Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Le-Thanh-Hieu Dang
 -- 1507 2022-05-20 11:03:51 |
2 update references and layout
Amina Yu
 -23 word(s) 1484 2022-05-23 04:08:58 |

Video Upload Options

We provide professional Video Production Services to translate complex research into visually appealing presentations. Would you like to try it?
No, upload directly Yes

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Dang, L.; Nguyen, V.T.T. Sustainable Supplier Selection and Criteria. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/23163 (accessed on 21 December 2024).
Dang L, Nguyen VTT. Sustainable Supplier Selection and Criteria. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/23163. Accessed December 21, 2024.
Dang, Le-Thanh-Hieu, Van Thanh Tien Nguyen. "Sustainable Supplier Selection and Criteria" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/23163 (accessed December 21, 2024).
Dang, L., & Nguyen, V.T.T. (2022, May 20). Sustainable Supplier Selection and Criteria. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/23163
Dang, Le-Thanh-Hieu and Van Thanh Tien Nguyen. "Sustainable Supplier Selection and Criteria." Encyclopedia. Web. 20 May, 2022.
Sustainable Supplier Selection and Criteria
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/axioms11050228

Sustainable supplier selection (SSS) is gaining popularity as a practical method to supply chain sustainability among academics and practitioners. In addition to balancing economic, social, and environmental factors, the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic has affected the selection of long-term suppliers to ensure sustainable supply chains, recover better from the pandemic and effectively respond to any future unprecedented crises.

COVID-19 supplier selection sustainability MCDM

1. Introduction

The prevalence of the COVID-19 epidemic has shaken things up in all businesses around the world, particularly in the global freight sector, causing severe economic consequences. The pandemic has exposed the vulnerabilities of many companies, especially those that depend on global supply chains and are too dependent on production centers and large markets. The threat of the expanding COVID-19 outbreak has raised concerns worldwide about the damage and recovery of global supply chains [1][2]. To avert a large-scale infection, travel restrictions, temporary closures, and medical supplies such as gloves, face masks, ventilators, and other personal protective equipment have all been enforced by governments as preventive measures [3]. These constraints lead to shortages of labor and raw materials. As a result, the global supply chain has faced delays and inventory shortages. Supply chains and goods were disrupted across most sectors [4]. COVID-19 had a notably negative impact on all car manufacturers and the majority of industrial product makers, according to them. In light of this, most automakers are shutting down production at some of their plants. Global output for the automotive industry is expected to decline by 13% due to travel restrictions and spare parts shortages [5]. The COVID-19 problem has underlined the necessity of robust and sustainable supply chains. To elevate global competitiveness, any business must incorporate sustainability objectives into their underlying supply chain networks, particularly response tactics in the COVID-19 pandemic; such measures can be considered a crucial aspect of the pandemic’s influence on supply chains [6][7][8].
Southeast Asia has emerged as an important player in global supply chains over the past few decades, where Vietnam is among the countries becoming major manufacturing hubs. The region is now an important producer of automobiles, computers, electronics and apparel, among other products, for the world. However, the massive production disruption caused by the current Covid pandemic threatens to cause a shift in value chains [9]. In particular, the automotive industry was hardest hit by supply chain disruptions during the pandemic. The crisis spurred a wave of production cuts at auto suppliers, resulting in assembly plant closures extending outside the area, posing a slew of issues for automakers. Procurement is crucial in the automotive industry since many components are assembled, and a company cannot make all those components. There are also numerous sellers for each component, with fierce rivalry. The frequent introduction of new models and shorter product lifecycles, along with quick order fulfillment, demand a high level of agility and flexibility on suppliers, compounding supply chain complexity even more. With the increasing complexity of the supply chain, selecting a sustainable supplier becomes an arduous task yet vital strategic decision [10][11][12][13][14].
In recent years, there has been a growing awareness of sustainability trends in emerging economies such as Vietnam, one of the Southeast Asian countries most distinguished by inefficient technologies and unsustainable production of goods and services, which are revealed in high pollution rates, human and environmental hazards [15]. This has increased the demand for manufacturing enterprises to incorporate sustainability measures to meet stakeholders’ needs while minimizing negative environmental consequences. Vietnam is increasingly aware of a sustainable supply chain’s role and importance in recovering more effectively after the pandemic. However,  on the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on supply chain sustainability decisions such as the sustainable supplier selection (SSS) problem are still meager [1][4][7][8][16][17][18][19][20][21], at least in the context of the automotive industry in Vietnam. Therefore, it was focused on the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on sustainable supplier selection (SSS) in the automotive industry in Vietnam, examining the relative importance of green strategies and pandemic response methods in SSS. It was believed to give related businesses significant insights into achieving supply chain sustainability in the post-pandemic era and prevent perceptual reactions to any unprecedented crisis.
In order to achieve the objectives mentioned earlier, this research is focused on evaluating suppliers’ performance on the basis of sustainability triple bottom line attributes (economic, environmental, and social) and the attributes of COVID-19 pandemic response strategies into their supply chain activities. Thus, it can be concluded that the selection of a potential sustainable supplier is a complex multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) problem, in which MCDM techniques are necessary for reducing the preliminary set of suppliers to the final choices [22]. Furthermore, in real-world applications and many real-world circumstances, uncertainty is an inescapable aspect due to the fuzziness of human judgements and the imprecise nature of information. Imprecise sources include unquantifiable, incomplete, and inaccessible data, as well as partial ignorance, and experts may be unwilling or unable to give precise numerical values to comparison judgments [23]. Fuzzy sets theory [24] and grey systems theory [25] are two main approaches for introducing uncertainty and ambiguity into the assessment process in this way. When dealing with imprecision or ambiguity, crisp or conventional procedures are less effective, but fuzzy sets theory and grey systems theory provide an appropriate paradigm for assessing systems with imprecise data and successfully managing uncertainty. It was used an integrated MCDM framework that combines spherical fuzzy Analytical Hierarchical Process (SF-AHP) with grey Complex Proportional Assessment (G-COPRAS) to rank and select the best potential supplier. The assessment criteria system is initially identified by expert recommendations. The criteria weights are then determined using the SF-AHP. Finally, the G-COPRAS approach is used to choose the best suppliers.

2. SSS and Criteria

There have been astronomically increasing discussions in supplier selection related to the enhancement of supplier capabilities towards green and sustainable practices. A range of SSS suggested by various researchers is focused, in which numerous MCDM techniques are presented. Using an integrated MCDM approach combining AHP and VIKOR (VIseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje) methods, Luthra et al. [26] created a scientific model that provides comprehensive information on supplier selection for sustainability based on the essential variables, including product quality, pricing, environmental costs, occupational health and safety systems, and environmental skills. Awasthi et al. [27] employed the fuzzy AHP-VIKOR framework for the extended global sustainable supplier selection towards sustainability risks under five sustainability criteria (economic, quality, environment, social, and global risk). Proposing a hybrid MCDM model of AHP and TOPSIS (Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) methods, Jain et al. [28] solved a supplier selection problem in the Indian automotive industry, considering eight criteria: quality, price/cost, environmental performance relationship, warranty, delivery time, manufacturing capability and brand name. Gupta et al. [29] also considered in the automobile sector supplier selection based on green parameters such as resource consumption, environmental training for employees, quality, service level, eco-design, green image, environmental management system, price/cost, and pollution control. Along with AHP and TOPSIS, the authors used some new MCDM methods, namely MABAC (Multi-Attributive Border Approximation Area Comparison), WASPAS (Weighted Aggregated Sum-Product Assessment). Memari et al. [30] presented an intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method for SSS that concerns nine criteria (cost, quality, service, green image, green competencies, safety and health, environmental efficiency, pollution reduction, and employment practices), as well as thirty sub-criteria for an automobile spare parts manufacturing. Hendiani et al. [11] used the fuzzy best-worst method (BWM) to prioritize the supplier based on their performance of sustainable development under 20 criteria of social, economic, and environment.
Since the COVID-19 crisis, some SSS studies have included pandemic response strategies in their research. For example, Orji and Ojadi [3] examined the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on SSS in the Nigerian manufacturing sector based on fuzzy set theory, AHP and MULTIMOORA (Multi-Objective Optimization based on Ratio Analysis with full multiplicative form). According to the authors, the most important factors in SSS implementation in the post-pandemic era were quality, affordability, personal protective equipment usage, and information technology use for consumer demand forecast. Wang and Chen [31] proposed a bi-objective AHP–mixed integer nonlinear programming (MINLP)–genetic algorithm (GA) approach for supplier selection amid the COVID-19 pandemic according to five following criteria: level of buyer–supplier cooperation, delivery speed, company reputation, pandemic severity, and pandemic containment performance. Petrudi et al. [32] evaluated suppliers considering social sustainability innovation factors during the COVID-19 disaster with the BWM method and grey relational analysis (GRA). During COVID-19, the authors recommended paying attention to safety and health practices, distant working circumstances, and localization while selecting suppliers. In addition to the above-mentioned MCDM techniques used in supplier selection problem, there are many other effective and novel methods that have been widely applied in multiple industries, such as SWOT analysis [33], Analytic Network Process (ANP) [34], Evaluation Based on Distance from Average Solution (EDAS) [35], Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) [36], COmbined COmpromise SOlution (CoCoSo) [37][38], Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) [39], Measurement Alternatives and Ranking according to the Compromise Solution (MARCOS) [40], Simple Weighted Sum Product (WISP) [41], Simultaneous Evaluation of Criteria and Alternatives (SECA) [42], to name a few.

References

  1. Chowdhury, P.; Paul, S.K.; Kaisar, S.; Moktadir, M.A. COVID-19 Pandemic Related Supply Chain Studies: A Systematic Review. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2021, 148, 102271.
  2. Ivanov, D.; Dolgui, A. OR-Methods for Coping with the Ripple Effect in Supply Chains during COVID-19 Pandemic: Managerial Insights and Research Implications. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2021, 232, 107921.
  3. Orji, I.J.; Ojadi, F. Investigating the COVID-19 Pandemic’s Impact on Sustainable Supplier Selection in the Nigerian Manufacturing Sector. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2021, 160, 107588.
  4. Belhadi, A.; Kamble, S.; Jabbour, C.J.C.; Gunasekaran, A.; Ndubisi, N.O.; Venkatesh, M. Manufacturing and Service Supply Chain Resilience to the COVID-19 Outbreak: Lessons Learned from the Automobile and Airline Industries. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2021, 163, 120447.
  5. Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Global Supply Chain and Opportunities for Vietnam. Available online: https://tapchicongthuong.vn/bai-viet/tac-dong-cua-dai-dich-covid-19-den-chuoi-cung-ung-toan-cau-va-co-hoi-cho-viet-nam-86331.htm (accessed on 3 March 2022).
  6. Orji, I.J.; Liu, S. A Dynamic Perspective on the Key Drivers of Innovation-Led Lean Approaches to Achieve Sustainability in Manufacturing Supply Chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020, 219, 480–496.
  7. Ranjbari, M.; Shams Esfandabadi, Z.; Zanetti, M.C.; Scagnelli, S.D.; Siebers, P.O.; Aghbashlo, M.; Peng, W.; Quatraro, F.; Tabatabaei, M. Three Pillars of Sustainability in the Wake of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Future Research Agenda for Sustainable Development. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 297, 126660.
  8. Sarkis, J. Supply Chain Sustainability: Learning from the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2020, 41, 63–73.
  9. The Auto Industry Is Hit Hardest by Supply Chain Disruptions during the COVID Pandemic. Available online: https://moit.gov.vn/tin-tuc/doanh-nghiep/nganh-cong-nghiep-o-to-bi-anh-huong-nang-ne-nhat-boi-su-gian-doan-chuoi-cung-ung-trong-dai-dich-covid.html (accessed on 3 March 2022).
  10. Jain, N.; Singh, A.R. Sustainable Supplier Selection under Must-Be Criteria through Fuzzy Inference System. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 248, 119275.
  11. Hendiani, S.; Mahmoudi, A.; Liao, H. A Multi-Stage Multi-Criteria Hierarchical Decision-Making Approach for Sustainable Supplier Selection. Appl. Soft Comput. 2020, 94, 106456.
  12. Orji, I.J.; Wei, S. An Innovative Integration of Fuzzy-Logic and Systems Dynamics in Sustainable Supplier Selection: A Case on Manufacturing Industry. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2015, 88, 1–12.
  13. Stević, Ž.; Pamučar, D.; Puška, A.; Chatterjee, P. Sustainable Supplier Selection in Healthcare Industries Using a New MCDM Method: Measurement of Alternatives and Ranking According to COmpromise Solution (MARCOS). Comput. Ind. Eng. 2020, 140, 106231.
  14. Tayyab, M.; Sarkar, B. An Interactive Fuzzy Programming Approach for a Sustainable Supplier Selection under Textile Supply Chain Management. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2021, 155, 107164.
  15. Bringing Green Supply Chains to Adapt to the Post-COVID-19 Context. Available online: https://moit.gov.vn/phat-trien-ben-vung/ung-dung-chuoi-cung-ung-xanh-tich-ung-voi-boi-canh-hau-covid-19.html (accessed on 3 March 2022).
  16. Goodarzian, F.; Taleizadeh, A.A.; Ghasemi, P.; Abraham, A. An Integrated Sustainable Medical Supply Chain Network during COVID-19. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2021, 100, 104188.
  17. Karmaker, C.L.; Ahmed, T.; Ahmed, S.; Ali, S.M.; Moktadir, M.A.; Kabir, G. Improving Supply Chain Sustainability in the Context of COVID-19 Pandemic in an Emerging Economy: Exploring Drivers Using an Integrated Model. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 26, 411–427.
  18. Kumar, A.; Mangla, S.K.; Kumar, P.; Song, M. Mitigate Risks in Perishable Food Supply Chains: Learning from COVID-19. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2021, 166, 120643.
  19. Majumdar, A.; Shaw, M.; Sinha, S.K. COVID-19 Debunks the Myth of Socially Sustainable Supply Chain: A Case of the Clothing Industry in South Asian Countries. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2020, 24, 150–155.
  20. Nagurney, A. Supply Chain Game Theory Network Modeling under Labor Constraints: Applications to the COVID-19 Pandemic. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2021, 293, 880–891.
  21. Severo, E.A.; de Guimarães, J.C.F.; Dellarmelin, M.L. Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Environmental Awareness, Sustainable Consumption and Social Responsibility: Evidence from Generations in Brazil and Portugal. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 286, 124947.
  22. Schramm, V.B.; Cabral, L.P.B.; Schramm, F. Approaches for Supporting Sustainable Supplier Selection—A Literature Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 273, 123089.
  23. Tseng, M.L. A Causal and Effect Decision Making Model of Service Quality Expectation Using Grey-Fuzzy DEMATEL Approach. Expert Syst. Appl. 2009, 36, 7738–7748.
  24. Zadeh, L.A. Fuzzy Sets. Inf. Control. 1965, 8, 338–353.
  25. Deng, J. Control Problems of Grey Systems. Syst. Control. Lett. 1982, 1, 288–294.
  26. Luthra, S.; Govindan, K.; Kannan, D.; Mangla, S.K.; Garg, C.P. An Integrated Framework for Sustainable Supplier Selection and Evaluation in Supply Chains. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 1686–1698.
  27. Awasthi, A.; Govindan, K.; Gold, S. Multi-Tier Sustainable Global Supplier Selection Using a Fuzzy AHP-VIKOR Based Approach. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2018, 195, 106–117.
  28. Jain, V.; Sangaiah, A.K.; Sakhuja, S.; Thoduka, N.; Aggarwal, R. Supplier Selection Using Fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS: A Case Study in the Indian Automotive Industry. Neural Comput. Appl. 2018, 29, 555–564.
  29. Gupta, S.; Soni, U.; Kumar, G. Green Supplier Selection Using Multi-Criterion Decision Making under Fuzzy Environment: A Case Study in Automotive Industry. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2019, 136, 663–680.
  30. Memari, A.; Dargi, A.; Akbari Jokar, M.R.; Ahmad, R.; Abdul Rahim, A.R. Sustainable Supplier Selection: A Multi-Criteria Intuitionistic Fuzzy TOPSIS Method. J. Manuf. Syst. 2019, 50, 9–24.
  31. Wang, Y.-C.; Chen, T. A Bi-Objective AHP-MINLP-GA Approach for Flexible Alternative Supplier Selection amid the COVID-19 Pandemic. Soft Comput. Lett. 2021, 3, 100016.
  32. Petrudi, S.H.H.; Ahmadi, H.B.; Rehman, A.; Liou, J.J.H. Assessing Suppliers Considering Social Sustainability Innovation Factors during COVID-19 Disaster. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 1869–1881.
  33. Veličkovska, I. Implementation of a SWOT-AHP Methodology for Strategic Development of a District Heating Plant in Fuzzy Environment. Strateg. Manag. 2022, 27, 43–56.
  34. Abdel-Basset, M.; Mohamed, M.; Smarandache, F. A Hybrid Neutrosophic Group ANP-TOPSIS Framework for Supplier Selection Problems. Symmetry 2018, 10, 226.
  35. Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Olfat, L.; Turskis, Z. Multi-Criteria Inventory Classification Using a New Method of Evaluation Based on Distance from Average Solution (EDAS). Informatica 2015, 26, 435–451.
  36. Zhang, J.; Yang, D.; Li, Q.; Lev, B.; Ma, Y. Research on Sustainable Supplier Selection Based on the Rough DEMATEL and FVIKOR Methods. Sustainability 2020, 13, 88.
  37. Thanh, N.V.; Lan, N.T.K. A New Hybrid Triple Bottom Line Metrics and Fuzzy MCDM Model: Sustainable Supplier Selection in the Food-Processing Industry. Axioms 2022, 11, 57.
  38. Popović, M. An Mcdm Approach for Personnel Selection using the Cocoso Method. J. Process Manag. New Technol. 2021, 9, 78–88.
  39. Karamaşa, Ç. Ranking service quality using multi-criteria decision-making methods: Example of erzurum province. J. Process Manag. New Technol. 2021, 9, 1–12.
  40. Salimian, S.; Mousavi, S.M.; Antucheviciene, J. An Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Model Based on Extended VIKOR and MARCOS for Sustainable Supplier Selection in Organ Transplantation Networks for Healthcare Devices. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3795.
  41. Ulutaş, A.; Stanujkić, D.; Karabašević, D.; Popović, G.; Novaković, S. Pallet Truck Selection with MEREC and WISP-S Methods. Strateg. Manag. 2022.
  42. Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M.; Amiri, M.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Turskis, Z.; Antucheviciene, J. Simultaneous Evaluation of Criteria and Alternatives (SECA) for Multi-Criteria Decision-Making. Informatica 2018, 29, 265–280.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Engineering, Manufacturing
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Le-Thanh-Hieu Dang
,
Van Thanh Tien Nguyen
View Times: 1.3K
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 23 May 2022
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Video Production Service
    Feedback