Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Double-hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic information-based framework for green supplier selection with partial weight information

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Neural Computing and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Green supplier selection (GSS) is a crucial issue in green supply chain management. CAPS indicate that industries spend yearly USD 25 million per procurement, which is a huge amount that necessitates a systematic GSS to avoid financial catastrophes. Literatures on GSS reveal that researchers have not addressed the issue of missing preferences, consistency of decision matrices, and repairing inconsistencies. Moreover, handling of complex linguistic expressions is another open challenge in GSS. Motivated by these research gaps, a two-stage decision framework was proposed. From the analysis of different linguistic models, it is clear that a double-hierarchy linguistic model is flexible for handling complex expressions. In the preprocessing stage, preferences were imputed using the case-based method. Later, consistency of matrices was determined using the Cronbach’s coefficient, and inconsistent matrices were repaired using the iterative method. In the next stage, new mathematical models were formulated to calculate weights of experts and criteria. Preferences were sensibly aggregated by using the Maclaurin symmetric mean operator, which captures the criteria interrelationship. Green suppliers were prioritized by using the TODIM method. Finally, the practicality, strengths, and weaknesses of the proposed framework were realized by demonstrating a case study of GSS and comparison with other methods. Results infer that the proposed framework (i) is consistent with the existing models, and the values are 0.60, 0.86, and 0.75, respectively; (ii) is robust with 100% rank-order stability even after adequate weight alterations; and (iii) finally can better discriminate suppliers with a broad deviation range of 0.34–0.35.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

References

  1. Govindan K, Rajendran S, Sarkis J, Murugesan P (2015) Multi criteria decision making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review. J Clean Prod 98:66–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Shen L, Olfat L, Govindan K, Khodaverdi R, Diabat A (2013) A fuzzy multi criteria approach for evaluating green supplier’s performance in green supply chain with linguistic preferences. Resour Conserv Recycl 74:170–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.09.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Zadeh LA (1975) The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning-I. Inf Sci (Ny) 8(3):199–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-0255(75)90036-5

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E (2000) Linguistic decision analysis: steps for solving decision problems under linguistic information. Fuzzy Sets Syst 115(1):67–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(99)00024-X

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Rodriguez RM, Martinez L, Herrera F (2012) Hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets for decision making. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 20(1):109–119. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2011.2170076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Torra V (2010) Hesitant Fuzzy Sets. Int J Intell Syst 25(2):529–539. https://doi.org/10.1002/int

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Liao H, Xu Z, Herrera-Viedma E, Herrera F (2017) Hesitant Fuzzy linguistic term set and its application in decision making: a state-of-the-art survey. Int J Fuzzy Syst. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-017-0432-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Rodríguez RM, Labella Á, Martínez L (2016) An overview on fuzzy modelling of complex linguistic preferences in decision making. Int J Comput Intell Syst 9(April):81–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/18756891.2016.1180821

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gou X, Liao H, Xu Z, Herrera F (2017) Double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set and MULTIMOORA method: a case of study to evaluate the implementation status of haze controlling measures. Inf Fusion 38:22–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2017.02.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Krishankumar R, Subrajaa LS, Ravichandran KS, Kar S, Saeid AB (2019) A framework for multi-attribute group decision-making using double hierarchy Hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set. Int J Fuzzy Syst 21(4):1130–1143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-019-00618-w

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Wang JH, Hao J (2006) A new version of 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model for computing with words. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 14(3):435–445. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2006.876337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Tang Y, Zheng J (2006) Linguistic modelling based on semantic similarity relation among linguistic labels. Fuzzy Sets Syst 157(12):1662–1673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fss.2006.02.014

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Pang Q, Wang H, Xu Z (2016) Probabilistic linguistic term sets in multi-attribute group decision making. Inf Sci (Ny) 369:128–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2016.06.021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Krishankumar R, Ravichandran KS, Sneha S, Shyam S, Kar S, Garg H (2020) Multi-attribute group decision-making using double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference information. Neural Comput Appl. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-020-04802-0.

  15. Gou X, Xu Z, Liao H, Herrera F (2018) Multiple criteria decision making based on distance and similarity measures under double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic environment. Comput Ind Eng 126(October):516–530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.10.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gou X, Xu Z, Herrera F (2018) Consensus reaching process for large-scale group decision making with double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations. Knowledge-Based Syst 157(January):20–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2018.05.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Montserrat-Adell J, Xu Z, Gou X, Agell N (2019) Free double hierarchy Hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets: an application on ranking alternatives in GDM. Inf Fusion 47(April 2018):45–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2018.07.002.

  18. Liu Z, Zhao X, Li L, Wang X, Wang D (2019) A novel multi-attribute decision making method based on the double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic generalized power aggregation operator. Information 10(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/info10110339.

  19. Gou X, Liao H (2019) About the double hierarchy linguistic term set and its extensions. ICSES Trans Neural Fuzzy Comput 2(2):14–21

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kao C (2010) Weight determination for consistently ranking alternatives in multiple criteria decision analysis. Appl Math Model 34(7):1779–1787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2009.09.022

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Koksalmis E, Kabak Ö (2018) Deriving Decision Makers’ weights in group decision making: an overview of objective methods. Inf Fusion. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.INFFUS.2018.11.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Chien CF, Chen LF (2008) Data mining to improve personnel selection and enhance human capital: a case study in high-technology industry. Expert Syst Appl 34(1):280–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2006.09.003

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Grau E (2007) Using factor analysis and Cronbach’s Alpha to ascertain relationships between questions of a dietary behavior questionnaire. Proc. Surv. Res. Methods Sect. …, pp. 3104–3110.

  24. Krishankumar R, Ifjaz Ahmed M, Kar S, Peng, X (2019) Interval-valued probabilistic Hesitant fuzzy set based Muirhead mean for multi-attribute group decision-making. Mathematics 7(4):342. https://doi.org/10.3390/math7040342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Wan SP, Li DF (2015) Fuzzy mathematical programming approach to heterogeneous multiattribute decision-making with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy truth degrees. Inf Sci (Ny) 325:484–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2015.07.014

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Gomes LFaM, Lima MMPP (1991) Todim: Basic and application to multicriteria ranking of projects with environmental impacts. Found Comput Decis Sci 16(4):113–127.

  27. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–292

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. Fan ZP, Zhang X, Chen FD, Liu Y (2013) Extended TODIM method for hybrid multiple attribute decision making problems. Knowledge-Based Syst 42:40–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2012.12.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. E. M. da Silva, M. O. Ramos, A. Alexander, and C. J. C. Jabbour, “A systematic review of empirical and normative decision analysis of sustainability-related supplier risk management,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 244, no. xxxx, p. 118808, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118808.

  30. Banaeian N, Mobli H, Fahimnia B, Nielsen IE, Omid M (2018) Green supplier selection using fuzzy group decision making methods: A case study from the agri-food industry. Comput Oper Res 89:337–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2016.02.015

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Fallahpour A, Olugu EU, Musa SN, Khezrimotlagh D, Wong KY (2016) An integrated model for green supplier selection under fuzzy environment: application of data envelopment analysis and genetic programming approach. Neural Comput Appl 27(3):707–725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-015-1890-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Jiang P, Hu YC, Yen GF, Tsao SJ (2018) Green supplier selection for sustainable development of the automotive industry using grey decision-making. Sustain Dev 26(6):890–903. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1860

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Tavana M, Shabanpour H, Yousefi S, Farzipoor Saen R (2017) A hybrid goal programming and dynamic data envelopment analysis framework for sustainable supplier evaluation. Neural Comput Appl 28(12):3683–3696. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-016-2274-z.

  34. Krishankumar R, Ravichandran KS, Kar S, Gupta P, Mehlawat MK (2018) Interval-valued probabilistic hesitant fuzzy set for multi-criteria group decision-making. Soft Comput. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-018-3638-3

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Lo HW, Liou JJH, Wang HS, Tsai YS (2018) An integrated model for solving problems in green supplier selection and order allocation. J Clean Prod 190:339–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Quan J, Zeng B, Liu D (2018) Green supplier selection for process industries using weighted grey incidence decision model. Complexity. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/4631670.

  37. Lu Z, Sun X, Wang Y, Xu C (2019) Green supplier selection in straw biomass industry based on cloud model and possibility degree. J Clean Prod 209:995–1005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Fan J, Liu X, Wu M, Wang Z (2019) Green supplier selection with undesirable outputs DEA under Pythagorean fuzzy environment. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 37(2):2443–2452. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-182747

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Haeri SAS, Rezaei J (2019) A grey-based green supplier selection model for uncertain environments. J Clean Prod 221:768–784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Liou JJH, Chuang YC, Zavadskas EK, Tzeng GH (2019) Data-driven hybrid multiple attribute decision-making model for green supplier evaluation and performance improvement. J Clean Prod 241:118321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Wu MQ, Zhang CH, Liu XN, Fan JP (2019) Green supplier selection based on DEA model in interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy environment. IEEE Access 7:108001–108013. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2932770

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Mishra AR, Rani P, Pardasani KR, Mardani A (2019) A novel hesitant fuzzy WASPAS method for assessment of green supplier problem based on exponential information measures. J Clean Prod 238:117901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117901

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Krishankumar R, Ravichandran KS, Aggarwal M, Tyagi SK (2019) Extended hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set with fuzzy confidence for solving group decision-making problems. Neural Comput Appl, 0123456789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-019-04275-w.

  44. M. Almasi, S. Khoshfetrat, and M. Rahiminezhad Galankashi, “Sustainable Supplier Selection and Order Allocation Under Risk and Inflation Condition,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag., vol. PP, pp. 1–15, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2019.2903176.

  45. Mondragon AEC, Mastrocinque E, Tsai JF, Hogg PJ (2019) An AHP and fuzzy AHP multifactor decision making approach for technology and supplier selection in the high-functionality textile industry. IEEE Trans Eng Manag, pp 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2019.2923286.

  46. Cao G (2020) A multi-criteria picture fuzzy decision-making model for green supplier selection based on fractional programming. Int J Comput Commun Control 15,(1). https://doi.org/10.15837/ijccc.2020.1.3762.

  47. Gao H, Ju Y, Santibanez Gonzalez EDR, Zhang W (2020) Green supplier selection in electronics manufacturing: an approach based on consensus decision making. J Clean Prod 245:118781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118781.

  48. Ma W, Lei W, Sun B (2020) Three-way group decisions under hesitant fuzzy linguistic environment for green supplier selection. Kybernetes, no. 22120190116, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-09-2019-0602.

  49. Carrera DA, Mayorga RV, Peng W (2020) A Soft Computing Approach for group decision making: a supply chain management application. Appl Soft Comput J, p. 106201, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106201.

  50. Divsalar M, Ahmadi, M, Nemati Y (2020) A SCOR-Based model to evaluate LARG supply chain performance using a Hybrid MADM method. IEEE Trans Eng Manag, pp 1–20, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2020.2974030.

  51. Foroozesh N, Jolai F, Mousavi SM, Karimi B (2021) A new fuzzy-stochastic compromise ratio approach for green supplier selection problem with interval-valued possibilistic statistical information. Neural Comput Appl 4: 4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-020-05527-w.

  52. Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E, Verdegay JL (1995) A sequential selection process in group decision making with a Linguistic assessment approach. Inf Sci (Ny) 239(1995):223–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Raghunathan R, Soundarapandian RK, Gandomi AH, Ramachandran M, Patan R, Madda RB (2019) Duo-stage decision: a framework for filling missing values, consistency check, and repair of decision matrices in multicriteria group decision making. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag., pp 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2019.2928569.

  54. Grau E (2007) Using factor analysis and Cronbach’s apha to ascertain relationships between questions of a dietary behavior questionnaire. Proc. Surv. Res. Methods Sect,, pp. 3104–3110, 2007, [Online]. Available: http://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/proceedings/y2007/Files/JSM2007-000505.pdf.

  55. Tüysüz F, Şimşek B (2017) A hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets-based AHP approach for analyzing the performance evaluation factors: an application to cargo sector. Complex Intell Syst, pp 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40747-017-0044-x.

  56. Gou X, Xu Z, Liao H (2017) Hesitant fuzzy linguistic entropy and cross-entropy measures and alternative queuing method for multiple criteria decision making. Inf Sci (Ny) 388–389:225–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2017.01.033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Maclaurin C (1729) A fecond Letter to martin folkes, esq., concerning the roots of equations with demonstration of other roots of algebra. Philosopihcal Trans R Soc Lond Ser A 36:59–96.

  58. Zhang X, Fan ZP (2011) A method for linguistic multiple attribute decision making based on TODIM. Int Conf Manag Serv Sci MASS 2011:3–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMSS.2011.5999375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Yu W, Zhang Z, Zhong Q, Sun L (2017) Extended TODIM for multi-criteria group decision making based on unbalanced hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets. Comput Ind Eng 114(2):316–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2017.10.029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Liu P, You X (2019) Improved TODIM method based on Linguistic neutrosophic numbers for multicriteria group decision-making. Int J Comput Intell Syst 12(2):544. https://doi.org/10.2991/ijcis.d.190412.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Liu P, Teng F (2019) Probabilistic linguistic TODIM method for selecting products through online product reviews. Inf Sci (Ny) 485:441–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2019.02.022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Krohling RA, Pacheco AGC, Siviero ALT (2013) IF-TODIM: an intuitionistic fuzzy TODIM to multi-criteria decision making. Knowledge-Based Syst., vol. 53, no. November 2013, pp. 142–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2013.08.028.

  63. Riaz M, Hashmi MR (2019) Linear Diophantine fuzzy set and its applications towards multi-attribute decision-making problems. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 37(4):5417–5439. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-190550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Riaz M, Tehrim ST (2020) On bipolar fuzzy soft topology with decision-making. Soft Comput 24(24):18259–18272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-020-05342-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. M. Riaz, M. T. Hamid, H. M. Athar Farid, and D. Afzal, “TOPSIS, VIKOR and aggregation operators based on q-rung orthopair fuzzy soft sets and their applications,” J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 6903–6917, 2020. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-192175.

  66. Riaz M, Naeem K, Afzal D (2020) A similarity measure under Pythagorean fuzzy soft environment with applications. Comput Appl Math 39(4):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40314-020-01321-5

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  67. Uluçay V, Deli I, Şahin M (2019) Intuitionistic trapezoidal fuzzy multi-numbers and its application to multi-criteria decision-making problems. Complex Intell Syst 5(1):65–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40747-018-0074-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Bakbak D, Ulucay V (2019) Similarity measure under intuitionistic tapezoidal fuzzy multi-numbers in Architecture. In: 6th International Multidisciplinary Studies Congress (Multicongress’19) Gaziantep, Türkiye, 2019. Multicriteria Decis. Method Using Cosine Vector.

  69. Bakbak D, Ulucay V (2019) Intuitionistic Trapezoidal fuzzy multi-numbers and some Arithmetic averaging operators with their application in Architecture. In: 6th Int. Multidiscip. Stud. Congr. Gaziantep, Türkiye, pp 1–6

  70. Uluçay V, Deli I, Şahin M (2018) Trapezoidal fuzzy multi-number and its application to multi-criteria decision-making problems. Neural Comput Appl 30(5):1469–1478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-016-2760-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Amrita School of Engineering, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Coimbatore, TN, India

    R. Krishankumar

  2. School of Computing, SASTRA University, Thanjavur, 613401, TN, India

    Karthik Arun & Arun Kumar

  3. Department of Mathematics, NIT, Warangal, Telangana, India

    Pratibha Rani

  4. Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Youth Development, Sriperumbudur, TN, India

    K. S. Ravichandran

  5. Faculty of Engineering & Information Technology, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia

    Amir H. Gandomi

Authors
  1. R. Krishankumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karthik Arun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Arun Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Pratibha Rani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. K. S. Ravichandran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  6. Amir H. Gandomi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amir H. Gandomi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Questionnaire used in this research for data collection is presented below. Respondents are experts who rate green suppliers over diverse set of attributes. DHHFLTS structure is adopted as preference information.

Table 9 Sample questionnaire for data collection
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Krishankumar, R., Arun, K., Kumar, A. et al. Double-hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic information-based framework for green supplier selection with partial weight information. Neural Comput & Applic 33, 14837–14859 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-021-06123-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-021-06123-2

Keywords