Abstract
Sustainable development has become one of the leading global issues over the period of time. Currently, implementation of sustainability in supply chain has been continuously in center of attention due to introducing stringent legislations regarding environmental pollution by various governments and increasing stakeholders’ concerns toward social injustice. Unfortunately, literature is still scarce on studies considering all three dimensions (economical, environmental and social) of sustainability for the supply chain. An effective supply chain network design (SCND) is very important to implement sustainability in supply chain. This study proposes an uncertain SCND model that minimizes the total supply chain-oriented cost and determines the opening of plants, warehouses and flow of materials across the supply chain network by considering various carbon emissions and social factors. In this study, a new AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS-based methodology is proposed to transform qualitative social factors into quantitative social index, which is subsequently used in chance-constrained SCND model with an aim at reducing negative social impact. Further, the carbon emission of supply chain is estimated by considering a composite emission that consists of raw material, production, transportation and handling emissions. In the model, a carbon emission cap is imposed on total supply chain to reduce the carbon footprint of supply chain. To solve the proposed model, a code is developed in AMPL software using a nonlinear solver SNOPT. The applicability of the proposed model is illustrated with a numerical example. The sensitivity analysis examines the effects of reducing carbon footprint cap, negative social impacts and varying probability on the total cost of the supply chain. It is observed that a stricter carbon cap over supply chain network leads to opening of more plants across the supply chain. In addition, carbon footprint of supply chain is found to be decreased in certain extent with the reduction in negative social impacts from suppliers. The carbon footprint of the supply chain is found to be reduced with increasing certainty of material supply from the suppliers. The total supply chain cost is observed to be augmented with increasing probability.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abdallah T, Farhat A, Diabat A, Kennedy S (2012) Green supply chains with carbon trading and environmental sourcing: formulation and life cycle assessment. Appl Math Model 36:4271–4285
Aggarwal R, Singh SP (2015) Chance constraint-based multi-objective stochastic model for supplier selection. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 79:1707–1719
Aghezzaf E (2005) Capacity planning and warehouse location in supply chains with uncertain demands. J Oper Res Soc 56:453–462
Ahi P, Searcy C (2013) A comparative literature analysis of definitions for green and sustainable supply chain management. J Clean Prod 52:329–341
Ahi P, Searcy C (2015) An analysis of metrics used to measure performance in green and sustainable supply chains. J Clean Prod 86:360–377
Albayrak E, Erensal YC (2004) Using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to improve human performance: an application of multiple criteria decision making problem. J Intell Manuf 15:491–503
Anagnostopoulos KP, Vavatsikos AP (2006) An AHP model for construction contractor prequalification. Oper Res Int J 6(3):333–346
Ashby A, Leat M, Smith MH (2012) Making connections: a review of supply chain management and sustainability literature. Supply Chain Manag Int J 17(5):497–516
Badri MA (1999) Combining the analytic hierarchy process and goal programming for global facility location-allocation problem. Int J Prod Econ 62(3):237–248
Baghalian A, Rezapour S, Farahani RZ (2013) Robust supply chain network design with service level against disruptions and demand uncertainties: a real-life case. Eur J Oper Res 227:199–215
Baskaran V, Nachiappan S, Rahman S (2012) Indian textile suppliers’ sustainability evaluation using the grey approach. Int J Prod Econ 135(2):647–658
Benjaafar S, Li Y, Daskin M (2013) Carbon footprint and the management of supply chains: insights from simple models. IEEE Trans Autom Sci Eng 10(1):99–116
Bidhandi HM, Yusuff RM (2011) Integrated supply chain planning under uncertainty using an improved stochastic approach. Appl Math Model 35:2618–2630
Bilsel RU, Ravindran A (2011) A multiobjective chance constrained programming model for supplier selection under uncertainty. Transp Res Part B Methodol 45(8):1284–1300
Brandenburg M, Govindan K, Sarkis J, Seuring S (2014) Quantitative models for sustainable supply chain management: developments and directions. Eur J Oper Res 233(2):299–312
Carter CR, Easton PL (2011) Sustainable supply chain management: evolution and future directions. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag 41(1):46–62
Chaabane A, Ramudhin A, Paquet M (2011) Designing supply chains with sustainability considerations. Prod Plan Control 22(8):727–741
Chan FTS, Kumar N (2007) Global supplier development considering risk factors using fuzzy extended AHP-based approach. Omega 35:417–431
Chang YH, Chung HY, Wang SY (2007) A survey and optimization-based evaluation of development strategies for the air cargo industry. Int J Prod Econ 106:550–562
Charnes A, Cooper WW (1959) Chance-constrained programming. Manag Sci 6:73–79
Chopra S, Meindl P (2003) Supply chain management: strategy, planning and operations, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River
Choudhary A, Sarkar S, Settur S, Tiwari MK (2015) A carbon market sensitive optimization model for integrated forward–reverse logistics. Int J Prod Econ 164:433–444
ComasMarti JM, Tancrez JS, Seifert RW (2015) Carbon footprint and responsiveness trade-offs in supply chain network design. Int J Prod Econ 166:129–142
Coskun S, Ozgur L, Polat O, Gungor A (2016) A model proposal for green supply chain network design based on consumer segmentation. J Clean Prod 110:149–157
Dagdeviren M (2008) Decision making in equipment selection: an integrated approach with AHP and PROMETHEE. J Intell Manuf 19(4):397–406
Dagdeviren M, Yavuz S, Kılınç N (2009) Weapon selection using the AHP and TOPSIS methods under fuzzy environment. Expert Syst Appl 36(4):8143–8151
Daskin MS, Coullard C, Shen ZJM (2002) An inventory-location model: formulation, solution algorithm and computational results. Ann Oper Res 110:83–106
Dehghanian F, Mansour S (2009) Designing sustainable recovery network of end-of-life products using genetic algorithm. Resour Conserv Recycl 53:559–570
Dekker R, Bloemhof J, Mallidis I (2012) Operations research for green logistics—an overview of aspects, issues, contributions and challenges. Eur J Oper Res 219:671–679
Devika K, Jafarian A, Nourbakhsh V (2014) Designing a sustainable closed-loop supply chain network based on triple bottom line approach: a comparison of metaheuristics hybridization techniques. Eur J Oper Res 235(3):594–615
Deza A, Huang K, Metel MR (2015) Chance constrained optimization for targeted Internet advertising. Omega 53:90–96
Diabat A, Al-Salem M (2015) An integrated supply chain problem with environmental considerations. Int J Prod Econ 164:330–338
Dong F, Liu Y, Qian L, Sheng H, Yang Y, Guo H, Zhao L (2014) Interactive decision procedure for watershed nutrient load reduction: an integrated chance-constrained programming model with risk-cost tradeoff. Environ Model Softw 61:166–173
Dubey R, Gunasekaran A, Childe SJ (2015) The design of a responsive sustainable supply chain network under uncertainty. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 80:427–445
Elhedhli S, Merrick R (2012) Green supply chain network design to reduce carbon emissions. Transp Res Part D 17(5):370–379
Elkington J (1998) Cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of the 21st century. New Society Publishers, Stoney Creek
Elyasi A, Salmasi N (2013) Stochastic scheduling with minimizing the number of tardy jobs using chance constrained programming. Math Comput Model 57:1154–1164
Ertugrul I, Karakasoglu N (2007) Performance evaluation of Turkish cement firms with fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and TOPSIS methods. Expert Syst Appl 36(1):702–715
Eskandarpour M, Dejax P, Miemczyk J, Péton O (2015) Sustainable supply chain network design: an optimization-oriented review. Omega 54:11–32
Fahimnia B, Sarkis J, Davarzani H (2015) Green supply chain management: a review and bibliometric analysis. Int J Prod Econ 162:101–114
Farahani RZ, Asgari N, Heidari N, Hosseininia M, Goh M (2012) Covering problems in facility location: a review. Comput Ind Eng 62(1):368–407
Gallego-Álvarez I, Galindo-Villardón MP, Rodríguez-Rosa M (2015) Evolution of sustainability indicator worldwide: a study from the economic perspective based on the X-STATICO method. Ecol Indic 58:139–151
Ghodsypour SH, O’Brien C (1998) A decision support system for supplier selection using an integrated analytic hierarchy process and linear programming. Int J Prod Econ 56–57:199–212
Goh M, Lim JIS, Meng F (2007) A stochastic model for risk management in global supply chain networks. Eur J Oper Res 182:164–173
Gold S, Seuring S, Beske P (2010) Sustainable supply chain management and inter organizational resources: a literature review. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 17(4):230–245
Gosalbez GG, Grossmann IE (2009) Optimal design and planning of sustainable chemical supply chains under uncertainty. AIChE J 55:99–121
Govindan K, Soleimani H, Kannan D (2015) Reverse logistics and closed-loop supply chain: a comprehensive review to explore the future. Eur J Oper Res 240(3):603–626
Gray R, Kouhy R, Lavers S (1995) Corporate social and environmental reporting a review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure. Acc Audit Account J 8(2):47–77
Gunasekaran A, Dubey R, Singh SP (2016) Flexible sustainable supply chain network design: current trends, opportunities and future. Glob J Flex Syst Manag 17(2):109–112
He S, Chaudhry S, Lei Z (2009) Stochastic vendor selection problem: chance constrained model and genetic algorithms. Ann Oper Res 168:169–179
He T, Ho W, Man CLK, Xu X (2012) A fuzzy AHP based integer linear programming model for the multi-criteria transshipment problem. Int J Logist Manag 23:159–179
Hiremath NC, Sahu S, Tiwari MK (2013) Multi objective outbound logistics network design for a manufacturing supply chain. J Intell Manuf 24(6):1071–1084
Ho W (2008) Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications—a literature review. Eur J Oper Res 186(1):211–228
Hsieh SH, Wu MS (2000) Demand and cost forest error sensitivity analyses in aggregate production planning by possibilistic linear programming models. J Intell Manuf 11:355–364
Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. a state of the art survey. Springer, New York
Igarashi M, de Boer L, Fet AM (2013) What is required for greener supplier selection? A literature review and conceptual model development. J Purch Supply Manag 19:247–263
Ishizaka A, Labib A (2011) Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process. Expert Syst Appl 38(11):14336–14345
Jin M, Granda-Marulanda NA, Down I (2014) The impact of carbon policies on supply chain design and logistics of a major retailer. J Clean Prod 85:453–461
Kannan D, Jabbour ABL, Jabbour CJC (2014) Selecting green suppliers based on GSCM practices: using fuzzy TOPSIS applied to a Brazilian electronics company. Eur J Oper Res 233(2):432–447
Klopfenstein O (2010) Solving chance-constrained combinatorial problems to optimality. Comb Optim Appl 45(3):607–638
Kolk A, Tulder RV (2002) The effectiveness of self regulation: corporate codes of conduct and child labor. Eur Manag J 20(3):260–271
Kumar P, Shankar R, Yadav SS (2008) An Integrated approach of analytic hierarchy process and fuzzy linear programming for supplier selection in supply chain. Int J Oper Res 3(6):614–631
Kumar P, Singh RK, Vaish A (2017a) Suppliers’ green performance evaluation using fuzzy extended ELECTRE approach. Clean Technol Environ Policy 19:809–821
Kumar P, Ahmed F, Singh RK, Sinha P (2017b) Determination of hierarchical relationships among sustainable development goals using interpretive structural modeling. Environ Dev Sustain 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-017-9981-1
Lavigne BB, Agard B, Penz B (2014) Environmental constraints in joint product and supply chain design optimization. Comput Ind Eng 76:16–22
Li P, Garcia HA, Wozny G (2008) Chance constrained programming approach to process optimization under uncertainty. Comput Chem Eng 32:25–45
Lin CKY (2009) Stochastic single-source capacitated facility location model with service level requirements. Int J Prod Econ 117(2):439–451
Lindgreen A, Swaen V, Campbell TT (2009) Corporate social responsibility practices in developing and transitional countries: Botswana and Malawi. J Bus Ethics 90:429–440
Liu Q, Xu J (2009) A study on facility location–allocation problem in mixed environment of randomness and fuzziness. J Intell Manuf 22(3):389–398
Lourenzutti R, Krohling RA (2016) A generalized TOPSIS method for group decision making with heterogeneous information in a dynamic environment. Inf Sci 330:1–18
Maignan I, Hillebrand B, McAlister D (2002) Managing socially responsible buying: how to integrate non-economic criteria into the purchasing process. Eur Manag J 20:641–648
Maloni MJ, Brown ME (2006) Corporate social responsibility in the supply chain: an application in the food industry. J Bus Ethics 681:35–52
Mani V, Agrawal R, Sharma V (2014) Supplier selection using social sustainability: AHP based approach in India. Int Strateg Manag Rev 2(2):98–112
Mani V, Agarwal R, Gunasekaran A, Papadopoulos T, Dubey R, Childe SJ (2016) Social sustainability in the supply chain: construct development and measurement validation. Ecol Ind 71:270–279
Martinez-Jurado PJ, Moyano-Fuentes J (2014) Lean management: supply chain management and sustainability: a literature review. J Clean Prod 85:134–150
McCarthy IP, Lawrence TB, Wixted B, Gordon BG (2010) A multidimensional conceptualization of environmental velocity. Acad Manag Rev 35(4):604–626
Melo MT, Nickel S, Saldanha-da-Gama F (2009) Facility location and supply chain management—a review. Eur J Oper Res 196(2):401–412
Miranda PA, Garrido RA (2004) Incorporating inventory control decisions into a strategic distribution network design model with stochastic demand. Transp Res Part E Logist Transp Rev 40:183–207
Mota B, Gomes MI, Carvalho A, Barbosa-Povoa AP (2015) Towards supply chain sustainability: economic, environmental and social design and planning. J Clean Prod 105:14–27
Murphy PR, Poist RF (2002) Socially responsible logistics: an exploratory study. Transp J 41(4):23–35
Naeem MA, Tibrewal DD, Chang PC, Tiwari MK (2013) Production planning optimization for manufacturing and remanufacturing system in stochastic environment. J Intell Manuf 24:717–728
Nazemi A, Tahmasbi N (2013) A high performance neural network model for solving chance constrained optimization problems. Neurocomputing 121:540–550
Nouira I, Hammami R, Frein Y, Temponi C (2015) Design of forward supply chains: impact of a carbon emissions-sensitive demand. Int J Prod Econ 173:80–98
Önüt S, Soner S (2007) Transshipment site selection using the AHP and TOPSIS approaches under fuzzy environment. Waste Manag 28:1552–1559
Owen SH, Daskin MS (1998) Strategic facility location: a review. Eur J Oper Res 111:423–447
Pishvaee MS, Razmi J (2012) Environmental supply chain network design using multi-objective fuzzy mathematical programming. Appl Math Model 36(8):3433–3446
Pishvaee MS, Razmi J, Torabi SA (2012) Robust possibilistic programming for socially responsible supply chain network design: a new approach. Fuzzy Sets Syst 206:1–20
Pishvaee MS, Razmi J, Torabi SA (2014) An accelerated Benders decomposition algorithm for sustainable supply chain network design under uncertainty: a case study of medical needle and syringe supply chain. Transp Res Part E 67:14–38
Prakash C, Barua MK (2015) Integration of AHP-TOPSIS method for prioritizing the solutions of reverse logistics adoption to overcome its barriers under fuzzy environment. J Manuf Syst 37(3):599–615
Rezaee A, Dehghanian F, Fahimnia B, Beamon B (2015) Green supply chain network design with stochastic demand and carbon price. Ann Oper Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-015-1936-z
Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York
Sahin G, Sural H (2007) A review of hierarchical facility location models. Comput Oper Res 34(8):2310–2331
Santibanez-Aguilar JE, Gonzalez-Campos JB, Ponce-Ortega JM, Serna-González M, El-Halwagi MM (2014) Optimal planning and site selection for distributed multiproduct biorefineries involving economic, environmental and social objectives. J Clean Prod 65:270–294
Sarkis J, Zhu Q, Lai KH (2011) An organizational theoretic review of green supply chain management literature. Int J Prod Econ 130(1):1–15
Sbihi A, Eglese RW (2007) Combinatorial optimization and Greenlogistics. 4OR Q J Oper Res 5(2):99–116
Seuring S (2013) A review of modeling approaches for sustainable supply chain management. Decis Support Syst 54(4):1513–1520
Seuring S, Muller M (2007) Integrated chain management in Germany—identifying schools of thought based on a literature review. J Clean Prod 15(7):699–710
Shyur HJ, Shih HS (2006) A hybrid MCDM model for strategic vendor selection. Mathematical and Computer Modeling 44:749–761
Sikdar SK (2003) Sustainable development and sustainability metrics. AIChE J 49(8):1928–1932
Sikdar SK (2007) Sustainability and recycle reuse in process systems. Clean Technol Environ Policy 9(3):167–174
Sikdar S, Diwekar U (1998) Tools and methods for pollution prevention, NATO science series. Springer, ISBN:07923-5925-9 (HB)
Sikdar SK, Sengupta D, Paul H (2012) More on aggregating multiple indicators into a single index for sustainability analyses. Clean Technol Environ Policy 14(5):765–773
Simic V (2016) Interval-parameter chance-constraint programming model for end-of-life vehicles management under rigorous environmental regulations. Waste Manag 52:180–192
Srivastava SK (2007) Green supply chain management: a state-of the-art literature review. Int J Manag Rev 9(1):53–80
Tang CS, Zhou S (2012) Research advances in environmentally and socially sustainable operations. Eur J Oper Res 223:585–594
Taticchi P, Tonelli F, Pasqualino R (2013) Performance measurement of sustainable supply chains: a literature review and a research agenda. Int J Product Perform Manag 62:782–804
Tiwari MK, Raghavendra N, Agrawal S, Goyal SK (2010) A Hybrid Taguchi-Immune approach to optimize an integrated supply chain design problem with multiple shipping. Eur J Oper Res 203(1):95–106
Tiwari MK, Chang PC, Choudhary A (2015) Carbon-efficient production, supply chains and logistics. Int J Prod Econ 164:193–196
Wang YM, Elhag TMS (2006) Fuzzy TOPSIS method based on alpha level sets with an application to bridge risk assessment. Expert Syst Appl 31:309–319
Wang JJ, Yang DL (2007) Using a hybrid multi-criteria decision aid method for information systems outsourcing. Comput Oper Res 34:3691–3700
Wang J, Liu SY, Zhang J (2005) An extension of TOPSIS for fuzzy MCDM based on vague set theory. J Syst Sci Syst Eng 14:73–84
Wang F, Lai X, Shi N (2011) A multi-objective optimization for green supply chain network design. Decis Support Syst 51(2):262–269
Wood DJ (1991) Corporate social performance revisited. Acad Manag Rev 16(4):691–718
You F, Tao L, Graciano DJ, Snyder SW (2012) Optimal design of sustainable cellulosic biofuel supply chains: multiobjective optimization coupled with life cycle assessment and input-output analysis. AIChE J 58(4):1157–1180
Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338–353
Zhu M, Taylor DB, Sarin SC, Kramer RA (1994) Chance constrained programming models for risk-based economic and policy analysis of soil conservation. Agric Resour Econ Rev 23:58–65
Zsidisin GA, Siferd SP (2001) Environmental purchasing: a framework for theory development. Eur J Purch Supply Manag 7(1):61–73
Acknowledgements
The author is grateful to the Editor-in-Chief of CTEP, Dr. Subhas K. Sikdar and anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments which have helped to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1: Description of AHP
Suppose \({C = \{ C_{j} } |j = 1,2, \ldots ,n\}\) is the set of the criteria. Now the pairwise comparisons among the \(n\) criteria are symbolized through a \((n \times n)\) matrix \(A\). In matrix \(A\), the elements \(a_{ij} (i,j = 1,2, \ldots ,n)\) depict the weights assigned to various criteria (Albayrak and Erensal 2004; Dagdeviren et al. 2009).
In AHP, pairwise comparisons are conducted in several phases (Albayrak and Erensal 2004). The number of pairwise comparisons relies on the structure of problem. For example, comparisons are made among the criteria with respect to the goal; similarly, comparisons are made among the alternatives with respect to individual criterion variable. The number of pairwise comparisons depends on structure of the problem. Subsequently, mathematical calculations are carried out to normalize and asses the relative weights of different factors for individual matrix. The relative weights are often calculated by the following formula \(A_{w} = \lambda_{\hbox{max} } W\) where \((W)\) represents the right eigenvector corresponding to the largest eigenvalue \((\lambda_{\hbox{max} } )\). If pairwise assessments are found entirely consistent, then the matrix \(A\) is having a rank of 1 and \(\lambda_{\hbox{max} } = n\). Further, weights of the factors are computed through normalizing any of the rows or columns of \(A\)(Wang and Yang 2007). Validity of AHP entirely depends on the consistencies of pairwise comparisons. The consistency is based on the interaction among the entries of matrix \(A:a_{ij} \times a_{jk} = a_{ik}\) (Dagdeviren et al. 2009). The consistency index (CI) is symbolized as follows: \(CI = (\lambda_{\hbox{max} } - n)/(n - 1)\).
The next step in AHP is to calculate the consistency ratio (CR). It is calculated by taking ratio of CI and random index (RI). The acceptable number for CR is 0.1 or 10 percent. If the value of final consistency ratio goes beyond 0.1, then pairwise comparisons are need to be reiterated to bring the CR value below or equal to 0.1 (Wang and Yang 2007).
Appendix 2: Description of TOPSIS
Step 1 The first step of TOPSIS is to create a decision matrix for determining the ranking. The structure of the matrix is represented as follows:
On the above matrix, \(A_{j}\) connotes the available alternatives \(j,\,\,j = 1,2, \ldots ,J;\) \(F_{i}\) symbolizes the \(i^{th}\) element or the criterion, pertaining to the \(i^{th}\) alternative; and \(f_{ij}\) is a crisp value representing the performance rating of individual alternative \(A_{i}\) with respect to each criterion \(F_{j}\) (Dagdeviren et al. 2009).
Step 2 The next step of TOPSIS is to estimate the normalized matrix \(R( = [r_{ij} ]).\) The normalized values \(r_{ij}\) are determined from the given equation.
Step 3 Subsequently, normalized values are multiplied with its associated weights to estimate the weighted normalized values. The weighted normalized values (\(v_{ij}\)) are represented as follows: \(v_{ij} = w_{i} \times r_{ij} ,j = 1,2, \ldots ,J;i = 1,2, \ldots ,n.\) In this equation, \(w_{i}\) connotes the weight of the \(i^{th}\) attribute or criterion.
Step 4 Next step of TOPSIS comprises of estimating the positive ideal and negative ideal solutions.
In the above formulation, \(I^{'}\) denotes the criteria pertaining to benefits and \(I^{''}\) represents the criteria related to costs.
Step 5 Next step is to calculate separation by using \(n\) dimensional Euclidean distance. The distance between each alternative and positive ideal solution (\(D_{j}^{*}\)) is measured as follows:
Similarly, the distance between each alternative and negative ideal solution (\(D_{j}^{ - }\)) is estimated as follows:
Step 6 Subsequently, relative closeness to the ideal solution for each alternative is calculated by using \(D_{j}^{ - }\) and \(D_{j}^{*}\) values. The relative closeness of alternative \(A_{j}\) is represented as follows:
The value of relative closeness (\(CC_{j}^{*}\)) falls in between 0 and 1. A larger value of the closeness index signifies the better alternative.
Appendix 3: Few relevant definitions on fuzzy set theory
Some preliminary definitions of the fuzzy set theory are discussed below.
Definition 1
A fuzzy set \(\tilde{A}\) in a universe of discourse \(X\) is characterized by a membership function \(\mu_{{\tilde{A}}} (x)\) which associates with each element \(x\) in \(X\), a real number in the interval [0, 1]. The function value \(\mu_{{\tilde{A}}} (x)\) is termed the grade of membership of \(x\) in \(\tilde{A}\).
Definition 2
A triangular fuzzy number \(\tilde{a}\) is represented by triple points (\(a_{1} ,a_{2} ,a_{3}\)). The membership function is estimated as follows:
Let \(\tilde{a}\) and \(\tilde{b}\) are the two triangular fuzzy numbers that are represented by three items (\(a_{1} ,a_{2} ,a_{3}\)) and (\(b_{1} ,b_{2} ,b_{3}\)), respectively. The operational laws of these two fuzzy numbers are as follows:
Definition 3
Suppose \(\tilde{a} = (a_{1} ,a_{2} ,a_{3} )\) and \(\tilde{b} = (b_{1} ,b_{2} ,b_{3} )\) are the two triangular fuzzy numbers. The distance between these two fuzzy numbers can be computed as follows:
Definition 4
Taking consideration of different importance values of each criterion, the weighted normalized fuzzy decision matrix can be constructed as follows:
-
\(\tilde{V} = [\tilde{v}_{ij} ]_{n \times J} \quad i = 1,2, \ldots ,n;\quad j = 1,2, \ldots ,J\) where \(\tilde{v}_{ij} = \tilde{x}_{ij} \times w_{i}\)
-
A set of performance ratings of \(A_{j} (j = 1,2, \ldots ,J)\) with respect to the criteria \(C_{i} (i = 1,2, \ldots ,n)\) called \(\tilde{X} = \{ \tilde{x}_{ij} ,\,i = 1,2, \ldots ,n;j = 1,2, \ldots ,J\} .\)
-
A set of importance weights of each criterion \(w_{i} (i = 1,2, \ldots ,n).\)
Appendix 4: Description of fuzzy TOPSIS
The steps of the fuzzy TOPSIS are discussed below (Önüt and Soner 2007).
Step 1 The first step of fuzzy TOPSIS is to assign linguistic values \(\{ \tilde{x}_{ij} ,\,i = 1,2, \ldots ,n;j = 1,2, \ldots ,J\}\) to alternatives with respect to the criteria. The fuzzy linguistic rating \(\tilde{x}_{ij}\) ensures that the ranges of the normalized triangular fuzzy numbers belong to [0, 1]; therefore, there is no requirement of normalization.
Step 2 The next step is to estimate the weighted normalized fuzzy decision matrix (\(\tilde{v}_{ij}\)).
Step 3 Subsequently, positive ideal (\(A^{*}\)) and negative ideal (\(A^{ - }\)) solutions are identified. The fuzzy positive ideal solution (\(FPIS,A^{*}\)) and fuzzy negative ideal solution \((FNIS,A^{ - } )\) are depicted in the following equations:
Here, \(I^{'}\) depicts the benefit criteria and \(I^{''}\) denotes the cost criteria.
Step 4 The next step is to calculate distance of each alternative from \(A^{*}\) and \(A^{ - }\) using the following equations:
Step 5 The next step is to calculate the similarity to ideal solution.
Step 6 Rank the alternatives as per the values of \(CC_{j}\) and choose the largest value.
Appendix 5: Variations of chance-constrained programming
When a ij are assumed as random variables
Suppose variables \(\overline{{a_{ij} }}\) and \(\sigma_{{a_{ij} }}\) are means and standard deviations of normally distributed random variables \(a_{ij}\). The stochastic constraints of the problem can be converted to the deterministic equivalent equations. The constraints in deterministic form are shown below (Nazemi and Tahmasbi 2013).
Variables in \({\Phi}^{ - 1} (1 - p_{i} )\) denote the inverses of cumulative standard normal distributions.
When \(b_{i}\) are assumed as random variables
Suppose variables \(\overline{{b_{i} }}\) and \(\sigma_{{b_{i} }}\) connote the means and standard deviations of normally distributed random variables \(b_{i}\). The stochastic constraints of the problem can be transformed to equivalent deterministic equations. The modified constraints are shown in the following equation (Nazemi and Tahmasbi 2013).
Appendix 6: Calculations related to AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS
See Tables 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and Fig. 2.
Appendix 7: Data and results of mathematical modeling
See Tables 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.
Appendix 8: Sensitivity plots
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Das, R., Shaw, K. Uncertain supply chain network design considering carbon footprint and social factors using two-stage approach. Clean Techn Environ Policy 19, 2491–2519 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-017-1446-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-017-1446-6