Abstract
In attempts to foster sustainability, where the effective use of natural resources and renewable energy is important, the problem of circular supplier selection (CSS) has become a central issue. To address this problem, for the first time, we propose a group decision model based on an integrated Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and Complex proportional assessment (COPRAS) methodology in an Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy-sets (IVIFS) environment for dealing with uncertainty that shapes decision makers’ judgements in solving the CSS problem. Based on experts’ opinions and a review of relevant literature in the field, three main categories of criteria are developed: economic, social, and circular. The main contributions of the study are, first, to develop specific CSS criteria, and second, to propose a novel integrated method for the CSS process using IVIFS with AHP and COPRAS. After using the AHP method to calculate the weights of individual criteria, we employ the COPRAS method, in an IVIFS environment, to rank potential circular suppliers, testing the validity of the proposed method via a case study involving a multinational cement company from Turkey. We also conduct a one at-a-time sensitivity analysis to demonstrate the effect of criteria weights on the results of the proposed approach, and compare the results of the approach with those obtained using other multi-criteria decision-making methods.
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of data and materials
The author confirms that the datasets used in the study are available within the article.
References
Abdel-Baset, M., Chang, V., Gamal, A., & Smarandache, F. (2019). An integrated neutrosophic ANP and VIKOR method for achieving sustainable supplier selection: a case study in importing field. Computers in Industry, 106, 94–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2018.12.017
Amindoust, A., Ahmed, S., Saghafinia, A., & Bahreininejad, A. (2012). Sustainable supplier selection: a ranking model based on fuzzy inference system. Applied Soft Computing, 12(6), 1668–1677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2012.01.023
Arabsheybani, A., Paydar, M. M., & Safaei, A. S. (2018). An integrated fuzzy MOORA method and FMEA technique for sustainable supplier selection considering quantity discounts and supplier’s risk. Journal of Cleaner Production, 190, 577–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.167
Atanassov, K. T. (1986). Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 20(1), 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(86)80034-3
Atanassov, K. T. (1994). Operators over interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 64(2), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(94)90331-X
Atanassov, K. T., & Gargov, G. (1989). Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 31(3), 343–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(89)90205-4
Awasthi, A., Govindan, K., & Gold, S. (2018). Multi-tier sustainable global supplier selection using a fuzzy AHP-VIKOR based approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 195, 106–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.10.013
Azadi, M., Jafarian, M., Saen, R. F., & Mirhedayatian, S. M. (2015). A new fuzzy DEA model for evaluation of efficiency and effectiveness of suppliers in sustainable supply chain management context. Computers & Operations Research, 54, 274–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2014.03.002
Azimifard, A., Moosavirad, S. H., & Ariafar, S. (2018). Selecting sustainable supplier countries for Iran’s steel industry at three levels by using AHP and TOPSIS methods. Resources Policy, 57, 30–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.01.002
Bai, C., Kusi-Sarpong, S., Ahmadi, H. B., & Sarkis, J. (2019). Social sustainable supplier evaluation and selection: a group decision-support approach. International Journal of Production Research, 57(22), 7046–7067. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1574042
Büyüközkan, G., & Çifçi, G. (2011). A novel fuzzy multi-criteria decision framework for sustainable supplier selection with incomplete information. Computers in Industry, 62(2), 164–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2010.10.009
Büyüközkan, G., & Çifci, G. (2012). A novel hybrid MCDM approach based on fuzzy DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS to evaluate green suppliers. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(3), 3000–3011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.08.162
Büyüközkan, G., & Göçer, F. (2018). An extension of ARAS methodology under interval valued Intuitionistic fuzzy environment for digital supply chain. Applied Soft Computing, 69, 634–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2018.04.040
Chen, Z., Ming, X., Zhou, T., & Chang, Y. (2020). Sustainable supplier selection for smart supply chain considering internal and external uncertainty: An integrated rough-fuzzy approach. Applied Soft Computing, 87, in press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2019.106004
Cooper, M. C., Lambert, D. M., & Pagh, J. D. (1997). Supply chain management: More than a new name for logistics. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 8(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1108/09574099710805556
Dogan, O., Deveci, M., Canıtez, F., & Kahraman, C. (2020). A corridor selection for locating autonomous vehicles using an interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS method. Soft Computing, 24, 8937–8953. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-019-04421-5
Ecer, F., & Pamucar, D. (2020). Sustainable supplier selection: A novel integrated fuzzy best worst method (F-BWM) and fuzzy CoCoSo with Bonferroni (CoCoSo'B) multi-criteria model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 266, in press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121981
EMF (Ellen MacArthur Foundation). (2017). What is a circular economy? https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy. Accessed 25 Mar 2020.
Fallahpour, A., Olugu, E. U., Musa, S. N., Wong, K. Y., & Noori, S. (2017). A decision support model for sustainable supplier selection in sustainable supply chain management. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 105, 391–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2017.01.005
Freudenreich, B., Lüdeke-Freund, F., & Schaltegger, S. (2020). A stakeholder theory perspective on business models: value creation for sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 166, 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04112-z
Genovese, A., Acquaye, A. A., Figueroa, A., & Koh, S. C. L. (2017). Sustainable supply chain management and the transition towards a circular economy: evidence and some applications. Omega, 66, 344–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.05.015
Ghadimi, P., Toosi, F. G., & Heavey, C. (2018). A multi-agent systems approach for sustainable supplier selection and order allocation in a partnership supply chain. European Journal of Operational Research, 269(1), 286–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.07.014
Gören, H. G. (2018). A decision framework for sustainable supplier selection and order allocation with lost sales. Journal of Cleaner Production, 183, 1156–1169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.211
Govindan, K., Khodaverdi, R., & Jafarian, A. (2013). A fuzzy multi criteria approach for measuring sustainability performance of a supplier based on triple bottom line approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 47, 345–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.04.014
Govindan, K., Mina, H., Esmaeili, A., & Gholami-Zanjani, S. M. (2020). An integrated hybrid approach for circular supplier selection and closed loop supply chain network design under uncertainty. Journal of Cleaner Production, 242, in press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118317
Govindan, K., Shaw, M., & Majumdar, A. (2021). Social sustainability tensions in multi-tier supply chain: A systematic literature review towards conceptual framework development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 279, in press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123075
Guarnieri, P., & Trojan, F. (2019). Decision making on supplier selection based on social, ethical, and environmental criteria: a study in the textile industry. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 141, 347–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.023
Gupta, S., Soni, U., & Kumar, G. (2019). Green supplier selection using multi-criterion decision making under fuzzy environment: A case study in automotive industry. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 136, 663–680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.07.038
Haeri, S. A. S., & Rezaei, J. (2019). A grey-based green supplier selection model for uncertain Environments. Journal of Cleaner Production, 221, 768–784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.193
Haleem, A., Khan, S., Luthra, S., Varshney, H., Alam, M., & Khan, M. I. (2021). Supplier evaluation in the context of circular economy: A forward step for resilient business and environment concern. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(4), 2119–2146. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2736
Hashemi, S. H., Karimi, A., & Tavana, M. (2015). An integrated green supplier selection approach with analytic network process and improved grey relational analysis. International Journal of Production Economics, 159, 178–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.09.027
Hendiani, S., Sharifi, E., Bagherpour, M., & Ghannadpour, S. F. (2020). A multi-criteria sustainability assessment approach for energy systems using sustainability triple bottom line attributes and linguistic preferences. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22, 7771–7805. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00546-7
Jain, N., & Singh, A. R. (2020). Sustainable supplier selection criteria classification for Indian iron and steel industry: a fuzzy modified kano model approach. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 13(1), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2019.1566413
Kaklauskas, A., Zavadskas, E. K., & Trinkunas, V. (2007). A multiple criteria decision support on-line system for construction. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 20(2), 163–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2006.06.009
Kannan, D. (2018). Role of multiple stakeholders and the critical success factor theory for the sustainable supplier selection process. International Journal of Production Economics, 195, 391–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.02.020
Kannan, D., Govindan, K., & Rajendran, S. (2015). Fuzzy Axiomatic Design approach based green supplier selection: a case study from Singapore. Journal of Cleaner Production, 96, 194–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.12.076
Kannan, D., Jabbour, A. B. L. D. S., & Jabbour, C. J. C. (2014). Selecting green suppliers based on GSCM practices: using fuzzy TOPSIS applied to a Brazilian electronics company. European Journal of Operational Research, 233(2), 432–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.07.023
Kannan, D., Khodaverdi, R., Olfat, L., Jafarian, A., & Diabat, A. (2013). Integrated fuzzy multi criteria decision making method and multi-objective programming approach for supplier selection and order allocation in a green supply chain. Journal of Cleaner Production, 47, 355–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.02.010
Kannan, D., Mina, H., Nosrati-Abarghooee, S., & Khosrojerdi, G. (2020). Sustainable circular supplier selection: A novel hybrid approach. Science of The Total Environment, 722, in press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137936
Kazancoglu, I., Kazancoglu, Y., Yarimoglu, E., & Kahraman, A. (2020). A conceptual framework for barriers of circular supply chains for sustainability in the textile industry. Sustainable Development, 28(5), 1477–1492. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2100
Khan, S. A., Kusi-Sarpong, S., Arhin, F. K., & Kusi-Sarpong, H. (2018). Supplier sustainability performance evaluation and selection: a framework and methodology. Journal of Cleaner Production, 205, 964–979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.144
Li, J., Fang, H., & Song, W. (2019). Sustainable supplier selection based on SSCM practices: a rough cloud TOPSIS approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 222, 606–621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.070
Liu, A., Xiao, Y., Lu, H., Tsai, S.-B., & Song, W. (2019). A fuzzy three-stage multi-attribute decision-making approach based on customer needs for sustainable supplier selection. Journal of Cleaner Production, 239, in press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118043
Luthra, S., Govindan, K., Kannan, D., Mangla, S. K., & Garg, C. P. (2017). An integrated framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 1686–1698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.078
Majumdar, A., Shaw, M., & Sinha, S. K. (2020). COVID-19 debunks the myth of socially sustainable supply chain: a case of the clothing industry in South Asian countries. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 24, 150–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.07.001
Mavi, R. K. (2015). Green supplier selection: a fuzzy AHP and fuzzy ARAS approach. International Journal of Services and Operations Management, 22(2), 165–188. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSOM.2015.071528
Memari, A., Dargi, A., Jokar, M. R. A., Ahmad, R., & Rahim, A. R. A. (2019). Sustainable supplier selection: a multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 50, 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2018.11.002
Mohammed, A., Harris, I., & Govindan, K. (2019). A hybrid MCDM-FMOO approach for sustainable supplier selection and order allocation. International Journal of Production Economics, 217, 171–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.02.003
Olsthoorn, X., Tyteca, D., Wehrmeyer, W., & Wagner, M. (2001). Environmental indicators for business: a review of the literature and standardisation methods. Journal of Cleaner Production, 9(5), 453–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(01)00005-1
Oztaysi, B., Onar, S. Ç., Kahraman, C., & Yavuz, M. (2017). Multi-criteria alternative-fuel technology selection using interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Transportation Research Part d: Transport and Environment, 53, 128–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.04.003
Pishchulov, G., Trautrims, A., Chesney, T., Gold, S., & Schwab, L. (2019). The Voting Analytic Hierarchy Process revisited: a revised method with application to sustainable supplier selection. International Journal of Production Economics, 211, 166–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.01.025
Rajesh, R. (2018). On sustainability, resilience, and the sustainable-resilient supply networks. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 15, 74–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2018.05.005
Rashidi, K., & Cullinane, K. (2019). A comparison of fuzzy DEA and fuzzy TOPSIS in sustainable supplier selection: implications for sourcing strategy. Expert Systems with Applications, 121, 266–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2018.12.025
Rostamzadeh, R., Govindan, K., Esmaeili, A., & Sabaghi, M. (2015). Application of fuzzy VIKOR for evaluation of green supply chain management practices. Ecological Indicators, 49, 188–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.09.045
Sari, K. (2017). A novel multi-criteria decision framework for evaluating green supply chain management practices. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 105, 338–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2017.01.016
Sen, D. K., Datta, S., & Mahapatra, S. S. (2018). Sustainable supplier selection in intuitionistic fuzzy environment: A decision-making perspective. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 25(2), 545–574. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-11-2016-0172
Seuring, S., & Müller, M. (2008). From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15), 1699–1710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.020
Shen, L., Olfat, L., Govindan, K., Khodaverdi, R., & Diabat, A. (2013). A fuzzy multi criteria approach for evaluating green Supplier’s performance in green supply chain with linguistic preferences. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 74, 170–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.09.006
Song, W., Xu, Z., & Liu, H.-C. (2017). Developing sustainable supplier selection criteria for solar air-conditioner manufacturer: an integrated approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 79, 1461–1471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.081
Stevic, Z., Pamucar, D., Puska, A., & Chatterjee, P. (2020). Sustainable supplier selection in healthcare industries using a new MCDM method: Measurement of alternatives and ranking according to Compromise solution (MARCOS). Computers & Industrial Engineering, 140, in press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.106231
Su, C.-M., Horng, D.-J., Tseng, M.-L., Chiu, A. S. F., Wu, K.-J., & Chen, H.-P. (2016). Improving sustainable supply chain management using a novel hierarchical grey-DEMATEL approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 134, 469–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.080
Tavana, M., Yazdani, M., & Caprio di, D. (2017). An application of an integrated ANP-QFD framework for sustainable supplier selection. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 20(3), 254–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2016.1219702
Thomas, R., Darby, J. L., Dobrzykowski, D., & van Hoek, R. (2020). Decomposing social sustainability: signaling theory insights into supplier selection decisions. Journal of Supply Chain Management, in Press. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12247
Wang, Y.-M., Yang, J.-B., & Xu, D.-L. (2005). A preference aggregation method through the estimation of utility intervals. Computers & Operations Research, 32(8), 2027–2049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2004.01.005
Wu, J., & Chiclana, F. (2012). Non-dominance and attitudinal prioritisation methods for intuitionistic and interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy preference relations. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(18), 13409–13416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.05.062
Xu, Z., & Cai, X. (2009). Incomplete interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy preference relations. International Journal of General Systems, 38(8), 871–886. https://doi.org/10.1080/03081070903210630
Yazdani, M., Chatterjee, P., Zavadskas, E. K., & Zolfani, S. H. (2017). Integrated QFD-MCDM framework for green supplier selection. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 3728–3740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.095
Ye, F. (2010). An extended TOPSIS method with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy numbers for virtual enterprise partner selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(10), 7050–7055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.03.013
Ye, J. (2012). Multicriteria decision-making method using the Dice similarity measure based on the reduct intuitionistic fuzzy sets of interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 36(9), 4466–4472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2011.11.075
Yıldızbaşı, A., Öztürk, C., Efendioğlu, D., & Bulkan, S. (2021). Assessing the social sustainable supply chain indicators using an integrated fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making methods: a case study of Turkey. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23, 4285–4320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00774-2
Yu, C., Shao, Y., Wang, K., & Zhang, L. (2019). A group decision making sustainable supplier selection approach using extended TOPSIS under interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications, 121, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2018.12.010
Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X
Zavadskas, E. K., Antucheviciene, J., Hajiagha, S. H. R., & Hashemi, S. S. (2014). Extension of weighted aggregated sum product assessment with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy numbers (WASPAS-IVIF). Applied Soft Computing, 24, 1013–1021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2014.08.031
Zimmer, K., Fröhling, M., & Schultmann, F. (2016). Sustainable supplier management-a review of models supporting sustainable supplier selection, monitoring and development. International Journal of Production Research, 54(5), 1412–1442. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1079340
Funding
No funding was received for conducting this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All work was conducted by a single author. The author prepared, read, and approved the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
The author declares that he has no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
This section presents some basic definitions of IFS and IVIFS.
Definition 1
Atanassov (1986) introduced an IFS, which is the generalisation of ordinary fuzzy sets (Zadeh, 1965). An IFS \(A\) in X is denoted by Eq. (15).
where \(\mu_{A}(x):X\, \to [0,1]\) and \(v_{A}(x):X\, \to {[0,1]}\) with the condition \(0 \le \mu_{A} (x) + v_{A} (x) \le 1\) for \(\forall x \in X\). The numbers \(\mu_{A} (x)\) and \(v_{A} (x)\) symbolise the membership function and non-membership function of the element x to set \(A\), respectively. For each IFS \(A\) in X, the hesitancy degree of \(x \in X\) to set \(A\) is defined as \(\pi_{A} (x) = 1 - \mu_{A} (x) - v_{A} (x)\), and it is obvious that \(0 \le \pi_{A} (x) \le 1,\,\) for \(\forall x \in X\).
Definition 2
Let D[0,1] is defined as the set of all closed subintervals of the interval [0,1] and X (X≠0) is a universe of discourse. IVIFS \(\tilde{A}\) in X is defined by Atanassov and Gargov, (1989) as in Eq. (16).
where \(\mu_{{\tilde{A}}} (x):X\, \to D\,{[0,1]}\) and \(v_{{\tilde{A}}} (x):X\, \to D\,{[0,1]}\) satisfy the condition \(0 \le \sup \mu_{{\tilde{A}}}^{{}} (x) + \sup v_{{\tilde{A}}}^{{}} (x) \le 1\), for \(\forall x \in X\). The intervals \(\mu_{{\tilde{A}}} (x)\) and \(v_{{\tilde{A}}} (x)\) are the membership function and non-membership function of the element x to set \(\tilde{A}\), respectively. Thus, for each \(x \in X,\)\(\mu_{{\tilde{A}}} (x)\) and \(v_{{\tilde{A}}} (x)\) are defined as closed intervals and their lower and upper numbers can be displayed by \(\mu_{{\tilde{A}}}^{ - } (x),\,\mu_{{\tilde{A}}}^{ + } (x),\,v_{{\tilde{A}}}^{ - } (x)\), and \(v_{{\tilde{A}}}^{ + } (x)\), respectively. Thus, IVIFS \(\tilde{A}\) is presented as in Eq. (17).
where \(0 \le \mu_{{\tilde{A}}}^{ + } (x) + \,v_{{\tilde{A}}}^{ + } (x) \le 1,\,\mu_{{\tilde{A}}}^{ - } (x) \ge 0,\,v_{{\tilde{A}}}^{ - } (x) \ge 0\). For each element x, the hesitancy degree of an IVIFS of \(x \in X\) in \(\tilde{A}\) is defined as (Ye, 2012):
In addition, let \(\mu_{{\tilde{A}}} (x) = [\mu_{{\tilde{A}}}^{ - } , \, \mu_{{\tilde{A}}}^{ + } ]\) and \(v_{{\tilde{A}}} (x) = [v_{{\tilde{A}}}^{ - } , \, v_{{\tilde{A}}}^{ + } ]\), and thus IVIFS \(\tilde{A}\) is then denoted by
Definition 3
The basic arithmetic expressions used for IVIFNs are as follows (Atanassov, 1994):
Let \(\tilde{A} = \left( {\,{[}\mu_{{\tilde{A}}}^{ - } ,\mu_{{\tilde{A}}}^{ + } {]},\,\,{[}v_{{\tilde{A}}}^{ - } ,v_{{\tilde{A}}}^{ + } {]}\,} \right)\) and \(\tilde{B} = \left( {\,{[}\mu_{{\tilde{B}}}^{ - } ,\mu_{{\tilde{B}}}^{ + } {]},\,\,{[}v_{{\tilde{B}}}^{ - } ,v_{{\tilde{B}}}^{ + } {]}\,} \right)\) be two IVIFS and \(\lambda \ge 0\). Then,
Definition 4
Let \(\tilde{A} = \left( {\,{[}\mu_{{\tilde{A}}}^{ - } ,\mu_{{\tilde{A}}}^{ + } {]},\,\,{[}v_{{\tilde{A}}}^{ - } ,v_{{\tilde{A}}}^{ + } {]}\,} \right)\) be an IVIFN. \(\tilde{A}\) is defuzzified using Eq. (27) (Oztaysi et al., 2017).
Definition 5
The score function \(S(\tilde{A})\) and accuracy function \(H(\tilde{A})\) of an IVIFN can be defined as follows (Wu & Chiclana, 2012):
Definition 6
Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy weighted averaging (IVIFWA) operator is used to aggregate DMs’ opinions on criteria and alternatives. For the set of all IVIFNs, \(\tilde{\alpha }_{i} = \left( {\,{[}\mu_{i}^{ - } ,\mu_{i}^{ + } {]}\,,\,\,{[}v_{i}^{ - } ,v_{i}^{ + } {]}\,} \right),\;i = (1,2, \ldots ,n)\) is a collection of IVIFNs and DMs’ weights \(w{}_{i} = (w_{1} ,w_{2} , \ldots ,w_{n} )^{T} ,w_{i} \in {[0,1]}\,,\,\sum\nolimits_{i = 1}^{n} {w{}_{i}} = 1\). Thus, IVIFWA operator can be extended to include w, and given as (Xu & Cai, 2009):
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Perçin, S. Circular supplier selection using interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Environ Dev Sustain 24, 5551–5581 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01671-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01671-y