Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Optimal sustainability assessment method selection: a practitioner perspective

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 24 March 2021

This article has been updated

Abstract

This study intends to identify, analyse, and evaluate sustainability assessment (SA) methods, 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 hierarchy 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 MULTIMOORA. 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 findings provide useful insights to practitioners and can help them select optimal and robust SA methods.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chakraborty, S. (2011). Applications of the MOORA method for decision making in manufacturing environment. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 54(9), 1155–1166.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Çulha, A. A. (2019). Asymmetric government expenditure: a comparison of advanced and developing countries. Journal of Economic Policy Reform, 22(2), 164–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drissi, M., Oumsis, M., & Aboutajdine, D. (2016). A fuzzy AHP approach to network selection improvement 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • García, C., & Prieto, M. A. (2019). Bacterial cellulose as a potential bioleather substitute for the footwear industry. Microbial Biotechnology, 12(4), 582.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghadimi, P., Yusof, N. M., Saman, M. Z. M., & Asadi, M. (2013). Methodologies for measuring sustainability of product/process: A review. Pertanika Journal of Science and Technology, 21(2), 303–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Management, 236, 784–797.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henri, J. F., & Journeault, M. (2010). Eco-control: The influence of management control systems on environmental and economic performance. Accounting, Organisations and Society, 35(1), 63–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosseinijou, S. A., Mansour, S., & Shirazi, M. A. (2014). Social life cycle assessment for material selection: A case study of building materials. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 19(3), 620–645.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, A., & Badurdeen, F. (2017). Sustainable manufacturing performance evaluation: Integrating product and process metrics for systems level assessment. Procedia Manufacturing, 8, 563–570.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 innovation for Indian manufacturing enterprises: Empirical evidence in MSMEs. Journal of Cleaner Production, 229, 374–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kishawy, H., Hegab, H., & Saad, E. (2018). Design for sustainable manufacturing: Approach, implementation, and assessment. Sustainability, 10(10), 3604–3619.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koksalmis, E., & Kabak, Ö. (2019). Deriving decision makers’ weights in group decision making: An overview of objective methods. Information Fusion, 49, 146–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwong, C. K., & Bai, H. (2002). A fuzzy AHP approach to the determination of importance weights of customer requirements in quality function deployment. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 13(5), 367–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lahouel, B. B. (2016). Eco-efficiency analysis of French firms: a data envelopment analysis approach. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 18(3), 395–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Computing and Applications, 31(10), 5871–5886.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, H. F. (2010). An application of fuzzy AHP for evaluating course website quality. Computers and Education, 54(4), 877–888.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malek, J., & Desai, T. N. (2019). Prioritisation of sustainable manufacturing barriers using Best Worst Method. Journal of Cleaner Production, 226, 589–600.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathiyazhagan, K., Sengupta, S., & Mathivathanan, D. (2019). Challenges for implementing green concept in sustainable manufacturing: A systematic review. OPSEARCH, 56(1), 32–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mefford, R. N. (2019). Sustainable CSR in Global Supply Chains. Journal of Management and Sustainability, 9, 82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merigo, J. M., & Casanovas, M. (2011). Induced and uncertain heavy OWA operators. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 60, 106–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulliner, E., Malys, N., & Maliene, V. (2016). Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability. Omega, 59, 146–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Omrani, H., Alizadeh, A., & Amini, M. (2019). A new approach based on BWM and MULTIMOORA methods 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piyathanavong, V., Garza-Reyes, J. A., Kumar, V., Maldonado-Guzmán, G., & Mangla, S. K. (2019). The adoption of operational environmental sustainability approaches in the Thai manufacturing sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 220, 507–528.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rezaei, J. (2015). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega, 53, 49–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, S. J. F., & Ball, P. D. (2014). Developing a library of sustainable manufacturing practices. Procedia CIRP, 15, 159–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. Critical Public Health, 27(1), 86–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saad, M. H., Nazzal, M. A., & Darras, B. M. (2019). A general framework for sustainability assessment of manufacturing processes. Ecological Indicators, 97, 211–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process, New York: Mcgrew hill. International, Translated to Russian, Portuguesses and Chinese, Revised edition, Paperback (1996, 2000), Pittsburgh: RWS Publications, 9, 19–22.

  • Sala, S., Ciuffo, B., & Nijkamp, P. (2015). A systemic framework for sustainability assessment. Ecological Economics, 119, 314–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schau, E. M., Traverso, M., Lehmann, A., & Finkbeiner, M. (2011). Life cycle costing in sustainability assessment—A case study of remanufactured alternators. Sustainability, 3(11), 2268–2288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlör, H., Fischer, W., & Hake, J. F. (2013). Methods of measuring sustainable development of the German energy sector. Applied Energy, 101, 172–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shukla, O. J., Jangid, V., Siddh, M. M., Kumar, R., & Soni, G. (2017, February). Evaluating key factors of sustainable 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 optimisation 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 TOPSIS method: An example of Turkish domestic airline industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(4), 3396–9406.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. Energies, 12(8), 1415.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, A., Venkatesh, V. G., Liu, Y., Wan, M., Qu, T., & Huisingh, D. (2019a). Barriers to smart waste management 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, H. J. (2010). Fuzzy set theory. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics, 2(3), 317–332.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Kalasalingam Academy of Research and Education, Krishnankoil, Tamilnadu, 626126, India

    K. Koppiahraj & S. Bathrinath

  2. EM Normandie Business School, METIS Lab, Le Havre, France

    V. G. Venkatesh

  3. Montpellier Business School, Montpellier, France

    Venkatesh Mani

  4. Department of Management, Macquarie Business School, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

    Yangyan Shi

Authors
  1. K. Koppiahraj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Bathrinath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. V. G. Venkatesh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Venkatesh Mani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yangyan Shi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to V. G. Venkatesh.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Appendix: Participant profile

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Koppiahraj, K., Bathrinath, S., Venkatesh, V.G. et al. Optimal sustainability assessment method selection: a practitioner perspective. Ann Oper Res 324, 629–662 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-021-03946-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-021-03946-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation