koppiahraj2021

Annals of Operations Research
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-021-03946-z
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Optimal sustainability assessment method selection:

a practitioner perspective
K. Koppiahraj1 · S. Bathrinath1 · V. G. Venkatesh2 · Venkatesh Mani3 · Yangyan Shi4
Accepted: 8 January 2021

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC part of Springer Nature 2021
Abstract
This study intends to identify, analyse, and evaluate sustainability assessment (SA) meth-
ods, along with the critical factors of sustainable manufacturing (SM) practice. Based on
the opinion of experts and a literature review, 10 SA methods and 20 critical factors of SM
practice were identified and analysed in relation to their optimal selection in sustainable
operations. This research uses a fuzzy MULTIMOORA (Multi-Objective Optimisation on
the basis of a Ratio Analysis plus the full multiplicative form) to rank SA methods based
on the weights of the critical factors of SM practice obtained using a fuzzy analytic hierar-
chy process (AHP). A case study of the leather processing industry in India describes the
use of the technique in practice. The ranks obtained using the AHP-fuzzy MULTIMOORA
is compared with those obtained using the best–worst method (BWM)-fuzzy MULTI-
MOORA. The results reveal that the Index of Social Progress and the Social Life Cycle
Assessment are the top two reliable SA methods based on the identified critical factors of
SM practice. Among the critical factors, the ‘identification of alternative raw materials’,
‘methane mitigation’, and ‘opting for re-utilisation’ are identified as the prominent critical
factors of SM practices. In addition to the critical factors of SM, this study also evaluates
SA methods as they help to monitor industrial progress towards sustainability. These find-
ings provide useful insights to practitioners and can help them select optimal and robust
SA methods.
Keywords Fuzzy MULTIMOORA · Fuzzy AHP · Best–worst method (BWM) · Leather

processing industry · Sustainable manufacturing · Sustainability assessment method
* S. Bathrinath
* V. G. Venkatesh
vgv1976@gmail.com
* Yangyan Shi
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Kalasalingam Academy of Research and Education,
Krishnankoil, Tamilnadu 626126, India
2
EM Normandie BusinessSchool, METIS Lab, Le Havre, France
3
Montpellier Business School, Montpellier, France
4
Department of Management, Macquarie Business School, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
1 Introduction
It is only after the Brundtland Commission report (1987) compiled environmental data
(from 1947–1987), that the business world realized the importance of sustainable manufac-
turing (SM) and natural resources. Over the years, the manufacturing sector has followed
traditional processes, without paying attention to the resulting negative impacts. In terms of
emission levels, industries account for 36% of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions; transport,
23%; buildings, 33%; and others, 8% (Saad et al. 2019). Such levels of C O2 emissions have
urged industry management to adopt SM practices. Considering the adverse environmen-
tal impact caused by industries, the World Economic Forum, in its Sustainable Develop-
ment Impact Summit-2019, set its theme as the integration of public–private co-operation
to drive progress in SM practices. In recent years, business has not been viewed only as
an activity to attain various financial goals but also one that must develop a sustainability-
conscious (Hutter et al. 2016). ‘SM practice’ has become a buzzword among both environ-
mentalists and industrialists (Haapala et al. 2013). The International Institute of Sustain-
able Development defines SM as a process that meets present needs without deteriorating
the available resource for the future. This concept seems to align with the triple bottom line
theory, as it also addresses social, environmental, and economic issues.
According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, by adopt-
ing an SM practice, a business may improve its financial performance, show excellence in
business, and maintain a critical relationship with stakeholders. Realizing the importance
of adopting SM practices, industrial sectors in developed countries have started incorporat-
ing sustainability initiatives in economic, environmental, and social aspects. However, the
concept of a sustainability initiative in manufacturing, in developing countries, is in its
early stages compared to developed countries; however, it is growing in significance. As a
result, the developing nations are struggling to progress towards the sustainable develop-
ment goals (SDGs) (Çulha 2019), which measure the industrial community performance
using social, economic, and environmental indices. This difference can be better under-
stood from the report on countries’ progress in terms of the SDGs, in which Sweden ranks
first with a score of 85 and India ranks 112th with a score of 59.1.
Realizing the significance of SM practices and their role in the mitigation of adverse
environmental impact, developed countries conceptualized and developed multiple SA
techniques (Thirupathi et al. 2019). However, the industrial community in emerging coun-
tries, such as India, Bangladesh, Thailand, and Indonesia, are still following traditional
manufacturing practices by negating the adverse environmental impacts of their processes
(Singla et al. 2019; Moldavska and Welo 2017). For instance, in a developing country, such
as India, the industries have a limited understanding of the effects of carbon and methane
emission (Wahga et al. 2018). Hence, the integration of sustainability in manufacturing
processes is a difficult task in developing nations.
Globally, the Indian leather industry has created a niche for itself because of the tex-
ture and softness of its products. However, the industry does not seem to be concerned
with its long-term environmental impact (Huang and Badurdeen 2017). It has identified
many challenges to adopting SM practices, especially in product design, production, dis-
tribution, and product life-cycle management (Schlör et al. 2013; Hutchins et al. 2019).
The incorporation of sustainability needs organizational restructuring and input from mul-
tiple domain experts, such as industrialists, environmentalists, researchers, academicians,
and the government. Although the SM concept seems to be simple, the road to its imple-
mentation is highly demanding (Mefford 2019). Even large multinational companies face
13
many challenges in implementing SM; therefore, it is not surprising that micro-, small, and
medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) also face difficulties as they attempt to achieve sus-
tainability while aligning themselves with market needs. However, multiple factors, such
as the lack of capital investment and lack of sufficient knowledge on SM practices, restrict
industries from adopting SM in the real-time environment. Further, a debate exists regard-
ing the choice of a suitable SM practice assessment method; it is clear there is an urgent
need to select the optimum method to provide much-needed direction to manufacturing.
These methods include the comprehensive assessment of economic, environmental, and
social factors.
In recent years, although several barriers to SM practices exist, there is an increased
recognition of the practices in emerging countries. Although several studies appear to be
related to SM, they do not emphasize MSME practices. In addition, few studies discuss
SM practices in the emerging-economy context and they focus mostly on either barriers
or enablers. Moreover, to the best of our knowledge, the extant literature lacks a compre-
hensive discussion on the selection of an optimal assessment method, which is intriguing,
especially as the field is dominated by multiple methods of different strengths.
Considering the above, this study focuses on two research questions: (1) What are
the crucial factors to be considered and prioritized for the successful implementation of
SM practices? (2) How can we optimally select the right sustainability assessment (SA)
method? This study uses a fuzzy MULTIMOORA to rank SA methods based on the
weights of the critical factors of SM practice obtained using a fuzzy analytic hierarchy
process (AHP). It offers three significant contributions. First, it is unique in that it proposes
the optimal selection method for SM practice assessment. Second, it provides comprehen-
sive discussions in the specific industry and emerging-economy context. Third, it provides
guidelines to SM practitioners on how to prioritize factors by considering overall assess-
ment objectives. The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 presents a summary of the
literature. Section 3 elaborates on the methodology adopted. Section 4 illustrates the appli-
cation of the adopted solution methodology for selecting an SA method. Section 5 explains
the importance of sensitivity analysis. Section 6 discusses the results obtained using the
adopted solution methodology. Section 7 suggests managerial implications and, finally,
Sect. 8 concludes the research and presents the scope for future studies.
2 Literature review
This section comprises three sub-sections: (1) key factors, (2) SA methods, and (3) the
MULTIMOORA technique.
2.1 Key factors
The quest towards SM practices began only after the United Nation’s appeal to focus on it
to save the environment. SM practices are influenced by a number of factors, which vary
from country to country, and industry to industry, due to differences in climatic condi-
tions, working cultures, and environmental norms (Malek and Desai 2019; Bhatia et al.
2019; Roberts and Ball 2014). According to Kishawy et al. (2018), the three basic fac-
tors necessary for successful SM practices are research, development, and commercializa-
tion. Govindan et al. (2019) identified that a lack of awareness and interest towards SM
are the two factors that prevent organizations from achieving sustainability. Liao and Tsai
13
(2019) indicated that the failure to understand and prioritize customers’ demands in rela-
tion to green products hampers SM practices. Similarly, MSMEs believe that SM adoption
requires a huge investment (Mathiyazhagan et al. 2019). Further, workers must be prepared
to familiarize themselves with a newly adopted manufacturing practice (Piyathanavong
et al. 2019). Besides the above-mentioned factors, gender equity, raw material substitution,
recycling, health assessment, durability, and noise pollution are also identified as major
factors affecting SM practices. Shukla et al. (2017) suggested that lean manufacturing,
eco-design, and a positive attitude towards reusability will pave the way for firms to attain
sustainability. Apart from the general key factors, Gnoni et al. (2016) indicated that the
adoption of faulty behaviour risk (FBR) analysis is the critical component in measuring
the progress of industry towards sustainability. Further, to achieve sustainability, industry
management has to cover all three aspects of the sustainability concept. Specifically, fac-
tors such as identification of substitute raw materials, creation of sustainable working envi-
ronments, and opting for advanced technology should be addressed, in the short-run, to
achieve sustainability. Dependence on the conventional, non-renewable energy source of
fossil fuels will only lead to its over consumption. Such dependence will also lead to the
excessive exploration and depletion of the natural resources (Amrina and Vilsi 2015; Rent-
izelas et al. 2020; Izadikhah and Saen 2019). Hence, industries must seek out alternative,
‘green’ energy sources, such as solar, wind and hydro-electric energy.
2.2 Sustainability Assessment (SA) methods
SA methods are decision-support tools that guide decision-making towards sustainabil-

ity; their usage is increasing every year. Moreover, they address either one dimension
(e.g., economic assessment) or two dimensions (socioeconomic assessment); however,
not all three dimensions. Ghadimi et al. (2013) highlighted the advantages and disad-
vantages of each SA method. Singh et al. (2012) stressed that in the absence of the
correct indices, a relevant person with fuzziness may select an inappropriate method.
Furthermore, Ceschin and Gaziulusoy (2016) endorsed the approach of ‘design for sus-
tainability’, which assesses the sustainability of a product from its design stage. This
approach influences the choice of the right type of material to be used and the manu-
facturing process used to develop the product. Lahouel (2016) evaluated the eco-effi-
ciency (EE) of the manufacturing sector using a data envelopment analysis approach.
Nam et al. (2016) performed an environmental impact assessment (EIA) using a generic
work breakdown structure (GWBS) in a shipyard, The GWBS is a project management
method used for managing long-term and large-scale projects. As the sustainability con-
cept is not limited within the environmental scope, Ruckert et al. (2017) carried out a
study on workers’ health conditions using a health impact assessment (HIA) method.
Since individual methods evaluate individual aspects, Sala et al. (2015) outlined the
need for the development of a holistic SA method. Further, Noble (2000) defined Stra-
tegic Environmental Assessment (SEA) as a systematic framework that examines the
goal, objective, and vision of an industry and forecasts the actions that need to be taken
to achieve sustainability. SEA is often used interchangeably in the literature with the
terms Policy Impact Assessment and Programmatic Environmental Impact Assessment.
Moreover, Henri and Journeault (2010), using the System of Economic & Environmen-
tal Accounting (SEEA), emphasized that following an eco-friendly manufacturing pro-
cess will indirectly influence and improve the economic performance of the industry.
Likewise, Hosseinijou et al. (2014), in their study on the material selection for building
13
materials, highlighted that the selection must be based on the social, economic, and
environmental impact of the material during its life-cycle. In measuring these impacts,
the study hinted at Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) being the best method. Of
the available assessment methods, the following section discusses the MULTIMOORA
technique, in detail, and its relevance to the study context.
2.3 MULTIMOORA and its significance
When many factors hinder the progress of a system, it is necessary to identify the most
influential factor that is responsible for those hindrances. In such cases, multi-criteria
decision-making (MCDM) methods are commonly utilized because they calculate the
weight of each factor and prioritize the factors (Mulliner et al. 2016). The fuzzy AHP
method is widely preferred in many applications for the weight calculation of various
factors (Lyu et al. 2020) because it can handle both qualitative and quantitative data and
its computation time is low (Drissi et al. 2016). Among various MCDM methods, the
MULTIMOORA stands out as an ideal method in terms of computational time, simplic-
ity, mathematical calculations, stability, and data type (Chakraborty 2011). The method
integrates three methods: the ratio system (RS), reference point (RP) method, and full
multiplicative (FM) form and is more robust than other methods. It has significantly
contributed to different fields, such as the medical field, material selection, technology
preference, banking sector, and personnel selection, among others (Table 1).
3 Methodology
Group decision-making (GDM) is a process in which a group of individuals (experts,

stakeholders, and managers) are involved in arriving at a homogeneous decision. How-
ever, the likelihood of achieving consensus remains challenging as their experience,
exposure, and involvement varies (Koksalmis and Kabak 2019). Over the decades,
academics and researchers have developed the MCDM techniques to resolve the issues
related to decision-making problems (Zavadskas et al. 2018). Among the methods, the
MULTIMOORA, an extension of the MOORA method, provides stable results com-
pared to other methods; it also helps in solving complex problems (Wu et al. 2020).
Table 1 Applications of MULTIMOORA in different fields

Studies Area of application
Dahooie et al. (2019) Selection of a technology forecasting method

Zhang et al. (2019b) Selection of energy storage technology
Hafezalkotob et al. (2019) Selection of the hybrid vehicle engine
Zavadskas et al. (2019) Selection of optimal ecological parameters
for the internal combustion engine
Omrani et al. (2019) Evaluation of the semi-human development
index in Iranian provinces
13
3.1 Fuzzy set
Most real-world decision-making cases are complex due to uncertainty regarding goals,
constraints, and regulations. Therefore, solving real-world problems using MCDM tech-
niques remains a challenge. To overcome this challenge, Zadeh (1965) developed an
effective mathematical tool called fuzzy logic. Initially, fuzzy number sets were intro-
duced as an extension of conventional crisp number sets because they are dichotomous,
that is, yes-or-no type rather than more-or-less type (Zimmermann, 2010). Owing to
this, fuzzy logic is regarded as an efficient tool as it helps to overcome the ambigu-
ity and uncertainty problems in human judgement and decision-making; therefore, it is
employed in a variety of fields.
A fuzzy set Ã on a set X is a function: Ã ∶ X → [0, 1]. The symbol 𝜇Ā is used for
the function Ã and the fuzzy set Ã is characterized by its membership function:
𝜇Ā ∶ X → [0, 1], where each x ∈ X, is a real number:𝜇Ã (x) ∈ [0, 1]. The value of 𝜇Ã (x) is
interpreted as the degree to which x belongs to Ã . Let Ã be a fuzzy set on X , then Ã is a
fuzzy number if.
(i) Ã is normal,
(ii) Ã is convex,
(iii) 𝜇Ã is upper semi-continuous, and
(iv) the support of Ã is bounded.
Generally, fuzzy number sets are represented either in triangular or trapezoidal sets.
Due to the ease of defuzzification and mathematical operations, triangular fuzzy number
sets are preferred over those of trapezoidal. In general, fuzzy triangular numbers are
represented as Ã = (s, m, l), where s, m, and l stand for the small, medium, and large val-
ues of the fuzzy set, respectively. These fuzzy numbers are shown in Fig. 1.
µ (X )
X
0 s m l
Fig. 1 Triangular fuzzy numbers
13
⎧0 x<s
⎪ (x−s)
⎪ s≤x≤m
𝜇Ã = ⎨ (m−s)
(l−x) (1)
⎪ (l−m) m≤x≤l
⎪0 x≥l
⎩
The basic mathematical function of two fuzzy numbers, Ã 1 = (s1 , m1 , l1 ) and

Ã 2 = (s2 , m2 , l2 ), are given as follows (Merigo and Casanovas, 2011):
1. Addition
Ã 1 + Ã 2 = (s1 + s2 , m1 + m2 , l1 + l2 ) (2)
2. Subtraction
Ã 1 − Ã 2 = (s1 − s2 , m1 − m2 , l1 − l2 ) (3)
3. Multiplication
Ã 1 × Ã 2 = (s1 × s2 , m1 × m2 , l1 × l2 ) (4)
4. Division
( )
s1 m1 l1
Ã 1 ÷ Ã 2 = , , (5)
l2 m2 s2
The membership function of a triangular fuzzy number is given as (Torlak et al.

2011) and shown in Table 2:
3.2 Fuzzy AHP
The steps involved in the weight calculation of factors using fuzzy AHP are as follows
(Lin 2010).
Table 2 Fuzzy linguistic terms Linguistic term Fuzzy value

used to evaluate the alternatives
Very high (0.84, 1, 1)
High (0.66, 0.84, 1)
Medium high (0.5, 0.66, 0.84)
Moderate (0.34, 0.5, 0.66)
Medium low (0.16, 0.34, 0.5)
Low (0, 0.16, 0.34)
Very low (0, 0, 0.16)
13
3.2.1 Rating the relative importance of the criteria
Initially, the experts are asked to express their opinion on the relative importance of two
factors in the same level, using a seven-point rating scale, as shown in Table 2. Then, the
ratings of each expert are collected and a pair-wise comparison matrix is constructed.
3.2.2 Constructing the fuzzy decision matrix
Based on the response of each expert, the fuzzy decision matrix is constructed:
[ ]n
X̃ = r̃ij (6)
where X̃ is the fuzzy judgment matrix of ‘n’ experts and r̃ij is the fuzzy assessment between
factor i and j.
3.2.3 Consistency test
If X is consistent, then X̃ is consistent. The consistency index is calculated as follows:

𝜆max − n
CI = (7)
n−1
where 𝜆max is the maximum eigenvalue and n is the dimension of the matrix.
Next, the consistency ratio (CR) is computed:
CI
CR = (8)
RI
If the CR value is less than 0.1, the consistency of the fuzzy judgment matrix is acceptable.
If the consistency test fails, the pair-wise matrix must be revised by the experts.
3.2.4 Defuzzification
The fuzzy judgment matrix is converted into crisp values using the following equations.
(i) Normalization:
n n
/
xlijn = (lij − min lij ) Δmax (9)
min
n n
/
xmnij = (mij − min lij ) Δmax (10)
min
n n
/
xunij = (lij − min lij ) Δmax (11)
min
Here, Δmax
min
= max unij − min lijn.
(ii) Computation of lower (ls) and upper (us) normalized values:
13
xlsnij = xmnij∕(1+xmnij −xlijn ) (12)
xusnij = xrijn∕(1+xunij −xmnij ) (13)
(iii) Total normalized crisp value:

[xlsnij (1 − xlsnij ) + xusnij xusnij ]
xijn = (14)
[1 − xlsnij + xusnij ]
(iv) Computation of crisp value:

xij∗n = min lijn + xijn Δmax
min (15)
(v) Calculation of the weights:

[ n ]1∕n
∏
𝛼j = lij (16)
j=1
[ n ]1∕n
∏
𝛽j = mij (17)
j=1
[ n ]1∕n
∏
𝜒j = uij (18)
j=1
and
∑
n
𝛼= 𝛼j (19)
j=1
∑
n
𝛽= 𝛽j (20)
j=1
∑
n
𝜒= 𝜒j (21)
j=1
Fuzzy weights can be computed as below.

( )
𝜔̂ j = 𝛼j 𝛿 −1 , 𝛽j 𝜒 −1 , 𝜒j 𝛽 −1 , 𝛿j 𝛼 −1 , for j = 1, … , n (22)
Thereafter, the fuzzy weight vector w

̂ ŵ can be obtained:
̂ = (ŵ 1 , ŵ 2 , … , ŵ n )
W (23)
13
3.3 The MULTIMOORA method
The MULTIMOORA method is an expansion of the MOORA method. Initially, the

MOORA method, developed by Brauers and Zavadskas (2006), comprised of two
techniques, namely RS and RP theory. Thereafter, to improve the robustness, Brauers
and Zavadskas (2010) added the FM form to the MOORA method and proposed the
MULTIMOORA method. This is the most efficient and convenient method for evaluat-
ing and ranking alternatives with multiple criteria and less subjective bias. The rank of
each alternative is calculated separately using three approaches (RS, RP, and FM); the
final ranking of each alternative is obtained using dominance theory (DT). The MUL-
TIMOORA method is one of the most practical MCDM methods and has been used
to solve several critical problems, such as the selection of an optimal mining method
(Liang et al. 2019), bank loan optimization (Brauers and Zavadskas 2011), performance
appraisals (Maghsoodi et al. 2018) and the site selection for a car sharing environment
(Lin et al. 2020).
3.3.1 Fuzzy RS
The RS method is one of the mature forms of MULTIMOORA, in which the following
steps are carried out (Siahaan et al. 2017):
• Step 1: Fuzzy decision matrix formation

Let us consider a problem that consists of p number of alternatives, and q num-
ber of factors. The measured performance of the ith alternative with respect to the
jth factor is given by matrix xij. If k number of experts evaluates the matrix xij, the
matrix is given as below.
s m l s m l s m l
⎡ [x11 , x11 , x11 ] [x12 , x12 , x12 ] ⋯ [x1q , x1q , x1q ⎤
⎢ ⋯ ⋯ ⋱ ⋯ ⎥
X̃ = ⎢ ⎥ (24)
⋯ ⋯ ⋱ ⋯
⎢ s m l ⎥
⎣ [xp1 , xp1 , xp1 ] [xp2
s m
, xp2 l
, xp2 ] ⋯ [xpq , xpq , xpq ] ⎦
s m l
The triangular fuzzy number is given according to Eq. (24).

• Step 2: Fuzzy decision matrix normalization
The obtained matrix is normalized for better data comparison. The symbol X̃ ∗ rep-
resents the normalized decision matrix in which X̃ ij∗ = (xijs∗ , xijm∗ , xijl∗ )∀i, j is given by
the equation below:
xijs
xijs∗ = � (25)
∑p
i=1
[(xijs )2 + (xijm )2 + (xijl )2 ]
xijm
xijm∗ = � (26)
∑p
i=1
[(xijs )2 + (xijm )2 + (xijl )2 ]
13
xijl
xijl∗ = � (27)
∑p
i=1
[(xijs )2 + (xijm )2 + (xijl )2 ]
• Step 3: Weight normalized decision matrix formation

The weight normalized decision matrix ṽ is obtained by multiplying the weight of
each factor by the normalized matrix obtained in the previous step. The weight nor-
malization is shown in the following equations:
ṽj = (vsij , vm l
ij , vij ) (28)
vsij = wj xijs∗ (29)
vm m∗
ij = wj xij (30)
vlij = wj xijl∗ (31)
• Step 4: Normalized performance value calculation

To calculate the performance value of the alternatives, each factor must be catego-
rized as either a benefit (positive) factor or a cost (negative) factor, g and n-g, respec-
tively. The performance value of the alternative is calculated as follows:
∑
g
∑
n
ỹ i = v�j − v�j (32)
j=1 j=g+1
• Step 5: Defuzzification
Since the normalized performance value of the alternatives is in a triangular fuzzy
number form, it must be changed into non-fuzzy numbers. These non-fuzzy numbers
represent the best non-fuzzy performance (BNP) value. BNP is calculated as follows:
(ysi , ym , yli )
BNP(yi ) = i
(33)
3
3.3.2 Fuzzy RP
Using the ratio obtained in the second step of the fuzzy RS, the optimal RP (̃v) is calcu-
lated. The RP is obtained as follows:
{ +
Xj = (max xijs∗ , max xijm∗ , max xijl∗ ), j ≤ g
i i i
Xj+ = (min xijs∗ , min xijm∗ , min xijl∗ ), j > g
, (34)
i i i
where the sign indicates a positive or negative factor.

Then, the deviation of the normalized decision matrix from RP is calculated and multi-
plied by corresponding factor weights. Thereafter, the Min–Max criterion (z) is calculated
by Tchebycheff as follows:
13
( ( ))
̃∗
min max Wj × d ṽj , xij (35)
i j
3.3.3 Fuzzy FM form
The total utility of the ith alternative is obtained as follows:
X̃ i
Ui� = , (36)
Ỹ i
∏g
where X̃ i = (Xi1 , Xi2 , Xi3 ) = j=1 xij , i = 1, 2, … p indicates the product of the
elements of the ith alternative and needs to be maximized (positive), while
∏n
Ỹ i = (Yi1 , Yi2 , Yi3 ) = j=g+1 xij indicates the elements of the ith alternative and needs to be
minimized (negative). The overall obtained utility of each alternative is defuzzified using
Eq. (33). The alternative with the highest BNP occupies the highest rank.
3.3.4 DT in the MULTIMOORA method
In order to integrate the results obtained from the three separate approaches (RS, RP, and
FM), DT is used (Brauers and Zavadskas 2011). The definitions and rules are mentioned
below.
• General dominance This means that one alternative has a high level of dominance over
other alternatives in two of the three methods. Therefore, if uPx means priority of ‘u’
over ‘x’, then uPxPyPz, for example, would reveal the following general dominating
conditions:
• (z–u–u) generally dominates over (y–x–x).
• (u–z–u) generally dominates over (x–y–x).
• (u–u–z) generally dominates over (x–x–y).
• Absolute dominance This means that one alternative is completely dominant over other
alternatives, as displayed (1–1–1). Specifically, this alternative is ranked first in all
three approaches; hence, it is absolutely the best alternative.
• Transitivity This means if a dominates over b and b dominates over c, then a also domi-
nates over c.
• Absolute equability When two alternatives have the same level of priority in all three
approaches, then they are placed in absolute equability. For instance, (p–p–p) for two
alternatives indicates absolute equability.
• Overall domination If an alternative is superior to all other alternatives in all three
approaches, then it has overall dominance.
• Partial equability If one alternative is dominated by another in one method but dom-
inates over it in another method and are both in the same priority level in the third
method, then these two alternatives exhibit partial equability.
• Circular reasoning Let alternative A (5–6–8) dominate over alternative B (7–8–9),
where the numbers represent the rank of alternatives in RS, RP, and FM approaches,
respectively. In addition, let alternative B (7–8–9) dominate over alternative C (8–7–10)
and alternative C (8–7–10) dominate over alternative A (5–6–8). In such a situation, all
the alternatives are assigned the same rank.
13
Finally, by using the above rules and considering the rank in all three approaches, the alter-
natives are ranked using the dominance theory.
4 Application in the SA method selection
In this section we present a case study that was carried out in the leather processing indus-
try of India, where fuzzy MULTIMOORA is applied to select the optimal SA method. The
essential framework of the proposed study is shown in Fig. 2.
Initially, by reviewing the literature and considering experts’ opinions, the critical fac-
tors of SM practices and different assessment methods are identified. Then, the weights
of the critical factors of SM practices are calculated using the fuzzy AHP method. Before
calculating the weights of the factors, the CR values of the factors are calculated. If the
CR value is satisfied, the factors are subjected to weight calculation; otherwise, the factors
have to be reconsidered (Liu et al. 2020; Pan et al. 2020). After the weight calculation,
considering the factors, the SA method is evaluated against the experts’ ratings using the
Literature and Identification of influential factors in sustainable

Expert manufacturing and various sustainability assessment
opinion methods
Expert’s Weight calculation of sustainable factors using fuzzy Feedback for

rating AHP improvement
Evaluate the assessment methods in relation with factors

Expert’s in sustainable manufacturing and their preference using
rating fuzzy MULTIMOORA
Expert’s
rating Weight calculation of sustainable factors using BWM
Evaluate the assessment methods in relation with factors

Expert’s
in sustainable manufacturing and their preference using
rating
fuzzy MULTIMOORA
Comparison of rank of assessment method obtained by Sensitivity

fuzzy MULTIMOORA using factors weight calculated analysis
by fuzzy AHP and BWM methods
Fig. 2 Framework of the proposed research work
13
fuzzy MULTIMOORA,. Next, the weights of the factors are calculated using the BWM
technique. Again, considering the factors, the SA method is evaluated against the experts’
ratings using the fuzzy MULTIMOORA. Finally, a sensitivity analysis is conducted, that
is, a comparison, is carried out between the ranks obtained using the weights calculated by
the fuzzy AHP and those calculated by the BWM technique. The comparison is made to
assess the robustness and reliability of the obtained ranks and evaluate the rate of influence
of change in the weights of the factors.
4.1 A case study: leather industry perspective
Evaluating the progress of a modification carried out in an existing process remains a chal-
lenging task in many fields. It is necessary to know whether the process modification meets
the intended objective and moves in the desired direction. Nevertheless, the selection of the
best assessment method remains a challenge for industrial management professionals. This
is mainly because the availability of various methods leads to a dilemma in the selection of
an ideal assessment method. Additionally, at the time of selecting the method, many fac-
tors influencing the selection should be considered. Under such conditions, MCDM tech-
niques remain as promising methods used to overcome potential problems. Specifically,
the MULTIMOORA offers an ideal solution as it generates a result by aggregating factors
from three individual methods (RS, RP, and FM). Ruckert et al. (2017) briefly summarized
the importance of assessing workers’ health in a manufacturing firm and emphasized the
importance of industrial managers and the government in ensuring that workers are in good
health. Noble (2000) intended to explain the basic definition of an SEA that needed to be
considered when carrying out an assessment. This study aims to define the wide range of
SA methods that are available to measure the progress of industries. For this purpose, inter-
actions with experts are carried out and the extant literature is reviewed. Ten widely used
SA methods are selected and summarized in Table 3.
Besides selecting the best assessment method, it is vital to identify the influencing fac-
tors concerned with the implementation of the SM process in the industry. After reviewing
many pieces of literature and considering experts’ opinions, 20 factors were identified as
critical to SM practice implementation; they are presented in Table 4.
Due to the increased concern about the environment and the need to adopt an alternative
manufacturing process, the case study identifies an appropriate SA method for evaluation
in the LPI. In this industry, raw animal skins and hides undergo rigorous chemical treat-
ment this process generates an enormous amount of waste. The industry decided to adopt
an SM process. To endorse this, the key indicators must be identified and analyzed with
different assessment methods. These indicators of SM practice and their importance in
each assessment method are understood with the assistance of a seven-expert panel associ-
ated with the LPI and having comprehensive knowledge of industry practices. “Appendix”
describes the profiles of the experts and their backgrounds.
4.2 A numerical example
In this section, the problem of SA method selection is analyzed with a practical example
using the fuzzy MULTIMOORA method. It begins with the weight calculation of critical
factors that affect SM practices, as it is an important step in all GDM techniques.
13
Table 3 Various SM assessment methods
Notations Method Definition References
A1 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Used to quantify the potential environmental impact of a project Nam et al. (2016)
A2 System of Economic and Environmental Accounting (SEEA) Integrates economic and environmental data for the welfare of Henri & Journeault (2010)
humanity
A3 Health Impact Assessment (HIA) Addresses the health issues of the population involved in the Ruckert et al. (2017)
project and in the locality
A4 Life Cycle Costing (LCC) Sums up the cost involved in the production of a product through Schau et al. (2011)
a different process
A5 Eco-efficiency Analysis (EE) Insists on the need for SM by combining material and economic Lahouel (2016)
efficiency
A6 Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) Assesses the pros and cons of a product throughout its life from a Hosseinijou et al. (2014)
social and socioeconomic perspective
A7 Environmental Design of Industrial Products (EDIP) Focuses on minimizing the environmental impact of individual Ceschin and Gaziulusoy (2016)
parts by redesigning
A8 Cost–Benefit Analysis (CBA) Establishes a relationship between the cost and benefit of using Lahouel (2016)
alternative materials
A9 Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Measures the steps taken toward a sustainable environment Noble (2000)
A10 Index of Social Progress (ISP) Assesses social changes as a result of adopting SM Singh et al. (2012)
13
13
Table 4 Critical factors of SM practice
Factors Description References
Capital Investment (F1) Money invested in the business to further expand its objective Zhang et al. (2019a)
Adoption of advanced technology (F2) Implementation of improved techniques that minimize adverse impacts Khurana et al. (2019)
Labour skill enhancement (F3) Improving workers’ skills Amrina and Vilsi (2015)
Faulty Behaviour Risk (FBR) analysis (F4) The method used to assess safety while carrying out a process modification Gnoni et al. (2016)
Continuous process improvement (F5) Steps taken to ensure the business progresses in a positive way Saad et al. (2019)
Production rate (F6) Time taken to produce a specific number of products Khurana et al. (2019)
Production cost (F7) Amount of money spent on producing a certain quantity of products Venkatesh et al. (2018)
Global customers demand (F8) Market space created by customers for specific products Khurana et al. (2019)
Industrial reputation (F9) The impact created by a company in society Nam et al. (2016)
Gender justice (F10) Equal opportunities for male and female workers Dwivedi et al. (2019)
Ensure labour health (F11) Giving importance to labour health Piyathanavong et al. (2019)
Government assistance (F12) The economic benefit provided to industries under certain conditions by the government Ruckert et al. (2017)
Opting for re-utilization (F13) Opting to make use of waste Amrina and Vilsi (2015)
Pressure from global monitoring bodies (F14) Norms proposed by environmental bodies Yadav et al. (2018)
Creating a sustainable working environment (F15) Providing a pleasant working atmosphere Khurana et al. (2019)
Green Energy (F16) Using a renewable source rather than a non-renewable source Amrina and Vilsi (2015)
Methane Mitigation (F17) Steps taken to minimize methane emissions Dwivedi et al. (2019)
Optimal waste management (F18) Handling the waste effectively Zhang et al. (2019a)
Compliance with environmental norms (F19) Working in accordance with suggested environmental norms Dwivedi et al. (2019)
Identification of alternative raw materials (F20) Need to find substitute material for leather Amrina and Vilsi (2015)
4.2.1 Weight calculation of factors by the fuzzy AHP
The AHP, proposed by Saaty (1980), is one of the most widely used MCDM methods.
It is solely based on the judgment of decision-makers. The results are subject to bias
as the decision-makers differ in their opinions. To overcome this, the fuzzy concept is
integrated with the AHP method. The resulting method is used to resolve the vagueness,
uncertainty, and imprecision in the data. In the fuzzy AHP method, the weights of the
factors, given in Table 5, are calculated using the fuzzy numbers, given in Table 2. This
method is used because it provides a clear rationale for decision-making (Kwong and
Bai 2002). To calculate the weights of the factors, the steps discussed in Sect. 3.2 are
used. The calculated weights of the factors are given in Table 5.
4.2.2 Decision matrix formation
As shown in Table 5, the ‘identification of alternative raw materials’, ‘methane mitiga-

tion’, and ‘opting for re-utilization’ are identified as the most critical factors according
to the experts. The experts are asked to evaluate the assessment methods according to
the factors with linguistics variables (listed in Table 2). Based on that feedback, using
the fuzzy MULTIMOORA, the SA method is evaluated. The following sections describe
the steps in the fuzzy MULTIMOORA.
Table 5 Weights of the factors Factors Weights

obtained using the fuzzy AHP
method
F1 0.0505
F2 0.0516
F3 0.0399
F4 0.0509
F5 0.0513
F6 0.0598
F7 0.0552
F8 0.0489
F9 0.0446
F10 0.0245
F11 0.0400
F12 0.0317
F13 0.0663
F14 0.0347
F15 0.0475
F16 0.0419
F17 0.0667
F18 0.0615
F19 0.0604
F20 0.0722
13
4.2.3 RS method
The linguistic variables (Table 6) obtained from the expert panel for assessment meth-
ods against the factors are transformed into fuzzy triangular numbers given in Table 2.
Using Eqs. (9)–(11), the response of the experts is normalized and given in Table 7. The
obtained matrix is multiplied by the weights of the factors using Eqs. (12)–(15). The
calculated matrix is a weight normalized decision matrix and the normalized perfor-
mance value is calculated by Eq. (16). Then, the performance value is defuzzified using
Eq. (17) and the rank of alternatives by the RS is shown in Table 8.
4.2.4 RP method
To rank the alternatives by RP method, vector (̃v) is calculated using Eq. (18) and the
results are given in Table 9. The deviation entries of each normalized decision matrix
(Table 7) from the RP are presented in Table 10. The matrix entries in Table 10 are mul-
tiplied by the weight of each factor and defuzzified using Eq. (17). Then, the distance
of each defuzzified point from the RP is calculated. The alternative with a minimum
distance from the RP is chosen as the preferred alternative and the results are shown in
Table 11.
4.2.5 FM form
The alternatives are ranked in FM form using Eq. (20). The numerator in Eq. (20) rep-
resents the benefit (positive) factor, and the denominator represents the cost (negative)
factor. The obtained overall utility value in the fuzzy form is defuzzified using Eq. (17)
and shown in Table 12. The alternative with the highest utility value is the preferred
alternative.
4.2.6 DT
The ranks of the alternatives obtained using the three separate methods (RS, RP, and
FM) are aggregated using DT and shown in Table 13.
5 Sensitivity analysis
As expert panel ratings are subjective, the results often have a problem of reliability.
To resolve this, a sensitivity analysis is carried out to validate the robustness of the
results (Yadav et al. 2018). In this study, to authenticate the results, the rank of the
SA method obtained through the fuzzy MULTIMOORA using the fuzzy AHP weight is
compared with the rank of the SA method obtained through the fuzzy MULTIMOORA
using the BWM weight. The BWM for the weight calculation of criteria was developed
by Rezaei (2015). To calculate the weights of the factors using the BWM, the 20 factors
are divided into four categories: (1) Benefits (adoption of advanced technology, con-
tinuous process improvement, production rate, industrial reputation, and government
assistance), (2) Opportunities (global customer demand, gender justice, opting for re-
utilization, green energy, optimal waste management, and identification of alternative
13
Table 6 Initial decision matrix

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20
A1 MH H ML VH M ML M H H L MH L H H VH H VH MH H VH
A2 H H ML H ML H H L MH VL ML M M ML H MH H H H VH
A3 MH MH VH VH M ML MH VL MH VH VH M M MH VH ML M ML M M
A4 H H ML M MH ML VH H ML L ML M MH ML MH H ML VH ML H
A5 H H MH VH VH MH M MH M VL L L VH M H H H MH H VH
A6 L H H VH H L ML L H H VH H H MH VH M VH VH VH VH
A7 H VH MH H H M MH ML ML L ML M MH H M ML M M VH H
A8 VH H M MH M VH VH MH M VL M L VH VL H M M MH ML VH
A9 H VH MH H MH H VH VL VL H M L MH MH H H M VH M VH
A10 VL H VH VH M M ML H ML VH VH L H H VH H H H H VH
13
Table 7 Normalized decision matrix
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10
13
A1 (0.124, 0.163, (0.141, 0.180, (0.043, 0.092, (0.179, 0.213, (0.093, 0.137, (0.048, 0.101, (0.087, 0.127, (0.209, 0.267, (0.210, 0.267, (0, 0.050,
0.208) 0.214) 0.135) 0.213) 0.181) 0.149) 0.168) 0.317) 0.318) 0.106)
A2 (0.163, 0.208, (0.141, 0.180, (0.043, 0.092, (0.140, 0.179, (0.044, 0.093, (0.196, 0.250, (0.168, 0.214, (0, 0.051, (0.159, 0.210, (0, 0, 0.050)
0.247) 0.214) 0.135) 0.213) 0.137) 0.298) 0.255) 0.108) 0.267)
A3 (0.124, 0.163, (0.107, 0.141, (0.227, 0.270, (0.179, 0.213, (0.093, 0.137, (0.048, 0.101, (0.127, 0.168, (0, 0, 0.051) (0.159, 0.210, (0.263, 0.313,
0.208) 0.180) 0.270) 0.213) 0.181) 0.149) 0.214) 0.267) 0.313)
A4 (0.163, 0.208, (0.141, 0.180, (0.043, 0.092, (0.072, 0.106, (0.137, 0.181, (0.048, 0.101, (0.214, 0.255, (0.209, 0.267, (0.051, 0.108, (0, 0.050,
0.247) 0.214) 0.135) 0.140) 0.230) 0.149) 0.255) 0.317) 0.159) 0.106)
A5 (0.163, 0.208, (0.141, 0.180, (0.135, 0.178, (0.179, 0.213, (0.230, 0.274, (0.149, 0.196, (0.087, 0.127, (0.159, 0.209, (0.108, 0.159, (0, 0, 0.050)
0.247) 0.214) 0.227) 0.213) 0.274) 0.250) 0.168) 0.267) 0.210)
A6 (0, 0.040, (0.141, 0.180, (0.178, 0.227, (0.179, 0.213, (0.181, 0.230, (0, 0.048, (0.041, 0.087, (0, 0.051, (0.210, 0.267, (0.207, 0.263,
0.084) 0.214) 0.270) 0.213) 0.274) 0.101) 0.127) 0.108) 0.318) 0.313)
A7 (0.163, 0.208, (0.180, 0.214, (0.135, 0.178, (0.140, 0.179, (0.181, 0.230, (0.101, 0.149, (0.127, 0.168, (0.051, 0.108, (0.051, 0.108, (0, 0.050,
0.247) 0.214) 0.227) 0.213) 0.274) 0.196) 0.214) 0.159) 0.159) 0.106)
A8 (0.208, 0.247, (0.141, 0.180, (0.092, 0.135, (0.106, 0.140, (0.093, 0.137, (0.250, 0.298, (0.214, 0.255, (0.159, 0.209, (0.108, 0.159, (0, 0, 0.050)
0.247) 0.214) 0.178) 0.179) 0.181) 0.298) 0.255) 0.267) 0.210)
A9 (0.163, 0.208, (0.180, 0.214, (0.135, 0.178, (0.140, 0.179, (0.137, 0.181, (0.196, 0.250, (0.214, 0.255, (0, 0, 0.051) (0, 0, 0.051) (0.207, 0.263,
0.247) 0.214) 0.227) 0.213) 0.230) 0.298) 0.255) 0.313)
A10 (0, 0, 0.040) (0.141, 0.180, (0.227, 0.270, (0.179, 0.213, (0.093, 0.137, (0.101, 0.149, (0.041, 0.087, (0.209, 0.267, (0.051, 0.108, (0.263, 0.313,
0.214) 0.270) 0.213) 0.181) 0.196) 0.127) 0.317) 0.159) 0.313)
F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20
A1 (0.142, 0.187, (0, 0.065, (0.157, 0.200, (0.189, 0.240, (0.181, 0.215, (0.173, 0.221, (0.214, 0.255, (0.119, 0.157, (0.163, 0.208, (0.171, 0.204,
0.238) 0.138) 0.238) 0.286) 0.215) 0.263) 0.255) 0.199) 0.247) 0.204)
A2 (0.045, 0.096, (0.138, 0.203, (0.081, 0.119, (0.046, 0.097, (0.142, 0.181, (0.131, 0.173, (0.168, 0.214, (0.157, 0.199, (0.163, 0.208, (0.171, 0.204,
0.142) 0.268) 0.157) 0.143) 0.215) 0.221) 0.255) 0.237) 0.247) 0.204)
A3 (0.238, 0.284, (0.138, 0.203, (0.081, 0.119, (0.143, 0.189, (0.181, 0.215, (0.042, 0.089, (0.087, 0.127, (0.038, 0.081, (0.084, 0.124, (0.069, 0.102,
0.284) 0.268) 0.157) 0.240) 0.215) 0.131) 0.168) 0.119) 0.163) 0.135)
A4 (0.045, 0.096, (0.138, 0.203, (0.119, 0.157, (0.046, 0.097, (0.108, 0.142, (0.173, 0.221, (0.041, 0.087, (0.199, 0.237, (0.040, 0.084, (0.135, 0.171,
0.142) 0.268) 0.200) 0.143) 0.181) 0.263) 0.127) 0.237) 0.124) 0.204)
Table 7 (continued)
F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20
A5 (0, 0.045, (0, 0.065, (0.200, 0.238, (0.097, 0.143, (0.142, 0.181, (0.173, 0.221, (0.168, 0.214, (0.119, 0.157, (0.163, 0.208, (0.171, 0.204,
0.096) 0.138) 0.238) 0.189) 0.215) 0.263) 0.255) 0.199) 0.247) 0.204)
A6 (0.238, 0.284, (0.268, 0.341, (0.157, 0.200, (0.143, 0.189, (0.181, 0.215, (0.089, 0.131, (0.214, 0.255, (0.199, 0.237, (0.208, 0.247, (0.171, 0.204,
0.284) 0.406) 0.238) 0.240) 0.215) 0.173) 0.255) 0.237) 0.247) 0.204)
A7 (0.045, 0.096, (0.138, 0.203, (0.119, 0.157, (0.189, 0.240, (0.073, 0.108, (0.042, 0.089, (0.087, 0.127, (0.081, 0.119, (0.208, 0.247, (0.135, 0.171,
0.142) 0.268) 0.200) 0.286) 0.142) 0.131) 0.168) 0.157) 0.247) 0.204)
A8 (0.096, 0.142, (0, 0.065, (0.200, 0.238, (0, 0, 0.046) (0.142, 0.181, (0.089, 0.131, (0.087, 0.127, (0.119, 0.157, 0.040, 0.084, (0.171, 0.204,
0.187) 0.138) 0.238) 0.215) 0.173) 0.168) 0.199) 0.124) 0.204)
A9 (0.096, 0.142, (0, 0.065, (0.119, 0.157, (0.143, 0.189, (0.142, 0.181, (0.173, 0.221, (0.087, 0.127, (0.199, 0.237, (0.084, 0.124, (0.171, 0.204,
0.187) 0.138) 0.200) 0.240) 0.215) 0.263) 0.168) 0.237) 0.163) 0.204)
A10 (0.238, 0.284, (0, 0.065, (0.157, 0.200, (0.189, 0.240, (0.181, 0.215, (0.173, 0.221, (0.168, 0.214, (0.157, 0.199, (0.163, 0.208, (0.171, 0.204,
0.284) 0.138) 0.238) 0.286) 0.215) 0.263) 0.255) 0.237) 0.247) 0.204)
13
Table 8 Rank of alternatives by ỹi BNP Rank

the RS method
A1 (0.075, 0.102, 0.124) 0.10017 4
A2 (0.063, 0.087, 0.110) 0.08673 7
A3 (0.063, 0.086, 0.102) 0.08363 10
A4 (0.062, 0.088, 0.110) 0.08664 8
A5 (0.084, 0.108, 0.125) 0.10589 3
A6 (0.104, 0.130, 0.145) 0.12614 2
A7 (0.061, 0.087, 0.108) 0.08513 9
A8 (0.070, 0.096, 0.118) 0.09483 5
A9 (0.070, 0.091, 0.112) 0.09127 6
A10 (0.103, 0.131, 0.145) 0.12617 1
raw materials), (3) Cost (capital investment, labour skill enhancement, production cost,
ensure labour health, and creating a sustainable working environment), and (4) Risk
(FBR analysis, pressure from global monitoring bodies, methane mitigation, and com-
pliance with environmental norms) (Awasthi and Baležentis 2017). The weights of the
factors calculated is shown in Table 14. Due to the variation in the weights of the fac-
tors obtained using the fuzzy AHP and the BWM, the SA methods rank also changes.
The rank of the SA method obtained by the fuzzy MULTIMOORA using the BWM is
tabulated in Table 15. The variation in the ranks of the assessment methods is displayed
in Fig. 3.
Figure 3 shows that despite variations in the weights of the factors, the rank of assess-
ment methods remains the same in most cases. For instance, the rank of assessment
method EIA remains third regardless whether the weights of the factors are obtained by the
fuzzy AHP or BWM methods. Likewise, the ranks of SLCA, EDIP, CBA, and ISP remain
unchanged (2, 7, 4, and 1, respectively). However, in the cases of SEEA, HIA, LCC, EE,
and SEA, a slight difference in the rank is observed. Hence, as Fig. 3 confirms, the results
are reliable and robust.
6 Results and discussion
In the above case study, using the fuzzy MULTIMOORA provides us with some important
insights. To know the individual importance of each factor, their weights are calculated
using the fuzzy AHP technique (Table 5). Those weights indicate that the identification of
alternative raw materials (F20), with a weight of 0.0722, greatly assists in the implementa-
tion of SM. This factor is followed by methane mitigation (F17), then opting for re-utiliza-
tion (F13), with weights of 0.0667 and 0.0663, respectively. Meanwhile, factors like gender
justice (F10), government assistance (F12), and industrial reputation (F9), with weights of
0.0245, 0.0317, and 0.0446 respectively, demonstrate the least influence. However, these
factors should not be overlooked by managers when implementing the SM process. Fur-
ther the top three factors influencing SM that concern LPI are interlinked because the raw
material used in LPI is the root cause of the two other factors. At present, most of the LPI
utilizes raw animal skins and hides for leather production through rigorous chemical treat-
ments. At each stage of the chemical process, a surplus amount of hazardous waste is gen-
erated, which may have an adverse environmental impact. Hence, by identifying a suitable
13
Table 9 RP vector (ṽ )

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10
ṽ (0.208, 0.247, (0.180, 0.214, (0.227, 0.270, (0.179, 0.213, (0.230, 0.274, (0.250, 0.298, (0.214, 0.255, (0.209, 0.267, (0.210, 0.267, (0.263, 0.313,
0.247) 0.214) 0.270) 0.213) 0.274) 0.298) 0.255) 0.317) 0.318) 0.313)
F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20
ṽ (0.238, 0.284, (0.268, 0.341, (0.200, 0.238, (0.189, 0.240, (0.181, 0.215, (0.173, 0.221, (0.214, 0.255, (0.199, 0.237, (0.208, 0.247, (0.171, 0.204,
0.284) 0.406) 0.238) 0.286) 0.215) 0.263) 0.255) 0.237) 0.247) 0.204)
13
Table 10 Distance between the normalised decision matrix and the reference points criteria
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10
13
A1 (0.084, 0.084, (0.039, 0.034, (0.184, 0.178, (0, 0, 0) (0.137, 0.137, (0.202, 0.196, (0.127, 0.127, (0, 0, 0) (0, 0, 0) (0.263, 0.263,
0.040) 0) 0.135) 0.093) 0.149) 0.087) 0.207)
A2 (0.045, 0.040, (0.039, 0.034, (0.184, 0.178, (0.038, 0.034, (0.186, 0.181, (0.054, 0.048, (0.046, 0.041, (0.209, 0.216, (0.051, 0.057, (0.263, 0.313,
0) 0) 0.135) 0) 0.137) 0) 0) 0.209) 0.051) 0.263)
A3 (0.084, 0.084, (0.073, 0.073, (0, 0, 0) (0, 0, 0) (0.137, 0.137, (0.202, 0.196, (0.087, 0.087, (0.209, 0.267, (0.051, 0.057, (0, 0, 0)
0.040) 0.034) 0.093) 0.149) 0.041) 0.267) 0.051)
A4 (0.045, 0.040, (0.039, 0.034, (0.184, 0.178, (0.106, 0.106, (0.093, 0.093, (0.202, 0.196, (0, 0, 0) (0, 0, 0) (0.159, 0.159, (0.263, 0.263,
0) 0) 0.135) 0.072) 0.044) 0.149) 0.159) 0.207)
A5 (0.045, 0.040, (0.039, 0.034, (0.092, 0.092, (0, 0, 0) (0, 0, 0) (0.101, 0.101, (0.127, 0.127, (0.051, 0.057, (0.102, 0.108, (0.263, 0.313,
0) 0) 0.043) 0.048) 0.087) 0.051) 0.108) 0.263)
A6 (0.208, 0.208, (0.039, 0.034, (0.049, 0.043, (0, 0, 0) (0.049, 0.044, (0.250, 0.250, (0.173, 0.168, (0.209, 0.216, (0, 0, 0) (0.056, 0.050,
0.163) 0) 0) 0) 0.196) 0.127) 0.209) 0)
A7 (0.045, 0.040, (0, 0, 0) (0.092, 0.092, (0.038, 0.034, (0.049, 0.044, (0.149, 0.149, (0.087, 0.087, (0.159, 0.159, (0.159, 0.159, (0.263, 0.263,
0) 0.043) 0) 0) 0.101) 0.041) 0.159) 0.159) 0.207)
A8 (0, 0, 0) (0.039, 0.034, (0.135, 0.135, (0.072, 0.072, (0.137, 0.137, (0, 0, 0) (0, 0, 0) (0.051, 0.057, (0.102, 0.108, (0.263, 0.313,
0) 0.092) 0.034) 0.093) 0.051) 0.108) 0.263)
A9 (0.045, 0.040, (0, 0, 0) (0.092, 0.092, (0.038, 0.034, (0.093, 0.093, (0.054, 0.048, (0, 0, 0) (0.209, 0.267, (0.210, 0.267, (0.056, 0.050,
0) 0.043) 0) 0.044) 0) 0.267) 0.267) 0)
A10 (0.208, 0.247, (0.039, 0.034, (0, 0, 0) (0, 0, 0) (0.137, 0.137, (0.149, 0.149, (0.173, 0.168, (0, 0, 0) (0.159, 0.159, (0, 0, 0)
0.208) 0) 0.093) 0.101) 0.127) 0.159)
F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20
A1 (0.096, 0.096, (0.268, 0.276, (0.043, 0.038, (0, 0, 0) (0, 0, 0) (0, 0, 0) (0, 0, 0) (0.081, 0.081, (0.045, 0.040, (0, 0, 0)
0.045) 0.268) 0) 0.038) 0)
A2 (0.193, 0.187, (0.130, 0.138, (0.119, 0.119, (0.143, 0.143, (0.039, 0.034, (0.042, 0.047, (0.046, 0.041, (0.043, 0.038, (0.045, 0.040, (0, 0, 0)
0.142) 0.138) 0.081) 0.143) 0) 0.042) 0) 0) 0)
A3 (0, 0, 0) (0.130, 0.138, (0.119, 0.119, (0.046, 0.052, (0, 0, 0) (0.131, 0.131, (0.127, 0.127, (0.161, 0.157, (0.124, 0.124, (0.102, 0.102,
0.138) 0.081) 0.046) 0.131) 0.087) 0.119) 0.084) 0.069)
A4 (0.193, 0.187, (0.130, 0.138, (0.081, 0.081, (0.143, 0.143, (0.073, 0.073, (0, 0, 0) (0.173, 0.168, (0, 0, 0) (0.168, 0.163, (0.037, 0.033,
0.142) 0.138) 0.038) 0.143) 0.034) 0.127) 0.124) 0)

Table 10 (continued)
F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20
A5 (0.238, 0.238, (0.268, 0.276, (0, 0, 0) (0.092, 0.097, (0.039, 0.034, (0, 0, 0) (0.046, 0.041, (0.081, 0.081, (0.045, 0.040, (0, 0, 0)
0.187) 0.268) 0.097) 0) 0) 0.038) 0)
A6 (0, 0, 0) (0, 0, 0) (0.043, 0.038, (0.046, 0.052, (0, 0, 0) (0.084, 0.089, (0, 0, 0) (0, 0, 0) (0, 0, 0) (0, 0, 0)
0) 0.046) 0.089)
A7 (0.193, 0.187, (0.130, 0.138, (0.081, 0.081, (0, 0, 0) (0.108, 0.108, (0.131, 0.131, (0.127, 0.127, (0.119, 0.119, (0, 0, 0) (0.037, 0.033,
0.142) 0.138) 0.038) 0.073) 0.131) 0.0870 0.081) 0)

A8 (0.142, 0.142, (0.268, 0.276, (0, 0, 0) (0.189, 0.240, (0.039, 0.034, (0.084, 0.089, (0.127, 0.127, (0.081, 0.081, (0.168, 0.163, (0, 0, 0)
0.096) 0.268) 0.240) 0) 0.089) 0.0870 0.038) 0.124)
A9 (0.142, 0.142, (0.268, 0.276, (0.081, 0.081, (0.046, 0.052, (0.039, 0.034, (0, 0, 0) (0.127, 0.127, (0, 0, 0) (0.124, 0.124, (0, 0, 0)
0.096) 0.268) 0.038) 0.046) 0) 0.0870 0.084)
A10 (0, 0, 0) (0.268, 0.276, (0.043, 0.038, (0, 0, 0) (0, 0, 0) (0, 0, 0) (0.046, 0.041, (0.043, 0.038, (0.045, 0.040, (0, 0, 0)
0.268) 0) 0) 0) 0)
13
Table 11 Rank of alternatives by Z BNP RANK

the RP method
A1 (0.012, 0.012, 0.009) 0.011 5
A2 (0.01, 0.011, 0.01) 0.010333 3
A3 (0.012, 0.012, 0.009) 0.011 5
A4 (0.012, 0.012, 0.009) 0.011 5
A5 (0.01, 0.01, 0.007) 0.009 2
A6 (0.015, 0.015, 0.012) 0.014 7
A7 (0.009, 0.009, 0.006) 0.008 1
A8 (0.01, 0.01, 0.007) 0.009 2
A9 (0.01, 0.013, 0.013) 0.012 6
A10 (0.01, 0.012, 0.01) 0.010667 4
Table 12 Rank of alternatives by the FM form method

x̃i ỹi ̃′
U BNP Rank
i
A1 (0, 0.000226, 0.013459) (0.094248, 0.2772, (0, 0.000817, 0.024276) 0.008364281 3

0.5544)
A2 (0, 0, 0.00209) (0.045999, 0.201519, 0.5) (0, 0, 0.00418) 0.001393362 9
A3 (0, 0, 0.001767) (0.0425, 0.143748, (0, 0, 0.004518) 0.001505931 8
0.39118464)
A4 (0, 0.000026, 0.002743) (0.014193, 0.097104, (0, 0.000268, 0.010973) 0.003746875 6
0.25)
A5 (0, 0, 0.006078) (0.050355, 0.1764, (0, 0, 0.013952) 0.004650823 5
0.4356)
A6 (0, 0.003777, 0.076296) (0, 0.035904, 0.1428) (0, 0.105202, 0.534286) 0.213162421 2
A7 (0, 0.000035, 0.002845) (0.074052, 0.232848, (0, 0.000148, 0.005132) 0.001759992 7
0.5544)
A8 (0, 0, 0.002019) (0, 0, 0.1056) (0, 0, 0.019119) 0.006372961 4
A9 (0, 0, 0.002247) (0.094248, 0.2772, (0, 0, 0.004053) 0.001351139 10
0.5544)
A10 (0, 0.004778, 0.074052) (0, 0, 0.08) (0, 0, 0.92565) 0.30855 1
Table 13 Ranking of RS method RP method FM method Ranking by DT

SA methods by fuzzy
MULTIMOORA (fuzzy AHP
A1 4 5 3 3
weight)
A2 7 3 9 9
A3 10 5 8 10
A4 8 5 6 8
A5 3 2 5 5
A6 2 7 2 2
A7 9 1 7 7
A8 5 2 4 4
A9 6 6 10 6
A10 1 4 1 1
13
Table 14 Weight of factors Factors Weights

calculated by BWM
F1 0.34273698
F2 0.13829737
F3 0.08297843
F4 0.03006465
F5 0.05927030
F6 0.00212382
F7 0.00448362
F8 0.00627706
F9 0.01046177
F10 0.02524984
F11 0.01782328
F12 0.00458313
F13 0.01273091
F14 0.01273091
F15 0.01113955
F16 0.06518228
F17 0.02500814
F18 0.00992386
F19 0.09725386
F20 0.04168023
Table 15 Ranking of RS method RP method FM method Ranking by DT

assessment methods by fuzzy
MULTIMOORA ((BWM)
A1 3 5 3 3
weight)
A2 8 3 9 8
A3 5 5 8 5
A4 9 3 6 9
A5 4 1 5 6
A6 2 6 2 2
A7 7 1 7 7
A8 10 4 4 4
A9 6 2 10 10
A10 1 7 1 1
alternative raw material for leather production, the LPI may witness optimal progress in
SM practices.
On the one hand, industries must address the factors which act as SM drivers,
while, on the other hand, they need to find a suitable assessment method to validate
their progress towards the goal. The availability of many assessment methods often
leads to a trade-off in selection. To overcome this problem of choosing a better assess-
ment method, the fuzzy MULTIMOORA method is used in the case study. The results
of the assessment methods obtained by the RS, RP, and FM form methods are shown
in Tables 8, 12, and 13, respectively. In the RS method, the assessment method ISP
13
SENSITIVITY ANALYISIS
10 10
10
9 9
9
8 8
8
77
7
6 6
6
5 5
Ranks
5
44
4
33
3
22
2
11
1
0
EIA SEEA HIA LCC EE SLCA EDIP CBA SEA ISP
Assessment methodologies
BWM - weight of factors fuzzy AHP - weight of factors
Fig. 3 Comparison of ranks obtained using BWM weights and fuzzy AHP weights
(A10), with a performance value of 0.12617, secured the highest rank. ISP is followed
by SLCA (A6) and EE (A5), with performance values of 0.12614 and 0.10589, respec-
tively. In the RP method, the assessment method EDIP (A7), with a performance value
of 0.008, is top-ranked, followed by EE (A5) and SEEA (A2), with performance values
of 0.009 and 0.010333, respectively. In the RP method, assessment methods like EIA
(A1), HIA (A3), and LCC (A4), which have the same performance value of 0.011, are
ranked fifth. In the FM form method, ISP (A10), with a performance value of 0.30855,
is ranked first, followed by SLCA (A6) and EIA (A1), with performance values of
0.30855 and 0.008364281, respectively.
Based on the ranks obtained through the three individual methods, the final ranks of
the assessment methods are computed by the DT of the fuzzy MULTIMOORA using the
fuzzy AHP weight shown in Table 14. According to the DT, ISP (A10), which ranks first
in the RS method and FM form method, is selected as the best assessment method, fol-
lowed by SLCA (A6) and EIA (A1). ISP (A10) is the best assessment method for the case
organization as it evaluates the environmental impact of changing the existing processes
and also evaluates the financial feasibility of implementing the changes in the existing pro-
cesses. SLCA (A6), an assessment method that addresses the social and environmental
issues related to the process modification that has been made, is ranked after ISP (A10).
EIA (A1), an assessment method for measuring sustainability, is ranked third. Therefore, in
measuring the progress in adopting an SM process, ISP (A10) is recommended as an opti-
mal method. Although the MULTIMOORA is widely recognized as a reliable method in
decision-making, some uncertainties and inconsistencies exist in the obtained results. The
identified limitation of the MULTIMOORA is the difference in the performance values of
the alternatives obtained using the RS, RP, and FM form methods. For instance, the per-
formance values of EDIP (A7) are 0.08513 in the RS method, 0.008 in the RP method, and
0.001759992 in the FM form method. Despite the performance value of EDIP (A7), the RP
is very small when compared to the performance value of the RS method. Further, EDIP
(A7) is ranked first in the RP method and ninth in the RS method.
13
To measure the reliability of the results of the fuzzy MULTIMOORA, a sensitiv-

ity analysis is carried out using the fuzzy AHP weights and compared with the results
obtained using the BWM weights. From Table 15, it must be noted that the weights of
the factors obtained by the BWM is different from those obtained by the fuzzy AHP.
Factor capital investment (F1), with a weight of 0.34273698, is found to be the most
influential factor in SM practice, followed by the adoption of advanced technology
(F2) and compliance with environmental norms (F19), with weights of 0.13829737
and 0.09725386, respectively. Although differences in the weights of the factors are
observed, the ranking of SA methods obtained by the fuzzy MULTIMOORA using
the BWM weights has not changed drastically (Table 15). Like the result obtained
using the fuzzy AHP, in the BWM weight-based results, ISP (A10) remains the most
preferred SA method followed by SLCA (A6) and EIA (A1). Owing to a change in
weights of the factors, assessment method SEA (A9), which was ranked sixth when
using the fuzzy AHP weight, falls to tenth, while, the SA method HIA (A3) jumps
from tenth to fifth.
7 Implications
7.1 Managerial implications
The research attempts to explore the sustainability assessment methods by consider-

ing critical factors very specific to sustainable manufacturing practices. The study is
the key reference to deploy sophisticated techniques such as MULTIMOORA in less
explored domains. The finding provides guidelines for managers to adopt a suitable
assessment method and achieve positive results in sustainability operations. Extant
works majorly focus on social, economic, and environmental challenges to sustainable
manufacturing practices; however, evaluation of the sustainability assessment method
is not reported in literature succinctly. Moreover, measuring the sustainability per-
formance using the Index of Social Progress (ISP) will provide great impetus to the
movement of SDGs, which has been identified as a practical assessment method that
measures three vital categories such as basic human needs, opportunity, and founda-
tions of well-being. Our work deliberates on the select factors to finalize a practically
suitable method which would help to achieve those goals.
Further, the study provides a perspective on the importance of weights for evaluating
the critical factors. These fuzzy MULTIMOORA study findings may assist managers to
understand the severity of each critical factor. The paper’s main contribution is to help the
industrial community to recognize the critical factors so that proactive measures can be
designed to overcome the sustainability assessment issues. For instance, the factor identi-
fication of alternative raw materials has been found as the most critical one. In specific to
leather industry context, the industry may consider bacterial cellulose, a hydrophilic, mal-
leable, and bio-compatible substance as an alternative to leather (García and Prieto 2019).
The USA and European countries are currently using pineapple leaves, the bark of cork
oak trees, and mushrooms to develop artificial leathers (Kim et al. 2017). These sugges-
tions would influence the industrial community to optimize their resources in their sustain-
able manufacturing operations, and the study offers such useful guidelines to key stake-
holders to focus and achieve sustainable operations.
13
7.2 Process and policy implications
Our study provides a few process and policy implications. First, the role of government is
vital in steering the industrial progress towards SM practices. In the transition to SM prac-
tices, the MSMEs often face severe challenges than large scale industries, as the former in
general lack financial assistance. Hence, government assistance may help MSMEs in the
adoption of SM practices. So, it is imperative to implement policies that may lower the
financial burden of MSMEs. Second, the government may establish common effluent treat-
ment plants (CETPs) in industrial areas comprised of MSMEs as it provides momentum
to waste management. Third, our findings directly influence them to strategize sustainable
processes. The MSMEs may follow carbohydrate (obtained from Aspergillus terreus) soak-
ing as a replacement to the traditional lime soaking process and mitigate the waste genera-
tion (Durga et al. 2016). This facilitates industries to reutilize and promote value recovery
from the waste, similar to the suggestion of Cimatti et al. (2017) to adopt 6R (Reduce,
Reuse, Recover, Redesign, Remanufacture, and Recycle) practices. By adopting 6R prac-
tices, industrial management may encourage the R&D department to find an optimum way
to recover value from the waste. Animal fleshing waste generated out of LPI is converted
into vermicomposting using Eisenia foetida which is a nutrient-enriched product. Simi-
larly, the leather industry’s hair wastes are used as boiler feed in gelatin manufacturing
(Ravindran et al. 2008). Finally, the results would influence both domestic and interna-
tional buyers to review critical factors and the selection of suitable sustainable assessment
methods. This would trigger them (buyers) to design and tweak their standard operating
procedures and effectively implement sustainable operations. This would enhance the over-
all efficiency of their buying cycle, as the selection of suitable method may control process
costs and efficiency. In addition, the deliberations may assist other stakeholders such as
local and regional industry associations, consulting firms, and non-governmental organiza-
tions (NGOs) to ensure the effective implementation of sustainable operations.
8 Conclusion
The sustainability concept is receiving significant attention from industrial practitioners

and researchers during the formulation of business strategy, from a manufacturing perspec-
tive. However, the incorporation of the sustainability concept is difficult for the manufac-
turing sector, especially in developing countries like India. Factors relating to government
regulations, finance, the environment and organizations play a significant role in the adop-
tion of SM practices. In addition to addressing the critical factors, the selection of an opti-
mum SA method also plays a crucial role in measuring the success of SM practices. In this
study, an attempt was made to prioritize the SA methods by considering the crucial factors
of SM practice in the Indian context.
To achieve this, based on the opinion of experts and a literature review, 20 critical fac-
tors and 10 assessment methods of SM practices were identified. Then, using the fuzzy
AHP and the BWM, the weight importance of each critical factor was calculated. Using the
weights (fuzzy AHP and BWM) of the factors and the fuzzy MULTIMOORA, SA methods
were prioritized. Based on the weights of the critical factors of SM practice, the top three
critical factors are the identification of alternative raw material (F20), methane mitigation
(F17), and opting for re-utilization (F13). Regarding the SA method, the results indicate
13
that ISP (A10) and SLCA (A6) are the best methods. This study suggests that MSMEs
must try to find alternative raw materials for leather. Finding an alternative raw material
(i.e. a natural product) may significantly reduce the wastes (animal fleshing and hairs) and
methane generated by the leather processing industries.
Although this study contributes significantly to the literature on SM and the leather pro-
cessing industry, it has some limitations as well. A future study focusing on SM practices
in India is challenging for two reasons. Firstly, India is a developing country that is on
the path of technological growth. Hence, some factors that have a high influence in this
study may become insignificant in future. For instance, ‘advanced technology adoption’
may become insignificant in future once it reaches a threshold level. Secondly, the govern-
ment is emphasizing the need for SM practices. Hence, factors such as ‘green energy’ and
‘financial assistance from the government’ may become invalid in future studies relating to
SM practice. In addition, using a specific industry context is considered as one of the key
limitations, as a multiple case study would have provided better insights into SM practice.
Finally, only the weights of the factors were calculated. A study using the decision-making
trail and evaluation laboratory or interpretive structural modelling method will reveal the
relationship between the factors of SM practices. In addition, this study identifies scope
to empirically investigate the listed factors with theoretically underpinned studies. The
research framework may be applied in other developing countries and the results of these
studies may be compared with those of this study.
Appendix: Participant profile
Expert number Type of industry Position of experts Work

experience
(years)
E1 Government Government administrator 10

E2 Research and development Director 15
E3 Private (LPI) Process supervisor 12
sE4 Private (LPI) Industrial manager 10
E5 Non-governmental organisation Public relations assistant 8
E6 Volunteer organisation Environmentalist 11
E7 Education Senior researcher 10
References
Amrina, E., & Vilsi, A. L. (2015). Key performance indicators for sustainable manufacturing evaluation in
cement industry. Procedia CIRP, 26, 19–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2014.07.173.
Awasthi, A., & Baležentis, T. (2017). A hybrid approach based on BOCR and fuzzy MULTIMOORA for
logistics service provider selection. International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management,
27(3), 261–282.
Bhatia, M. S., Dora, M., & Jakhar, S. K. (2019). Appropriate location for remanufacturing plant towards
sustainable supply chain. Annals of Operations Research, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-019-
03294-z.
13
Brauers, W. K., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2006). The MOORA method and its application to privatization in a
transition economy. Control and Cybernetics, 35, 445–469.
Brauers, W. K. M., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2010). Project management by MULTIMOORA as an instrument
for transition economies. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 16(1), 5–24.
Brauers, W. K. M., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2011). MULTIMOORA optimization used to decide on a bank loan
to buy property. Technological and economic development of economy, 17(1), 174–188.
Ceschin, F., & Gaziulusoy, I. (2016). Evolution of design for sustainability: From product design to design
for system innovations and transitions. Design Studies, 47, 118–163.
Chakraborty, S. (2011). Applications of the MOORA method for decision making in manufacturing envi-
ronment. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 54(9), 1155–1166.
Cimatti, B., Campana, G., & Carluccio, L. (2017). Eco design and sustainable manufacturing in fashion: A
case study in the luxury personal accessories industry. Procedia Manufacturing, 8, 393–400.
Çulha, A. A. (2019). Asymmetric government expenditure: a comparison of advanced and developing coun-
tries. Journal of Economic Policy Reform, 22(2), 164–183.
Dahooie, J. H., Zavadskas, E. K., Firoozfar, H. R., Vanaki, A. S., Mohammadi, N., & Brauers, W. K. M.
(2019). An improved fuzzy MULTIMOORA approach for multi-criteria decision making based on
objective weighting method (CCSD) and its application to technological forecasting method selection.
Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 79, 114–128.
Drissi, M., Oumsis, M., & Aboutajdine, D. (2016). A fuzzy AHP approach to network selection improve-
ment in heterogeneous wireless networks. In International conference on networked systems (pp. 169–
182). Cham: Springer.
Durga, J., Ranjithkumar, A., Ramesh, R., Girivasan, K. T. P. V., Rose, C., & Muralidharan, C. (2016).
Replacement of lime with carbohydrases—A successful cleaner process for leather making. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 112, 1122–1127.
Dwivedi, A., Agrawal, D., & Madaan, J. (2019). Sustainable manufacturing evaluation model focusing
leather industries in India: A TISM approach. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management,
10(2), 319–359.
García, C., & Prieto, M. A. (2019). Bacterial cellulose as a potential bioleather substitute for the footwear
industry. Microbial Biotechnology, 12(4), 582.
Ghadimi, P., Yusof, N. M., Saman, M. Z. M., & Asadi, M. (2013). Methodologies for measuring sustain-
ability of product/process: A review. Pertanika Journal of Science and Technology, 21(2), 303–326.
Gnoni, M. G., Duraccio, V., & Iavagnilio, R. (2016). A fuzzy AHP-based approach for assessing the faulty
behaviour risk at workplace. International Journal of Business and Systems Research, 10(2), 291–305.
Govindan, K., Jha, P. C., Agarwal, V., & Darbari, J. D. (2019). Environmental management partner selection
for reverse supply chain collaboration: A sustainable approach. Journal of Environmental Manage-
ment, 236, 784–797.
Haapala, K. R., Zhao, F., Camelio, J., Sutherland, J. W., Skerlos, S. J., Dornfeld, D. A., et al. (2013). A
review of engineering research in sustainable manufacturing. Journal of Manufacturing Science and
Engineering, 135(4), 041013.
Hafezalkotob, A., Hafezalkotob, A., Liao, H., & Herrera, F. (2019). Interval MULTIMOORA method
integrating interval borda rule and interval best-worst-method-based weighting model: Case study
on hybrid vehicle engine selection. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics. https://doi.org/10.1109/
TCYB.2018.2889730.
Henri, J. F., & Journeault, M. (2010). Eco-control: The influence of management control systems on envi-
ronmental and economic performance. Accounting, Organisations and Society, 35(1), 63–80.
Hosseinijou, S. A., Mansour, S., & Shirazi, M. A. (2014). Social life cycle assessment for material selec-
tion: A case study of building materials. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 19(3),
620–645.
Huang, A., & Badurdeen, F. (2017). Sustainable manufacturing performance evaluation: Integrating product
and process metrics for systems level assessment. Procedia Manufacturing, 8, 563–570.
Hutchins, M. J., Richter, J. S., Henry, M. L., & Sutherland, J. W. (2019). Development of indicators for
the social dimension of sustainability in a US business context. Journal of Cleaner Production, 212,
687–697.
Hutter, K., Hoffmann, S., & Mai, R. (2016). Carrotmob: a win–win–win approach to creating benefits for
consumers, business, and society at large. Business and Society, 55(7), 1059–1077.
Izadikhah, M., & Saen, R. F. (2019). Ranking sustainable suppliers by context-dependent data envelopment
analysis. Annals of Operations Research, 1–31.
Khurana, S., Haleem, A., & Mannan, B. (2019). Determinants for integration of sustainability with innova-
tion for Indian manufacturing enterprises: Empirical evidence in MSMEs. Journal of Cleaner Produc-
tion, 229, 374–386.
13
Kim, D. S., Kim, Y. W., Kim, K. J., & Shin, H. J. (2017). Research trend and product development potential
of fungal mycelium-based composite materials. KSBB Journal, 32(3), 174–178.
Kishawy, H., Hegab, H., & Saad, E. (2018). Design for sustainable manufacturing: Approach, implementation,
and assessment. Sustainability, 10(10), 3604–3619.
Koksalmis, E., & Kabak, Ö. (2019). Deriving decision makers’ weights in group decision making: An overview
of objective methods. Information Fusion, 49, 146–160.
Kwong, C. K., & Bai, H. (2002). A fuzzy AHP approach to the determination of importance weights of cus-
tomer requirements in quality function deployment. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 13(5), 367–377.
Lahouel, B. B. (2016). Eco-efficiency analysis of French firms: a data envelopment analysis approach. Environ-
mental Economics and Policy Studies, 18(3), 395–416.
Liang, W., Zhao, G., & Hong, C. (2019). Selecting the optimal mining method with extended multi-objective
optimization by ratio analysis plus the full multiplicative form (MULTIMOORA) approach. Neural Com-
puting and Applications, 31(10), 5871–5886.
Liao, Y. C., & Tsai, K. H. (2019). Innovation intensity, creativity enhancement, and eco-innovation strategy:
The roles of customer demand and environmental regulation. Business Strategy and the Environment,
28(2), 316–326.
Lin, H. F. (2010). An application of fuzzy AHP for evaluating course website quality. Computers and Educa-
tion, 54(4), 877–888.
Lin, M., Huang, C., & Xu, Z. (2020). MULTIMOORA based MCDM model for site selection of car sharing
station under picture fuzzy environment. Sustainable Cities and Society, 53, 101873.
Liu, Y., Eckert, C. M., & Earl, C. (2020). A review of fuzzy AHP methods for decision-making with subjective
judgements. Expert Systems with Applications, 113738.
Lyu, H. M., Sun, W. J., Shen, S. L., & Zhou, A. N. (2020). Risk assessment using a new consulting process in
fuzzy AHP. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 146(3), 04019112.
Maghsoodi, A. I., Abouhamzeh, G., Khalilzadeh, M., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2018). Ranking and selecting the
best performance appraisal method using the MULTIMOORA approach integrated Shannon’s entropy.
Frontiers of Business Research in China, 12(1), 2.
Malek, J., & Desai, T. N. (2019). Prioritisation of sustainable manufacturing barriers using Best Worst Method.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 226, 589–600.
Mathiyazhagan, K., Sengupta, S., & Mathivathanan, D. (2019). Challenges for implementing green concept in
sustainable manufacturing: A systematic review. OPSEARCH, 56(1), 32–72.
Mefford, R. N. (2019). Sustainable CSR in Global Supply Chains. Journal of Management and Sustainability,
9, 82.
Merigo, J. M., & Casanovas, M. (2011). Induced and uncertain heavy OWA operators. Computers and Indus-
trial Engineering, 60, 106–116.
Moldavska, A., & Welo, T. (2017). The concept of sustainable manufacturing and its definitions: A content-
analysis based literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 166, 744–755.
Mulliner, E., Malys, N., & Maliene, V. (2016). Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of
sustainable housing affordability. Omega, 59, 146–156.
Nam, S., Lee, D. K., Jeong, Y. K., Lee, P., & Shin, J. G. (2016). Environmental impact assessment of composite
small craft manufacturing using the generic work breakdown structure. International Journal of Precision
Engineering and Manufacturing-Green Technology, 3(3), 261–272.
Noble, B. F. (2000). Strategic environmental assessment: What is it and what makes it strategic? Journal of
Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 2(02), 203–224.
Omrani, H., Alizadeh, A., & Amini, M. (2019). A new approach based on BWM and MULTIMOORA meth-
ods for calculating semi-human development index: An application for provinces of Iran. Socio-Economic
Planning Sciences. Available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2019.02.004
Pan, X., Han, C., Lu, X., Jiao, Z., & Ming, Y. (2020). Green innovation ability evaluation of manufacturing
enterprises based on AHP–OVP model. Annals of Operations Research, 290(1), 409–419.
Piyathanavong, V., Garza-Reyes, J. A., Kumar, V., Maldonado-Guzmán, G., & Mangla, S. K. (2019). The adop-
tion of operational environmental sustainability approaches in the Thai manufacturing sector. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 220, 507–528.
Ravindran, B., Dinesh, S. L., Kennedy, L. J., & Sekaran, G. (2008). Vermicomposting of solid waste generated
from leather industries using epigeic earthworm Eisenia foetida. Applied biochemistry and biotechnology,
151(2–3), 480–488.
Rentizelas, A., de Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L., Al Balushi, A. D., & Tuni, A. (2020). Social sustainability in the
oil and gas industry: Institutional pressure and the management of sustainable supply chains. Annals of
Operations Research, 290(1), 279–300.
Rezaei, J. (2015). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega, 53, 49–57.
Roberts, S. J. F., & Ball, P. D. (2014). Developing a library of sustainable manufacturing practices. Procedia
CIRP, 15, 159–164.
13
Ruckert, A., Schram, A., Labonté, R., Friel, S., Gleeson, D., & Thow, A. M. (2017). Policy coherence, health
and the sustainable development goals: A health impact assessment of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Criti-
cal Public Health, 27(1), 86–96.
Saad, M. H., Nazzal, M. A., & Darras, B. M. (2019). A general framework for sustainability assessment of
manufacturing processes. Ecological Indicators, 97, 211–224.
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process, New York: Mcgrew hill. International, Translated to Rus-
sian, Portuguesses and Chinese, Revised edition, Paperback (1996, 2000), Pittsburgh: RWS Publica-
tions, 9, 19–22.
Sala, S., Ciuffo, B., & Nijkamp, P. (2015). A systemic framework for sustainability assessment. Ecological Eco-
nomics, 119, 314–325.
Schau, E. M., Traverso, M., Lehmann, A., & Finkbeiner, M. (2011). Life cycle costing in sustainability assess-
ment—A case study of remanufactured alternators. Sustainability, 3(11), 2268–2288.
Schlör, H., Fischer, W., & Hake, J. F. (2013). Methods of measuring sustainable development of the German
energy sector. Applied Energy, 101, 172–181.
Shukla, O. J., Jangid, V., Siddh, M. M., Kumar, R., & Soni, G. (2017, February). Evaluating key factors of sus-
tainable manufacturing in Indian automobile industries using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). In 2017
International Conference on Advances in Mechanical, Industrial, Automation and Management Systems
(AMIAMS) (pp. 42–47). IEEE.
Siahaan, A. P. U., Rahim, R., & Mesran, M. (2017). Student admission assessment using multi-objective opti-
misation on the basis of ratio analysis. Available at https://osf.io/cwfpu.
Singh, R. K., Murty, H. R., Gupta, S. K., & Dikshit, A. K. (2012). An overview of sustainability assessment
methodologies. Ecological Indicators, 15(1), 281–299.
Singla, A., Ahuja, I. S., & Sethi, A. S. (2019). An examination of effectiveness of technology push strategies for
achieving sustainable development in manufacturing industries. Journal of Science and Technology Policy
Management, 10(1), 73–101.
Thirupathi, R. M., Vinodh, S., & Dhanasekaran, S. (2019). Application of system dynamics modelling for a
sustainable manufacturing system of an Indian automotive component manufacturing organisation: A case
study. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 1–17.
Torlak, G., Sevkli, M., Sanal, M., & Zaim, S. (2011). Analysing business competition by using fuzzy TOP-
SIS method: An example of Turkish domestic airline industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(4),
3396–9406.
Venkatesh, V. G., Zhang, A., Deakins, E., Luthra, S., & Mangla, S. (2018). A fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS approach to
supply partner selection in continuous aid humanitarian supply chains. Annals of Operations Research,
1–34.
Wahga, A. I., Blundel, R., & Schaefer, A. (2018). Understanding the drivers of sustainable entrepreneurial
practices in Pakistan’s leather industry: A multi-level approach. International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behavior and Research, 24(2), 382–407.
Wu, S. M., You, X. Y., Liu, H. C., & Wang, L. E. (2020). Improving quality function deployment analysis
with the cloud MULTIMOORA method. International Transactions in Operational Research, 27(3),
1600–1621.
Yadav, V., Sharma, M. K., & Singh, S. (2018). Intelligent evaluation of suppliers using extent fuzzy TOPSIS
method: a case study of an Indian manufacturing SME. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 25(1),
259–279.
Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(1), 338–353.
Zavadskas, E. K., Čereška, A., Matijošius, J., Rimkus, A., & Bausys, R. (2019). Internal combustion engine
analysis of energy ecological parameters by neutrosophic MULTIMOORA and SWARA methods. Ener-
gies, 12(8), 1415.
Zavadskas, E. K., Stević, Ž, Tanackov, I., & Prentkovskis, O. (2018). A novel multicriteria approach–rough
step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis method (R-SWARA) and its application in logistics. Studies in
Informatics and Control, 27(1), 97–106.
Zhang, A., Venkatesh, V. G., Liu, Y., Wan, M., Qu, T., & Huisingh, D. (2019a). Barriers to smart waste man-
agement for a circular economy in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 118198.
Zhang, C., Chen, C., Streimikiene, D., & Balezentis, T. (2019). Intuitionistic fuzzy MULTIMOORA approach
for multi-criteria assessment of the energy storage technologies. Applied Soft Computing, 79, 410–423.
Zimmermann, H. J. (2010). Fuzzy set theory. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics, 2(3),
317–332.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
13

koppiahraj2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

koppiahraj2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Annals of Operations Research

Optimal sustainability assessment method selection:

K. Koppiahraj1 · S. Bathrinath1 · V. G. Venkatesh2 · Venkatesh Mani3 · Yangyan Shi4

Accepted: 8 January 2021

Keywords Fuzzy MULTIMOORA · Fuzzy AHP · Best–worst method (BWM) · Leather

2.2 Sustainability Assessment (SA) methods

SA methods are decision-support tools that guide decision-making towards sustainabil-

2.3 MULTIMOORA and its significance

Group decision-making (GDM) is a process in which a group of individuals (experts,

Table 1 Applications of MULTIMOORA in different fields

Dahooie et al. (2019) Selection of a technology forecasting method

Fig. 1 Triangular fuzzy numbers

The basic mathematical function of two fuzzy numbers, Ã 1 = (s1 , m1 , l1 ) and

The membership function of a triangular fuzzy number is given as (Torlak et al.

Table 2 Fuzzy linguistic terms Linguistic term Fuzzy value

3.2.1 Rating the relative importance of the criteria

3.2.2 Constructing the fuzzy decision matrix

If X is consistent, then X̃ is consistent. The consistency index is calculated as follows:

xlsnij = xmnij∕(1+xmnij −xlijn ) (12)

xusnij = xrijn∕(1+xunij −xmnij ) (13)

(iii) Total normalized crisp value:

(iv) Computation of crisp value:

(v) Calculation of the weights:

Fuzzy weights can be computed as below.

Thereafter, the fuzzy weight vector w

3.3 The MULTIMOORA method

The MULTIMOORA method is an expansion of the MOORA method. Initially, the

• Step 1: Fuzzy decision matrix formation

The triangular fuzzy number is given according to Eq. (24).

• Step 3: Weight normalized decision matrix formation

vsij = wj xijs∗ (29)

vlij = wj xijl∗ (31)

• Step 4: Normalized performance value calculation

where the sign indicates a positive or negative factor.

The total utility of the ith alternative is obtained as follows:

3.3.4 DT in the MULTIMOORA method

4 Application in the SA method selection

Literature and Identification of influential factors in sustainable

Expert’s Weight calculation of sustainable factors using fuzzy Feedback for

Evaluate the assessment methods in relation with factors

Evaluate the assessment methods in relation with factors

Comparison of rank of assessment method obtained by Sensitivity

Fig. 2 Framework of the proposed research work

4.1 A case study: leather industry perspective

4.2 A numerical example

4.2.1 Weight calculation of factors by the fuzzy AHP

4.2.2 Decision matrix formation

As shown in Table 5, the ‘identification of alternative raw materials’, ‘methane mitiga-

Table 5 Weights of the factors Factors Weights

Table 6 Initial decision matrix

Table 8 Rank of alternatives by ỹi BNP Rank

6 Results and discussion

Table 9 RP vector (ṽ )

0.142) 0.138) 0.038) 0.143) 0.034) 0.127) 0.124) 0)

0.142) 0.138) 0.038) 0.073) 0.131) 0.0870 0.081) 0)

Table 11 Rank of alternatives by Z BNP RANK

Table 12 Rank of alternatives by the FM form method

A1 (0, 0.000226, 0.013459) (0.094248, 0.2772, (0, 0.000817, 0.024276) 0.008364281 3

Table 13 Ranking of RS method RP method FM method Ranking by DT

Table 14 Weight of factors Factors Weights

Table 15 Ranking of RS method RP method FM method Ranking by DT

BWM - weight of factors fuzzy AHP - weight of factors

To measure the reliability of the results of the fuzzy MULTIMOORA, a sensitiv-

The research attempts to explore the sustainability assessment methods by consider-

2.2 Sustainability Assessment (SA) methods

2.3 MULTIMOORA and its significance

3.2.1 Rating the relative importance of the criteria

3.2.2 Constructing the fuzzy decision matrix

3.3 The MULTIMOORA method

3.3.4 DT in the MULTIMOORA method

4 Application in the SA method selection

4.1 A case study: leather industry perspective

4.2 A numerical example

4.2.1 Weight calculation of factors by the fuzzy AHP

4.2.2 Decision matrix formation

6 Results and discussion

7.2 Process and policy implications