Resources, Conservation & Recycling 141 (2019) 347–361

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation & Recycling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec

Full length article

Decision making on supplier selection based on social, ethical, and T

environmental criteria: A study in the textile industry
Patricia Guarnieria, , Flavio Trojanb
⁎

a
University of Brasilia, Faculty of Economy, Business, Accounting and Public Management. Department of Business, Postgraduation program in Business and
Postgradutation program in Agribusiness, Brazil
b
Federal Technological University of Parana, Production Engineering Postgraduation Program, Brazil

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The main objective of this paper is to balance social, environmental and economic criteria, alongside related
Decision making ethical issues, in the supplier selection process when outsourcing activities in the textile industry. We propose a
Environmental supply issues multi-criteria model to support supplier selection process, whereby suppliers are allocated to classes based on
Ethical supply issues sustainability, integrating the opinions of customers and managers. The model has three phases: i) criteria de-
Social supply issues
finition, in which the Copeland method is used to aggregate criteria reported in the literature for a group of
Supplier selection
decision makers (customers and expert managers); ii) elicitation of the perceptions of decision-makers, about
Sustainable supply chain management
criteria and the definition of weights for these criteria using the AHP method, and iii) multi-criteria classification
of suppliers performed using the ELECTRE-TRI method. A numerical application was performed in the textile
sector in order to test results. The main results show that suppliers can be classified, balancing social, en-
vironmental and economic criteria and related ethical issues, considering opinions from customers and experts.
The theoretical implications can benefit researchers who can apply the model in future research into economic,
environmental and social interactions. Managers can use the structure presented in this model to improve
supplier selection.

1. Introduction creation, focusing on sustainability and social responsibility issues in

supply chains. Kim et al. (2016), performed a systematic literature re-
Social, environmental and ethical issues should be considered view on ethical sourcing and identified some gaps and research direc-
alongside economic concerns when looking at supplier selection, to tions. They found that studies on ethical sourcing are dominated by
incorporate customers’ and decision makers’ preferences. In addition, case studies or survey methods. The authors emphasize the need to
sustainable practices related to purchasing and supply management employ other methods in this research field.
have been discussed in recent decades (Giunipero et al., 2012; Johnsen International reports have reinforced the need to consider social,
et al., 2014; Ghadimi et al., 2019). Corporations should integrate social, ethical and environmental issues in supply chain management. World
environmental, ethical, human rights and consumer concerns as a Vision (2016) reported a new law to oblige companies to report an-
strategy of cooperation among their stakeholders (Niinimäki, 2015). nually on their measures to ensure that child labor is not used to make
Although its importance, a limited amount of empirical research in products for the Canadian marketplace. The United Kingdom and Ca-
environmental and social responsibility issues was pointed out in a lifornia have similar legislation. The United States Congress, according
study related to future of purchasing and supply management (Zheng Larson et al. (2017), reviewed a proposed federal law with the same
et al., 2007). purpose. In the textile industry, the vast majority of fashion brands do
Ehrgott et al. (2011) studied social standards in selecting suppliers not have their own manufacturing facilities.
in emerging economies. Tate et al. (2012) studied supplier involvement In the textile sector, many companies outsource their suppliers to
and supplier impact on environmental purchasing at the operating developing countries such as, India, Africa, China and Brazil, to lower
level. Giunipero et al. (2012) identified the drivers of and barriers to costs and avoid restrictive legislation on the environment and labor
purchasing and supply management related to sustainability. Quarshie relations. Niinimäki (2015) states that about 80% of clothing exports
et al. (2016) examined and contrasted existing research and knowledge are shipped from undeveloped countries to developed economies.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: patguarnieri@gmail.com (P. Guarnieri).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.023
Received 9 April 2018; Received in revised form 17 October 2018; Accepted 18 October 2018
0921-3449/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
P. Guarnieri, F. Trojan Resources, Conservation & Recycling 141 (2019) 347–361

Outsourcing production in global value chains for textiles, from de- mainstream literature. The approach follows a multi-criteria modeling
veloped to developing countries, emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, and process, which comprises: i) identification of objectives and criteria; ii)
increased subsequently to become the dominant form of industrial or- definition of weights for criteria; iii) evaluation of suppliers on the
ganization in the clothing sector (Palpacuer, 2005). Loo (2002) classi- criteria; iv) sorting suppliers into classes of commitment. This model is
fies this relation as the “cream” and “cake” layers. In the “cake”, the important because it relates supplier selection to social, environmental
labor force suffers from low job mobility and low-paid blue-collar work. and ethical issues, which are increasingly important to consumers. No
In the “cream” industrialists and governments enjoy high profits and paper (as presented in Table 2) deals with the methods used in our
export values. The management of textile supply chains is typically long research, which demonstrates the novelty of this proposed approach.
and complex (Fashion Revolution CIC, 2016). This complexity is due to
some fashion brands work with thousands of factories located in dif- 2. Literature review
ferent parts of the world. These factories cut, sew and assemble gar-
ments. There are also facilities down the chain that dye, weave and 2.1. Multi-criteria selection of suppliers: traditional and sustainable
finish materials and farms that grow fibers (Fashion Revolution CIC, perspectives
2016). Low paid, blue collar workers whose jobs are fragmented and
who are mainly female, semi-skilled workers, are usual in the textile The objective of supplier selection is to identify suppliers with the
industry (Loo, 2002). highest potential for meeting a manufacturer’s needs consistently and
Scandals related to large companies that outsource their production with an acceptable overall performance. Selecting suppliers from a
to suppliers in developing countries, abusing human rights, and da- large number of possible suppliers with various levels of capabilities
maging the environment and society in general have been reported in and potential is a difficult task, mainly because it involves qualitative
the media. Corporate images of companies have been damaged, because and quantitative criteria (Araz and Ozkarahan, 2007). This problem fits
the non-ethical practices of suppliers tainted the entire supply chain. the MCDA approach (De Almeida, 2007). Several studies have ex-
Some companies do not really know where their clothes are made. The amined the supplier selection problem (SSP) from a multi-criteria per-
vast majority of fashion brands do not own their manufacturing facil- spective (De Boer et al., 2001; Ku et al., 2010; Liao and Kao, 2010; De
ities, making it difficult to monitor or control working conditions Almeida, 2007; Ha and Krishnan, 2008; Pi and Low, 2006). Although
throughout the supply chain. The orders are placed with one supplier, these are important studies, most of them used traditional criteria to
who subcontracts the work to other factories (Fashion Revolution CIC, select suppliers, but some considered sustainability in the supplier se-
2016). Transparency is a great challenge, as people working in the lection process. The consideration of sustainability increases in re-
supply chain become invisible. If the producer wants to address sus- sponse to legislative demands and awareness among the population
tainability issues in the supply chain, subcontractor selection is an es- related to environmental protection.
sential issue. Guarnieri (2014), in an extensive literature review on multi-criteria
Monitoring sustainability and working conditions in supply chains, methods for supplier selection, identified traditional the criteria to se-
mainly in emerging economies, is a huge challenge (Mamic, 2005; lect suppliers: Cost, Quality, Delivery, Financial Stability, Technological
Ehrgott et al., 2011; Fashion Revolution CIC, 2016). Delmonico et al. Capacity, Ease of Communication, Flexibility, Management /Organi-
(2018) found that organisational culture stands out as a particular zation, Production Capacity / Facilities, Support, Compatible Cultures,
barrier to sustainable procurement in public institutions in emerging Geographical Location, Organizational and Technical Capacity and R&
economies. Wilson (2015) studied the future of the Scottish textiles D Mutual Confidence. The criteria were presented in order of appear-
sector, considering a circular economy model. Niinimäki (2015) pro- ance in the literature. In that research, sustainability related criteria
vided an overview of ethical foundations in the fashion field and argued were not listed by the author. The search terms did not include the
for the consideration of ethical, environmental, social and economic keywords “sustainability, social, environmental and ethical criteria/
criteria, rather than economic criteria alone. aspects”.
Govindan et al. (2015) conducted a literature review on green We extend that research by adding to the keywords “supplier se-
supplier selection from a multi-criteria perspective and found the most lection”, “vendor selection”, “multi-criteria or multiple criteria”, “sup-
widely used criterion for green supplier evaluation is the environmental plier selection” and “multi-criteria/multiple criteria”, the specific key-
management system. Khan and Islam (2015) identified environmental words “sustainability” and/or “social or environmental or ethical
sustainability in the materials and manufacturing stages of branded T- criteria/aspects” in the Google Scholar and Science Direct databases,
shirts made in Bangladesh. Deschamps et al. (2016) presented an ana- over the period of publication from 2000 to 2018. We found seven
lysis of consumer attitudes towards ethical consumerism in relation to articles that report the use of sustainability criteria for supplier selec-
their socioeconomic class levels, public consciousness and willingness tion considering a multi-criteria approach. The main criteria and main
to embrace ethical consumption of textile products in Mexico. Calamari methods used are reported in Tables 1 and 2, which served as a theo-
and Hyllegard (2016) explored designers’ perspectives on decisions retical basis for the proposed model. Table 3 compiles the main social
made during the design process of textiles and whether impacted and environmental criteria and ethical issues in the literature.
human health and the environment. This literature indicates recent Supplier selection considering the balance between social, en-
studies focused on the incorporation of sustainable dimensions and vironmental, and ethical issues is a new topic, and contrasts with tra-
ethical issues related to supply chain strategies and explains the re- ditional supplier selection focused mainly on economic issues
levance of this research topic. However, there are no studies specifically (Esfahbodi et al., 2016; Zhou and Xu, 2018; Vahidi et al. 2018). Choy
related to balancing ethical, social, environmental and economic cri- et al. (2005) argued that evaluating and selecting business suppliers is
teria in supplier selection for outsourcing activities in the textile in- strategic in nature. These tasks involve a variety of quantitative and
dustry. The literature also shows that although there are several papers qualitative criteria which need to be aggregated. Often these criteria
dealing with environmental criteria, the social and ethical aspects re- conflict with each other (De Almeida, 2007). In this case, an approach
lated to supplier selection are rarely approached and there is still a lack which can aggregate the criteria and their evaluation is important.
of studies presenting structured frameworks or models involving these Husser et al. (2014) examined the decision-making processes among
aspects at the same time to improve the decision-making process. French buyers, when confronted with a dilemma involving an ethical
The main contribution of this paper is to propose a model to eval- choice. In that research, the participants answered a questionnaire re-
uate suppliers using the social and environmental dimensions of sus- lated to five scenarios that described typical situations that arise in
tainability, as well related ethical practices, based on the Triple Bottom purchasing involving ethical issues. Table 2 shows some recent studies
Line (TBL) concept, also considering the indicators proposed in the involving multi-criteria approaches and the methods used.

348
P. Guarnieri, F. Trojan Resources, Conservation & Recycling 141 (2019) 347–361

Table 1
Social, ethical and environmental criteria in Supplier Selection Problem (SSP).

Suggested Criteria Authors

1 Compatible Cultures Environment; Diversity; Safety; Human rights; Philanthropy; Smaller Suppliers. Brammer and Walker (2011)
2 Energy consumption environmental costs; Chemical waste generation; Solid waste generation; Greenhouse gas emissions; Water consumption Humphreys et al. (2003)
Management Skills: environmental partners; Training; “Green Image”; Consumers’ Loyalty; Green Market Share; Stakeholder Relations
Environmental Projects; Recycling; reusing; destination Environmental management; Environmental Planning; Environmental certification;
Environmental policies; Environmental expertise; Lean technologies available; Use of environmentally friendly materials; Pollution reduction
capacity.
3 Compliance with legislation; Accident prevention program; Health and safety; Continuous improvement Yuanqiao (2008)
4 Public disclosure of environmental records; Environmental assessment of the 2nd chain link suppliers; Management of hazardous waste; Handfield et al. (2002)
Waste and toxic pollutants management; Use of hazardous materials Certification; Reverse logistic; Use of environmentally friendly
packaging; Use of ozone layer aggravating substances; Managing the emission of dangerous gases
5 Environment Management, Social Responsibility, Green Products, Technology Standards and Health and Safety Management Hussain and Al-Aomar (2017)
6 ISO 14,001 certification, Technology level, Capability of using green technologies, Pollution production, Energy consumption, Amount of Vahidi et al. (2017)
solid wastes, Usage of toxic substances, Worker safety and labor health, Occupational injury and illness
7 Pollution production, Pollution control, Qualitative, Energy consumption, Ecologic design, Labor relations, Governmental relations, Zhou and Xu (2018).
Community welfare investment.

Table 2
Supplier Selection studies by multi-criteria approach.

Year / Title / Description Used Methods Authors

2018 - An Integrated Sustainable Supplier Selection Approach Based on DEMATEL - Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory); ANP Zhou and Xu
Hybrid Information Aggregation - It proposes a criteria system for (Analytic (2018)
evaluating sustainable suppliers from three aspects and six dimensions, Network Process) and VIKOR (VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I
introducing an integrated evaluation model with hybrid information Kompromisno Resenje)
aggregation. The model is based on Triple Bottom Line theory, which can
serve as a framework of sustainable supplier selection for manufacturing.
It integrated three methods (the same considered by Kuo et al., 2015) to
examine the interrelationships between the indicators; to calculate the
criteria weights; to aggregate hybrid data type to describe quantitative
and, finally, to rank and determine the optimal sustainable supplier.
2018 - Green Suppliers Performance Evaluation in Belt and Road Using FWA (Fuzzy Weight Average) Lin et al. (2017)
Fuzzy Weighted Average with Social Media Information: It proposed a
decision model used the membership grade of the criteria and sub-criteria
and its relative weights, which consider the volume of social media, to
establish an analysis matrix of green supplier selection.
2017 - Novel Integrated Multi-Criteria Model for Supplier Selection: Case DEMATEL (Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory), EDAS Stević et al.
Study Construction Company: In this study, the supplier selection was (Evaluation based on Distance from Average Solution) (2017)
performed in a construction company, based on a new approach supported
by a multi-criteria model.
2017 - Sustainable supplier selection and order allocation under SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) and QFD Vahidi et al.
operational and disruption risks – It proposes a bi-objective two-stage (Quality Function Deployment) methods. (2017)
mixed possibilistic-stochastic programming model to deal with sustainable
supplier selection and order allocation problem under operational and
disruption risks. A hybrid systematic framework is suggested for choosing
the most influential sustainability criteria. Numerical applications and a
case study were carried out in order to test the model.
2017 – A model for assessing the impact of sustainable supplier selection SEM techniques (set of mathematical models and Statistical methods): Hussain and Al-
on the performance of service supply 2017 - Chains – It develops and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), path analysis, and other types of Aomar (2017)
validates a model for assessing the impact of supplier sustainability on the analytical methods (not informed in the paper)
performance of a service supply chain. Supplier sustainability is assessed
based on five main criteria derived from literature and validated by
industry experts. The impact of these sustainability aspects on the
performance of service supply chains is assessed based on two sets of
economic and competitiveness measures.
2017 - Green Supplier Evaluation and Selection Using Cloud Model Theory Cloud Model Theory and QUALIFLEX (Qualitative Flexible Multiple Wang et al. (2017)
and the QUALIFLEX Method: It developed an integrated MCDM model Criteria method)
based on the cloud model and QUALIFLEX (qualitative flexible multiple
criteria method) approach to assess the green performance of companies
under economic and environmental criteria.
2017 - Green Supplier Evaluation and Selection in Apparel Manufacturing MCDM (Multiple Criteria Decision Methods) model Guo et al. (2017)
Using a Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach: It addressed
the green supplier evaluation and selection problem in global apparel
manufacturing by developing a methodological framework for green
supplier evaluation and selection based on the triple bottom line principle
and a fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) model.
2017 - Using Fuzzy DEA for Green Suppliers Selection Considering Carbon FDEA (Fuzzy Data Envelopment Analysis) Yu and Su (2017)
Footprints: It aimed to establish a decision-making process for buyers
with sustainability in mind. A fuzzy data envelopment analysis (FDEA)
model was developed to select the most suitable supplier.
(continued on next page)

349
P. Guarnieri, F. Trojan Resources, Conservation & Recycling 141 (2019) 347–361

Table 2 (continued)

Year / Title / Description Used Methods Authors

2017 - Integrated Supplier Selection Framework in a Resilient AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Wang et al. (2017)
Construction Supply Chain: An Approach via Analytic Hierarchy Process and GRA (Grey Relational Analysis)
Process (AHP) and Grey Relational Analysis (GRA): It proposed a
framework worked by integrating building information modeling (BIM)
and a geographic information system (GIS) in a RCSC. BIM and GIS
together provide highly transparent construction material information,
enhanced supply chain status visualization, and workable access
information for supplier selection.
2015 - Developing a Green Supplier Selection Model by Using the DANP DEMATEL (Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory); ANP Kuo et al. (2015)
with VIKOR: It proposed a novel hybrid multiple-criteria decision-making (Analytic
(MCDM) method to evaluate green suppliers in an electronics company. Network Process) and VIKOR (VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno
Seventeen criteria in two dimensions concerning environmental and Resenje)
management systems were identified under the Code of Conduct of the
Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition (EICC).
2015 - Supplier Selection Problems in Fashion Business Operations with TOPSIS (Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) Jia et al. (2015)
Sustainability Considerations: It had framed twelve criteria from the
economic, environmental and social perspectives for evaluating suppliers.

In decisions involving several dimensions, the Multi-Criteria industry, considering social, ethical and environmental issues, and
Decision Aid (MCDA) is suitable (De Almeida, 2007). The MCDA ap- procedures that involve the identification of consumers’ and managers’
proach can model unstructured problems and support the decision preferences. By using this model, it is possible for the decision makers
making process in a systematic way. Several authors have explored the to find the most appropriate suppliers for their business goals, espe-
multi-criteria approach related to sustainability aspects. Table 2 pre- cially suppliers committed to environmental and social aspects, con-
sents several individual or combined methods found in literature that sidering the related ethical issues.
can be used for the selection of suppliers based on sustainability aspects
and ethical issues. No two papers use the same structure to consider the 3. Methods and techniques
opinions of consumers and managers, or a procedure to identify social,
ethical and environmental criteria. To fill this gap, the methodology of From the literature review described in Section 2, aspects of criteria
our proposal is demonstrated in Sections 3 and 4. The gap identified in weight, criteria structure, interrelations, definition of classes and ap-
Table 3 drives the present study to structure a model in which the re- plied methods, were developed into an idealized model structure, as
levant criteria are considered through an integrative process addressed illustrated in Fig. 1. The proposed model is structured in three phases.
to customers and managers. In Phase 1, criteria are selected that meet the needs of customers and
Wong et al. (2015) carried out a systematic literature review of 142 managers (decision-makers). The criteria were chosen from the litera-
academic articles and found that stakeholder and resource orchestra- ture review and were defined and filtered taking to account the pre-
tion theories can be used to develop an integrative approach of en- ferences of decision-makers. The model incorporates criteria following
vironmental management in supply chains. Brammer and Walker the characteristics of the consulted group of decision-makers. In other
(2011); Yuanqiao (2008) and Huang and Keskar (2007) provided a words, researchers took the general set of criteria from the literature,
mechanism to integrate in a comprehensive set of metrics arranged but each application adapts the criteria to fit the specific context.
hierarchically, taking into account product type, supplier type, and In the numerical application, consumers were surveyed to find their
original equipment manufacturers’ supplier integration level. preferences in the moment of purchasing of textile goods. A sample of
Humphreys et al. (2003) and Handfield et al. (2002) identified socio- 250 customers/final consumers of the textile sector in Brazil responded
environmental criteria in order to select suppliers. Zhou and Xu (2018) to a questionnaire by a structured media communication. The pre-
proposed criteria for evaluating sustainable suppliers, using three as- ferences were measured on a Likert Scale, ranging from 0 – Totally
pects and six dimensions in an integrated evaluation model with hybrid Disagree to 5 – Totally Agree. Many companies plan their strategies
information aggregation, based on the Triple Bottom Line. Hussain and based on the preferences of consumers, and they should integrate so-
Al-Aomar (2017) developed and tested a model for assessing the impact cial, environmental, ethical, human rights and consumer concerns in
of supplier sustainability on the performance of a service supply chain. their strategy in cooperation with stakeholders in their supply chains
When organizations manage their supply chain, they are responsible (Niinimäki, 2015). The main advantage of this procedure is the ability
for the environmental and social performance of their suppliers and to find the preferences of specific consumers in different scenarios.
partners. According to Seuring and Müller (2008), many pressures re- The results were submitted to another procedure conducted with
lated to social responsibility have derived from a number of internal experts in marketing, finance, production and engineering, in order to
and external sources including employees and management, socially confirm the results obtained with customers. The results were fed into
aware organizations, communities, governments, and non-govern- an aggregation process supported by the Copeland method, as ex-
mental organizations. Mamic (2005); Preuss (2009) and (Scheiber, plained in the numerical application. In Phase 2, the selected criteria
2013) state that some companies have implemented Codes of Conduct were used to sort suppliers. In this phase the criteria weights were
for their suppliers. Mamic (2005) and Preuss (2009) argue that these calculated based on the original data collected. The calculation of
programs must ensure compliance and monitor performance in relation weights used the AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) method, as ex-
to the standards in the code. Although the social and ethical dimensions plained in the numerical application. In Phase 3, suppliers were sorted
of sustainability are important, they are still considered emerging topics into groups, according to their commitment to different criteria, their
in academic works (Sarkis et al., 2010). limits and the weights from the AHP method. The sorting calculation
Building on earlier studies, the present paper develops a model to was performed with the software ELECTRE TRI 2.0a, available in
support decision-making related to supplier classification in the textile Lamsade (Paris-Dauphine University).

350
P. Guarnieri, F. Trojan Resources, Conservation & Recycling 141 (2019) 347–361

Fig. 1. Model Structure.

The Copeland method was chosen for the aggregation of criteria, preferences. Decision makers must be able to express objectives for
and it uses the Condorcet matrix for pairwise comparison. With this supplier selection that meet customers’ requirements and the priorities
method it is possible to aggregate preferences related to criteria defi- of the company, regarding ethical practices related to sustainability
nition. After criteria definition it is necessary to know weight the cri- dimensions.
teria. Using the responses of managers and the AHP method, the
weights were defined. Other methods could be utilized to this purpose, 4. Numerical application
like the Macbeth method, or the Swing Weights procedure, but the AHP
allows for trade-offs between criteria. Finally, to generate ordered In this section we describe the survey of customers from the textile
classes, the ELECTRE TRI method was used as it can generate an allo- industry to find their views on social, environmental and ethical issues,
cation with a non-compensatory approach aligned with the evaluation with a sample of 250 Brazilian customers. The respondents were se-
in this phase. lected based on accessibility and convenience. The questionnaires were
Some other data for the numerical application were introduced, available in social media. The sample was non-probabilistic, so the
based on perceptions of experts. In applications in the companies, these results cannot be generalized to the universe of customers from this
data can be gathered from decision-makers, in order to capture their segment, either in Brazil or other countries. The results are used to

351
P. Guarnieri, F. Trojan Resources, Conservation & Recycling 141 (2019) 347–361

Table 3
Evaluations Average attributed by the Decision-Makers Group.

Importance Degree for Criteria Custo- Marke- Finan- Produc- Engi-

mers ting cial Tion neering

Traditional Criteria Social 1 Effective communication 2.5 4.3 2.1 2.8 3.0
2 Meeting customer requirements 2.5 3.1 1.8 4.1 4.5
3 Support 2.5 2.2 1.8 4.1 3.8
4 Compatible cultures 2.5 2.0 1.8 2.3 4.3
5 Mutual trust 2.5 3.3 3.1 3.8 2.1
Economic 6 Geographic location 2.5 1.4 3.6 3.7 2.8
7 Cost 2.5 2.5 4.8 2.6 3.6
8 Quality 2.5 3.8 2.3 4.5 3.7
9 On-time delivery 2.5 2.9 3.3 4.9 2.6
10 Efficiency of Service 2.5 1.8 1.5 3.9 4.5
11 Financial stability 2.5 1.6 4.4 1.8 2.2
12 Technological capacity 2.5 2.6 2.5 3.6 4.1
13 Delivery delays 2.5 2.2 1.8 4.6 3.6
14 Flexibility 2.5 1.5 1.3 4.1 4.0
15 Productivity and production capacity 2.5 2.0 1.5 4.5 3.8
16 Technical and organizational capacity 2.5 1.7 2.1 3.5 4.4
17 Manag. capacity and organization 2.5 2.8 3.6 3.0 2.9
18 R & D Level 2.5 2.8 1.3 2.8 3.7
Socio-environmental Criteria Social 19 Human Rights 3.0 3.6 2.3 2.8 1.5
20 Philanthropy 2.2 2.0 1.9 2.1 1.3
21 Public Disclosure 2.8 3.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
22 Certification 1.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
23 Management Skills 3.3 3.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
24 Accordance with the law 3.1 3.5 4.3 2.5 3.5
25 Continuous Improvement 2.8 3.5 3.3 4.0 3.5
26 Smaller Suppliers 3.1 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Environmental 27 Environmental impact 3.6 3.8 3.4 2.5 2.5
28 Reverse Logistic 3.0 2.5 2.5 3.3 3.3
29 Environmentally Friendly packaging 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
30 Emission of dangerous gases 1.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
31 Environmental Assessment of suppliers 1.3 1.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
32 Management of hazardous waste 3.6 3.9 2.5 2.5 2.5
33 Environmental Management 3.5 3.0 2.5 3.1 2.5
34 Projects for environment 3.3 3.0 2.5 2.5 3.5
35 Image Green 2.2 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
36 Diversity 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
37 Environmental Costs 2.5 2.1 1.7 2.3 2.3
38 Security 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

demonstrate the constructs in the model. The model could be applied in in the literature, ii) AHP method to calculate weights capturing criteria
any country or sector. The fact that the sample is not representative importance and, iii) ELECTRE TRI method in order to sort suppliers in
does not undermine the possibility of the model being customized and classes, considering a balance among traditional and socio-environ-
generalized. mental criteria. Copeland’s method computes the number of victories
Despite this limitation, the results of this survey may still be re- and defeats in pairwise comparisons. This method is a compromise
levant. It demonstrates the preferences of a considerable number of between the opposing concepts of Borda and Condorcet, combining the
consumers from a developing country (Brazil), with a recent increase in advantages of both methods. If inconsistencies appear, Copeland’s
purchasing power and change of attitudes in terms of environmental method can be used to obtain collective decisions. After the application
and social awareness, and related ethical issues. In the last six years, the of the Copeland’s method, the results can be expressed by the global
number of Brazilian consumers who bought sustainable products ranking that represents the aggregation of the group’s preferences.
jumped from 29% to 48% (Akatu Research, 2018). The evaluation instrument is presented to the decision maker(s) at
In the sample, 47.6% were 17 to 22 years old, 42.4% were 23 to 30 this stage, in order to capture important criteria, involving traditional
years old, 1.6% were 30 to 36 years old and 8.4% were over 36 years and social, ethical and environmental features of the sustainability
old. 36.8% were female and 63.2% male. 56.8% had an income over US concept. From the literature review, the traditional and socio-environ-
$ 2,500. 16% had an income from US$ 1,900 to US$ 2,500. 18.4% had mental criteria were organized in Table 3. The evaluation of decision
an income from US$ 450 to US$ 1,900. 7.2% had an income from US makers from strategic areas of the company was based on expert per-
$280 to US$ 450. And, 1.6% had in income below US$ 280. ceptions. This procedure is widely used in papers dealing with models
The questionnaire had 62 closed questions related to ethical prac- from the operations research area (soft and hard). The level of im-
tices in the social, environmental and economic context. The Likert portance for a group of decision makers from several strategic areas in
Scale (1–5) was used in the questionnaire, in order to evaluate the the company is essential in the decision-making process. Table 4 shows
importance of each criterion, in which NOT MPORTANT had the value the average evaluations from the data collected. The average had the
1, LESS IMPORTANT values 2, INDIFFERENT value 3, VERY IMPOR- same value of median in this case, which presupposes a symmetrical
TANT value 4, and EXTREMELY IMPORTANT value 5. distribution. So we use the average, considering that the median better
In the model structure we use three MCDA methods: i) Copeland’s fits when the data have asymmetric distribution.
method in order to define the relevant criteria based on those identified In the first phase the data were obtained mainly from managers and

352
 Table 4
Fragment for Copeland Pairwise Comparison (Example).

Criteria Cr1 Cr2 Cr3 Cr 4 Cr5 Cr6 Cr7 Cr8 Cr9 Cr10 Cr 11 Cr12 Cr13

Costumers 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
P. Guarnieri, F. Trojan

Marketing 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Financial 1 1 1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 1 −1 −1 1
Production −1 −1 1 −1 −1 1 −1 −1 −1 1 −1 −1
Engineering −1 −1 −1 1 1 −1 −1 1 −1 1 −1 −1
SUM 0 0 2 0 0 0 −2 0 0 2 −2 0
Costumers 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Marketing −1 1 1 −1 1 1 −1 1 1 1 1 1
Financial −1 0 0 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 1 −1 −1 0
Production 1 0 1 1 1 1 −1 −1 1 1 1 −1
Engineering 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1
SUM 0 2 3 0 2 2 −2 0 3 2 2 1
Costumers 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Marketing −1 −1 1 −1 1 −1 −1 −1 1 1 −1 −1
Financial −1 0 0 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 1 −1 −1 0
Production 1 0 1 1 1 1 −1 −1 1 1 1 −1
Engineering 1 −1 −1 1 1 1 1 1 −1 1 −1 1
SUM 0 −2 1 0 2 0 −2 −2 2 2 −2 −1

Criteria Cr14 Cr15 Cr16 Cr17 Cr18 Cr19 Cr 20 Cr21 Cr 22 Cr23 Cr24 Cr25 Cr26

Costumers 0 0 0 0 0 −1 1 −1 1 −1 −1 −1 −1
Marketing 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Financial 1 1 0 −1 1 −1 1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1

353
Production −1 −1 −1 −1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 −1 1
Engineering −1 −1 −1 1 −1 1 1 1 1 1 −1 −1 1
SUM 0 0 −1 0 1 0 5 1 3 1 −1 −3 1
Costumers 0 0 0 0 0 −1 1 −1 1 −1 −1 −1 −1
Marketing 1 1 1 1 1 −1 1 −1 1 −1 −1 −1 1
Financial 1 1 −1 −1 1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1
Production 0 −1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Engineering 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
SUM 3 2 2 2 4 −1 3 −1 3 −1 −1 −1 1
Costumers 0 0 0 0 0 −1 1 −1 1 −1 −1 −1 −1
Marketing 1 1 1 −1 −1 −1 1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1
Financial 1 1 −1 −1 1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1
Production 0 −1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Engineering −1 1 −1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
SUM 1 2 0 0 2 −1 3 −1 1 −1 −1 −1 −1

Criteria Cr27 Cr28 Cr29 Cr 30 Cr 31 Cr32 Cr33 Cr34 Cr 35 Cr 36 Cr 37 Cr38

Costumers −1 −1 −1 1 1 −1 −1 −1 1 1 1 −1
Marketing 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Financial −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 1 1 −1
Production 1 −1 1 1 1 1 −1 1 1 1 1 1
Engineering 1 −1 1 1 1 1 1 −1 1 1 1 1
SUM 1 −3 1 3 3 1 −1 −1 3 5 5 1
(continued on next page)
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 141 (2019) 347–361
P. Guarnieri, F. Trojan Resources, Conservation & Recycling 141 (2019) 347–361

customers. The results were normalized into the scale between 1 and 5.

These results are interpreted as a voting process and the adapted Copeland parameters are used to define Cr(j,k), as follows. They were compared in a Condorcet Matrix, in that each Cr(j,k), was defined in Eq. (3):
The data were organized in Table 3, considering the average evalua-
tions in the aggregation process.
Cr38

−1
−1

−1

−1
−1
−1
Fig. 2 shows customer evaluations of criteria in a socio-environ-

1
1

1
1

1
1
mental context.
The results presented in Table 4 were aggregates of criteria. In the
Copeland method, according to Saari and Merlin (1996), in a pairwise
comparison between cj and ck as Eq. (1):
Cr 37

5
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
cj beats ck
1 if
S(j, k ) = 0 if cj and ck are tied
1 if ck beats cj (1)
The Copeland value for each c(j,k), is defined as Eq. (2):
Cr 36

5
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1

C(j, k ) = Sjk
k j (2)
where, C(j,k)= the sum of comparisons results among every criteria;
Sjk= pairwise score based on the Copeland’s method parameters.
Cr 35

−1

−1
−1

Copeland’s method was adapted to evaluate comparisons between

3

1
1
1

1
1

1
1

alternatives (Criteria evaluated for the customers and decision makers

from relevant areas in the company). As presented in Table 4, each
criterion was compared with all the others, considering the decision
makers’ preferences. In future studies it would be desirable to include
Cr34

representatives of logistics, marketing, finance, production, and en-

−1
−1

−1

−1
−1
−1
1
1

1
1

1
1

gineering.

1 if Cj > 0
Cr(j, k ) =
0 if Cj 0 (3)
Cr33

−1
−1

−1

−1
−1
−1

where, Cr(j,k)= resulted from the sum of Criteria pairwise comparisons.

1
1

1
1

1
1

Finally, the Copeland Ranking was constructed in order to choose

the most appropriate criteria from each R(j,k), defined in Eq. (4):

R (j , k ) = (Lnk Cl j )
(4)
Cr32

k j
−1

−1
−1
−1
−1

−1
−1
−1
1
1

1
1

where, R(j,k)= balance to ranking;

Lnk= item of Lines;
Clj= item of Column.
The sum of each line (representing victories) minus the sum of each
Cr 31

column (representing defeats) generated a cardinal value that re-

−1

−1

presented a remainder from this evaluation, R(j,k). This was the final
3

3
1
1

1
1

1
1

1
1

ranking with the chosen criteria, aggregating the preferences of all

stakeholders involved in this problem. With this procedure, Copeland’s
method included more social, ethical and environmental criteria in the
application, because it is a voting process and it does not consider in-
Cr 30

−1

−1
−1

tensities of stakeholder views, which could cause distortions in this type

3

1
1
1

1
1

1
1

of process (Table 5).

The Copeland Ranking was considered the best for this type of
problem. In Table 6, scores for supplier selection were defined con-
sidering the criteria chosen. The analysis is used to select suppliers that
Cr29

−1
−1

−1

−1
−1
−1

meet the needs of the company, considering socio-environmental fea-

1
1

1
1

1
1

tures from the decision makers’ preferences.

The AHP method was created by Saaty (1990) as a measuring
method of preferences, using pairwise comparisons based on ratio
scales. The AHP works with the concept of dominance presenting a
Cr28

−1
−1

−1

−1
−1
−1

matrix of judgments. The author proposed a consistency ratio (CR),

1
1

1
1

1
1

defined as the ratio between the consistency index (CI) and the random
index (RI) to verify the consistency by the subjective evaluations, as
shown in the Eq. (5):
CI
Cr27

CR =
−1

−1
−1
−1
−1

−1
−1
−1
Table 4 (continued)

RI (5)
1
1

1
1

The CI is calculated based on eigenvalue of A (λmax) and the

Engineering

Engineering
Production

Production

number of elements (n), as presented in the Eq. (6):

Costumers

Costumers
Marketing

Marketing
Financial

Financial
Criteria

n
SUM

SUM

max
CI =
n 1 (6)

354
P. Guarnieri, F. Trojan Resources, Conservation & Recycling 141 (2019) 347–361

Fig. 2. Percentage Average for socio-environmentasl criteria by Customers.

The RI is obtained and according to the author, it should not exceed Fig. 3.
10%. For this, the number of elements (n) must be under ten and CR
⩽0.1. And then, the weights were obtained with AHP method calcula-
tion, as presented in Table 7. 5. Results discussion
In order to support the supplier evaluations in this application and
clarify the scores for each criterion, the definition of some indicators is The main findings demonstrate that it was possible to group sup-
suggested in Table 8. pliers into classes of commitment, considering the sustainability di-
Table 9 presents the evaluation carried out in this application, as mensions. In a practical solution, the suppliers evaluated by this nu-
classified by ELECTRE TRI. The evaluation was based on the experts’ merical experiment could be classified in their position as reported by
perceptions. A more quantitative analysis can be performed using the the company in which this application was conducted. This represented
indicators suggested in Table 8. The evaluation may depend on the data a different way to select suppliers in order to avoid future constraints
available. Many companies do not have the data to perform the ne- and promote an efficient process of choice, at the same time promoting
cessary evaluation. Consequently, it was necessary to resort experts to a balance of ethical, social, environmental and economic criteria in the
generate a basic evaluation. supplier selection process related to outsourcing activities in the textile
The ELECTRE TRI is a multi-criteria method that categorizes alter- industry. It was possible to improve this process with use of quantitative
natives in classes. This categorization results from a comparison be- indicators as suggested in Table 9, where subjectivity is used only on
tween each alternative with predefined profiles and the limits of the where essential. But, it was not easy to perform this analysis, because
categories (Mousseau et al., 2001). The method encompasses indexes of the company is not completely open to sharing confidential data. In this
partial concordance cj(a,b), concordance c(a,b) and partial discordance application we involve only evaluations from consumers and managers
dj (a,b) calculated by the Eqs. (7), (8) and (9): to overcome this difficulty.
Each application of this method could generate results that are pe-
gj (bh) gj (a) pj (bh)
culiar to its context, depending on the consulted group’s preferences,
0 if gj (bh ) gj (a) qj (bh) i.e., consumers and managers from a specific sector. At the same time,
cj (a, b) = 1 if
pj (bh) + gj (a) gj (bh) the model could be used in different segments or contexts, with small
, otherwise
pj (bh) qj (bh)
(7) alterations. The main advantage of this procedure is that the pre-
ferences of consumers and experts are captured and integrated into the
c (a , b ) =
j F kj c j (a, bh) decision process, guaranteeing an efficient choice of suppliers, com-
j F kj (8) mitted to sustainable practices and market expectations.
The model is an organized way to classify suppliers, considering the
g (a) gj (bh) + pj (bh)
0 if j most important criteria in the evaluation. In this case the results re-
dj (a, bh) = 1 if gj (a) > gj (bh ) + vj (bh ) present the classification for textile industry suppliers, but the model
[0, 1] , otherwise (9) could be adapted for other scenarios.
For this study, customers’ perceptions are essential when companies
The index σ (a,bh) represents the degree of credibility of the asser- make sustainable decisions and help in the balancing of ethical, social,
tion aSbh, a∈ A, h∈ B, as shown in Eq. (10). environmental and economic criteria in supplier selection. Many com-
1 dj (a, bh) panies fail to provide adequate information to customers on practices
(a, bh) = c (a, bh ). that keep their supply chains free of unethical labor practices. When
1 c (a , bh) (10) companies consider the sustainability dimensions and classify suppliers
j F
__
where: F = {j F : dj (a, bh ) > cj (a, bh )} with these priorities, they avoid companies that use unethical practices.
According to the needs of the company, classes were pre-estab- In addition, Delmonico et al. (2018) found in the context of Brazil, that
lished: High, Medium and Low commitment. Allocation was performed to the extent that leaders or senior management considers sustain-
according to the views of an expert in the company. Each class re- ability-related actions as essential, the failures related to the procure-
presented the orientation for a set of actions. Table 11 shows each class ment practices are minimized. Sustainability in large firms has been
with their respective limiting profiles, and also presents the criteria well researched and SMEs have been the focus less often in terms of
weights, from the AHP method. sustainability in RCR (Table 10).
After the data were processed in the ELECTRE TRI software, and
suppliers allocated to commitment classes, the results are presented in

355
 Table 5
Condorcet Matrix to make Copeland Ranking.

Cr1 Cr2 Cr3 Cr 4 Cr5 Cr6 Cr7 Cr8 Cr9 Cr10 Cr 11 Cr12 Cr13 Cr14 Cr15 Cr16 Cr17 Cr18 Cr19

Cr1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
P. Guarnieri, F. Trojan

Cr2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
Cr3 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0
Cr4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
Cr5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
Cr6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Cr7 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cr8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Cr9 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
Cr10 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Cr11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cr12 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
Cr13 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
Cr14 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Cr15 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Cr16 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Cr17 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Cr18 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cr19 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1
Cr20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cr21 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0
Cr22 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cr23 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
Cr24 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Cr25 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

356
Cr26 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1
Cr27 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
Cr28 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Cr29 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
Cr30 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cr31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cr32 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
Cr33 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Cr34 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Cr35 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cr36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cr37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cr38 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
Column Sum 8 8 18 27 8 12 7 2 4 19 31 6 17 23 20 19 7 22 15
(L-C) 9 18 −4 −20 10 4 12 30 23 −7 −28 15 −3 −14 −8 −8 11 −10 6

Cr 20 Cr21 Cr 22 Cr23 Cr24 Cr25 Cr26 Cr27 Cr28 Cr29 Cr 30 Cr 31 Cr32 Cr33 Cr34 Cr 35 Cr 36 Cr 37 Cr38 Line
Sum

Cr1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 17
Cr2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 26
Cr3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 14
Cr4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 7
Cr5 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 18
Cr6 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 16
Cr7 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 19
Cr8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 32
Cr9 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 27
(continued on next page)
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 141 (2019) 347–361
 Table 5 (continued)

Cr 20 Cr21 Cr 22 Cr23 Cr24 Cr25 Cr26 Cr27 Cr28 Cr29 Cr 30 Cr 31 Cr32 Cr33 Cr34 Cr 35 Cr 36 Cr 37 Cr38 Line
Sum

Cr10 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 12
P. Guarnieri, F. Trojan

Cr11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3
Cr12 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 21
Cr13 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 14
Cr14 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 9
Cr15 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 12
Cr16 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 11
Cr17 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 18
Cr18 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 12
Cr19 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 21
Cr20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Cr21 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 20
Cr22 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 6
Cr23 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 23
Cr24 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 32
Cr25 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 33
Cr26 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 18
Cr27 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 31
Cr28 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 23
Cr29 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 16
Cr30 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 6
Cr31 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3
Cr32 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 28
Cr33 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 25
Cr34 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 25

357
Cr35 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 8
Cr36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cr37 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3
Cr38 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 15
Column Sum 36 15 30 11 2 3 18 5 9 21 30 34 6 9 9 29 37 34 22
(L-C) −35 5 −24 12 30 30 0 26 14 −5 −24 −31 22 16 16 −21 −37 −31 −7
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 141 (2019) 347–361
 Table 6
Results for Criteria Chosen by Copeland Method and proposed scales.

Cr 2 Cr 8 Cr 9 Cr 12 Cr 24 Score
Meeting customer requirements Quality On-time delivery Technological capacity Accordance
with the law
P. Guarnieri, F. Trojan

Always High Always Very high Totally in accordance 100%

Three-quarters Good Three-quarters High With few issues 75%
Half Medium Half Medium With serious problems 50%
A Quarter Poor A Quarter Low With ongoing claims 25%
Never Low Never Very Low Totally in Discordance 0%

Cr 25 Cr 27 Cr 32 Cr 33 Score
Continuous Improvement Environmental impact Management of hazardous waste and pollutants Environmental Management

All the process Very Low Excellent Excellent 100%

Three-quarters Low Good Good 75%
Half the process Medium Medium Medium 50%
A Quarter High Poor Poor 25%
Noneof the process Very High Bad Bad 0%

358
Table 7
Weights Definition by AHP Method.

Pairwise Comparison – Saaty Scale

Cr.2 Cr.8 Cr.9 Cr.12 Cr.24 Cr.25 Cr.27 Cr.32 Cr.33 A-Vector Weights

Cr.2 1 1/4 1/4 2 1/5 1/5 1 2 2 0.65 5.2%

Cr.8 4 1 3 5 1/2 1/2 3 5 5 2.18 17.4%
Cr.9 4 1/3 1 3 1/5 1/5 2 5 5 1.26 10.1%
Cr.12 1/2 1/5 1/3 1 1/5 1/5 1/2 4 5 0.62 5.0%
Cr.24 5 2 5 5 1 1 5 5 5 3.16 25.3%
Cr.25 5 2 5 5 1 1 4 5 5 3.08 24.6%
Cr.27 1 1/3 1/2 2 1/5 1/4 1 5 5 0.91 7.3%
Cr.32 1/2 1/5 1/5 1/4 1/5 1/5 1/5 1 2 0.35 2.8%
Cr.33 1/2 1/5 1/5 1/5 1/5 1/5 1/5 1/2 1 0.29 2.3%
SUM 21.50 6.52 15.48 23.45 3.70 3.75 16.90 32.50 35.00 12.50 100.0%
λmax = 9.79 CR = 0.0683
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 141 (2019) 347–361
P. Guarnieri, F. Trojan Resources, Conservation & Recycling 141 (2019) 347–361

Table 8
Suggestion for Criteria Indicators (quantitative evaluation).

Indicator for Criterion 8: QL(%) – Quality

nS = Number of sectors considered with quality 100%

QL (%) = ( nS
tS )
*100
tS= Total of the sectors considered in the evaluation
Interpretation QL(%) > 75% …….………High; 100%
50% < QL(%) < 75% …….…… Good; 75%
25% < QL(%) < 50% ……… Medium; 50%
5% < QL(%) < 25% …………. Poor; 25%
QL(%) < 5% …….………Bad. 0%

Indicator for Criterion 24: Acc(%) - Accordance with law

nC = Number of cases on trial by law

Acc(%) = ( nC
tC
*100 ) tC= Total of cases which could generate issues with law
Interpretation Acc(%) = 0 …… Totally in accordance; 100%
Acc(%) < 5% ….…………With few issues; 75%
5% < Acc(%) < 50% …….With serious problems; 50%
50% < Acc(%) < 75% ……….With ongoing claims; 25%
Acc(%) > 75% ….…Totally in discordance. 0%

Table 9
Suppliers Evaluation.

Criteria Cr.2 - Meeting Cr.8 - Cr.9 - Cr.12 - Cr.24 - Cr.25 - Cr.27 - Cr.32 - Cr.33 -
Evaluation customer Quality On-time Technological Accordance Continuous Environmental Management Environmental
Copeland requirements delivery capacity with the law Improvement impact hazardous waste Management
Method

Weights 5.2 % 17.4 % 10.1 % 5.0 % 25.3 % 24.6 % 7.3 % 2.8 % 2.3 %
Supl. 1 100 % 75 % 50 % 50 % 100 % 50 % 25 % 25 % 25 %
Supl. 2 100 % 50 % 100 % 75 % 50 % 25 % 100 % 75 % 50 %
Supl. 3 75 % 100 % 75 % 75 % 100 % 100 % 50 % 50 % 100 %
Supl. 4 50 % 25 % 50 % 50 % 75 % 100 % 75 % 75 % 50 %
Supl. 5 50 % 25 % 75 % 50 % 75 % 50 % 50 % 75 % 50 %
Supl. 6 75 % 75 % 75 % 75 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 75 % 75 %
Supl. 7 75 % 50 % 75 % 100 % 50 % 50 % 75 % 100 % 50 %
Supl. 8 25 % 0% 25 % 50 % 50 % 75 % 50 % 75 % 50 %
Supl. 9 50 % 50 % 50 % 50 % 75 % 100 % 25 % 50 % 50 %
Supl. 10 25 % 25 % 50 % 50 % 25 % 50 % 50 % 75 % 50 %

6. Final remarks management and the understanding how to promote the balancing of
ethical, social, environmental and economic criteria in the supplier
The main objective of this paper was to propose a model to support selection decision to outsource activities in the textile industry. We
decision-making in supplier selection based on the socio-environmental performed: i) a systematic review of the literature to identify the main
criteria and related to targets of sustainability in supply chain traditional and socio-environmental criteria used to select suppliers; ii)

Fig. 3. Sorting Results.

359
P. Guarnieri, F. Trojan Resources, Conservation & Recycling 141 (2019) 347–361

Table 10
Parameters for the boundaries between classes.

Classes / Criteria
Boundaries
g1 g2 g3 g4 g5 g6 g7 g8 g9

CL1 High b2 100% 90 % 80 % 100% 100% 100% 90% 100% 100%

CL2 Medium b1 65 % 80 % 75 % 75 % 80 % 80 % 60 % 80 % 70 %
CL3 Low
Weights 5.2% 17.4% 10.1% 5.0% 25.3% 24.6% 7.3% 2.8% 2.3%
Limits Preference 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 5%
Indifference 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 5%

a survey with customers of the textile industry and, iii) an MCDA companies know who makes their products and also implies openness,
modeling with inputs from the literature, the survey of customers and communication and accountability across the supply chain and with the
the views of managers, in order to develop a model to support decision customers.
making related to supplier selection. This paper is limited to the study of a particular segment, the textile
The theoretical contributions of this work are the inclusion of industry. The survey was carried out with customers from the textile
concerns on social and environmental criteria and ethical issues related industry in Brazil, so the numerical results cannot be generalized to
to supplier selection, integrating the opinions of customers and man- other developing countries. This research is a quantitative empirical
agers. Supplier selection is a well-structured process in many compa- research, based on a survey with customers of the textile industry and
nies, but only considers economic aspects. Also, the systematization of numerical application. Qualitative empirical research, using the opi-
the decision-making process using the mixed MCDA approaches nions of managers, could result in different findings, depending on the
(Copeland/AHP/ELECTRE-TRI) is novel. Some papers deal with com- segment in which the model was applied. But the model could be
bined multi-criteria methods for similar purposes, but no one proposes generalized and adapted to be applied in other sectors. The use of
this combination. In addition, the consideration of opinions of final specific methods to aggregate the preferences of decision makers, de-
consumers is a novel contribution, considering that companies are fine weights and thus, classify de suppliers conducts to specific results.
market driven and focused on consumer preferences. In this sense, this In this context, the consideration of other methods can generate dif-
paper is different from most papers found in literature, which consider ferent results.
only the perceptions of managers. Future studies could consider other industrial segments in order to
As practical contributions we highlight the model proposed, which investigate sustainable practices in purchasing, supplier classification
can support decision making by managers, using well-defined steps to and supply management. Future research could also focus on other
gather all the relevant information in the context of supplier selection developing countries, which are more likely to host unsustainable
with social, environmental and ethical issues. Companies working with practices in supplier selection due to lax laws in those countries. We
outsourcing can use this model to select appropriate suppliers. The also suggest empirical studies focusing in how TBL dimensions can be
model can be applied in real contexts using empirical data, to test its incorporated in the purchasing and supplier classification processes.
validity. Researchers can use this model as a basis for new research Ghadimi et al. (2019) found that sustainability in large firms has been
adapting the set of criteria, the methods used and the sector of appli- well researched, however in small companies still not. So, we suggest
cation. that future research to exploit sustainability issues in suppliers in textile
Indicators related to the social dimension of sustainability, or the sector, focusing in small companies. In addition, we suggest the
way the company treats its employees and the community, and aspects proximity categories proposed by Dallasega and Sarkis (2018) to study
involving more human relationships, were the most highly rated this the distances between buyers and suppliers in textile sector and how it
study. The overall survey results suggest that it is important to the re- influences environmental and social issues.
spondents that companies in the textile sector select their suppliers Research using Problem Solving Methods (PSM), such as the Value
considering sustainability aspects, especially those related to the social Focused Thinking approach (VFT), Soft System Methodology (SSM),
dimension. and Strategic Choice Approach (SCA), and others, could be developed
The main contribution of this paper is the presentation of a sys- in order to structure the decision problem of how to incorporate and
tematic and comprehensive model that can support the decision- improve the balance of the TBL dimensions in purchasing, supplier
making process related to supplier selection aligned with the sustain- selection and supply management processes. It would also be desirable
ability dimensions in supply chain management. The inclusion of a to include the views of experts from other parts of companies in the
suitable set of criteria, the consideration of preferences of customers, textile industry, including logistics, marketing, finance, production and
and the analysis of the problem using an MCDA approach, systematizes engineering, in order to obtain a more comprehensive overview. This
the decision process in well-defined steps, enabling more confident model could also be adapted to the supplier selection in other in-
decisions, balancing ethical, social, environmental and economic cri- dustries.
teria in the supplier selection process. The MCDA modeling process
incorporates qualitative and quantitative criteria and also handles the References
inherent subjectivity involved in decision processes in contrast with
methods based on Linear Programming which consider only quantita- Akatu Institute, Akatu Research, 2018. Overview of Conscient Comsumption in Brazil:
tive inputs. This paper defines a set of criteria used in MCDA modeling Challenges, Barriers and Motivations. (Accessed July 2018). https://www.akatu.org.
br/noticia/pesquisa-akatu-2018-traca-panorama-do-consumo-consciente-no-brasil/.
from a systematic review of literature, considering papers focused on Araz, C., Ozkarahan, I., 2007. Supplier evaluation and management system for strategic
the supplier selection problem. The variables considered in the sys- sourcing based on a new multicriteria sorting procedure. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 106 (2),
tematic review of the literature were the dimensions covered by the TBL 585–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.08.008.
Brammer, S., Walker, H., 2011. Sustainable procurement in the public sector: an inter-
concept: social, environmental and economic. national comparative study. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage. 31 (4), 452–476. https://doi.
The study considers the preferences of consumers in textile industry, org/10.1108/01443571111119551.
capturing criteria that they consider important in the textile supply Calamari, S., Hyllegard, K.H., 2016. An exploration of designers’ perspectives on human
health and environmental impacts of interior textiles. Text. Cloth. Sustainability 2
chain. According Fashion Revolution CIC (2016), transparency means (9), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40689-016-0020-7.

360
P. Guarnieri, F. Trojan Resources, Conservation & Recycling 141 (2019) 347–361

Choy, K.L., Lee, W.B., Lau, H.C.W., Choy, L.L.C., 2005. A knowledge-based supplier in- https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-009-9223-1.
telligence retrieval system for outsource manufacturing. Knowledge Based Syst. 18 Kuo, T.C., Hsu, C.W., Li, J.Y., 2015. Developing a green supplier selection model by using
(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2004.05.003. the DANP with VIKOR. Sustainability 7 (2), 1661–1689. https://doi.org/10.3390/
Dallasega, P., Sarkis, J., 2018. Understanding greening supply chains: proximity analysis su7021661.
can help. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 139, 76–77. Larson, A., 2017. Child Labor Law. Available at:. Expert Law [Retrieved 10 July, 2017].
De Almeida, A.T., 2007. Multicriteria decision model for outsourcing contracts selection https://www.expertlaw.com/library/employment/child_labor.html.
based on utility function and ELECTRE method. Comput. Oper. Res. 34 (12), Liao, C.N., Kao, H.P., 2010. Supplier selection model using Taguchi loss function, ana-
3569–3574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2006.01.003. lytical hierarchy process and multi-choice goal programming. Comp. Ind. Eng. 58 (4),
De Boer, L., Labro, E., Morlacchi, P., 2001. A review of methods supporting supplier 571–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2009.12.004.
selection. Eur. J. Purch. Sup. Manage. 7 (2), 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969- Lin, K.P., Hung, K.C., Lin, Y.T., Hsieh, Y.H., 2017. Green suppliers performance evalua-
7012(00)00028-9. tion in belt and road using fuzzy weighted average with social media information.
Delmonico, D., Jabbour, C.J.C., Pereira, S.C.F., de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L., Renwick, Sustainability 10 (1), 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10010005.
D.W.S., Thomé, A.M.T., 2018. Unveiling barriers to sustainable public procurement Loo, B.P.Y., 2002. The textile and clothing industries under the fifth kondratieff wave:
in emerging economies: evidence from a leading sustainable supply chain initiative in some insights from the case of Hong Kong. World Dev. 30 (5), 847–872.
Latin America. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 134, 70–79. Mamic, I., 2005. Managing global supply chain: the sports footwear, apparel and retail
Deschamps, T.C., Carnie, B., Mao, N., 2016. Public consciousness and willingness to sectors. J. Bus. Ethics 59 (1), 81–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-005-3415-y.
embrace ethical consumption of textile products in Mexico textiles and Clothing. Mousseau, V., Figueira, J., Naux, J.P., 2001. Using assignment examples to infer weights
Sustainability 2 (6), 2–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40689-016-0017-2. for ELECTRE TRI method: some experimental results. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 130 (2),
Ehrgott, M., Reimann, F., Kaufmann, L., Carter, C.R., 2011. Social sustainability in se- 263–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(00)00041-2.
lecting emerging economy suppliers. J. Bus. Ethics 98 (1), 99–119. https://doi.org/ Niinimäki, K., 2015. Ethical foundations in sustainable fashion. Text. Cloth. Sustain. 1 (3),
10.1007/sl0551-010-0537-7. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40689-015-0006-x.
Esfahbodi, A., Zhang, Y., Watson, G., 2016. Sustainable supply chain management in Palpacuer, F., 2005. New challenges for developing country suppliers in global clothing
emerging economies: trade-offs between environmental and cost performance. Int. J. chains: a comparative european perspective. World Dev. 33 (3), 409–430.
Prod. Econ. 181, 350–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.02.013. Pi, W.N., Low, C., 2006. Supplier evaluation and selection via Taguchi loss functions and
Fashion Revolution CIC, 2016. Fashion Transparency Index. (Accessed July 2016). an AHP. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 27 (5/6), 625–630. https://doi.org/10.1007/
http://fashionrevolution.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/FR_ s00170-004-2227-z.
FashionTransparencyIndex.pdf. Preuss, L., 2009. Ethical sourcing codes of large UK-based corporations: prevalence,
Ghadimi, P., Wang, C., Lim, M.K., 2019. Sustainable supply chain modeling and analysis: content, limitations. J. Bus. Ethics 88 (4), 735–747. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-
past debate, present problems and future challenges. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 140, 008-9978-7.
72–84. Quarshie, A.M., Salmi, A., Leuschner, R., 2016. Sustainability and corporate social re-
Giunipero, L.C., Hooker, R.E., Denslow, D., 2012. Purchasing and supply management sponsibility in supply chains: the state of research in supply chain management and
sustainability: drivers and barriers. J. Purch. Sup. Manage. 18, 258–269. https://doi. business ethics journals. J. Purch. Supply Manage. 22, 82–97. https://doi.org/10.
org/10.1016/j.pursup.2012.06.003. 1016/j.pursup.2015.11.001.
Govindan, K., Rajendran, S., Sarkis, J., Murugesan, P., 2015. Multi criteria decision Saari, D.G., Merlin, V.R., 1996. The Copeland method: relationships and the dictionary.
making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review. J. Econ. Theory 8 (1), 51–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01212012.
Clean. Prod. 98 (1), 66–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.046. Saaty, T.L., 1990. How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur. J. Oper.
Guarnieri, P., 2014. Decision making regarding information sharing in collaborative re- Res. 48 (1), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I.
lationships under an MCDA perspective. Int. J. Man. Decis. Mak. 13 (1), 77–98. Sarkis, J., Helms, M.M., Hervani, A.A., 2010. Reverse logistics and social sustainability.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMDM.2014.058469. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manage. 17 (6), 337–354. https://doi.org/10.1002/
Guo, Z., Liu, H., Zhang, D., Yang, J., 2017. Green supplier evaluation and selection in csr.220.
apparel manufacturing using a fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making approach. Scheiber, F., 2013. Dressing up for diffusion: codes of conduct in the German textile and
Sustainability 9 (4), 650. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9040650. apparel industry, 1997-2010. J. Bus. Ethics 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-
Ha, S.H., Krishnan, R., 2008. A hybrid approach to supplier selection for the maintenance 013-1964-z.
of a competitive supply chain. Expert Syst. Appl. 34 (2), 1303–1311. https://doi.org/ Seuring, S., Müller, M., 2008. From a literature review to a conceptual framework for
10.1016/j.eswa.2006.12.008. sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (15), 1699–1710. https://
Handfield, R., Walton, S.V., Sroufe, R., Melnyk, S.A., 2002. Applying environmental doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.020.
criteria to supplier assessment: a study in the application of the analytical hierarchy Stević, Ž., Pamučar, D., Vasiljević, M., Stojić, G., Korica, S., 2017. Novel integrated multi-
process. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 141 (1), 70–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(01) criteria model for supplier selection: case study construction company. Symmetry 9
00261-2. (11). https://doi.org/10.3390/sym9110279.
Huang, S.H., Keskar, H., 2007. Comprehensive and configurable metrics for supplier se- Tate, W.L., Ellram, L.M., Dooley, K.J., 2012. Environmental purchasing and supplier
lection. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 105 (2), 510–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.04. management (EPSM): theory and practice. J. Purch. Supply Manage. 18, 173–188.
020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2012.07.001.
Humphreys, P.K., Wong, Y.K., Chan, F.T.S., 2003. Integrating environmental criteria into Vahidi, F., Torabi, S.A., Ramezankhani, M.J., 2017. Sustainable supplier selection and
the supplier selection process. J. Mater. Proc. Technol. 138 (1–3), 349–356. https:// order allocation under operational and disruption risks. J. Clean. Prod. 174,
doi.org/10.1016/S0924-0136(03)00097-9. 1351–1365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.012.
Hussain, M., Al-Aomar, R., 2017. A model for assessing the impact of sustainable supplier Wang, K.Q., Liu, H.C., Liu, L., Huang, J., 2017. Green supplier evaluation and selection
selection on the performance of service supply chains. Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 1–16. using cloud model theory and the QUALIFLEX method. Sustainability 9 (5), 688.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2017.1414898. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9050688.
Husser, J., Gautier, L., Andr, J.M., Lespinet-Najib, V., 2014. Linking purchasing to ethical Wilson, L., 2015. The sustainable future of the Scottish textiles sector: challenges and
decision-making: an empirical investigation. J. Bus. Ethics 123 (2), 327–338. https:// opportunities of introducing a circular economy model. Text. Cloth. Sustain. 1 (5),
doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1838-4. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40689-015-0005-y.
Jia, P., Govindan, K., Choi, T.M., Rajendran, S., 2015. Supplier selection problems in Wong, C.Y., Wong, C.W., Boon-Itt, S., 2015. Integrating environmental management into
fashion business operations with sustainability considerations. Sustainability 7 (2), supply chains: a systematic literature review and theoretical framework. Int. J. Phys.
1603–1619. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7021603. Dist. Log. Man. 45 (1/2), 43–68. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-05-2013-0110.
Johnsen, T.E., Giannakis, M., Miemczyk, J., Kamann, D.J., Bernadin, E., 2014. Purchasing World Vision, 2016. Supply Chain Risk Report Child and Forced Labour in Canadian
& supply management for a sustainable world: introduction to the IPSERA 2013 Consumer Products. (Accessed July 2017). http://nochildforsale.ca/wp-content/
conference special issue. J. Purch. Supply Manage. 20, 71–73. https://doi.org/10. uploads/2016/06/Child-and-forced-labour-report_jun-08.pdf#.
1016/j.pursup.2014.04.001. Yuanqiao, W., 2008. Green Purchasing to Achieve Corporate Sustainability. Unpublished
Khan, M.R., Islam, M., 2015. Materials and manufacturing environmental sustainability Masters Thesis. Lund University, Sweden.
evaluation of apparel product: knitted T-shirt case study. Text. Cloth. Sustain. 1–12. Zheng, J., Knight, L., Harland, C., Humby, S., James, K., 2007. An analysis of research into
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40689-015-0008-8. the future of purchasing and supply management. J. Purch. Supply Manage. 13,
Kim, S., Colicchia, C., Menachof, D., 2016. Ethical sourcing: an analysis of the literature 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2007.03.004.
and implications for future research. J. Bus. Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551- Zhou, X., Xu, Z., 2018. An integrated sustainable supplier selection approach based on
016-3266-8. hybrid information aggregation. Sustainability 10 (7), 1–49. https://doi.org/10.
Ku, C.Y., Chang, C.T., Ho, H.P., 2010. Global supplier selection using fuzzy analytic 3390/su10072543.
hierarchy process and fuzzy goal programming. Qual. Quant. 44 (4), 623–640.

361