliers.
To efficiently manage the timely distribution of relief supplies,
Olanrewaju et al. (2020) proposed a multi-stage stochastic program­
ming model for supplier selection under different agreement terms, such
as the committed supply of the relief, the buffer capacity of the vendors,
and the quantity discount rate. Alegoz and Yapicioglu (2019) presented
a hybrid methodology to address the SS&OA issue that considers qual­
itative and quantitative criteria while accounting for quantity discounts,
lot size, and capacity limitations. Jouida and Krichen (2022) suggested a
collaborative model based on a game-theoretic method and a hybrid
genetic algorithm for choosing competent suppliers within the quantity
discounts environment. Likewise, Klinmalee et al. (2020) utilized the
genetic algorithm to solve a mixed-integer programming model for
supplier selection under quantity discount and lead time constraints.
Their proposed model ignored the data uncertainty factor during order
allocation, rendering the final results untrustworthy. Similarly, Abrish­
ami et al. (2020) proposed a mixed-integer linear programming (MILP)
model for supplier selection and order allocation under quantity
discounts.
For sustainable SS&OA, Shalke et al. (2018) applied a revised multi-
choice goal programming technique to identify the optimal solution for
order allocation under all-unit and incremental quantity discounts.
Manerba and Perboli (2019) resolved the SS&OA problem under total
quantity discounts, activation costs, and demand uncertainty using the
benders algorithm and a progressive hedging-based heuristic approach.
Their proposed model only considered data ambiguity for customers’
demand. Cheraghalipour and Farsad (2018) introduced the best-worst
method and revised multi-choice goal programming methodology for
SS&OA by considering quantity discounts under disruption risks. Their
proposed approach relied heavily on experts’ judgment and failed to
account for the inherent data uncertainty while calculating criteria
weights and suppliers’ performance scores. Likewise, Mohammadi et al.
(2020) utilized the all-unit quantity discounts scheme to solve the multi-
level lot-sizing and scheduling issues in a multi-mode transportation
system with supplier selection. Table 1 further attempts to synthesize
the additional studies on SS&OA to emphasize how our proposed
research differs from the existing studies.
4
Expert Systems With Applications 225 (2023) 120119
2.3. Knowledge gaps and innovative aspects
This section summarizes the significant shortcomings of previous
studies and emphasizes how our proposed research differs from them. In
this regard, the prior studies are summarized as follows:
• To begin with, most of the earlier studies have mainly focused on
selecting suppliers based on economic and environmental aspects,
neglecting the foreign transportation risks factor. As the global
supply chain is facing uncertainties due to the rapid spread of dis­
eases and natural catastrophes, the consideration of foreign trans­
portation risks factor is essential when assessing global green
suppliers of the textile industry, which has not received any attention
in the existing literature.
• Second, most earlier studies have neglected to manage the data un­
certainty element during criteria evaluation and order allocation
stages while solving real-life decision-making issues, which directly
raises the cognitive load of the DMs and leads to less accurate final
solutions owing to human judgment errors.
• Third, since the global supply chain is experiencing diverse chal­
lenges due to the prevailing pandemic, it is critical to consider the
different decision-making attitudes of DMs during order allocation.
However, the methodologies proposed by past studies have only
focused on providing order allocation solutions without considering
the DMs’ different decision-making attitudes, which makes their
proposed methodologies less realistic according to the current
situation.
• Fourth, previous studies have mainly focused on identifying poten­
tial suppliers based on specific criteria. Unfortunately, they neglec­
ted to expose the existing weaknesses of the supplier organizations in
their research, leading them to struggle to secure future prospective
contracts from the buyer organization.
• Finally, to be competitive in the marketplace and satisfy customers’
demand, prior studies have mainly proposed a mathematical opti­
mization model focusing on reducing procurement costs, delivery
lateness rate, quality rejection rate, etc. However, considering rising
environmental concerns due to increased carbon emissions, product
price hikes due to global supply chain disruptions, and risks involved
during foreign transportation of goods is the current need of orga­
nizations to which the prior research hasn’t given much importance.
Based on the shortcomings mentioned above, the main innovative
aspects of the proposed research are as follows:
• For the first time, this study integrated the foreign transportation
risks factor with economic and environmental criteria to provide a
comprehensive supplier selection approach to the managers of the
textile sector.
• This research amalgamated the fuzzy set theory with the proposed
integrated methodology that utilizes the TFNs to manage the data
uncertainty factor during criteria assessment and order allocation
stages. Incorporating the fuzzy set theory with the suggested meth­
odology reduces the cognitive load of the DMs and gives more ac­
curate final solutions to real-life decision-making problems.
• To effectively cope with the organizations’ current needs, this
research proposed the extended version of the FCP model, which
incorporates two different aggregation operators. The aggregation
operators are formulated in such a way that it provides order allo­
cation solutions based on two decision-making attitudes of DMs
(neutral and risk-averse), which offer more options for order allo­
cation to the industrial experts.
• The proposed methodology’s final solutions not only determine the
order allocation quantities based on two decision-making attitudes
but also highlight the supplier organizations existing flaws, allowing
them to take appropriate steps to enhance their performance
promptly.
 H. Ali and J. Zhang
Table 1
Comprehensive literature review regarding supplier selection and order allocation.
Paper Problem Objective function Assessment criteria Data uncertainty Quantity discounts Order Case study Methodology
allocation
under different
decision-
making
attitudes of
DMs
Supplier Order Single Bi- Multi- Economic Green Transportation Criteria Order All- Incremental Total
selection allocation objective objective objective risks assessment allocation unit business
volume

Alfares & Turnadi + + + + + + Nil Mixed-integer

(2018) programming,
modified silver-meal
heuristic, and genetic
algorithm
Emirhüseyinoğlu + + + + + Nil Mixed-integer
and Ekici (2019) mathematical model
and iterative algorithm
Kannan et al. + + + + + + + Automotive FAHP, FTOPSIS, and
(2013) industry MOLP
Safaeian et al. + + + + + + Nil Zimmermann fuzzy
(2019) approach, Genetic
algorithm & NSGA II
Bektur (2020) + + + + + + + + Medical devices FAHP, F-PROMETHEE,
5

manufacturing TOPSIS, Fuzzy

company mathematical
optimization model
solved by AUGMECON
and LP-metrics
You et al. (2020) + + + + + + + Electronic Double hierarchy
industry hesitant linguistic term
sets, decision field
theory, and MOLP
Baek & Kim (2020) + + + + + + Nil Non-linear integer
programming model
Çalık (2021) + + + + Agricultural tools Pythagorean FAHP and
and machinery FTOPSIS
manufacturer

Expert Systems With Applications 225 (2023) 120119

Mina et al. (2021) + + + + Petrochemical FAHP, FTOPSIS, and
firm fuzzy inference system
Nasr et al. (2021) + + + + + + + + Garment industry Fuzzy BWM, MOMILP,
and fuzzy goal
programming
Amiri et al. (2021) + + + + Automotive Fuzzy best-worst
enterprise method and α-cut
analysis
Alejo-Reyes et al. + + + + Nil Heuristic method
(2021)
(continued on next page)
 H. Ali and J. Zhang Expert Systems With Applications 225 (2023) 120119

• Based on the current requirements of the organizations, this study

proposed a novel multi-objective model for global green SS&OA,

optimization algorithm

FAHP, MOLP, and FCP

method, ANP, TOPSIS
Improved moth-flame

Fuzzy multi-objective

additive function and

interactive resolution

Spherical fuzzy AHP

with the primary goal of reducing the total procurement cost, quality

FAHP and FTOPSIS

Entropy measured
model, weighted
rejection rate, delivery lateness rate, greenhouse gas emissions from

and ELECTRE
Methodology

product procurement, and foreign transportation risks. To effectively

tackle the product price hikes due to global supply chain un­

method
certainties, this research considered the all-unit quantity discounts
scheme in the proposed model to lower the overall procurement cost.

Textile industry
Steel industry
manufacturer
3. Proposed methodology
Case study

equipment

Cosmetics
company
Cleaning
This research proposed an integrated mathematical approach
Nil

Nil

comprised of the fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (FAHP), multi-

objective linear programming (MOLP) model, and fuzzy compromise
under different

programming (FCP) to solve the global green SS&OA problem under all-
attitudes of
allocation

decision-

unit quantity discounts. In this regard, the FAHP technique is initially

making
Order

used to determine the relative weights of the selected criteria. The main
DMs

+
advantage of the FAHP approach is that it allows the DMs to evaluate
criteria using linguistic terms that are later replaced by TFNs, effectively
business
volume

reducing the cognitive load of the DMs during decision-making. Later,

Incremental Total

the MOLP model is developed to minimize the total procurement cost,

Quantity discounts

quality rejection rate, delivery lateness rate, greenhouse gas emissions

from product procurement, and foreign transportation risks under the
quantity discounts environment. Finally, the FCP approach is utilized to
compute the optimal compromise order allocation solutions based on
unit

DMs’ two decision-making attitudes (neutral and risk-averse). A real-life

All-

case study of the textile industry is presented to illustrate the practicality

allocation

of the proposed methodology. Later, the efficiency of the proposed

Order

methodology is tested with the help of sensitivity and comparative an­

Data uncertainty

alyses to ensure that the final results are accurate. Fig. 1 shows the
overall formulation of the suggested integrated approach.
assessment
Criteria

3.1. Fuzzy analytical hierarchy process

+

+
Economic Green Transportation

Saaty (1980) proposed the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) as a

decision support tool for efficiently dealing with multi-criteria decision-
making (MCDM) problems. The main agenda of the AHP method is to
risks

handle the desired MCDM problem in a hierarchical structure, beginning

+

with the primary goal and progressing toward the main criteria, then
Assessment criteria

sub-criteria, and finally, alternatives. The reader is directed to Saaty

+

+
+

(1980) for more thorough information on the AHP approach. Due to the
involvement of qualitative and quantitative factors while solving MCDM
problems, human judgment cannot be entirely accurate and unbiased.
+

+
+

As a result, DMs frequently criticized the AHP technique for its ineffi­
objective objective

cient handling of inherent uncertainty and inaccuracy associated with

Multi-

translating their observations into specific numbers. To effectively

+

address this issue, this paper combines the AHP method with the fuzzy
set theory to cope with the data uncertainty factor while formulating a
Objective function

pairwise comparison matrix. The fundamental goal of applying the

Bi-

FAHP method is to lessen the cognitive burden of DMs during decision-

making. Rather than using a precise numeric value, decision-makers can
objective
Single

score different criteria using linguistic terms, which their corresponding

fuzzy numbers can later replace. The reader is directed to Zadeh (1965,
+

1976) for more information on fuzzy set theory.

allocation

TFNs are used in this study to reduce human judgment errors and
Order

make calculations easier (Ayhan & Kilic, 2015). Although the FAHP
+

approach can be implemented using various ways, this work uses

selection
Problem

Supplier

Buckley’s method to calculate the relative weights of the criteria

(Buckley, 1985). The necessary steps of the FAHP method are as follows:
+

+
+

(Kilic et al., 2014; Ayhan & Kilic, 2015).

Table 1 (continued )

Acerbi et al. (2023)

Wang et al. (2022)
Unal and Temur
Firouzi & Jadidi

Step 1: Identify the relevant criteria with the assistance of a

Ai et al. (2021)

comprehensive literature review and experts’ opinions for global

This Paper
(2021)

(2022)

green SS&OA.
Paper

Step 2: After criteria identification, the decision-maker (DM) creates

the pairwise comparison matrix using linguistic terms, which are

6
H. Ali and J. Zhang Expert Systems With Applications 225 (2023) 120119

Fig. 1. Overall formulation of the proposed integrated approach.

later replaced by their equivalent TFNs, as given in Table 2 (Paksoy ⎡̃ ̃12 ̃ 1V ⎤

et al., 2012). For example, suppose the DM states that “criterion (C1) A11 A ⋯ A
is moderately important than criterion (C2)”. In that case, it takes the ⎢̃
⎢ A21 ̃ 22
A ⋯ ̃ 2V ⎥
A ⎥
(1)
t
̃ = ⎢ ⎥
fuzzy value of (2, 3, 4); on the contrary, C2 to C1 will take the value of H ⎢ ⎥
⎣⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⎦
(1/4, 1/3, 1/2), respectively.
̃ S1
A ̃ S2
A ⋯ ̃ SV
A
The resulting fuzzy pairwise comparison matrix is shown in eq. (1),
where A
̃ IJ represents the preference of criterion ‘I’ over criterion ‘J’ in
Step 3: If there are multiple decision-makers, the preferences of all
terms of TFNs by tth DM (t = 1, 2, ……, T). the DMs are averaged using eq. (2), and an aggregated decision-
making matrix is created (shown in eq. (3)). Where ̃ aIJ represents
Table 2 the average preferences of all the DMs for criterion ‘I’ over criterion
Saaty scale of the relative importance. ‘J’ in terms of TFNs.
Scale Linguistic terms Triangular fuzzy numbers (TFNs) ∑T
̃ IJ
A
aIJ = t=1
̃ (2)
1 Equally important (1,1,1) T
3 Moderately important (2,3,4)
⎡ ⎤
5 Strongly important (4,5,6)
a11 ⋯ ̃
̃ a1V
7 Very strongly important (6,7,8) ⎢ ⎥
9 Extremely important (9,9,9)
̃
h = ⎣⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⎦ (3)
2 Intermediate values (1,2,3) aS1 ⋯ ̃
̃ aSV
4 (3,4,5)
6 (5,6,7)
8 (7,8,9)

7
H. Ali and J. Zhang Expert Systems With Applications 225 (2023) 120119

Step 4: Calculate each criterion’s triangular fuzzy geometric mean Table 3

values using eq. (4) (Buckley, 1985). Notations for the developed MOLP model.
( )1/V Subscripts
∏
V
i Total number of competing suppliers (i = 1, 2, …., n)
̃
fI = ̃aIJ , where I = 1, 2, ...., S (4)
j Pricing level according to the offered quantity discount by the ith supplier (j
J=1
= 1, 2, …., m(i))
k Criteria number (k = 1, 2, …, K)
Parameters
Step 5: Calculate the fuzzy weight values of each criterion with the
Pij The unit price of the item supplied by the ith supplier at pricing level j
help of eq. (5). Qi The ith supplier’s average quality rejection rate of the products
( )− 1 di The ith supplier’s average delivery lateness rate of the products
̃ I = ̃f I ⊗ ̃f 1 ⊕ ̃f 2 ⊕, …., ⊕ ̃f S
w = (lwI , mwI , uwI ) (5) Gi Greenhouse gas emissions for the item delivered by the ith supplier
ri Percentage of risks involved in buying a product from the ith supplier
Where l, m, and u are the lower, middle, and upper bounds of the D The aggregated demand of the buyer organization over a fixed period
C The ith supplier’s maximum capacity level
TFNs.
ECap Overall GHGE capacity from material sourcing
R Maximum acceptable risks amount allowed by the buyer organization
Step 6: This step utilizes the center-of-area method proposed by bij The jth pricing level offered by the ith supplier, i = 1, 2, …., n, j = 1, 2, …., m(i)
Ayhan and Kilic (2015) to de-fuzzify the triangular fuzzy weights. wk The kth criterion weight calculated with the help of FAHP, k = 1, 2, 3, …, K
Zk The kth criterion objective function, k = 1, 2, 3, …, K
lwI + mwI + uwI Zkmin The kth criterion minimum objective function value, k = 1, 2, 3, …, K
MI = (6)
3 Zkmax The kth criterion maximum objective function value, k = 1, 2, 3, …, K
Uk (x) The kth criterion degree of marginal satisfaction, k = 1, 2, 3, …, K
Uα (x) Degree of global satisfaction
Step 7: Normalize the non-fuzzy values of weights with the help of Decision variables
eq. (7). xij Number of items purchased from supplier ‘i’ at pricing level ‘j’
yij Supplier ‘i’ is selected or not at pricing level ‘j’ (1 or 0)
MI
N I = ∑S (7)
I=1 MI

The seven steps mentioned above of the FAHP method can be utilized m(i)
n ∑
∑
xij = D, (13)
to compute the normalized weights for each specified criterion.
i=1 j=1

3.2. Multi-objective linear programming m(i)

∑
xij ≤ C, for i = 1, 2, .... , n (14)
This section develops a MOLP model that aims to reduce the overall j=1

procurement cost, quality rejection rate, delivery lateness rate, green­

house gas emissions (GHGE) from product procurement, and foreign ∑ m(i)
n ∑
Gi xij ≤ ECap , (15)
transportation risks under all-unit quantity discounts. Wang and Yang i=1 j=1
(2009), Shaw et al. (2012), and Ayhan and Kilic (2015) studies were
used to build the proposed MOLP model. However, before formulating ∑ m(i)
n ∑
the model, the following assumptions are kept in mind: ri xij ≤ R, (16)
i=1 j=1

• Only one kind of product is procured from each selected supplier.

• Shortage of raw materials is not taken into account. yij = 1 if xij > 0, for i = 1, 2, ....., n, j = 1, 2, ...., m(i) (17)
• The buyer’s demand for the finished goods is taken as consistent over
yij = 0 if xij = 0, for i = 1, 2, ...., n, j = 1, 2, ...., m(i) (18)
a fixed period.
bij− 1 *yij ≤ xij < bij *yij , for i = 1, 2, ...., n, j = 1, 2, ...., m(i) (19)
The notations used to define the developed MOLP model are pro­
vided in Table 3. m(i)
∑
Objective functions: yij ≤ 1, for i = 1, 2, ...., n (20)
j=1
m(i)
n ∑
∑
Min Z1 = Pij xij (8)
i=1 j=1 xij ≥ 0, for i = 1, 2, ....., n, j = 1, 2, ...., m(i) (21)

The objective function (8) minimizes the overall procurement cost of

m(i)
n ∑
∑
Min Z2 = Qi xij (9) the products. The objective function (9) reduces the number of defective
i=1 j=1 items. The objective function (10) minimizes the delivery lateness rate
of the products from the supplier’s location to the buyer’s designated
m(i)
n ∑
∑ place. The objective function (11) seeks to reduce total greenhouse gas
Min Z3 = di xij (10) emissions associated with product procurement. The objective function
i=1 j=1
(12) minimizes the overall foreign transportation risks from origin to
m(i)
destination. In contrast, constraint (13) confirms that the entire volume
n ∑
∑
Min Z4 = Gi xij (11) of products bought from all selected suppliers satisfies the overall de­
i=1 j=1 mand of the buyer organization. Constraint (14) ensures that the total
number of ordered items does not exceed the supplier’s capacity.
m(i)
n ∑
∑ Constraint (15) controls the hazardous greenhouse gas emissions from
Min Z5 = ri xij (12) material sourcing. Similarly, constraint (16) limits the foreign trans­
portation risks amount the buyer organization can endure due to the
i=1 j=1

Subject to: supply chain disruption. Constraints (17) & (18) depict the binary na­
ture of the supplier selection decision-making problem. Constraint (19)

8
H. Ali and J. Zhang Expert Systems With Applications 225 (2023) 120119

is the quantity range constraint to fulfill the number of quantity ranges the value of wk , representing the weight of the kth criterion (k = 1, 2, ….
at the ith supplier’s pricing level. Constraint (20) ensures that one pricing …, K). The value of α can be acquired from two aggregation operators,
level ‘j’ for the ith supplier’s products can be selected at most. Constraint mainly dealing with the MOLP problem. The first aggregation operator
(21) depicts that the decision variable is a positive integer. is the weighted additive operator (α = 1). With the help of this aggre­
As a MOLP model contains multiple objective functions, finding an gation operator, eq. (24) can be expressed as follows:
optimal solution to the problem is challenging because the DMs are only
∑
K
interested in achieving the most efficient solutions (i.e., non-dominated U(x) = wk Uk (x) (25)
solutions). Furthermore, it is impossible to generate the whole set of k=1
non-dominated solutions because Pareto solutions grow exponentially
The max–min operator (α = -∞) is the second operator. By using this
with the size of the problem. Thus, a specific technique is required to
aggregation operator, eq. (24) can be stated as follows: (Wang & Yang,
obtain the optimal compromise solution for the MOLP model. This
2009)
research utilized the extended version of the fuzzy compromise pro­
gramming (FCP) approach to obtain the non-dominated compromise U(x) = min [Uk (x)] (26)
1≤k≤K
solutions of the developed MOLP model. Using the FCP approach, the
developed MOLP model can be converted into a single objective model,
which can be solved efficiently using simple linear programming Step 3: Convert the MOLP model into the FCP model.
techniques.
After determining the degree of global satisfaction of the developed
3.3. Fuzzy compromise programming approach MOLP model with the help of eq. (24), the next step is to convert the
proposed MOLP model into the FCP model, as shown in eq. (27).
The standard formulation of the MOLP model can be written as fol­ [ ]1/α
∑
K
lows: Maximize U α (x) = wk Ukα (x) (27)
k=1
Min Z = [Z1 (x), Z2 (x), Z3 (x), ...., Zk (x) ] T
(22)
Subject to : x ∊ X.
Subject to : x ∊ X
In the case of the weighted additive operator (α = 1), eq. (27) can be
Here ‘x’ denotes the overall decision variables, and ‘X’ represents the re-written as follows:
feasible solution set of constraints. In a MOLP model, all defined
∑
K ∑
K
Zk (x) − Zkmax
objective functions cannot simultaneously reach their optimum point Maximize U(x) = wk Uk (x) = wk
under given constraints. As a result, the organizational DMs strive to k=1 k=1
Zkmin − Zkmax
identify the optimal compromise solution as the final solution based on
the global satisfaction level for all objectives. So, the FCP approach is ∑ ∑
K K
wk Zk (x) wk Zkmax
= − (28)
utilized to obtain an optimal compromise solution for the developed k=1
Zkmin − Zkmax k=1 Zkmin − Zkmax
MOLP model. The FCP approach primarily entails three key steps, which
are as follows: (Li & Lai, 2000; Wang & Yang, 2009) Subject to : x ∊ X
The main agenda of the weighted additive operator (shown in eq.
Step 1: Calculate the degree of marginal satisfaction.
(28)) is to maximize the average satisfaction level. Similarly, for the
max–min operator (α = -∞), eq. (27) can be re-written as follows:
The fuzzy approach is introduced in the MOLP model to get the
marginal satisfaction value for each objective function. The two values, Maximize U(x) = λ (29)
Zkmin and Zkmax , of each objective function (Zk ), can be attained by
solving the MOLP model as a single objective (while completely ignoring Zk (x) − Zkmax
Subject to : ≥ λ, (k = 1, 2, ...., K and λ = least satisfaction level)
other objectives). Each objective function value (Zk ) deviates linearly Zkmin − Zkmax
from Zkmin to Zkmax . This value can be interpreted as a fuzzy number with
a linear membership function Uk (x), based on marginal satisfaction. The x ∊ X.
membership function of each objective in terms of marginal satisfaction
can be well-defined by eq. (23). The primary role of the max–min operator (shown in eq. (29)) is to
⎧ maximize the least satisfaction level among all objective functions. With
⎪
⎪ 1, if Zk (x) ≤ Zkmin the assistance of the FCP approach, the MOLP model can be converted
⎪
⎪
⎨
Zk (x) − Zkmax into a single objective programming model, which can be solved using
Uk (x) = , if Zkmin < Zk (x) ≤ Zkmax (23) basic optimization techniques to yield an optimal compromise solution.
⎪ Zkmin − Zkmax
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎩ Assume x* ∊ X be the optimal solution of eq. (27), then it can be
0, if Zk (x) > Zkmax
expressed as follows:

U α (x* ) = max[U α (x)] (30)

Step 2: Calculate the degree of global satisfaction. x∊X

According to eq. (30), x* is the non-dominated solution of the defined

After obtaining the degree of marginal satisfaction for each objective problem at which the overall satisfaction level for each objective func­
function [i.e., U1 (x), U2 (x), U3 (x), ...., Uk (x)] for constraints x ∊ X, the tion is maximum.
next step is to calculate the degree of global satisfaction of the MOLP
model (shown in eq. (24)). 4. Practical case study
[ ]1/α
∑
K ∑
K
U α (x) = wk Ukα (x) , where wk = 1 (24) This research uses a case study of the textile industry to demonstrate
k=1 k=1 the practicality of the suggested methodology for global green SS&OA.
In eq. (24), wk and α are the two parameters that the DMs must Due to confidentiality concerns, the textile enterprise’s identity and the
decide based on their preferences. The FAHP approach directly retrieves names of its chosen suppliers are not disclosed. However, the reason for

9
H. Ali and J. Zhang
Fig. 2. Criteria and their sub-criteria for suppliers’ assessment.
selecting this case study is that the textile industries are creating sub­
stantial greenhouse gas emissions into the environment because of their
transportation and production activities. Due to rising environmental
awareness among customers and stringent government laws regarding
environmental protection, textile businesses are now attempting to
lessen the environmental impact of their items. In this sense, the choice
of global green suppliers can be crucial. The selection of global green
suppliers will aid the textile industry in decreasing the final product cost
due to low-cost labor in certain countries and reducing the environ­
mental impact of their manufactured items.
The XYZ textile company presented in this paper is a wholly export-
oriented firm known for its garments that meets the requirements of
European and American customers. Shirts, pants, jeans, t-shirts, and
suits are among the items the organization produces for men and
women. Most of the company’s finished fabrics are obtained from sup­
pliers in various regions of the world, and the purchased fabrics are then
converted into the final product in a Faisalabad-based plant in Pakistan.
However, we tried to examine the XYZ textile company’s current
SS&OA procedure to identify the existing problems. Our examination
found the following issues: (1) initially, no scientific strategy was
discovered to be employed for SS&OA. The materials were primarily
procured based on personal preferences and the price of products. (2)
The current purchasing strategy of the organization failed to account for
the quantity discounts, leading to increased procurement costs. (3)
Procurement of goods was solely done on an economic basis without
considering environmental factors to make the final product eco-
friendly. (4) As the global supply chain faces uncertainties due to nat­
ural catastrophes, considering risks associated with product transit from
origin to destination were also not considered when choosing suppliers.
As a result, the DMs of the XYZ textile company needed a holistic
approach for SS&OA based on the customers’ current requirements.
To address the issues mentioned above and meet the demand of
European and American purchasers who prefer greener products. The
management of the XYZ textile company decided to incorporate the
economic, environmental, and foreign transportation risks criteria for
the suppliers’ assessment to fulfill their customer requirements. The XYZ
textile organization’s management formed a committee of three DMs,
mainly procurement, logistics, and production department managers, to
discover and evaluate suppliers. Firstly, we attempted to schedule
multiple brainstorming sessions with the DMs to finalize the necessary
suppliers’ evaluation criteria. A thorough literature review and experts’
opinions were used to identify fourteen sub-criteria, which were then
10
Expert Systems With Applications 225 (2023) 120119
grouped into the five primary factors: cost, quality, delivery, environ­
mental competency, and risks based on the organization’s objectives.
Similarly, after determining the essential criteria, the management of
the XYZ textile organization nominated four suppliers (S1, S2, S3, and S4)
from various regions of the globe for order allocation based on their
performance history and aspirations toward greener production. Fig. 2
depicts the five primary criteria and their sub-criteria for comprehensive
supplier evaluation. Table 4 further outlines the definitions of the sub-
criteria from which the five primary criteria for supplier evaluation
were derived.
5. Solution approach
Initially, the data was collected from the XYZ industry’s three DMs:
the procurement manager (DM 1), logistics manager (DM 2), and pro­
duction manager (DM 3). The three DMs evaluated the selected criteria
(cost, quality, delivery, environmental competency, and risks) with the
help of linguistic terms (equally important, moderately important,
strongly important, very strongly important, and extremely important)
to determine their relative importance. With the help of Table 2, we
replaced the linguistic terms with their corresponding TFNs for pairwise
comparison matrices generation. The formed pairwise comparison
matrices were used to calculate the criteria weights using the FAHP
approach.
Later, based on the XYZ organization requirements, we developed a
MOLP model whose primary aim is to minimize the total procurement
cost, quality rejection rate, delivery lateness rate, greenhouse gas
emissions from product procurement, and overall foreign transportation
risks under all-unit quantity discounts. The developed MOLP model
utilizes the historical performance data of the selected suppliers and the
suppliers’ provided information as quantitative input. The company
managers also consulted the other industries currently working with
these selected suppliers to ensure that the available data is reliable and
accurate. Furthermore, to find efficient non-dominated compromise
solutions for the developed MOLP model, we utilized the extended
version of the fuzzy compromise programming method, which primarily
incorporates the fuzzy set theory to eliminate the possibility of errors
due to insufficient and uncertain data. The fuzzy compromise pro­
gramming approach generates optimal compromise solutions for order
allocation based on two decision-making attitudes of the DMs.
The following is a thorough solution plan for the XYZ textile com­
pany’s global green SS&OA problem:
H. Ali and J. Zhang Expert Systems With Applications 225 (2023) 120119

Table 4
Suppliers’ assessment sub-criteria definitions.
Criteria Sub-criteria Definition

Cost (C1) Product cost The ultimate unit cost of a product offered by the supplier organization, including costs associated with production, the
greening of items, and warranty
Logistics cost The sum of variable and fixed transportation costs related to the movement of products from the supplier’s location to
the buyer’s designated place
Tariffs and taxes The amount of money levied by the government as a tax when goods are imported from another country
Quality (C2) Rejection rate The number of faulty products discovered by the quality control team among all commodities provided by the supplier
organization
Process capability The technical expertise of the supplier organization to produce high-quality products to meet customers’ fluctuating
demands
Quality assurance The reliability of the goods provided by the supplier organization to meet customer expectations. For example, the
acquisition of a quality assurance certificate, i.e., ISO 9000
Delivery (C3) On-time delivery The supplier organization’s aptitude to follow the defined delivery schedule so that the customer demands can be
fulfilled on time
Lead time The total time consumed by the supplier organization from manufacturing to product delivery to the buyer’s designated
place
Environmental Eco-design The design of items with minimal material and energy consumption that are also recyclable and reusable to have a lower
competency (C4) negative environmental impact
Carbon emissions The supplier organization’s capability to handle and control the hazardous carbon emissions produced by their products
Environmental management The ability of the supplier organization to implement environmental preservation policies within their production
system facilities. For example, ISO 14000 environmental protection certificate.
Risks (C5) Exchange rate Value of one country’s currency for the aim of conversion to another. For example, the conversion rate of the US dollar
(USD) to the Pakistani rupee (PKR)
Political stability and foreign The supplier country’s attitude toward international business, as well as its political standing in the global market, such
policies as the probability of crime rates, wars, terrorism, etc
Geographical location To analyze the topographical position of the supplier organization and the likelihood of natural disasters (such as floods,
earthquakes, and tsunamis) at that specific location to ensure a consistent supply of goods

Hosseini et al., 2022; Govindan et al., 2013; Lee et al., 2009; Chan et al., 2008.

Table 5
Fuzzy pairwise comparison matrix of DM 1.
Criteria Cost Quality Delivery Environmental competency Risks

Cost (1,1,1) (1,2,3) (2,3,4) (2,3,4) (5,6,7)

Quality (1/3,1/2,1) (1,1,1) (1,2,3) (1,2,3) (6,7,8)
Delivery (1/4,1/3,1/2) (1/3,1/2,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (7,8,9)
Environmental competency (1/4,1/3,1/2) (1/3,1/2,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (7,8,9)
Risks (1/7,1/6,1/5) (1/8,1/7,1/6) (1/9,1/8,1/7) (1/9,1/8,1/7) (1,1,1)

Table 6
Fuzzy pairwise comparison matrix of DM 2.
Criteria Cost Quality Delivery Environmental competency Risks

Cost (1,1,1) (1/5,1/4,1/3) (2,3,4) (1/4,1/3,1/2) (5,6,7)

Quality (3,4,5) (1,1,1) (6,7,8) (1,2,3) (5,6,7)
Delivery (1/4,1/3,1/2) (1/8,1/7,1/6) (1,1,1) (1/6,1/5,1/4) (1,2,3)
Environmental competency (2,3,4) (1/3,1/2,1) (4,5,6) (1,1,1) (5,6,7)
Risks (1/7,1/6,1/5) (1/7,1/6,1/5) (1/3,1/2,1) (1/7,1/6,1/5) (1,1,1)

Table 7
Fuzzy pairwise comparison matrix of DM 3.
Criteria Cost Quality Delivery Environmental competency Risks

Cost (1,1,1) (1,2,3) (2,3,4) (2,3,4) (6,7,8)

Quality (1/3,1/2,1) (1,1,1) (2,3,4) (1,2,3) (7,8,9)
Delivery (1/4,1/3,1/2) (1/4,1/3,1/2) (1,1,1) (1,2,3) (6,7,8)
Environmental competency (1/4,1/3,1/2) (1/3,1/2,1) (1/3,1/2,1) (1,1,1) (6,7,8)
Risks (1/8,1/7,1/6) (1/9,1/8,1/7) (1/8,1/7,1/6) (1/8,1/7,1/6) (1,1,1)

5.1. FAHP for criteria weights calculation
To calculate the criteria weights, three DMs (procurement, logistics,
and production managers) made the pairwise comparison matrices of
defined criteria (shown in Tables 5-7). The DMs evaluated the criteria
according to their preferences with the help of linguistic terms defined in
Table 2, which we later replaced with their corresponding TFNs. For
example, in the instance of DM 1, the DM stated that “the cost criterion
(C1) is moderately more important than the delivery criterion (C3)”. In
such a scenario, it takes the fuzzy value of (2, 3, 4), while C3 to C1 takes
the value of (1/4, 1/3, 1/2). The remaining pairwise comparison values
were computed in the same manner. After forming the pairwise com­
parison matrices with the assistance of three DMs, the created pairwise
comparison matrices were aggregated into a single matrix using eq. (2)
(shown in Table 8).
After constructing the aggregated fuzzy pairwise comparison matrix,

11
H. Ali and J. Zhang Expert Systems With Applications 225 (2023) 120119

Table 8
Aggregated fuzzy pairwise comparison matrix of all DMs.
Criteria Cost Quality Delivery Environmental competency Risks

Cost (1,1,1) (0.73,1.42,2.11) (2,3,4) (1.42,2.11,2.83) (5.33,6.33,7.33)

Quality (1.22,1.67,2.33) (1,1,1) (3,4,5) (1,2,3) (6,7,8)
Delivery (0.25,0.33,0.5) (0.24,0.32,0.56) (1,1,1) (0.72,1.07,1.42) (4.67,5.67,6.67)
Environmental competency (0.83,1.22,1.67) (0.33,0.5,1) (1.78,2.17,2.67) (1,1,1) (6,7,8)
Risks (0.14,0.16,0.19) (0.13,0.14,0.17) (0.19,0.26,0.44) (0.13,0.14,0.17) (1,1,1)

w
̃ 3 = [(0.73 × 0.11), (0.91 × 0.13), (1.21 × 0.18)]
Table 9
The triangular fuzzy geometric mean values of the selected criteria. = [0.0803, 0.1183, 0.2178]
Criteria Geometric mean (̃f I )
w
̃ 4 = [(1.24 × 0.11), (1.56 × 0.13), (2.04 × 0.18)]
l m u
= [0.1364, 0.2028, 0.3672]
Cost 1.62 2.24 2.81
Quality 1.85 2.48 3.08
w
̃ 5 = [(0.21 × 0.11), (0.24 × 0.13), (0.30 × 0.18)]
Delivery 0.73 0.91 1.21
Environmental competency 1.24 1.56 2.04 = [0.0231, 0.0312, 0.0540]
Risks 0.21 0.24 0.30
Sum 5.65 7.43 9.44 As all the criteria weights are in fuzzy numbers, we applied the center
Summation reciprocal (-1 power) 0.11 0.13 0.18 of area method to de-fuzzify the triangular fuzzy values using eq. (6).
After that, all the values were normalized using eq. (7). Table 10 depicts
the final normalized weights of the selected criteria.
Table 10 Table 10 exhibits the relative weights of cost, quality, delivery,
De-fuzzified and normalized weights of the selected criteria. environmental competency, and risks criteria, which are 0.30, 0.33,
0.13, 0.21, and 0.03, respectively. Later, these criteria weights will be
Criteria MI NI
used as quantitative input to calculate the non-dominated compromise
Cost 0.3251 0.30
solutions of the developed multi-objective model.
Quality 0.3601 0.33
Delivery 0.1388 0.13
Environmental competency 0.2355 0.21 5.2. Formulate the MOLP model of the defined problem
Risks 0.0361 0.03
Total 1.0956 1.0
This section formulates the MOLP model according to the re­
quirements of the XYZ textile industry. In this regard, Table 11 provides
the next step is to compute the triangular fuzzy geometric mean values the input parameters for the MOLP model based on the historical per­
of the defined criteria using eq. (4). For example, the triangular fuzzy formance and the selected suppliers’ provided information. Table 12
geometric mean values of the cost criterion (̃f ) can be calculated as displays the quantity discounts the selected suppliers offered for a spe­
1
follows: cific quantity range.
The buyer organization wanted to procure 32,000 units from all
selected suppliers. The overall GHGE capacity from material sourcing
and maximum acceptable risk values were taken as 43,000 and 10000,

( )1/V
∏V
1 1 1
̃f 1 = aIJ
̃ = [(1 × 0.73 × 2 × 1.42 × 5.33)5 , (1 × 1.42 × 3 × 2.11 × 6.33)5 , (1 × 2.11 × 4 × 2.83 × 7.33)5 ]
J=1

respectively. After entering the quantitative data from tables 11 and 12

̃f 1 = [1.62, 2.24, 2.81] into equations 8–21, the final MOLP model can be written as follows:
Objective functions:
Furthermore, Table 9 demonstrates the triangular fuzzy geometric
mean values of the remaining criteria, which were computed in the same Min Z1 = 7x11 + 6.5x12 + 6x13 + 8.5x21 + 7.5x22 + 6.5x23 + 7.5x31 + 6.5x32
manner. + 6x33 + 8x41 + 7x42 + 6.5x43
With the help of Table 9, the fuzzy weights of the selected criteria
were calculated using eq. (5), which can be written as follows:

w
̃ 1 = [(1.62 × 0.11), (2.24 × 0.13), (2.81 × 0.18)] Table 11
= [0.1782, 0.2912, 0.5058] Quantitative information of each selected supplier.
Supplier Quality Delivery GHGE Risks Capacity
w
̃ 2 = [(1.85 × 0.11), (2.48 × 0.13), (3.08 × 0.18)] rejection rate lateness rate (kg) (Percentage)
(Percentage) (Percentage)
= [0.2035, 0.3224, 0.5544]
S1 3 2.5 1.35 2 11,000
S2 4 4 1.25 1.5 10,500
S3 2 3.5 1.40 3 11,000
S4 3.5 3 1.50 4 10,500

12
H. Ali and J. Zhang Expert Systems With Applications 225 (2023) 120119

Table 12
Quantity discounts offered by each supplier.
yij = 1 ifxij > 0; for i = 1, 2, ...., n, j = 1, 2, ...., m(i)

Supplier Quantity Range Price ($) yij = 0 ifxij = 0; for i = 1, 2, ...., n, j = 1, 2, ...., m(i)
S1 [0–4000) 7
[4000–6000) 6.5 0 ≤ x11 < 4000y11 ; 4000y11 ≤ x12 < 6000y12 ; x13 ≥ 6000y13 ;
[6000 - ∞) 6
S2 [0–4500) 8.5
0 ≤ x21 < 4500y21 ; 4500y21 ≤ x22 < 7500y22 ; x23 ≥ 7500y23 ;
[4500–7500) 7.5
[7500 - ∞) 6.5
S3 [0–3500) 7.5 0 ≤ x31 < 3500y31 ; 3500y31 ≤ x32 < 7000y32 ; x33 ≥ 7000y33 ;
[3500–7000) 6.5
[7000 - ∞) 6 0 ≤ x41 < 4000y41 ; 4000y41 ≤ x42 < 8000y42 ; x43 ≥ 8000y43 ;
S4 [0–4000) 8
[4000–8000) 7 y11 + y12 + y13 ≤ 1;
[8000 - ∞) 6.5

y21 + y22 + y23 ≤ 1;

Min Z2 = 0.03(x11 + x12 + x13 ) + 0.04(x21 + x22 + x23 ) + 0.02(x31 + x32
+ x33 ) + 0.035(x41 + x42 + x43 )
Min Z3 = 0.025(x11 + x12 + x13 ) + 0.04(x21 + x22 + x23 ) + 0.035(x31 + x32
+ x33 ) + 0.03(x41 + x42 + x43 )
Min Z4 = 1.35(x11 + x12 + x13 ) + 1.25(x21 + x22 + x23 ) + 1.40(x31 + x32
+ x33 ) + 1.50(x41 + x42 + x43 )
y31 + y32 + y33 ≤ 1;
y41 + y42 + y43 ≤ 1;
x11 , x12 , x13 , x21 , x22 , x23 , x31 , x32 , x33 , x41 , x42 , x43 ≥ 0.
The MOLP model mentioned above will be solved using the FCP
approach to calculate the optimal compromise solution for order allo­
cation among the selected suppliers.

Min Z5 = 0.02(x11 + x12 + x13 ) + 0.015(x21 + x22 + x23 ) + 0.03(x31 + x32 5.3. FCP approach for calculating the optimal order allocation quantity
+ x33 ) + 0.04(x41 + x42 + x43 )
This section provides the solution approach of the developed MOLP
Constraints: model to determine the order allocation quantities among the selected
x11 + x12 + x13 + x21 + x22 + x23 + x31 + x32 + x33 + x41 + x42 + x43 = 32000; suppliers based on two decision-making attitudes of DMs. In this regard,
the degree of marginal satisfaction was initially computed by deter­
x11 + x12 + x13 ≤ 11000; mining each objective function’s minimum and maximum values
(solving only one objective function at a time while disregarding the
x21 + x22 + x23 ≤ 10500; others). Table 13 presents each objective function’s Zkmin and Zkmax
values (obtained by solving the model in LINGO 17 software on a per­
x31 + x32 + x33 ≤ 11000; sonal laptop with an Intel Core i5 2.10 GHz CPU and 16 GB of RAM with
the Windows 10 operating system). The final values are highlighted in
x41 + x42 + x43 ≤ 10500; bold in Table 13.
The values mentioned in Table 13 were used to calculate the degree
of marginal satisfaction for each objective function with the aid of eq.
(23), which can be written as follows:

1.35(x11 + x12 + x13 ) + 1.25(x21 + x22 + x23 ) + 1.40(x31 + x32 + x33 ) + 1.50(x41 + x42 + x43 ) ≤ 43000;

0.02(x11 + x12 + x13 ) + 0.015(x21 + x22 + x23 ) + 0.03(x31 + x32 + x33 ) + 0.04(x41 + x42 + x43 ) ≤ 10000;

Table 13
Each objective function’s minimum and maximum values.
Z1 Z2 Z3 Z4 Z5 x1 x2 x3 x4

Z1min 197,000 950 1060 42,750 700 11,000 10,000 11,000 0

Z2min 213,538 945 1050 43,000 725 11,000 9000 11,000 1000
Z3min 217,063 1008.75 1046.25 43,000 725 11,000 10,500 7250 3250
Z4min 212,788 960 1062.5 42,675 692.5 11,000 10,500 10,500 0
Z5min 212,788 960 1062.5 42,675 692.5 11,000 10,500 10,500 0
Z1max 218,829 1008.75 1046.25 43,000 725 11,000 10,500 7250 3250
Z2max 216,725 1008.75 1046.25 43,000 725 11,000 10,500 7250 3250
Z3max 206,750 965 1077.5 43,000 737.5 8500 10,500 11,000 2000
Z4max 213,813 1008.75 1046.25 43,000 725 11,000 10,500 7250 3250
Z5max 213,188 965 1077.5 43,000 737.5 8500 10,500 11,000 2000

13
H. Ali and J. Zhang Expert Systems With Applications 225 (2023) 120119

Table 14
Compromise order allocation solution based on a neutral decision-making attitude.
Max U U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 Z1 Z2 Z3 Z4 Z5

0.7019 1 0.92 0.56 0.77 0.83 197,000 950 1060 42,750 700
x1 x2 x3 x4
11,000 10,000 11,000 0

Table 15
Compromise order allocation solution based on risk-averse decision-making attitude.
Max U U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 Z1 Z2 Z3 Z4 Z5

0.6447 0.64 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.74 204,759 967 1057 42,789 704
x1 x2 x3 x4
11,000 10,271 9929 800

⎧
⎪ 1, if Z1 (x) ≤ 197000
⎪
⎪
⎨
Z1 (x) − 218829
U1 (x) = , if 197000 < Z1 (x) ≤ 218829
⎪ 197000 − 218829
⎪
⎪
⎩
0, if Z1 (x) > 218829

⎧
⎪ 1, if Z2 (x) ≤ 945
⎪
⎪
⎨
Z2 (x) − 1008.75
U2 (x) = , if 945 < Z2 (x) ≤ 1008.75
⎪ 945 − 1008.75
⎪
⎪
⎩
0, if Z2 (x) > 1008.75

⎧
⎪ 1, if Z3 (x) ≤ 1046.25
⎪
⎪
⎨
Z3 (x) − 1077.5
U3 (x) = , if 1046.25 < Z3 (x) ≤ 1077.5
⎪
⎪ 1046.25 − 1077.5
⎪
⎩
0, if Z3 (x) > 1077.5
Fig. 3. Criteria weights and their ranks using FAHP.
⎧
⎪ 1, if Z4 (x) ≤ 42675
⎪
⎪
⎨ 0.30
∑n ∑m(i) 0.33
U4 (x) =
Z4 (x) − 43000 Maximize U(x) = 197000− 218829 × i=1 j=1 Pij xij + 945− 1008.75 ×
, if 42675 < Z4 (x) ≤ 43000
⎪ 42675 − 43000 ∑n ∑m(i) 0.13
∑ n ∑m(i) 0.21
j=1 Qi xij + j=1 di xij +
⎪
⎪
⎩ i=1 1046.25− 1077.5 × i=1 42675− 43000 ×
0, if Z4 (x) > 43000 ∑n ∑m(i) ∑n ∑m(i)
0.03
i=1 j=1 Gi xij + 692.5− 737.5 × i=1 j=1 ri xij + 40.99
⎧
⎪ 1, if Z5 (x) ≤ 692.5 Subject to : x ∊ X(equations 13 − 21)
⎪
⎪
⎨ LINGO 17 software was used to solve the above-mentioned model to
Z5 (x) − 737.5
U5 (x) =
⎪ 692.5 − 737.5
, if 692.5 < Z5 (x) ≤ 737.5 determine the order allocation quantity among each selected supplier.
⎪
⎪
⎩ Table 14 summarizes the final results of the order allocation based on
0, if Z5 (x) > 737.5
the neutral decision-making attitude of DMs.
After calculating the degree of marginal satisfaction for all objective Table 14 depicts the maximization of the average satisfaction value
functions, the next step is to use two aggregation operators to determine (U = 0.7019), mainly composed of five marginal satisfaction values U1,
the degree of global satisfaction. Based on the degree of global satis­ U2, U3, U4, and U5 (calculated with the help of eq. (23)). Furthermore,
faction obtained using two aggregation operators, the FCP approach the objective function values for the total procurement cost (Z1), quality
determines the order allocation quantities according to the DMs’ neutral rejection rate (Z2), delivery lateness rate (Z3), total greenhouse gas
and risk-averse decision-making attitudes. The main calculations asso­ emissions from product procurement (Z4), and foreign transportation
ciated with each aggregation operator are provided in the below sub- risks (Z5) are 197000, 950, 1060, 42750, and 700, respectively. Based on
sections. the acquired results, the order allocation quantities to the selected
suppliers are 11,000 to S1, 10,000 to S2, and 11,000 to S3. In compari­
5.3.1. Compromise order allocation solution based on neutral decision- son, supplier S4 failed to meet DMs’ average satisfaction level
making attitude of DMs throughout the evaluation process and did not get any order quantity
This section determines the order allocation solution based on the from the buyer organization.
neutral decision-making attitude of DMs. In this regard, the weighted
additive operator (α = 1) was employed to calculate the degree of global 5.3.2. Compromise order allocation solution based on risk-averse decision-
satisfaction (using eq. (25)), which can be stated as follows: making attitude of DMs
0.30
∑n ∑m(i) 0.33 Similarly, this sub-section computes the order allocation solution
U(x) = 197000− 218829 × i=1 j=1 Pij xij + 945− 1008.75 ×
∑n ∑m(i) ∑ ∑ based on DMs’ risk-averse decision-making attitude. In this aspect, the
0.13 n m(i) 0.21
i=1 j=1 Qi xij + 1046.25− 1077.5 × i=1 j=1 di xij + 42675− 43000 × max–min operator (α = -∞) was utilized to calculate the degree of global
∑n ∑m(i) ∑n ∑m(i)
0.03 satisfaction, which can be written as U(x) = λ. By using eq. (29), the
i=1 j=1 Gi xij + 692.5− 737.5 × i=1 j=1 ri xij + 40.99
Using the above-mentioned global satisfaction degree, the MOLP MOLP can be converted into the FCP model as follows:
model can be converted into the FCP model using eq. (28), which can be Maximize U(x) = λ
expressed as follows: Subject to :

14
H. Ali and J. Zhang Expert Systems With Applications 225 (2023) 120119

Fig. 4. Comparison of order allocation quantities under two decision-making attitudes.

1 ∑n ∑m(i)
218829 criteria weights) with the mathematical optimization technique (to
197000 − 218829
× Pij xij −
197000 − 218829
≥ λ; determine the order allocation quantity) to fulfill the current demands of
i=1 j=1
the organizations. Based on the dynamic nature of the global supply
chain uncertainties, this research provides order allocation solutions for
∑n ∑m(i)
1
× Qi xij −
1008.75
≥ λ; two decision-making attitudes (neutral and risk-averse) so that the or­
945 − 1008.75 i=1 j=1
945 − 1008.75 ganization’s managers can assign optimal order quantities among sup­
pliers according to the current situation. Furthermore, a Pakistani textile
1 ∑n ∑m(i)
1077.5 sector case study is provided to depict the practicality of the proposed
1046.25 − 1077.5
× di xij −
1046.25 − 1077.5
≥ λ; integrated approach (FAHP-MOLP-FCP). Compared to the prior studies,
the significant advantage of the applied methodology is that it can
i=1 j=1

m(i)
effectively tackle the data uncertainty factor and provides order allo­
∑n ∑
1
× Gi xij −
43000
≥ λ; cation solutions based on two decision-making attitudes of the DMs.
42675 − 43000 i=1 j=1
42675 − 43000 To effectively evaluate the selected suppliers, this research initially
identified the fourteen sub-criteria with the assistance of a compre­
1 ∑n ∑m(i)
737.5 hensive literature review and experts’ opinions. Later, the identified
692.5 − 737.5
× ri xij −
692.5 − 737.5
≥ λ; sub-criteria were grouped into five main factors, such as cost (C1),
quality (C2), delivery (C3), environmental competency (C4), and risks
i=1 j=1

(C5), to assess the selected suppliers’ performance. After criteria iden­

x ∊ X (equations 13 − 21).
Again, using the LINGO 17 software, the optimal compromise solu­
tion for order allocation is summarized in Table 15.
Table 15 illustrates the maximization of the least satisfaction value
(U = 0.6447), mainly composed of five marginal satisfaction values U1,
U2, U3, U4, and U5. The objective function values for Z1, Z2, Z3, Z4, and Z5
are 204759, 967, 1057, 42789, and 704, respectively. Similarly, to
achieve DMs’ least satisfaction level, the order allocation quantities are
11,000 to S1, 10,271 to S2, 9929 to S3, and 800 to S4.
6. Discussion of the acquired results
Natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods, and tsunamis have
affected markets and businesses lately, directly increasing the cost of
raw materials. In this regard, selecting competent suppliers can be
essential in lessening raw material procurement costs, allowing
manufacturing enterprises to concentrate on their core capabilities and
gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace. Many organizations
are selecting potential suppliers from around the globe due to low-cost
labor, better product quality, and advanced technological innovation.
However, due to prevailing covid-19 and natural disasters, selecting a
suitable supplier has become a significant challenge for DMs. In this
regard, the managers of manufacturing organizations need a holistic
SS&OA approach that can effectively manage the current global supply
chain crisis. As a result, this research proposed an integrated method­
ology that amalgamates the MCDM method (to calculate the conflicting
tification, we employed the FAHP approach to determine the relative
significance of the selected criteria. Fig. 3 demonstrates the outcomes of
the main criteria weights and their ranks obtained with the support of
FAHP. According to the obtained results, the DMs of the XYZ textile
industry placed a higher emphasis on quality (C2), cost (C1), and envi­
ronmental competency (C4) criteria, with a total weightage of 0.33,
0.30, and 0.21. This indicates that the XYZ organization’s customers
seek cost-effective, high-quality items with minimal environmental
impact. The suggested study’s findings are also consistent with the
findings of ForouzeshNejad (2023), Tsai and Phumchusri (2021), and De
Freitas et al. (2020), who also claimed that cost and quality are the two
most important criteria to consider when evaluating suppliers for any
manufacturing enterprise. In contrast, the delivery (C3) and risks (C5)
criteria were considered less important than the other selected criteria,
with a weightage of 0.13 and 0.03, respectively. This indicates that the
delivery rate of products and risks associated with the foreign trans­
portation of goods factors have placed less emphasis on textile industries
than other criteria. To summarize, the final rank of the selected criteria
can be written as follows: C2 > C1 > C4 > C3 > C5. The recommended
ranking of the criteria will serve as an essential reference for the man­
agers of other enterprises in determining which factors should be given
more significance if they also want to select international green
suppliers.
Similarly, after determining the criteria weights, the developed
MOLP model was solved with the help of the FCP approach to obtain the
order allocation solutions based on two decision-making attitudes of the

15
H. Ali and J. Zhang Expert Systems With Applications 225 (2023) 120119

Table 16
Sensitivity analysis of objective function 1 with other objective functions.
Scenario set 1.1 Scenario set 1.2
(Objective functions 1 and 2) (Objective functions 1 and 3)

Scenario w1 w2 Z1 Z2 U w1 w3 Z1 Z3 U

1 0.32 0.31 197,000 950 0.6929 0.32 0.11 197,000 1060 0.6941
2 0.30 0.33 197,000 950 0.7019 0.30 0.13 197,000 1060 0.7019
3 0.28 0.35 197,000 950 0.7006 0.28 0.15 197,000 1060 0.6899
4 0.26 0.37 197,000 950 0.6994 0.26 0.17 197,000 1060 0.6779
5 0.24 0.39 197,000 950 0.6887 0.24 0.19 197,000 1060 0.6659
6 0.22 0.41 197,000 950 0.6875 0.22 0.21 197,000 1060 0.6539

Scenario set 1.3 Scenario set 1.4

(Objective functions 1 and 4) (Objective functions 1 and 5)

Scenario w1 w4 Z1 Z4 U w1 w5 Z1 Z5 U

1 0.32 0.19 197,000 42,750 1.0517 0.32 0.01 197,000 700 0.6926
2 0.30 0.21 197,000 42,750 0.7019 0.30 0.03 197,000 700 0.7019
3 0.28 0.23 197,000 42,750 0.7598 0.28 0.05 197,000 700 0.6984
4 0.26 0.25 197,000 42,750 0.8178 0.26 0.07 197,000 700 0.6880
5 0.24 0.27 197,000 42,750 0.8780 0.24 0.09 197,000 700 0.6846
6 0.22 0.29 197,000 42,750 0.9407 0.22 0.11 197,000 700 0.6835

Fig. 5. Average satisfaction level concerning each scenario set of objective function 1.

DMs. Based on both outcomes acquired with the assistance of two ag­
gregation operators (shown in Fig. 4), the neutral decision of the DMs is
to select the suppliers S1, S2, and S3 for the order allocation quantities of
11000, 10000, and 11000, respectively, to maximize their average
satisfaction level. However, the order allocation quantity for supplier S2
is lower than its actual offering (i.e., 10500), which can be improved by
implementing specific managerial strategies in the future. Furthermore,
supplier S4 was not qualified throughout the evaluation process to meet
DMs’ average satisfaction level and failed to receive any order from the
buyer organization. On the other hand, if the DMs are risk-averse, they
can assign the order allocation quantities of 11000, 10271, 9929, and
800 to suppliers S1, S2, S3, and S4, respectively, to satisfy their least
satisfaction level.
As we already discussed, XYZ industry’s management emphasized
quality, cost, and environmental competency standards more than the
delivery and risk factors in response to customers’ demand. So, based on
the facts mentioned above, supplier S1 received the maximum order
allocation quantity from the DMs in both scenarios (neutral and risk-
averse). The maximum order is due to its lowest offered unit cost,
lower quality rejection rate, lowest product delivery lateness rate, lower
greenhouse gas emissions, and lower foreign transportation risks than
other suppliers. Simultaneously, the order allocation quantity to sup­
pliers S2, S3, and S4 differ due to two dissimilar aggregation operators.
The fundamental reason for this difference is that in the weighted ad­
ditive operator, different criteria weights were utilized based on the
customer’s demand, whereas in the max–min operator, all criteria were
treated equally. Therefore, supplier S2 received a 31.25% order alloca­
tion quantity in achieving the average satisfaction level, whereas this
quantity increased to 32.1% while achieving the least satisfaction level.
The 0.85% difference in order allocation is due to less cost-effective and

16
H. Ali and J. Zhang Expert Systems With Applications 225 (2023) 120119

Table 17
Sensitivity analysis of objective function 2 with other objective functions.
Scenario set 2.1 Scenario set 2.2
(Objective functions 2 and 1) (Objective functions 2 and 3)

Scenario w2 w1 Z2 Z1 U w2 w3 Z2 Z3 U

1 0.35 0.28 950 197,000 0.7006 0.35 0.11 950 1060 0.7126
2 0.33 0.30 950 197,000 0.7019 0.33 0.13 950 1060 0.7019
3 0.31 0.32 950 197,000 0.6929 0.31 0.15 950 1060 0.7006
4 0.29 0.34 950 197,000 0.6941 0.29 0.17 950 1060 0.6898
5 0.27 0.36 950 197,000 0.6953 0.27 0.19 950 1060 0.6790
6 0.25 0.38 950 197,000 0.7060 0.25 0.21 950 1060 0.6778

Scenario set 2.3 Scenario set 2.4

(Objective functions 2 and 4) (Objective functions 2 and 5)

Scenario w2 w4 Z2 Z4 U w2 w5 Z2 Z5 U

1 0.35 0.19 950 42,750 1.0702 0.35 0.01 950 700 0.7110
2 0.33 0.21 950 42,750 0.7019 0.33 0.03 950 700 0.7019
3 0.31 0.23 950 42,750 0.7705 0.31 0.05 950 700 0.7092
4 0.29 0.25 950 42,750 0.8331 0.29 0.07 950 700 0.7011
5 0.27 0.27 950 42,750 0.8999 0.27 0.09 950 700 0.7053
6 0.25 0.29 950 42,750 0.9763 0.25 0.11 950 700 0.7191

Fig. 6. Average satisfaction level concerning each scenario set of objective function 2.

low-quality products offered by supplier S2 with higher delivery lateness
rate, which has significant weightage in achieving the average satis­
faction level of DMs compared to lesser foreign transportation risks
involved during product transit and better environmental performance
collectively. As a result, supplier S2 obtained a lower order allocation
quantity while achieving an average satisfaction level than the least
satisfaction level of DMs.
Similarly, the order allocation percentages for supplier S3 in
achieving the DMs’ average and least satisfaction levels are 34.38% and
31.03%, respectively. The difference of 3.35% in the order allocation
quantity to supplier S3 is due to its poor environmental performance,
high delivery lateness rate, and higher foreign transportation risks.
However, the weightage of these three criteria collectively is less than
the cost and quality criteria together, in which the performance of
supplier S3 is better than the other suppliers. As a result, supplier S3
achieved a greater order allocation quantity while attaining the average
satisfaction level of the DMs than the least satisfaction level. On the
other hand, supplier S4 only obtained a 2.5% order allocation quota
while achieving the least satisfaction level of DMs. The main reason is
that the products offered by supplier S4 were expensive in terms of unit
cost, low in quality, less eco-friendly, and had a higher percentage of
foreign transportation risks. From a managerial viewpoint, this infor­
mation can help the supplier organizations to strengthen their weak
points to provide better services to the buyer organization in the future.
In this way, the supplier and the buyer organizations can maintain a
long-term relationship, which can be a win–win situation for both or­
ganizations. Furthermore, to effectively manage the demand fluctua­
tions and prevent supply chain disruptions, the buyer organization can
also assist the supplier S4 in improving its performance regarding five
evaluation factors (cost, quality, delivery, environmental competency,
and risks) to maintain a competitive edge in the global market.
7. Sensitivity and comparative analysis
7.1. Sensitivity analysis
A systematic sensitivity analysis is performed in this section to verify
the efficiency and accuracy of the proposed methodology and its final
results by creating different scenarios. In this regard, the weights of the
two objective functions were varied, while the weights of the other three

17
H. Ali and J. Zhang Expert Systems With Applications 225 (2023) 120119

Table 18
Sensitivity analysis of objective function 3 with other objective functions.
Scenario set 3.1 Scenario set 3.2
(Objective functions 3 and 1) (Objective functions 3 and 2)

Scenario w3 w1 Z3 Z1 U w3 w2 Z3 Z2 U

1 0.15 0.28 1060 197,000 0.6899 0.15 0.31 1060 950 0.7006
2 0.13 0.30 1060 197,000 0.7019 0.13 0.33 1060 950 0.7019
3 0.11 0.32 1060 197,000 0.6941 0.11 0.35 1060 950 0.7126
4 0.09 0.34 1060 197,000 0.7061 0.09 0.37 1060 950 0.7234
5 0.07 0.36 1060 197,000 0.7181 0.07 0.39 1060 950 0.7247
6 0.05 0.38 1060 197,000 0.7301 0.05 0.41 1060 950 0.7354

Scenario set 3.3 Scenario set 3.4

(Objective functions 3 and 4) (Objective functions 3 and 5)

Scenario w3 w4 Z3 Z4 U w3 w5 Z3 Z5 U

1 0.15 0.19 1060 42,750 1.0594 0.15 0.01 1060 700 0.7003
2 0.13 0.21 1060 42,750 0.7019 0.13 0.03 1060 700 0.7019
3 0.11 0.23 1060 42,750 0.7718 0.11 0.05 1060 700 0.7104
4 0.09 0.25 1060 42,750 0.8421 0.09 0.07 1060 700 0.7120
5 0.07 0.27 1060 42,750 0.9181 0.07 0.09 1060 700 0.7235
6 0.05 0.29 1060 42,750 0.9942 0.05 0.11 1060 700 0.7370

Fig. 7. Average satisfaction level concerning each scenario set of objective function 3.

objective functions were kept constant. It is expected that raising the
weight of the objective function will not reduce the value of the objec­
tive function, and decreasing the weight of the objective function will
not increase the value of the objective function. This well-known
sensitivity analysis is used to assess the efficiency of the multi-
objective mathematical models (Mardan et al., 2019; Nasr et al.,
2021). For example, if the weight of a minimization objective function is
increased, the value of that objective function is supposed to decrease or
remain constant. If the weight of the maximization objective function
decreases, the value of the objective function increases or stays un­
changed. Implementing these scenarios yielded unexpected outcomes,
indicating that the proposed methodology does not generate viable so­
lutions. However, if the proposed model meets the requirements of all
scenarios, its success is deemed appropriate.
Note: This sensitivity analysis cannot be performed on the max–min
aggregation operator (which determined the order allocation quantity
based on the risk-averse decision-making attitude of the DMs) because
all the objective functions were treated equally.
Step 1: This step is related to the changes in the weights of objective
function 1 and the other objective functions, i.e., 1 – 2, 1 – 3, 1 – 4, and 1
– 5 (Only two objective function weights were changed at a time while
the other three objective function weights were kept constant). It is
expected that if the first objective function weight is reduced while the
weight of the other objective function is increased, the value of both
objective functions will remain constant. Table 16 shows each scenario
set (SS) related to objective function 1 and their related outcomes. Fig. 5
depicts the changes in the average satisfaction level resulting from each
scenario set of objective function 1.
According to the obtained results (shown in Table 16), the value of
both objective functions remains constant in each scenario set,

18
H. Ali and J. Zhang Expert Systems With Applications 225 (2023) 120119

Table 19
Sensitivity analysis of objective function 4 with other objective functions.
Scenario set 4.1 Scenario set 4.2
(Objective functions 4 and 1) (Objective functions 4 and 2)

Scenario w4 w1 Z4 Z1 U w4 w2 Z4 Z2 U

1 0.23 0.28 42,750 197,000 0.7598 0.23 0.31 42,750 950 0.7705
2 0.21 0.30 42,750 197,000 0.7019 0.21 0.33 42,750 950 0.7019
3 0.19 0.32 42,750 197,000 1.0517 0.19 0.35 42,750 950 1.0702
4 0.17 0.34 42,750 197,000 0.9937 0.17 0.37 42,750 950 1.0110
5 0.15 0.36 42,750 197,000 0.9358 0.15 0.39 42,750 950 0.9423
6 0.13 0.38 42,750 197,000 0.8778 0.13 0.41 42,750 950 0.8831

Scenario set 4.3 Scenario set 4.4

(Objective functions 4 and 3) (Objective functions 4 and 5)

Scenario w4 w3 Z4 Z3 U w4 w5 Z4 Z5 U

1 0.23 0.11 42,750 1060 0.7718 0.23 0.01 42,750 700 0.7702
2 0.21 0.13 42,750 1060 0.7019 0.21 0.03 42,750 700 0.7019
3 0.19 0.15 42,750 1060 1.0594 0.19 0.05 42,750 700 1.0680
4 0.17 0.17 42,750 1060 0.9894 0.17 0.07 42,750 700 0.9996
5 0.15 0.19 42,750 1060 0.9195 0.15 0.09 42,750 700 0.9382
6 0.13 0.21 42,750 1060 0.8495 0.13 0.11 42,750 700 0.8769

Fig. 8. Average satisfaction level concerning each scenario set of objective function 4.

demonstrating the accuracy of the suggested methodology. However,
changing the weights of the objective functions changes the average
satisfaction value (U). Fig. 5 shows that the optimal global average
satisfaction value for each objective function is the same (i.e., 0.7019)
and is independent of the optimum local value for each objective func­
tion. As a result, we can conclude that our proposed approach provides
an optimal order allocation solution with a maximum overall satisfac­
tion level for each objective function.
Step 2: This step defines the changes in the weights of objective
function 2 and the other objective functions, i.e., 2 – 1, 2 – 3, 2 – 4, and 2
– 5 (Only two objective function weights were modified at a time, while
the weights of the other objective functions remain unchanged). The
scenario sets for changing the weights of two objective functions and
their corresponding outcomes are shown in Table 17. Fig. 6 represents
the variations in the value of the average satisfaction level concerning
each scenario set of objective function 2.
As expected, the value of the objective functions remains constant in
each scenario set. As a result, the main findings support the validity of
our proposed approach. Fig. 6 also illustrates how changing the weights
of the objective functions in each scenario set affects the average
satisfaction value. All scenario sets converge at a single point, indicating
that our proposed model offers the best optimal solution.
Step 3: This step is associated with the changes in the weights of the
objective function 3 and the other objective functions, i.e., 3 – 1, 3 – 2, 3
– 4, and 3 – 5 (only two objective function weights were changed at a
time while the other three objective function weights remained con­
stant). Table 18 shows the final results of the sensitivity analysis related
to objective function 3. Fig. 7 illustrates the corresponding changes in
average satisfaction level for each scenario set of objective function 3.
Table 18 shows that the objective function values in each scenario set
do not change by varying the weights of the objective functions,
demonstrating the validity of our proposed model. Fig. 7 again shows
the same globalized average satisfaction level (U = 0.7019) of all
objective functions, indicating that our proposed model provides the
best order allocation solution.
Step 4: This step addresses the generation of the scenario sets ac­
cording to the changes in the weights of the objective function 4 and
other objective functions, i.e., 4 – 1, 4 – 2, 4 – 3, and 4 – 5 (Only two
objective function weights were changed at a time and other objective
function weights were kept constant). Table 19 provides the outcomes of

19
H. Ali and J. Zhang
Fig. 9. Combined average satisfaction level graph concerning all scenario sets.
the sensitivity analysis related to objective function 4. Fig. 8 shows the
change in the average satisfaction level concerning each scenario set of
objective function 4.
Similarly, according to Table 19, the value of all the objective
functions in each scenario set remains constant. As a result, we can state
that our proposed approach outcomes are accurate. Fig. 8 also shows
that adjusting the weights of the objective functions does not affect the
global average satisfaction value (U = 0.7019).
Combined results: To better comprehend the obtained sensitivity
analysis results, we combined all the average satisfaction level graphs
into a single graph (presented in Fig. 9). In a multi-objective optimiza­
tion model, the organizational DMs only aim to achieve a global satis­
faction value that maximizes all individual objective functions. Fig. 9
depicts that by changing the weights of different objective functions, the
optimal global value for achieving the average satisfaction level remains
the same (U = 0.7019), and it does not depend upon the optimal local
value of each objective function. So this shows that our proposed
methodology effectively solves the multi-objective mathematical model
and provides the global average satisfaction value to the DMs for order
allocation. To conclude, our suggested methodology calculates global
average and least satisfaction values, which can assist DMs in making
better procurement-related decisions.
Fig. 10. Comparison of different MCDM methods.
20
Expert Systems With Applications 225 (2023) 120119
7.2. Comparative analysis
In this section, the weights acquired with the assistance of the FAHP
are compared with the other two well-known MCDM methods, namely
the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and the best-worst method
(BWM), to validate the effectiveness of the proposed approach. The AHP
is the most widely used MCDM technique for solving real-world deci­
sion-making issues among academics (Sarıçam & Yilmaz, 2022; Ikinci &
Tipi, 2022). However, when the number of criteria increases, the pair­
wise comparison matrices grow exponentially, which confuses the DMs
during decision-making, resulting in inconsistent final solutions. To
address this problem, many researchers applied the BWM, which em­
ploys fewer pairwise comparisons to provide better results (Hosseini
et al., 2022; Darvazeh et al., 2022). The selected criteria were evaluated
individually with the help of the methods mentioned above to compare
the values of the final weights. Fig. 10 depicts the final results of the
comparative analysis. It is interesting to note that the ranking of all the
criteria (i.e., C2 > C1 > C4 > C3 > C5) stays consistent in each employed
method which represents the accuracy of our results. However, the
weights produced by each approach vary from one another. One of the
most probable reasons is that in AHP and BWM, the DMs use a single
numeric value to rate each criterion’s importance, leading to biased and
inconsistent final solutions as human judgment always contains errors,
especially when there are qualitative and quantitative factors. On the
other hand, the proposed FAHP method overcomes this issue by incor­
porating the fuzzy set theory in which the DMs use linguistic terms to
rate each criterion’s importance. The linguistic terms are later
substituted by their corresponding TFNs, reducing the DMs’ cognitive
burden and leading to more consistent final results. Based on this fact,
we can conclude that the proposed methodology provides more
consistent and precise outcomes than AHP and BWM.
8. Main findings and implications of the proposed research
8.1. Main findings
The results of the case study, sensitivity analysis, and comparative
analysis led to several discoveries, which are as follows:
• The proposed methodology provides an effective decision-making
strategy that gives DMs more flexibility in dealing with data uncer­
tainty during criteria evaluation and order allocation, lessening their
cognitive load and human judgmental mistakes.
H. Ali and J. Zhang
• Changes in the criteria weights change the average satisfaction level
of the objective functions, but it doesn’t affect the global average
satisfaction value, which shows that our proposed model provides
optimal solutions for order allocation.
• The decision-making attitudes of the DMs (neutral and risk-averse)
influence the suppliers’ order allocation quantities.
• Compared to traditional decision-making techniques, the suggested
integrated mathematical approach outcomes are robust and consis­
tent while tackling data uncertainty.
8.2. Theoretical implications
Based on the findings mentioned above, the suggested study’s
theoretical implications can be summarized as follows:
• Most previous studies have not fully accounted for the data uncer­
tainty factor during the criteria evaluation and order allocation
stages, resulting in a final solution with a higher likelihood of human
judgment errors. (Baek & Kim, 2020; Ai et al., 2021). We integrated
the fuzzy set theory with the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and
compromise programming (CP) methods to handle the data ambi­
guity during criteria assessment and order allocation. Integrating the
fuzzy approach with the proposed methodology makes decision-
making easier for DMs and reduces the likelihood of human judg­
ment errors. Due to this, the obtained results are more robust and
accurate.
• Previous studies provided order allocation solutions without
considering the different decision-making attitudes of DMs, which do
not offer enough choices to the DMs during order allocation (Ali
et al., 2022; Khoshfetrat et al., 2020; Kaviani et al., 2020; Khalilza­
deh et al., 2020). We proposed the extended version of the fuzzy
compromise programming approach to overcome this issue, which
provides order allocation solutions in terms of two decision-making
attitudes (neutral and risk-averse) and successfully delivers the non-
dominated compromise solutions of a multi-objective model. The
sensitivity analysis results also revealed that the fuzzy compromise
programming approach does not rely on each objective function’s
local optimal value and produces an outstanding solution that
maximizes the overall satisfaction level of all objective functions.
• The proposed approach is simple and can generate results quickly
compared to the other existing methodologies, which are complex
and consumes more time (Kirschstein & Meisel, 2019; Alejo-Reyes
et al., 2021).
• Some earlier studies have not provided any methodology for calcu­
lating criteria weights and instead relied solely on the weights pro­
vided by DMs during order allocation, resulting in less reliable
outcomes (Son & Hop, 2021; Yousefi et al., 2021). This paper uses
the FAHP approach, which assesses each criterion based on its
relative importance and provides more accurate criteria weights,
assisting decision-makers in obtaining the most precise and optimal
order allocation solutions.
8.3. Managerial implications
The proposed study can assists organizations in gaining a thorough
understanding of how to select and evaluate global green suppliers
under data ambiguity and quantity discounts. The suggested study
considers economic, environmental competency, and foreign trans­
portation risk factors for creating a comprehensive evaluation frame­
work in case of multiple sourcing decisions. The following are some of
the most significant managerial implications of the proposed research:
• Using linguistic terms during criteria evaluation in FAHP lessens the
DMs’ cognitive burden and provides more accurate solutions. With
the assistance of linguistic terms, DMs can swiftly assess the relative
importance of each criterion. Later, the linguistic terms can be
21
Expert Systems With Applications 225 (2023) 120119
substituted by TFNs, reducing the likelihood of human judgment
errors throughout the decision-making process.
• Due to ongoing global supply chain uncertainties, the procurement
cost of raw materials is increasing exponentially. To handle this
situation and successfully tackle product price hikes, the proposed
multi-objective model incorporates an all-unit quantity discounts
scheme that reduces the procurement cost of raw materials.
• Due to the rapid spread of diseases and natural catastrophes, the
global supply chain is facing various disruptions. In this regard,
determining order allocation quantity under different decision-
making attitudes is essential to provide more options to DMs. With
the proposed methodology’s assistance, the organizational DMs can
determine the order allocation quantity based on two decision-
making attitudes (neutral and risk-averse), providing them with
more options.
• The final solutions obtained using the proposed methodology can
reveal the supplier organizations’ existing flaws, allowing them to
improve their policies and procedures in the future.
• The proposed methodology is straightforward and can produce re­
sults swiftly, significantly reducing the decision-making time of the
DMs.
• The developed approach is flexible and can be expanded or modified
to meet any organization’s requirements.
• This study solely looked at the textile sector for global green SS&OA.
However, similar businesses can also use the proposed methodology
to select potential suppliers.
Based on the implications mentioned above, the proposed method­
ology and its final results may interest experts, scholars, and managers
interested in global green SS&OA under quantity discounts.
9. Conclusion
Global green SS&OA is one of the most challenging and complex
decisions the organizations’ DMs must make to remain competitive in
the global market, as it involves quantitative and qualitative factors. To
effectively manage the escalating ecological pollutants and global sup­
ply chain uncertainties, this research provided a novel fuzzy integrated
mathematical approach to solve the global green SS&OA problem under
a multi-objective, multi-supplier, and all-unit quantity discounts envi­
ronment. Initially, the FAHP method was used to calculate the relative
weights of the defined criteria. Second, a MOLP model was developed to
minimize the total procurement cost, quality rejection rate, delivery
lateness rate, greenhouse gas emissions from product procurement, and
foreign transportation risks under all-unit quantity discounts. Finally,
the extended version of the FCP approach calculated the non-dominated
compromise solutions of the MOLP model for order allocation based on
two decision-making attitudes of the DMs. Later, a real-life case study of
a textile organization for global green SS&OA was presented to
demonstrate the effectiveness and practicality of the developed inte­
grated approach. The sensitivity and comparative analysis findings
showed that the suggested methodology effectively provides more ac­
curate and optimal solutions for multi-objective problems. Based on the
existing literature, the main contributions of the proposed research can
be summarized as follows:
• For the first time, this study combined the economic, environmental,
and foreign transportation risk criteria for the comprehensive
assessment of textile industry suppliers.
• The proposed study presented an extended version of the FCP
approach with two distinct aggregation operators that provides order
allocation solutions based on two decision-making attitudes of DMs.
• This study developed a novel multi-objective model whose primary
focus is to decrease the escalating environmental pollution and
foreign transportation risks.
H. Ali and J. Zhang
• The suggested study condenses the cognitive burden of DMs during
decision-making by utilizing the fuzzy approach during criteria
evaluation and order allocation stages.
• The proposed methodology highlights the existing flaws of the sup­
plier organizations, which can assist them in improving their future
performance to maintain a long-term relationship with the buyer
organization.
9.1. Limitations and future research directions
This study presents the fuzzy multi-objective decision-making tech­
nique for resolving the global green SS&OA problem under quantity
discounts. However, there are certain limitations to this research effort,
such as the fact that only one type of product was obtained from multiple
suppliers. Furthermore, demand was assumed to be consistent, and only
one kind of quantity discount scheme was considered while procuring
raw materials. Future studies can consider other quantity discount
schemes for solving the SS&OA problem under a multi-objective, multi-
item, and multi-supplier context. Due to the rapid spread of diseases and
the growing frequency of natural disasters, people’s quality of life has
been affected significantly, directly influencing their overall expendi­
ture. In this regard, future studies can consider the demand fluctuations
while allocating orders among the selected suppliers. Furthermore,
metaheuristic algorithms, such as ant colony optimization, can also be
used to handle large multi-objective decision-making problems. Lastly,
this research solely looked into the textile sector for global green
SS&OA. Future studies can utilize the same methodology in other sectors
to enhance the practicality of our proposed methodology.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Hassan Ali: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Investi­
gation, Software, Writing – original draft. Jingwen Zhang: Conceptu­
alization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Software,
Supervision, Resources.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this
study are available within the article.
Acknowledgments
The authors appreciate the editor and anonymous reviewers’ timely,
detailed, and insightful comments on this manuscript. The editor and
reviewers’ valuable comments and ideas considerably improved the
paper’s quality. This work was supported by the National Natural Sci­
ence Foundation of China under Grants Nos. 71971173 and 71572148,
Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities under Grant
No. 3102019JC02, Natural Science Basic Research Plan in Shaanxi
Province of China under Grant No. 2020JM-146, and Social Science
Foundation of Shaanxi Province under Grant No. 2014P23.
References
Abrishami, S. J., Vahdani, H., & Rezaee, B. (2020). An integrated lot-sizing model with
supplier and carrier selection and quantity discounts considering multiple products.
Scientia Iranica, 27(4), 2140–2156. https://doi.org/10.24200/SCI.2019.5155.1125
Acerbi, F., Rocca, R., Fumagalli, L., & Taisch, M. (2023). Enhancing the cosmetics
industry sustainability through a renewed sustainable supplier selection model.
22
Expert Systems With Applications 225 (2023) 120119
Production & Manufacturing Research, 11(1), Article 2161021. https://doi.org/
10.1080/21693277.2022.2161021.
Ai, X., Yue, Y., Xu, H., & Deng, X. (2021). Optimizing multi-supplier multi-item joint
replenishment problem for non-instantaneous deteriorating items with quantity
discounts. PLoS ONE, 16(2), Article e0246035. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0246035.
Alegoz, M., & Yapicioglu, H. (2019). Supplier selection and order allocation decisions
under quantity discount and fast service options. Sustainable Production and
Consumption, 18, 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2019.02.006
Alejo-Reyes, A., Mendoza, A., & Olivares-Benitez, E. (2021). A heuristic method for the
supplier selection and order quantity allocation problem. Applied Mathematical
Modelling, 90, 1130–1142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2020.10.024
Alfares, H. K., & Turnadi, R. (2018). Lot sizing and supplier selection with multiple items,
multiple periods, quantity discounts, and backordering. Computers & Industrial
Engineering, 116, 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2017.12.019
Ali, H., Zhang, J., Liu, S., & Shoaib, M. (2022). An integrated decision-making approach
for global supplier selection and order allocation to create an environment-friendly
supply chain. Kybernetes. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-10-2021-1046
Altan, A., Aslan, O., & Hacioglu, R. (2017, May 27-28). The control of blast furnace top gas
pressure by using Fuzzy PID. Fifth International Conference on Advances in
Mechanical and Robotics Engineering - AMRE 2017, Rome, Italy. https://doi.org/
10.15224/978-1-63248-123-8-18.
Altan, A., & Karasu, S. (2019). The effect of kernel values in support vector machine to
forecasting performance of financial time series. The Journal of Cognitive Systems, 4
(1), 17–21. Accessed at: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/746748.
Altan, A., Karasu, S., & Zio, E. (2021). A new hybrid model for wind speed forecasting
combining long short-term memory neural network, decomposition methods and
grey wolf optimizer. Applied Soft Computing, 100, Article 106996. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106996
Amid, A., Ghodsypour, S. H., & O’Brien, C. (2011). A weighted max–min model for fuzzy
multi-objective supplier selection in a supply chain. International Journal of
Production Economics, 131(1), 139–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.04.044
Amiri, M., Hashemi-Tabatabaei, M., Ghahremanloo, M., Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M.,
Zavadskas, E. K., & Banaitis, A. (2021). A new fuzzy BWM approach for evaluating
and selecting a sustainable supplier in supply chain management. International
Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 28(2), 125–142. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13504509.2020.1793424
Awasthi, A., Chauhan, S. S., & Goyal, S. K. (2010). A fuzzy multi-criteria approach for
evaluating environmental performance of suppliers. International Journal of
Production Economics, 126(2), 370–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.04.029
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 &
Industrial Engineering, 85, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2015.02.026
Baek, S. H., & Kim, J. S. (2020). Efficient algorithms for a large-scale supplier selection
and order allocation problem considering carbon emissions and quantity discounts.
Mathematics, 8(10), Article 1659. https://doi.org/10.3390/math8101659.
Bahadori-Chinibelagh, S., Fathollahi-Fard, A. M., & Hajiaghaei-Keshteli, M. (2022). Two
constructive algorithms to address a multi-depot home healthcare routing problem.
IETE Journal of Research, 68(2), 1108–1114. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03772063.2019.1642802
Bektur, G. (2020). An integrated methodology for the selection of sustainable suppliers
and order allocation problem with quantity discounts, lost sales and varying supplier
availabilities. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 23, 111–127. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.spc.2020.05.006
Buckley, J. J. (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets Systems, 17(3), 233–247.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(85)90090-9
Çalık, A. (2021). A novel Pythagorean fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methodology for
green supplier selection in the Industry 4.0 era. Soft Computing, 25, 2253–2265.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-020-05294-9
Chan, F. T. S., Kumar, N., Tiwari, M. K., Lau, H. C. W., & Choy, K. L. (2008). Global
supplier selection: A fuzzy-AHP approach. International Journal of Production
Research, 46(14), 3825–3857. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540600787200
Chang, K. H. (2019). A novel supplier selection method that integrates the intuitionistic
fuzzy weighted averaging method and a soft set with imprecise data. Annals of
Operations Research, 272, 139–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-017-2718-6
Chen, J., Xu, Z., Gou, X., Huang, D., & Zhang, J. (2021). Automobile components
procurement using a DEA-TOPSIS-FMIP approach with all-unit quantity discount
and fuzzy factors. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 27(2),
311–352. https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2020.13176
Cheng, Y., Peng, J., Gu, X., Zhang, X., Liu, W., Zhou, Z., … Huang, Z. (2020). An
intelligent supplier evaluation model based on data-driven support vector regression
in global supply chain. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 139, Article 105834.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.04.047
Cheraghalipour, A., & Farsad, S. (2018). A bi-objective sustainable supplier selection and
order allocation considering quantity discounts under disruption risks: A case study
in plastic industry. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 118, 237–250. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.02.041
Darvazeh, S. S., Mooseloo, F. M., Vandchali, H. R., Tomaskova, H., & Tirkolaee, E. B.
(2022). An integrated multi-criteria decision-making approach to optimize the
number of leagile-sustainable suppliers in supply chains. Environmental Science and
Pollution Research, 29, 66979–67001. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-20214-0
De Freitas, A., Salgado, E. G., & Lira, J. M. S. (2020). Selection of suppliers in the green
supply chain: Case study with multi-criteria decision. International Journal for Quality
Research, 14(1), 51–64. https://doi.org/10.24874/IJQR14.01-04
Ebrahim, R. M., Razmi, J., & Haleh, H. (2009). Scatter search algorithm for supplier
selection and order lot sizing under multiple price discount environment. Advances in
H. Ali and J. Zhang
Engineering Software, 40(9), 766–776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
advengsoft.2009.02.003
Emirhüseyinoğlu, G., & Ekici, A. (2019). Dynamic facility location with supplier selection
under quantity discount. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 134, 64–74. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.05.023
Firouzi, F., & Jadidi, O. (2021). Multi-objective model for supplier selection and order
allocation problem with fuzzy parameters. Expert Systems with Applications, 180,
Article 115129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.115129
ForouzeshNejad, A. A. (2023). Leagile and sustainable supplier selection problem in the
Industry 4.0 era: A case study of the medical devices using hybrid multi-criteria
decision making tool. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30,
13418–13437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-22916-x
Fu, Y., Tian, G., Fathollahi-Fard, A. M., Ahmadi, A., & Zhang, C. (2019). Stochastic multi-
objective modelling and optimization of an energy-conscious distributed
permutation flow shop scheduling problem with the total tardiness constraint.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 226, 515–525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2019.04.046
Giri, B. C., Molla, M. U., & Biswas, P. (2022). Pythagorean fuzzy DEMATEL method for
supplier selection in sustainable supply chain management. Expert Systems with
Applications, 193, Article 116396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.116396
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2012.04.014
Guneri, A. F., Yucel, A., & Ayyildiz, G. (2009). An integrated fuzzy-lp approach for a
supplier selection problem in supply chain management. Expert Systems with
Applications, 36(5), 9223–9228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.12.021
Hasan, M. M., Jiang, D., Ullah, A. M. M. S., & Noor-E-Alam, M. (2020). Resilient supplier
selection in logistics 4.0 with heterogeneous information. Expert Systems with
Applications, 139, Article 112799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2019.07.016
Hosseini, S., Morshedlou, N., Ivanov, D., Sarder, M. D., Barker, K., & Khaled, A. A.
(2019). Resilient supplier selection and optimal order allocation under disruption
risks. International Journal of Production Economics, 213, 124–137. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.03.018
Hosseini, Z. S., Flapper, S. D., & Pirayesh, M. (2022). Sustainable supplier selection and
order allocation under demand, supplier availability and supplier grading
uncertainties. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 165, Article 107811. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107811
Ikinci, M., & Tipi, T. (2022). Food supplier selection in the catering industry using the
analytic hierarchy process. Food Science and Technology, 42, Article e48420. https://
doi.org/10.1590/fst.48420.
Islam, S., Amin, S. H., & Wardley, L. J. (2021). Machine learning and optimization
models for supplier selection and order allocation planning. International Journal of
Production Economics, 242, Article 108315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijpe.2021.108315
Jadidi, O., Jaber, M. Y., Zolfaghri, S., Pinto, R., & Firouzi, F. (2021). Dynamic pricing and
lot sizing for a newsvendor problem with supplier selection, quantity discounts, and
limited supply capacity. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 154, Article 107113.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107113
Jiang, H., Lin, Y., Luo, X., & Shao, T. (2022). Understanding the selection of cross-border
import e-commerce platforms through the DANP and TOPSIS techniques: A multi-
study analysis. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 25(1), 26–53.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1097198X.2021.2022397
Jouida, S. B., & Krichen, S. (2022). A genetic algorithm for supplier selection problem
under collaboration opportunities. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial
Intelligence, 34(1), 53–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/0952813X.2020.1836031
Kannan, D., Khodaverdi, R., Olfat, L., Jafarian, A., & Diabat, A. (2013). Integrated fuzzy
multi criteria decision making method and multi-objective programming approach
for supplier selection and order allocation in a green supply chain. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 47, 355–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.02.010
Kannan, D., Mina, H., Nosrati-Abarghooee, S., & Khosrojerdi, G. (2020). Sustainable
circular supplier selection: A novel hybrid approach. Science of The Total
Environment, 722, Article 137936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137936
Karasu, S., Altan, A., Bekiros, S., & Ahmad, W. (2020). A new forecasting model with
wrapper-based feature selection approach using multi-objective optimization
technique for chaotic crude oil time series. Energy, 212, Article 118750. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.118750
Kaur, H., & Singh, S. P. (2021). Multi-stage hybrid model for supplier selection and order
allocation considering disruption risks and disruptive technologies. International
Journal of Production Economics, 231, Article 107830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijpe.2020.107830
Kaviani, M. A., Peykam, A., Khan, S. A., Brahimi, N., & Niknam, R. (2020). A new
weighted fuzzy programming model for supplier selection and order allocation in the
food industry. Journal of Modelling in Management, 15(2), 381–406. https://doi.org/
10.1108/JM2-11-2018-0191
Khalilzadeh, M., Karami, A., & Hajikhani, A. (2020). The multi-objective supplier
selection problem with fuzzy parameters and solving the order allocation problem
with coverage. Journal of Modelling in Management, 15(3), 705–725. https://doi.org/
10.1108/JM2-04-2018-0049
Khan, S. A., Kusi-Sarpong, S., Arhin, F. K., & Kusi-Sarpong, H. (2018). Supplier
sustainability performance evaluation and selection: A framework and methodology.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 205, 964–979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2018.09.144
Khoshfetrat, S., Galankashi, M. R., & Almasi, M. (2020). Sustainable supplier selection
and order allocation: A fuzzy approach. Engineering Optimization, 52(9), 1494–1507.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0305215X.2019.1663185
23
Expert Systems With Applications 225 (2023) 120119
Kilic, H. S., Zaim, S., & Delen, D. (2014). Development of a hybrid methodology for ERP
system selection: The case of Turkish Airlines. Decision Support Systems, 66, 82–92.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2014.06.011
Kirschstein, T., & Meisel, F. (2019). A dynamic multi-commodity lot-sizing problem with
supplier selection, storage selection and discounts for the process industry. European
Journal of Operational Research, 279(2), 393–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ejor.2019.05.039
Klinmalee, S., Naenna, T., & Woarawichai, C. (2020). Application of a genetic algorithm
for multi-item inventory lot-sizing with supplier selection under quantity discount
and lead time. International Journal of Operational Research, 38(3), 403–421. https://
doi.org/10.1504/IJOR.2020.107540
Kumar, G. K., Rao, M. S., & Rao, V. V. S. K. (2018). Supplier selection and order
allocation in supply chain. Materials Today: Proceedings, 5(5), 12161–12173. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2018.02.194
Lakshmanpriya, C., Kumaravel, A., Saravanan, M., & Kumar, P. M. (2022). Selecting the
optimal green supplier and order allocation under linear discount. Mathematical
Problems in Engineering, 2022, Article 2453703. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/
2453703.
Lamba, K., Singh, S. P., & Mishra, N. (2019). Integrated decisions for supplier selection
and lot-sizing considering different carbon emission regulations in Big Data
environment. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 128, 1052–1062. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cie.2018.04.028
Lee, A. H. I., Kang, H.-Y., Hsu, C.-F., & Hung, H.-C. (2009). A green supplier selection
model for high-tech industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(4), 7917–7927.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.11.052
Li, L., & Lai, K. K. (2000). A fuzzy approach to the multi-objective transportation
problem. Computers & Operations Research, 27(1), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0305-0548(99)00007-6
Li, Y., Diabat, A., & Lu, C.-C. (2020). Leagile supplier selection in Chinese textile
industries: A DEMATEL approach. Annals of Operations Research, 287, 303–322.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-019-03453-2
Liu, P., Hendalianpour, A., Fakhrabadi, M., & Feylizadeh, M. (2022). Integrating IVFRN-
BWM and goal programming to allocate the order quantity considering discount for
green supplier. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 24, 989–1011. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s40815-021-01181-z
Liu, S., He, X., Chan, F. T. S., & Wang, Z. (2022). An extended multi-criteria group
decision-making method with psychological factors and bidirectional influence
relation for emergency medical supplier selection. Expert Systems with Applications,
202, Article 117414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.117414
Manerba, D., & Perboli, G. (2019). New solution approaches for the capacitated supplier
selection problem with total quantity discount and activation costs under demand
uncertainty. Computers & Operations Research, 101, 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cor.2018.08.010
Mardan, E., Govindan, K., Mina, H., & Gholami-Zanjani, S. M. (2019). An accelerated
benders decomposition algorithm for a bi-objective green closed loop supply chain
network design problem. Journal of Cleaner Production, 235, 1499–1514. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.187
Mina, H., Kannan, D., Gholami-Zanjani, S. M., & Biuki, M. (2021). Transition towards
circular supplier selection in petrochemical industry: A hybrid approach to achieve
sustainable development goals. Journal of Cleaner Production, 286, Article 125273.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125273
Mohammadi, M., Esmaelian, M., & Atighehchian, A. (2020). Design of mathematical
models for the integration of purchase and production lot-sizing and scheduling
problems under demand uncertainty. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 84, 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2020.03.021
Mohammed, A., Harris, I., Soroka, A., Naim, M., Ramjaun, T., & Yazdani, M. (2021).
Gresilient supplier assessment and order allocation planning. Annals of Operations
Research, 296, 335–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-020-03611-x
Moheb-Alizadeh, H., & Handfield, R. (2019). Sustainable supplier selection and order
allocation: A novel multi-objective programming model with a hybrid solution
approach. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 129, 192–209. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cie.2019.01.011
Nasr, A. K., Tavana, M., Alavi, B., & Mina, H. (2021). A novel fuzzy multi-objective
circular supplier selection and order allocation model for sustainable closed-loop
supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 287, Article 124994. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124994
Olanrewaju, O. G., Dong, Z. S., & Hu, S. (2020). Supplier selection decision making in
disaster response. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 143, Article 106412. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2020.106412
Paksoy, T., Pehlivan, N. Y., & Kahraman, C. (2012). Organizational strategy development
in distribution channel management using fuzzy AHP and hierarchical fuzzy TOPSIS.
Expert Systems with Applications, 39(3), 2822–2841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eswa.2011.08.142
Quan, Q., & Zhang, Z. (2022). Supply capability evaluation of intelligent manufacturing
enterprises based on improved BP neural network. Journal of Mathematics, 2022,
Article 8572424. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/8572424.
Rafigh, P., Akbari, A. A., Bidhandi, H. M., & Kashan, A. H. (2022). A sustainable supply
chain network considering lot sizing with quantity discounts under disruption risks:
Centralized and decentralized models. Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, 44,
1387–1432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10878-022-00891-w
Rezaei, A., Galankashi, M. R., Mansoorzadeh, S., & Rafiei, F. M. (2020). Supplier
selection and order allocation with lean manufacturing criteria: An integrated
MCDM and bi-objective modelling approach. Engineering Management Journal, 32(4),
253–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/10429247.2020.1753490
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytical Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting. McGraw-
Hill, New York: Resource Allocation.
H. Ali and J. Zhang
Safaeian, M., Fathollahi-Fard, A. M., Tian, G., Li, Z., & Ke, H. (2019). A multi-objective
supplier selection and order allocation through incremental discount in a fuzzy
environment. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 37(1), 1435–1455. https://doi.
org/10.3233/JIFS-182843
Sarıçam, C., & Yilmaz, S. M. (2022). An integrated framework for supplier selection and
performance evaluation for apparel retail industry. Textile Research Journal, 92
(17–18), 2947–2965. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040517521992353
Shalke, P. N., Paydar, M. M., & Hajiaghaei-Keshteli, M. (2018). Sustainable supplier
selection and order allocation through quantity discounts. International Journal of
Management Science and Engineering Management, 13(1), 20–32. https://doi.org/
10.1080/17509653.2016.1269246
Shang, Z., Yang, X., Barnes, D., & Wu, C. (2022). Supplier selection in sustainable supply
chains: Using the integrated BWM, fuzzy Shannon entropy, and fuzzy MULTIMOORA
methods. Expert Systems with Applications, 195, Article 116567. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.eswa.2022.116567
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. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.eswa.2012.01.149
Shoaib, M., Zhang, S., & Ali, H. (2022). Assessment of sustainable green logistics
enablers: A robust framework using fuzzy DEMATEL and ISM approach. International
Journal of Environmental Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-
022-04709-4
Shoaib, M., Zhang, S., & Ali, H. (2023). A bibliometric study on blockchain-based supply
chain: A theme analysis, adopted methodologies, and future research agenda.
Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 14029–14049. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11356-022-24844-2
Son, N. H., & Hop, N. V. (2021). A hybrid meta-heuristics approach for supplier selection
and order allocation problem for supplying risks of recyclable raw materials.
International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations, 12(2), 177–190. https://
doi.org/10.5267/j.ijiec.2020.12.001
Stević, Ž., Pamučar, D., Puška, A., & Chatterjee, P. (2020). Sustainable supplier selection
in healthcare industries using a new MCDM method: Measurement of alternatives
and ranking according to compromise solution (MARCOS). Computers & Industrial
Engineering, 140, Article 106231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.106231
Tang, Y., & Yang, Y. (2021). Sustainable e-bike sharing recycling supplier selection: An
interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy MAGDM method based on preference information
technology. Journal of Cleaner Production, 287, Article 125530. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125530
Tao, Y.-J., Lee, H.-S., & Tu, C.-S. (2021). Analytic hierarchy process-based airport ground
handling equipment purchase decision model. Sustainability, 13(5), Article 2540.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052540.
Tavana, M., Shaabani, A., Caprio, D. D., & Bonyani, A. (2021). An integrated group fuzzy
best-worst method and combined compromise solution with Bonferroni functions for
supplier selection in reverse supply chains. Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain, 2,
Article 100009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clscn.2021.100009
Tayyab, M., & Sarkar, B. (2021). An interactive fuzzy programming approach for a
sustainable supplier selection under textile supply chain management. Computers &
Industrial Engineering, 155, Article 107164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cie.2021.107164
24
Expert Systems With Applications 225 (2023) 120119
Teymouri, E., Amiri, M., Olfat, L., & Zandieh, M. (2020). Presenting a supplier selection,
order allocation, and pricing model in multi-item, single-period, and multi-supplier
supply chain management with surface response methodology and genetic algorithm
approach. Industrial Management Journal, 12(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.22059/
IMJ.2020.285737.1007631
Tsai, C. K., & Phumchusri, N. (2021). Fuzzy analytical hierarchy process for supplier
selection: A case study in an electronic component manufacturer. Engineering
Journal, 25(8), 73–86. https://doi.org/10.4186/ej.2021.25.8.73
Ulutaş, A., Topal, A., Pamučar, D., Stević, Ž., Karabašević, D., & Popović, G. (2022). A
new integrated multi-criteria decision-making model for sustainable supplier
selection based on a novel grey WISP and grey BWM methods. Sustainability, 14(24),
Article 16921. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416921.
Unal, Y., & Temur, G. T. (2022). Sustainable supplier selection by using spherical fuzzy
AHP. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 42(1), 593–603. https://doi.org/
10.3233/JIFS-219214
Ventura, J. A., Bunn, K. A., Venegas, B. B., & Duan, L. (2021). A coordination mechanism
for supplier selection and order quantity allocation with price-sensitive demand and
finite production rates. International Journal of Production Economics, 233, Article
108007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.108007
Wang, C.-N., Nguyen, T.-L., & Dang, T.-T. (2022). Two-stage fuzzy MCDM for green
supplier selection in steel industry. Intelligent Automation & Soft Computing, 33(2),
1245–1260. https://doi.org/10.32604/iasc.2022.024548
Wang, T.-Y., & Yang, Y.-H. (2009). A fuzzy model for supplier selection in quantity
discount environments. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(10), 12179–12187.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.03.018
Yan, K., Hua, G., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2021). Green supply chain management with
cooperative promotion. Sustainability, 13(6), Article 3204. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su13063204.
Yigin, I. H., Taşkin, H., Cedİmoglu, I. H., & Topal, B. (2007). Supplier selection: An expert
system approach. Production Planning & Control, 18(1), 16–24. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09537280600940655
You, S.-Y., Zhang, L.-J., Xu, X.-G., & Liu, H.-C. (2020). A new integrated multi-criteria
decision making and multi-objective programming model for sustainable supplier
selection and order allocation. Symmetry, 12(2), Article 302. https://doi.org/
10.3390/sym12020302.
Yousefi, S., Rezaee, M. J., & Solimanpur, M. (2021). Supplier selection and order
allocation using two-stage hybrid supply chain model and game-based order price.
Operational Research, 21, 553–588. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12351-019-00456-6
Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338–353. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X
Zadeh, L. A. (1976). A fuzzy algorithmic approach to the definition of complex or
imprecise concepts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 8(3), 249–291.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7373(76)80001-6
Zhang, Y., & Chen, Q. (2022). Identifying key influential factors of bid evaluation in
government public project green procurement in China using BP-DEMATEL model.
Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2022, Article 8223757. https://doi.org/
10.1155/2022/8223757.
Zimmermann, H.-J. (1978). Fuzzy programming and linear programming with several
objective functions. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1(1), 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0165-0114(78)90031-3