processes

Article
A Hybrid OPA and Fuzzy MARCOS Methodology for
Sustainable Supplier Selection with Technology 4.0 Evaluation
Chia‑Nan Wang 1, * , Thi Thanh Tam Nguyen 1,2, * , Thanh‑Tuan Dang 2 and Ngoc‑Ai‑Thy Nguyen 1,2

1 Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, National Kaohsiung University of Science and
Technology, Kaohsiung 807618, Taiwan
2 Department of Logistics and Supply Chain Management, Hong Bang International University,
Ho Chi Minh 72320, Vietnam
* Correspondence: [email protected] (C.‑N.W.); [email protected] (T.T.T.N.)

Abstract: The concern of sustainable supplier selection has been raised recently in organizations’ de‑
cision making to enhance their competitiveness. Many tools have been developed to support supplier
evaluation, yet the factors of Industry 4.0 (I4.0) have been ignored despite their impact on sustainable
performance. Hence, this paper aims to include the technology of I4.0 as the criteria to evaluate the
competence of suppliers in sustainability. Multiple‑criteria decision making (MCDM) has been used
to build decision‑making systems; thus, this study employed two advanced methods of MCDM, the
ordinal priority approach (OPA) and measurement of alternatives and ranking according to com‑
promise solution (MARCOS) in a fuzzy environment. To test the feasibility of the proposal, five
manufacturers of Vietnam’s leather and footwear industry were hypothetically assigned. Firstly,
the evaluation criteria were weighted by OPA. Then, the ranking of alternatives was determined by
fuzzy MARCOS. The results show that “green image”, “green product innovation”, “cloud comput‑
ing”, “service level”, and “blockchain” are the topmost significant criteria in evaluating sustainable
practices in the supply chain from the I4.0 perspective. Furthermore, sensitivity and comparison
Citation: Wang, C.‑N.; Nguyen,
analyses were carried out to verify the robustness of the methodology. The outcomes of this paper
T.T.T.; Dang, T.‑T.; Nguyen, N.‑A.‑T.
contribute a new model of decision making with respect to the involvement of sustainability and I4.0.
A Hybrid OPA and Fuzzy MARCOS
Methodology for Sustainable
Keywords: MCDM; sustainable evaluation; Industry 4.0; OPA; fuzzy MARCOS
Supplier Selection with Technology
4.0 Evaluation. Processes 2022, 10,
2351. https://doi.org/10.3390/
pr10112351
1. Introduction
Academic Editor: Luis Puigjaner
Sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) is the term referring to supply chain
Received: 26 September 2022 management that is mostly driven by economic, environmental, and social interests, or
Accepted: 9 November 2022 the three pillars of sustainability [1]. The logistics industry is experiencing a number of
Published: 10 November 2022 difficulties due to the COVID‑19 pandemic, leading to large‑scale supply chain disruptions.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
Experts stated that the industry has passed the worst period, and businesses are planning
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
to enter a new era with new technologies, methods, and standards to transform. As the
published maps and institutional affil‑ complexity of modern transportation and logistics increases, it is important to understand
iations. where the short‑ and long‑term focus is and what to invest in. Moreover, the 4.0 revolution
and the popularity of the IoT system also require logistics enterprises to capture and make
optimal use of the huge data source coming from all links in the supply chain.
To achieve SSCM, organizations have been pushed to be more agile, efficient, and
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. smart. In this direction, Industry 4.0 (I4.0) has been widely adopted to efficiently manage
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. the increasing complexity of systems. The benefits of I4.0 technologies are also mentioned
This article is an open access article in [2] as the enabler of sustainable manufacturing, and thus SSCM, by reducing indus‑
distributed under the terms and trial wastes and contaminants. Many advanced technologies have emerged to meet the
conditions of the Creative Commons demands of the market, as summarized in (Table 1). The impacts of those applications on
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
the supply chain were also concluded in [3], including more accurate demand forecasts,
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
the minimization of manufacturing wastes, more sustainable and robust processes, and
4.0/).

Processes 2022, 10, 2351. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10112351 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/processes

Processes 2022, 10, 2351 2 of 20

effective inventory management and collaboration, reducing errors in material flow infor‑
mation and optimizing logistics systems.

Table 1. The summary of technologies.

No. Technology
1 Artificial intelligence
2 Augmented reality
3 Beacon
4 Big data
5 Blockchain
6 Cloud computing
7 Cloud manufacturing
8 Collaborative robot
9 Cyber‑physical system
10 Data analytics
11 Digitalization
12 Internet of things
13 RFID
14 Sensors
15 Smart factory/smart manufacturing
16 Virtual reality

Technology plays a crucial part in firms’ strategies to reach their goal of competitive‑
ness and sustainability. To obtain sustainable development, clean technology, which is any
kind of technical method that can serve the purpose of saving the economy and environ‑
ment with respect to resources, has been the optimal option for organizations to acquire [4].
However, the adoption of technological changes in businesses has remained insignificant.
Khatri et al. [4] claimed that the problem is not technology availability or innovation but
rather the risks to business stability. To implement new technology, technological, eco‑
nomic, and social parameters are considered with the organization’s resource limitations.
Adopting changes makes firms exposed to many strategic decisions, and therefore, they
are applied at a low rate. As a matter of fact, technology selection is one of the impor‑
tant decisions made by a company. Technology selection, in fact, is a process that starts
with the recognition of technological changes, followed by evaluation and ending with
absorption [4]. As mentioned in [5], there are some considerations during technology se‑
lection, such as manufacturing constraints and customer requirements. Since sustainabil‑
ity has become a great concern, ecological aspects have appeared to be an additional, but
not minor, criterion to evaluate the right technology. To support the assessment, some
decision‑making tools have been used, for instance, Life Cycle Assessment, Life Cycle Cost‑
ing, or multi‑criteria decision making (MCDM) [5]. In the paper by Rinaldi et al. [5], the
authors indicated several issues in the technology selection process, which are the lack of
either a qualitative solution or quantitative analysis in the model, the combination of qual‑
itative and quantitative approaches but the exclusion of normalization, and unavailable
practical computational procedures to estimate indicators. The technological supplier se‑
lection problem, on the other hand, pays less attention to the performance of outbound
suppliers, thus leading to low sustainable levels of companies [6]. MCDM, as discussed
in [6], has been employed to measure the competence of technological suppliers, yet the
I4.0 point of view is not being taken into consideration in criteria, expert ideas, and other
linguistic variables. Considering the current concerns, this research intended to present
a decision‑support system comprising the ordinal priority approach (OPA) and measure‑
ment of alternatives and ranking according to compromise solution (MARCOS) in a fuzzy
environment, two advanced variants of MCDM. OPA was utilized to calculate the weights
of criteria, expertise, and alternatives, while fuzzy MARCOS was implemented to rank the
alternatives. To test the feasibility of the system, a case study of five sustainable supplier
selections in Vietnam’s leather and footwear industry with a focus on the technology drive
Processes 2022, 10, 2351 3 of 20

was performed. The results of this research are expected to contribute a new model to
decision‑making tools, especially for sustainable supplier selection. Furthermore, a refer‑
ence point of technological criteria was created to evaluate supplier competence.
This paper is constructed as follows. The next part provides a review of the relevant
literature regarding approaches to sustainable or green supplier selection. After that, the
details of materials and methods are described in Section 3, including the research pro‑
cess, the applied methods, OPA, and fuzzy MARCOS. The results analysis is presented
in Section 4 with a description of the case study, criteria weighting, and alternative rank‑
ing. Finally, the conclusions include the main findings, research limitations, and further
suggestion for reproducible works.

2. Literature Review
Over the years, many scholars have dedicated their works to building decision‑support
systems for sustainable supplier selection or green supplier selection, which focus primar‑
ily on environmental performance [6]. As can be seen in Table 2, from 2017 to 2020, while
there was a variety of approaches, most of them were hybrid methods to compensate for
the weaknesses of each other [7]. For instance, Data Envelopment Analysis was combined
with the Differential Solution algorithm (DEA‑DE) [8], Decision‑Making Trial and Evalu‑
ation Laboratory (DEMATEL) was utilized with pairwise comparison [9] or Taguchi loss
functions [10], and various uses of fuzzy inference systems are reported in [11–14]. In
contrast, a few researchers employed traditional methods, such as Critical Success Factors
(CSFs) [15], qualitative research [16], a supply chain model [17], gray relational analysis [18],
and a programming model and tractable approximation for optimization [19]. It is notice‑
able that MCDM was the popular choice as a decision‑making tool since the rest of the
solutions are a mix of MCDM variations and other types of measures (Table 2). For in‑
stance, Hoseini et al. proposed a hybrid method of the best–worst method (BWM) and an
inference system model to select sustainable suppliers in the construction industry [20].
Alternatively, Kuo et al. integrated the Kano model into the Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy
Process (FAHP) and the Decision Matrix Method to evaluate sustainable suppliers in palm
oil companies [21]. Among MCDM methods, TOPSIS (technique for order of preference by
similarity to ideal solution) was mostly applied. In recent years, some advanced methods
of MCDM have been proposed to overcome the disadvantages of MCDM. For example,
Ecer et al. developed an approach using the Full Consistency Method (FUCOM) and the
Mixed Aggregation by Comprehensive Normalization Technique (MACONT) with a fuzzy
set under the concept of stratification for sustainable circular supplier selection [22]. As de‑
scribed in [22], the weights of criteria can be obtained more consistently but with fewer pair‑
wise comparisons with FUCOM, while MACONT appears to be a robust ranking method
due to its three‑step normalization. Also addressing MCDM’s drawbacks, Ataei et al. [23]
introduced OPA to address MADM’s (Multiple‑Attribute Decision Making) problems by
handling the weight calculation of experts, criteria, and alternatives, dealing with incom‑
plete data and group decision making simultaneously. Therefore, the application of OPA
can be useful for evaluating sustainable suppliers, as suggested by Mahmoudi et al. [7], in
which the combination of gray system theory and OPA was observed in their megaprojects.
Another algorithm, the well‑known MARCOS, was developed by Stankovi’c et al. [24]
to offer a robust sorting of alternatives in the fuzzy environment despite the large scale.
Ecer et al. applied MARCOS simultaneously with Evaluation Based on Distance from Av‑
erage Solution (EDAS) and Multi‑Attributive Ideal Real Comparative Analysis (MAIRCA)
for weighting and ranking cryptocurrency [25]. Campilho et al. [26] employed MARCOS
to find the optimal design of a passive compliance mechanism in a robot manipulator as
the result of the Non‑dominated Sorting Whale Optimization Algorithm (NSWOA), an op‑
timization algorithm. Since the technique works best in an uncertain environment where
most cases of sustainable supplier selection have been solved [7,24], the implementation of
MARCOS has been applied in the field. It was evidenced in the research of Stević et al. [27]
when they measured the sustainable candidates in the healthcare supply chain with MAR‑
Processes 2022, 10, 2351 4 of 20

COS. The authors also claimed that the robustness and stability of MARCOS outperformed
TOPSIS in assessing the decision‑making units [27].

Table 2. The summary of relevant literature on sustainable supplier selection [6,7].

No. Author Year Method

1 Govindan et al. [28] 2017 Revised Simos procedure and PROMETHEE
2 Qin et al. [29] 2017 TODIM with interval type‑2 fuzzy set
3 Mousakhani et al. [30] 2017 Interval type‑2 fuzzy TOPSIS
4 Yazdani et al. [31] 2017 DEMATEL, QFD, COPRAS, and MOORA
5 Luthra et al. [32] 2017 AHP–VIKOR
6 Jauhar and Pant [8] 2017 DEA‑DE
7 Song et al. [9] 2017 Pairwise comparison—DEMATEL
8 Banaeian et al. [33] 2018 Fuzzy TOPSIS, VIKOR, and GRA
9 Erdogan et al. [34] 2018 Fuzzy AHP and VIKOR
10 Cheraghalipour and Farsad [35] 2018 BWM–MILP
11 Kannan [15] 2018 CSF theory
12 Awasthi et al. [36] 2018 Fuzzy AHP–VIKOR‑based approach
13 Gören [10] 2018 DEMATEL–Taguchi loss functions
14 Ghadimi et al. [11] 2018 Fuzzy inference system
15 Amindoust [12] 2018 Fuzzy inference system–assurance region DEA
16 Khan et al. [13] 2018 Shannon entropy–fuzzy inference system
17 Mondragon et al. [37] 2019 AHP and fuzzy AHP
18 Wu et al. [38] 2019 Interval type‑2 fuzzy BWM and VIKOR method
19 Gupta et al. [39] 2019 Fuzzy AHP, MABAC, WASPAS, and TOPSIS
20 Liang and Chong [40] 2019 Hesitant fuzzy QUALIFLEX approach
21 Mishra et al. [41] 2019 Hesitant fuzzy WASPAS
22 Ulutag et al. [42] 2019 Fuzzy extension of range of value and a new MADM model
23 Yucesan et al. [43] 2019 BWM and interval type‑2 fuzzy TOPSIS
24 Liou et al. [44] 2019 DEMATEL, DANP, and MOORA‑AS
25 Demircan Keskin et al. [45] 2019 AHP and TOPSIS
26 Nascimento et al. [16] 2019 Qualitative research
27 Liu and De Giovanni [17] 2019 Supply chain model
28 Sachdeva et al. [46] 2019 Shannon’s entropy and intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS
29 Rashidi and Cullinane [47] 2019 TOPSIS‑DEA
30 Liu et al. [48] 2019 BWM and alternative queuing method
31 Yadavalli et al. [49] 2019 TOPSIS‑optimization
32 Yu et al. [50] 2019 TOPSIS
33 Xu et al. [51] 2019 AHPSort II
34 Abdel‑Baset et al. [52] 2019 ANP‑VIKOR
35 Memari et al. [53] 2019 TOPSIS
36 Li et al. [54] 2019 TOPSIS
37 Diba and Xie [18] 2019 Gray relational analysis
38 Rouyendegh et al. [55] 2020 Intuitionistic Fuzzy TOPSIS
Decision‑support system, TOPSIS, and Multi‑Choice Goal
39 Hasan et al. [56] 2020
Programming
40 Chen et al. [57] 2020 DEMATEL‑TOPSIS
41 Jia et al. [19] 2020 Optimization methods
42 Jain and Singh [14] 2020 Fuzzy Kano philosophy–fuzzy interference system
43 Tirkolaee et al. [58] 2020 ANP–DEMATEL–TOPSIS
44 Hendiani et al. [59] 2020 Fuzzy BWM
45 Ahmet [6] 2020 Fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS
46 Stević et al. [27] 2020 MARCOS
47 Mahmoudi et al. [7] 2021 Gray OPA
48 Kuo et al. [21] 2021 Kano model–fuzzy AHP–decision matrix
49 Hoseini et al. [20] 2021 BWM–inference system
50 Ecer et al. [22] 2022 MARCOS‑EDAS‑MAIRCA

From the review, the OPA technique considerably decreases decision‑making time
and processing costs by avoiding the usage of pairwise comparison matrices, decision‑
Processes 2022, 10, 2351 5 of 20

making matrices, and normalization procedures that are typical in many existing tradi‑
tional MCDM systems. However, OPA cannot account for uncertainties, which are a key
issue for decision makers in this study, which is connected to determining the optimal
choices. To address these shortcomings, fuzzy MARCOS for sustainable supplier selection
with technology 4.0 evaluation is proposed. Fuzzy MARCOS revitalizes the MCDM do‑
main by utilizing an algorithm to investigate the links between options and reference points.
From the literature reviewed, the following points are recognized: (1) the optimal
decision‑making system is a hybrid method that can satisfy both qualitative and quan‑
titative aspects; (2) MCDM has proved to be a suitable tool to support decision makers
in sustainable supplier selection; (3) MCDM has evolved with more innovative methods.
Nonetheless, work that can cover all of the above points has not been conducted suffi‑
ciently. Hence, this paper aims to make the following contributions:
• An exploration of a hybrid method between OPA and fuzzy MARCOS with a case
study of sustainable supplier selection in the Vietnamese garment industry. The weights
of criteria focused on technology elements, three experts, and five alternatives were
calculated by OPA before the candidates were ranked by fuzzy MARCOS for the
final decision.
• A new decision‑support system based on advanced MCDM is proposed not only for
sustainable supplier selection but also for multi‑purpose assessment.
• A set of criteria, including I4.0 and sustainable factors, was built for further evaluation
of supplier performance.

3. Methodology
3.1. Ordinal Priority Approach (OPA)
The ordinal priority approach (OPA) is a unique breakthrough in multi‑criteria deci‑
sion making (MCDM). It offers numerous advantages over other MCDM approaches, such
as not requiring a pairwise comparison, a normalization procedure, averaging methods for
integrating expert assessments, and data completeness [7]. The OPA technique is based on
the linear programming model, and the sets, indexes, and decision variables are as follows.
The parameters of the OPA model should be supplied by experts.
The OPA calculations for criteria weighting consist of (1) identifying and ranking ex‑
perts based on their years of experience or academic degrees, (2) determining and ranking
the criteria based on experts’ opinions, and (3) solving the OPA model below to determine
the weights of criteria [23].
Sets
I Set of experts ∀i ∈ I
J Set of criteria ∀j ∈ J
Indexes
i Index of the experts (1, . . . , p)
j Index of preference of the criteria (1, . . . , n)
Decision variables
Z Objective function
r Weight (importance) of jth criteria by ith
Wij
expert at rth rank
The linear mathematical model is presented as follows.

Maximize Z
Such that


Z ≤ i j Wij r − Wij r+1 ∀i, j, r
Z ≤ ijWij j ∀i, j (1)
p n
∑ ∑ Wij = 1
i =1 j =1
Wij ≥ 0 ∀i, j
Processes 2022, 10, 2351 6 of 20

where Z is unrestricted in sign.

After solving Model (1), in order to calculate the weights of criteria, Equation (2)
should be utilized.
p
Wj = ∑ Wij ∀ j (2)
i =1

The weights of criteria calculated by the OPA model will be used to rank alternatives
with fuzzy MARCOS in the next phase.

3.2. Fuzzy MARCOS

The fuzzy triangular numbers (TFNs) can be described as (l, m, u), indicating the least
likely (l ), most promising (m), and largest conceivable (u) values of TFNs. TFNs can be
defined as in Equations (3) and (4) below [60].

  

0 i f a < m,
 a−l
a m−l i f l ≤ a ≤ m,
= u− a (3)
e
M 
 i f m ≤ a ≤ u,
 u−m
0 i f a > u,
 
e = Mo(y) , Mi(y) = [l + (m − l )y, u + (m − u)y], y ∈ [0, 1]
M (4)

where o (y) and i (y) denote the left and right sides, respectively, of a fuzzy number.
The following Equations (5)–(9) illustrate fundamental computations involving two
positive TFNs [61], M e 1 = (l1 , m1 , u1 ) and M
e 2 = ( l2 , m 2 , u 2 ) .
Addition:

e1 ⊕ M
M e 2 = ( l1 , m 1 , u 1 ) + ( l2 , m 2 , u 2 ) = ( l1 + l2 , m 1 + m 2 , u 1 + u 2 ) (5)

Subtraction:

e1 ⊖ M
M e 2 = ( l1 , m 1 , u 1 ) − ( l2 , m 2 , u 2 ) = ( l1 − u 2 , m 1 − m 2 , u 1 − l2 ) (6)

Multiplication:

e1 ⊗ M
M e 2 = ( l1 , m 1 , u 1 ) × ( l2 , m 2 , u 2 ) = ( l1 × l2 , m 1 × m 2 , u 1 × u 2 ) (7)

Division:  
e1
M (l , m , u ) l1 m 1 u 1
= 1 1 1 = , , (8)
e
M2 ( l2 , m 2 , u 2 ) u 2 m 2 l2
Reciprocal:  
e 1 −1 = ( l1 , m 1 , u 1 ) −1 = 1 1 1
M , , (9)
u 1 m 1 l1
Fuzzy measurement of alternatives and ranking according to compromise solution
(fuzzy MARCOS) is suitable for solving MCDM problems with more criteria and alterna‑
tives under uncertainty. This method has three starting points, namely, reference points,
the relationship between alternatives, and the utility degree of alternatives, which help de‑
cision makers improve the robustness of MCDM in a fuzzy environment [27]. The process
of fuzzy MARCOS is as follows [24].
Step 1: Define an initial fuzzy decision‑making matrix including a set of n criteria
(i.e., criteria) and m alternatives.
Processes 2022, 10, 2351 7 of 20

Step 2: Define an extended initial fuzzy decision‑making matrix by introducing the

e( ID ) and anti‑ideal A
fuzzy ideal A e( AI ) solutions.

e1
C e2
C · · · Cen
z }| {
e( AI ) xe  
A ai1 xeai2 · · · xeain
Ae1  xe11 xe12 · · · xe1n 
 
e  xe22 · · · xe2n 
e = A2  xe21
X  (10)
··· ··· ··· ··· ··· 
em  xem1
A xem2 · · · xemn 
e( ID ) xeid1
A xeid2 · · · xeidn

The fuzzy Ae( ID ) is an alternative with the best performance, while the fuzzy A
e( AI )
e e
is the worst alternative. Depending on the type of criteria, A( ID ) and A( AI ) are defined
by applying Equations (11) and (12):

e( ID ) = maxxeij i f j ∈ B and min xeij i f j ∈ C

A (11)
i i

e( AI ) = minxeij i f j ∈ B and max xeij i f j ∈ C

A (12)
i i

where B and C are the sets of benefit and cost criteria, respectively.
Step 3: Determine the
 normalization of the extended initial fuzzy decision‑making
e= n
matrix, which is N eij m×n , using Equations (13) and (14):
!
  xijl xijm xiju
eij =
n nijl , nijm , niju = u , xu , xu ,j ∈ B (13)
xid id id
!
  l xl xl
xid
eij =
n nijl , nijm , niju = , id
, id
,j ∈ C (14)
xiju xijm xijl

where elements xijl , xijm , xiju and xid

l , x m , x u represent the elements of matrix X.e
id id
 
Step 4: Determine the weighted fuzzy matrix V e = veij , which is calculated by
m×n
e
multiplying matrix N with the fuzzy weight coefficients of criterion w e j as follows.
   
eij ⊗ w
veij = vijl , vijm , viju = n e j = nijl × wlj , nijm × wm
j , nij × w j
u u
(15)
 
e j = wlj , wm
where w j , w u represents the elements of the fuzzy weights of the criteria.
j
Step 5: Calculate fuzzy matrix Sei using Equation (16) below.
n
Sei = ∑ veij (16)
i =1
 
where Sei = sil , sim , siu is the sum of the elements of weighted fuzzy matrix V.
e
Step 6: Calculate the utility degree of alternative K ei using Equations (17) and (18):
!
e− Se sil sim siu
K = i = , , l (17)
i
Seai suai sm
ai s ai
!
e sil sim siu
e + = Si =
K (18)
u , sm , l
i
Seid sid id sid
Processes 2022, 10, 2351 8 of 20

Step 7: Calculate fuzzy matrix T ei using Equation (19):

   
ei = eti = tl , tm , tu = K
T e− ⊕ K e+ = k − l + k + l , k − m + k + m , k − u + k + u (19)
i i i i i i i i i i i

e is determined by Equation (20):

Then, a new fuzzy number, D,
 
e = dl , dm , du = max etij
D (20)
i

Following that, it is necessary to defuzzify the number D e using the expression

l +4m+u
d f crisp = , obtaining the number d f crisp .
6  
e+ and anti‑ideal
Step 8: Determine the utility function in relation to the ideal f K i
 
e −
f Ki solutions using Equations (21) and (22):
!
  e−
K k− l
k −m k −u
e+
f K = i
= i
, i , i (21)
i d f crisp d f crisp d f crisp d f crisp
!
  e+
K k+ l
k+ m
k+ u
e− =
f K i i
= , i
, i
(22)
i d f crisp
d f crisp d f crisp d f crisp
   
e− , K
Finally, calculate the defuzzification of K e+ , f K e− , and f K e+ values using the
i i i i
same defuzzification formula.
Step 9: Determine the utility function of alternatives f (Ki ) using Equation (23):

Ki+ + Ki−
f ( Ki ) = (23)
1− f (Ki+ ) 1− f (Ki− )
1+ +
f (Ki+ ) f (Ki− )

Step 10: Rank the alternatives based on the final values of the utility degree function.
The alternative with a higher utility function value is more preferred.
A new linguistic scale for evaluating alternatives was established in addition to the
fuzzy MARCOS method, as indicated in Table 3. There are nine linguistic words specified,
each with its own triangular fuzzy number. The process of this research is presented in
Figure 1.

Table 3. Linguistic scale for evaluating potential alternatives [24].

Symbol Definition Scale of Triangular Fuzzy Number

EP Extremely poor (1,1,1)
VP Very poor (1,1,3)
P Poor (1,3,3)
MP Medium poor (3,3,5)
M Medium (3,5,5)
MG Medium good (5,5,7)
G Good (5,7,7)
VG Very good (7,7,9)
EG Extremely good (7,9,9)
x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 21

Processes 2022, 10, 2351 9 of 20

EG Extremely good (7,9,9)

Sustainable supplier evaluation in the

industry 4.0

Literature
Experts Determine criteria and alternatives
review

Determine research methods

Alternative ranking with fuzzy

Criteria weighting with OPA
MARCOS
Step 1: Creating an initial fuzzy decision-
making matrix
Step 1: Identifying and ranking the
experts based on their years of Step 2: Creating of an extended initial fuzzy
experiences or academic degree matrix (X)

Step 3: Creating a normalized fuzzy matrix

(N)

Step 4: Computation of the weighted fuzzy

matrix (V)

Step 5: Calculation of a new fuzzy matrix

Step 2: Determining
0
and ranking the (S)
0

criteria based on expert’s opinion

Step 6: Calculation of the utility degree of
alternatives (Ki)

Step 7: Calculation of fuzzy matrix (Ti)

Step 8: Determination of the utility

functions f(Ki+) and f(Ki-)

Step 3: Solving the OPA model to find Step 9: Determination of the utility function
the weight of criteria of alternative f(Ki)

Step 10: Ranking the alternatives

Main findings, conclusions

Figure 1. Flowchart of the research.

Figure 1. Flowchart of the research.

4. Results Analysis
4. Results Analysis
4.1. A Case Study in Vietnam’s Leather and Footwear Industry
4.1. A Case Study in Vietnam’s Leather
Vietnam’s leatherand
andFootwear Industryhas a high position in the world market, rank‑
footwear industry
Vietnam’s leather andinfootwear
ing third industry
the world in terms of has a highand
production position
second in the world
in terms market,
of exports [62]. In 2019,
ranking third in the world in terms of production and second in terms of exports [62].ofInthe coun‑
the leather and footwear industry exported USD 22 billion, accounting for 8.5%
try’s merchandise export turnover, creating jobs for about 1.5 million workers. Footwear
2019, the leather and footwear industry exported USD 22 billion, accounting for 8.5% of
production is one of the industries most challenged by I4.0 due to its high use of labor.
the country’s merchandise export turnover, creating jobs for about 1.5 million workers.
Footwear production is one of the industries most challenged by I4.0 due to its high use
of labor. Connected automation in the Internet of Things, cloud computing, 3D printing,
additive manufacturing technology, big data analysis, and artificial intelligence will grad-
Processes 2022, 10, 2351 10 of 20

Connected automation in the Internet of Things, cloud computing, 3D printing, additive

manufacturing technology, big data analysis, and artificial intelligence will gradually re‑
place workers in production lines in factories and throughout the footwear supply chain.
Leather and footwear businesses all realize the need to strongly innovate production tech‑
nology through the application of digitization and automation technology of Industrial
Revolution 4.0. This is the most effective solution to increase labor productivity, reduce
production costs, and avoid being left behind in the context of increasing domestic labor
costs and import prices of raw materials.
In this study, the proposed two‑stage MCDM model was validated with a case study
of company ABC located in Vietnam in choosing the best suppliers that provide leather
and footwear products. It has been decided that five leather and footwear manufacturers
in Vietnam, denoted by {SUP‑01, SUP‑02, SUP‑03, SUP‑04, SUP‑05}, are potential partners.
The profiles of three experts are shown in Table 4. Along with a search of the literature
for determinants, the most important evaluation criteria were validated through relevant
experts’ opinions from the I4.0 perspective. As a result, the selection of determinants in the
evaluation process was limited to three criteria groups and 12 criteria based on the opinions
of the decision makers and the literature review, as shown in Table 5. The hierarchical tree
of the decision‑making process is presented in Figure 2.

Table 4. Details of the three experts.

Expert Education Work Experience Skilled Field

Expert 1 Doctoral Between five to ten years Logistics and Supply Chain Management
Expert 2 Master’s Between five to ten years Logistics and Supply Chain Management
Expert 3 Bachelor’s More than ten years Procurement Planning

Table 5. Criteria explanation.

Criteria Group Criteria Explanation References

An autonomous vehicle is a vehicle that can operate and
C1. Autonomous vehicles and robots [6]
perform its tasks without human interaction.
Service level is an indicator of how well the company can meet
C2. Service level customer requirements, delivery time, service, and [6]
supply capacity.
A blockchain is a chain of many blocks that comprise data on
Logistics management transactions, timestamps, hash values of the previous block, and
C3. Blockchain [63]
nonce. A nonce is a random number for verifying the hash so
the integrity of the blockchain can be guaranteed.
C4. Real‑time manufacturing A system can process and analyze the data and related resources
[64]
analytics system of manufacturing nearly at the time the system receives them.
Smart containers are shipping containers that are equipped with
C5. Smart containerization high technology, such as IoT, sensors, GPS tracking, and [65]
solar panels.
A technique of additive manufacturing in which 3D models are
C6. 3D printing converted to physical objects by joining materials layer upon [6]
layer, as opposed to subtractive manufacturing methodologies.
Cloud computing is a service that offers the shared use of
C7. Cloud computing internet servers to store, manage, and process data, regardless of [6]
the number of users and devices.
Production and operations Machine learning (ML) refers to programming applications that
management are intended to be more precise in interpreting results and then
accumulating the input data and performing related
C8. Artificial intelligence and
assessments to foresee a yield with either current or new inputs. [66]
machine learning
Artificial intelligence (AI) refers to an electronic PC or
PC‑controlled robot that can show the ability to reason, discover
essentialness, summarize, or gain from earlier understanding.
C9. Internet of Things (IoT) The IoT is the communication of devices via the Internet. [6]
The product design is aimed at improving environment, energy
C10. Green product innovation [6]
consumption, emission, and pollution.
Environmental competency C11. Use of environmentally The use of technology is meant to reduce human impacts
[64]
friendly technology on nature.
C12. Green image Green image is the rate of green customers to total customers. [6]
 C10. Green product The product design is aimed at improving environment,
[6]
innovation energy consumption, emission, and pollution.
C11. Use of environ-
Environmental compe- The use of technology is meant to reduce human impacts
mentally friendly [64]
tency on nature.
technology
Processes 2022, 10, 2351 11 of 20
Green image is the rate of green customers to total cus-
C12. Green image [6]
tomers.

C1. Autonomous vehicles and robots

Supplier 01
C2. Service level (SUP-01)
Logistics C3. Blockchain
0
management
C4. Real-time manufacturing analytics system
Sustainable Supplier Evaluation in the

Supplier 02
C5. Smart containerization (SUP-02)
Industry 4.0

C6. 3D printing
Supplier 03
Production and C7. Cloud computing (SUP-01)
0

operations 0

management C8. Artificial intelligence and machine learning

C9. Internet of thing (IoT)

Supplier 04
(SUP-04)

C10. Green product innovation

Environmental
C11. Use of environmentally friendly technology
competency
Supplier 05
C11. Use of environmentally friendly technology (SUP-05)

Figure 2. The decision tree.

Figure 2. The decision tree.

4.2.4.2. Criteria
Criteria Weightingwith
Weighting withOPA
OPA
The OPA method is used to obtain the weights of criteria. There are three main crite-
The OPA method is used to obtain the weights of criteria. There are three main criteria,
ria, namely, logistics management (five sub-criteria), production and operations manage-
namely, logistics management (five sub‑criteria), production and operations management
ment (four sub-criteria), and environmental competency (three sub-criteria). Experts are
(four sub‑criteria), and environmental competency (three sub‑criteria). Experts are graded
graded to enhance the accuracy of judgments based on their years of experience and aca-
to enhance the accuracy
demic degrees of judgments
[7,23]. The based on
weights of criteria their
from the years of experience
OPA result are shown and academic
in Table 6, de‑
grees
and[7,23]. The weights
their impact of criteria
is visualized from3.the
in Figure FromOPAtheresult
result,are shown
in terms of in Tableimpact,
criteria 6, and their
impact
greenisimage
visualized
(C12) in Figure
is the most3.important
From thecriterion
result, in termsthe
among of group
criteria
ofimpact, green=image
criteria (𝑤
0.156),
(C12) is the most
while important
artificial criterion
intelligence andamong
machinethe group isofthe
learning criteria (wC12 = 0.156),
least important among thewhile ar‑
tificial intelligence and machine learning is the least important among the group of criteria
(wC8 = 0.033). In Figure 3, the results show that the top five impact criteria are “Green im‑
age”, “Green product innovation”, “Cloud computing”, “Service level”, and “Blockchain”;
hence, those criteria need more attention in considering sustainable supplier selection and
evaluation in the context of Industry 4.0 in Vietnam.

Table 6. The weights of criteria from the OPA result.

Criteria Group Criteria OPA Weight OPA Rank

C1. Autonomous vehicles and robots 0.082 6
C2. Service level 0.099 4
Logistics management C3. Blockchain 0.095 5
C4. Real‑time manufacturing
0.060 8
analytics system
C5. Smart containerization 0.038 11
C6. 3D printing 0.058 9
Production and C7. Cloud computing 0.112 3
operations management C8. Artificial intelligence and
0.033 12
machine learning
C9. Internet of things (IoT) 0.040 10
C10. Green product innovation 0.146 2
Environmental C11. Use of environmentally
competency 0.081 7
friendly technology
C12. Green image 0.156 1
 and opera- C7. Cloud computing 0.112 3
tions manage- C8. Artificial intelligence and machine learning 0.033 12
ment C9. Internet of things (IoT) 0.040 10
C10. Green product innovation 0.146 2
Environmen-
C11. Use of environmentally friendly technol-
Processes 2022, 10, 2351 tal compe- 0.081 7 12 of 20
ogy
tency
C12. Green image 0.156 1

Figure 3. The impact weights of criteria from the OPA result.

Figure 3. The impact weights of criteria from the OPA result.

4.3. 4.3. Alternative Ranking with Fuzzy MARCOS

Alternative Ranking with Fuzzy MARCOS
The proposed two-stage MCDM model (OPA and fuzzy MARCOS) was tested with
The proposed two‑stage MCDM model (OPA and fuzzy MARCOS) was tested with a
a case study of a garment company in choosing the best suppliers that provide leather and
casefootwear
study ofproducts.
a garment company
It has in choosing
been decided that fivethe best and
leather suppliers that
footwear provide leather
manufacturers in and
footwear products. It has been decided that five leather and footwear manufacturers
Vietnam, denoted by {SUP-01, SUP-02, SUP-03, SUP-04, SUP-05}, are potential suppliers. in
Vietnam, denoted by {SUP‑01, SUP‑02, SUP‑03, SUP‑04, SUP‑05}, are
Based on the fuzzy MARCOS process, the fuzzy ideal 𝐴(𝐼𝐷) and anti-ideal 𝐴(𝐴𝐼) solu-potential suppliers.
Based onaccording
tions the fuzzyto MARCOS process,
each criterion 𝐴(𝐼𝐷) ideal
the fuzzy
are defined. Ae( ID ) value
is the highest and anti‑ideal Ae( AI ) solu‑
of each criterion,
while the lowest value is 𝐴 (𝐴𝐼) . Following ethat, the linguistic matrix of experts’
tions according to each criterion are defined. A( ID ) is the highest value of each criterion,
while the lowest value is A e( AI ). Following that, the linguistic matrix of experts’ judg‑
ments and the integrated matrix for the fuzzy MARCOS method are calculated, as can be
seen in Table 7. Table 8 shows the utility degree and fuzzy matrix of T ei . Finally, the final
utility function of suppliers is calculated. Using these values, the final ranking of suppli‑
ers is determined. The utility function and final ranking of the suppliers are presented in
Table 9. The results show that the top three suppliers are {SUP‑03, SUP‑01, SUP‑04}, rank‑
ing in the first, second, and third positions with utility function scores of 0.7210, 0.5706,
and 0.4442, respectively. Figure 4 displays the final supplier ranking from the OPA–fuzzy
MARCOS model.

Table 7. The integrated matrix for fuzzy MARCOS.

Supplier C1 C2 C3 C4
l m u l m l m u l m u u
SUP‑01 9.5647 11.9698 14.5606 4.2172 5.0000 9.0246 3.5569 4.2172 5.5934 7.0000 7.6117 9.0000
SUP‑02 7.2112 10.6999 11.9698 6.0822 7.2112 10.6999 3.0000 5.0000 5.0000 4.7177 5.2776 6.8041
SUP‑03 13.3905 17.2164 18.7208 11.9698 15.8329 17.2164 6.2573 8.2768 8.2768 7.0000 8.2768 9.0000
SUP‑04 5.0000 9.0246 10.0957 6.0822 7.2112 10.6999 2.4662 4.2172 4.7177 5.0000 6.2573 7.0000
SUP‑05 4.2172 7.2112 9.0246 6.0822 8.5499 10.6999 2.0801 2.9240 4.2172 4.2172 5.5934 6.2573
Supplier C5 C6 C7 C8
SUP‑01 5.5934 7.0000 7.6117 5.0000 5.5934 7.0000 5.0000 7.0000 7.0000 5.0000 7.0000 7.0000
SUP‑02 5.0000 7.0000 7.0000 4.2172 5.0000 6.2573 3.5569 4.7177 5.5934 4.2172 5.5934 6.2573
SUP‑03 7.0000 8.2768 9.0000 6.2573 7.6117 8.2768 7.0000 7.6117 9.0000 3.5569 5.0000 5.5934
SUP‑04 5.5934 6.2573 7.6117 3.5569 4.2172 5.5934 4.7177 6.2573 6.8041 3.0000 5.0000 5.0000
SUP‑05 4.2172 6.2573 6.2573 3.5569 4.2172 5.5934 4.7177 6.2573 6.8041 3.5569 4.7177 5.5934
Supplier C9 C10 C11 C12
SUP‑01 6.2573 7.0000 8.2768 1.4422 2.0801 3.5569 5.0000 5.0000 7.0000 3.5569 4.2172 5.5934
SUP‑02 5.0000 5.5934 7.0000 2.0801 2.4662 4.2172 3.5569 5.0000 5.5934 2.0801 2.4662 4.2172
SUP‑03 3.9791 4.7177 6.0822 1.4422 2.0801 2.4662 2.4662 3.5569 4.7177 2.0801 3.5569 4.2172
SUP‑04 3.5569 4.7177 5.5934 2.0801 3.0000 4.2172 2.4662 3.5569 4.7177 2.0801 3.5569 4.2172
SUP‑05 3.5569 4.2172 5.5934 2.0801 3.0000 4.2172 2.4662 4.2172 4.7177 3.0000 3.5569 5.0000
 Processes 2022, 10, 2351 13 of 20

ei .
Table 8. Utility degree and fuzzy matrix of T

ei − +
ei
Suppliers Fuzzy S ei
Fuzzy K ei
Fuzzy K Fuzzy T
l m u l m u l m u l m u
e( AI )
A 0.5742 0.5742 0.5742
SUP‑01 0.6335 0.7709 1.0053 1.1033 1.3425 1.7507 0.6335 0.7709 1.0053 1.7369 2.1134 2.7559
SUP‑02 0.5274 0.6762 0.9028 0.9184 1.1776 1.5722 0.5274 0.6762 0.9028 1.4458 1.8538 2.4750
SUP‑03 0.6743 0.8877 1.0068 1.1743 1.5460 1.7533 0.6743 0.8877 1.0068 1.8485 2.4338 2.7601
SUP‑04 0.4960 0.7123 0.8794 0.8637 1.2405 1.5315 0.4960 0.7123 0.8794 1.3597 1.9528 2.4108
SUP‑05 0.5100 0.6963 0.8864 0.8882 1.2127 1.5437 0.5100 0.6963 0.8864 1.3982 1.9090 2.4300
e( ID )
A 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 d f crisp =2.3906

Table 9. Utility functions and final ranking of suppliers.

−
Ki− f(Ki− )
+
Suppliers ei )
Fuzzy f(K ei )
Fuzzy f(K K+i f(K+i ) f(Ki ) Rank
l m u l m u
SUP‑01 0.2650 0.3225 0.4205 0.4615 0.5616 0.7323 1.3707 0.7871 0.3292 0.5734 0.5706 2
SUP‑02 0.2206 0.2828 0.3776 0.3842 0.4926 0.6577 1.2002 0.6891 0.2883 0.5020 0.4235 5
, x FOR PEER REVIEW
SUP‑03 0.2821 0.3713 0.4211 0.4912 0.6467 0.7334 1.5186 0.8720 0.3648 0.6352 14 of
0.7210 21 1
SUP‑04 0.2075 0.2980 0.3678 0.3613 0.5189 0.6406 1.2262 0.7041 0.2945 0.5129 0.4442 3
SUP‑05 0.2133 0.2913 0.3708 0.3715 0.5073 0.6457 1.2138 0.6969 0.2915 0.5077 0.4343 4

Figure 4. The final supplier ranking.

Figure 4. The final supplier ranking.

5. Results Validation
5. Results Validation
5.1. Sensitivity Analysis of Criteria Weights
5.1. Sensitivity Analysis of Criteria Weights
In MCDM, sensitivity analysis can successfully aid in making sound judgments [67–69]. In
In MCDM, sensitivity
this work, weanalysis
appliedcan successfully
a sensitivity aidofin
analysis allmaking
criteria tosound
explorejudgments
the influence[67–
of criteria
69]. In this work, we applied a sensitivity analysis of all criteria to explore the influence of SUP‑
on the decision‑making result for the suppliers, namely, {SUP‑01, SUP‑02, SUP‑03,
04, SUP‑05}, which
criteria on the decision-making can for
result prove
thethe practicality
suppliers, and robustness
namely, {SUP-01, of the proposed
SUP-02, OPA–fuzzy
SUP-03,
MARCOS model.
SUP-04, SUP-05}, which can prove the practicality and robustness of the proposed OPA–
To that end, the elimination of criteria one by one and their influence on the final
fuzzy MARCOS model.supplier rating was carried out [70]. As a result, the sensitivity analysis of criteria weight
To that end,included
the elimination of criteria
12 scenarios. Table 10oneshowsby the
oneweights
and their influence
of criteria in all on the final
scenarios. Table 11
supplier rating was carried
displays the out [70]. values
potential As a result,
of optionstheinsensitivity analysis
all scenarios, of criteria
and Figure 5 depictsweight
their ranking.
included 12 scenarios. Table 10 shows the weights of criteria in all scenarios. Table 11
displays the potential values of options in all scenarios, and Figure 5 depicts their ranking.
While the prospect values of the alternatives fluctuate, the final supplier’s rating remains
steady, with {SUP-03} being the ideal supplier across all scenarios. The sensitivity phase
 Processes 2022, 10, 2351 14 of 20

While the prospect values of the alternatives fluctuate, the final supplier’s rating remains
steady, with {SUP‑03} being the ideal supplier across all scenarios. The sensitivity phase
findings indicate that, in this case study, the supplier’s ranking is consistent regardless of
the criteria weight change. As a result, the suggested OPA–fuzzy MARCOS model has a
high level of reliability and applicability.

Table 10. The weights of criteria for all scenarios.

Scenario 10

Scenario 11

Scenario 12
Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

Scenario 4

Scenario 5

Scenario 6

Scenario 7

Scenario 8

Scenario 9
Base case
Criteria

2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 21

C1 0.0818 0 0.0908 0.0904
0.0922 0.0871 0.0850 0.0869 0.0846 0.0852 0.0958 0.0891 0.0969
C2 0.0990 0.1078 0 0.1093
0.1115 0.1053 0.1029 0.1051 0.1024 0.1031 0.1159 0.1078 0.1173
C3 0.0946 0.1030 0.1049 0
0.1065 0.1006 0.0983 0.1004 0.0978 0.0985 0.1107 0.1029 0.1120
0.0398 0.0433
C4 0.0442
0.0602 0.0440
0.0656 0.0423
0.0668 0.0414
0.06650
0.0678 0.0423
0 0.0448
0.0626 0.0412
0.0640 0.0466
0.0623 0.0433 0.0705
0.0627 0.04710.0656 0.0713
0.1460 C5
0.1591 0.0379
0.1621 0.0412
0.1613 0.0420
0.1554 0.0418
0.0427
0.1518
0.1521 0.0403
0.1551 0
0.1645 0.0402
0.1510 0.0392
0 0.0394
0.1590 0.0444
0.17300.0412 0.0449
C6 0.0584 0.0636 0.0648 0.0645
0.0658 0.0622 0.0607 0 0.0604 0.0608 0.0684 0.0636 0.0692
0.0814 0.0887
C7 0.0904
0.1123 0.0899
0.1223 0.0867
0.1247 0.0846
0.0848
0.1241
0 0.0865
0.1195 0.0917
0.1168 0.0842
0.1193 0.0954
0.1161 0.11700 0.1315 0.09640.1223 0.1330
0.1557 C8
0.1695 0.0328
0.1728 0.0358
0.1719 0.0365
0.1656 0.0363
0.1618 0.0350
0.1653 0.0341
0.1753 0.0349
0.1609 0.0370
0.1621 0
0.1823 0.0342
0.1695 0.0385 0 0.0358 0.0389
C9 0.0398 0.0433 0.0442 0.0440 0.0423 0.0414 0.0423 0.0448 0.0412 0 0.0466 0.0433 0.0471
C10 0.1460 0.1591 0.1621 0.1613 0.1554 0.1518 0.1551 0.1645 0.1510 0.1521 0 0.1590 0.1730
Table 11. The prospect values of suppliers for all scenarios.
C11 0.0814 0.0887 0.0904 0.0899 0.0867 0.0846 0.0865 0.0917 0.0842 0.0848 0.0954 0 0.0964
C12 0.1557 0.1695 0.1728 0.1719 0.1656 0.1618 0.1653 0.1753 0.1609 0.1621 0.1823 0.1695 0

Scenario 10

Scenario 11

Scenario 12
Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

Scenario 4

Scenario 5

Scenario 6

Scenario 7

Scenario 8

Scenario 9
Base case

Table 11. The prospect values of suppliers for all scenarios.

Scenario 10

Scenario 11

Scenario 12
Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

Scenario 4

Scenario 5

Scenario 6

Scenario 7

Scenario 8

Scenario 9
Base case
Supplier

0.5706 0.5863 0.6597 0.6194 0.5618 0.5725 0.5797 0.5703 0.5541 0.5510 0.5642 0.5334 0.5061
0.4235 0.4360 0.4582 0.4415 0.4317 0.4206 0.4294 0.4496 0.4142 0.4130 0.3665 0.3928 0.4369
SUP‑01 0.5706 0.5863 0.6597 0.6194 0.5618 0.5725 0.5797 0.5703 0.5541 0.5510 0.5642 0.5334 0.5061
0.7210 0.7049
SUP‑02 0.7004
0.4235 0.6999
0.4360 0.7156
0.4582 0.7181
0.4415 0.7143
0.4317 0.7099
0.4206 0.7253
0.4294 0.7285
0.4496 0.7557
0.4142 0.7406
0.4130 0.74230.3928
0.3665 0.4369
SUP‑03 0.7210 0.7049 0.7004 0.6999 0.7156 0.7181 0.7143 0.7099 0.7253 0.7285 0.7557 0.7406 0.7423
0.4442 0.4734
SUP‑04 0.4825
0.4442 0.4786
0.4734 0.4459
0.4825 0.4441
0.4786 0.4607
0.4459 0.4410
0.4441 0.4413
0.4607 0.4426
0.4410 0.3639
0.4413 0.4414
0.4426 0.42000.4414
0.3639 0.4200
SUP‑05 0.4343 0.4741 0.4612 0.4876 0.4430 0.4368 0.4498 0.4298 0.4311 0.4350 0.3538 0.4214 0.3934
0.4343 0.4741 0.4612 0.4876 0.4430 0.4368 0.4498 0.4298 0.4311 0.4350 0.3538 0.4214 0.3934

Figure 5. The ranking

Figureof5.suppliers for all
The ranking scenarios.for all scenarios.
of suppliers

5.2. Comparative Analysis of MCDM Methods

In addition to the sensitivity analysis of criteria, the applicability and reasonableness
of the employed MCDM method must be validated by comparing it with certain mature
 Processes 2022, 10, 2351 15 of 20

5.2. Comparative Analysis of MCDM Methods

In addition to the sensitivity analysis of criteria, the applicability and reasonableness
of the employed MCDM method must be validated by comparing it with certain mature
and stable commonly used MCDM methods in relevant research. In this step, six different
combined fuzzy MCDM methods were considered to validate the results obtained by the
proposed OPA–fuzzy MARCOS model; these are the fuzzy multi‑attributive border ap‑
10, x FOR PEER REVIEW proximation area comparison (fuzzy MABAC) [71], the fuzzy weighted16 aggregated
of 21 sum
product assessment (fuzzy WASPAS) [72], the fuzzy complex proportional assessment of
alternatives (fuzzy COPRAS) [73], the fuzzy combined compromise solution (fuzzy Co‑
CoSo) [74], the fuzzy technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (fuzzy
TOPSIS)
the ideal provider. [75], and
{SUP-03} wasfuzzy simple additive
consistently regardedweighting
as the(fuzzy SAW) [76].All of the
best supplier.
During the comparative analysis of MCDM
MCDM approaches used had similar findings, confirming the suggested approaches, the same weights of criteria
OPA–fuzzy
were
MARCOS model’s findings. employed, and the results are provided in Table 12. Figure 6 depicts a comparison
of OPA–fuzzy MARCOS with different MCDM approaches. The findings of the various
MCDM
Table 12. Results of approachesanalysis
the comparative demonstrate
of MCDMthat there is no significant difference in the ranking of the
methods.
ideal provider. {SUP‑03} was consistently regarded as the best supplier. All of the MCDM
approaches used had similar findings, confirming the suggested OPA–fuzzy MARCOS
OPA and Fuzzy

OPA and Fuzzy

and Fuzzy

and Fuzzy

OPA and Fuzzy

OPA and Fuzzy

OPA and Fuzzy

model’s findings.
MARCOS

WASPAS

COPRAS
MARCOS MABAC

TOPSIS
CoCoSo

SAW
Table 12. Results of the comparative analysis of MCDM methods.
OPA

OPA
OPA and Fuzzy

OPA and Fuzzy

OPA and Fuzzy

OPA and Fuzzy

OPA and Fuzzy

OPA and Fuzzy

OPA and Fuzzy

COPRAS
WASPAS

CoCoSo

TOPSIS
MABAC
Supplier

SAW
Value Rank Value Rank Value Rank Value Rank Value Rank Value Rank Value Rank
.5706 2 0.0944 2 0.6636 2 0.9090 2 4.0530 2 0.0575 2 0.6758 2
Value Rank Value Rank Value Rank Value Rank Value Rank Value Rank Value Rank
.4235 5 −0.0550 3 0.5833 3 0.7956 3 3.4168 3 0.0503 3 0.5879 3
SUP‑01 0.5706 2 0.0944 2 0.6636 2 0.9090 2 4.0530 2 0.0575 2 0.6758 2
.7210 1
SUP‑02 0.1585
0.4235 51 −0.7189
0.0550 3 1 1.0000
0.5833 3 1 4.2710
0.7956 3 1 3.41680.06183 10.0503 0.7316
3 1
0.5879 3
SUP‑03 0.7210 1 0.1585 1 0.7189 1 1.0000 1 4.2710 1 0.0618 1 0.7316 1
.4442 3
SUP‑04 −0.0622
0.4442 34 −0.5754
0.0622 4 4 0.7827
0.5754 4 4 3.2127
0.7827 4 4 3.21270.04974 40.0497 0.5809
4 4
0.5809 4
SUP‑05 0.4343 4 −0.0632 5 0.5719 5 0.7816 5 3.1009 5 0.0495 5 0.5800 5
.4343 4 −0.0632 5 0.5719 5 0.7816 5 3.1009 5 0.0495 5 0.5800 5

Figure 6. Comparison of 6.
Figure OPA–fuzzy MARCOS
Comparison withMARCOS
of OPA–fuzzy other MCDM methods.
with other MCDM methods.

6. Discussions
This study presents a two-stage MCDM model to choose the best provider of leather
and footwear products in Vietnam in terms of sustainable performance. With a focus on
I4.0 factors, three main criteria, namely, logistics management (five sub-criteria), produc-
Processes 2022, 10, 2351 16 of 20

6. Discussions
This study presents a two‑stage MCDM model to choose the best provider of leather
and footwear products in Vietnam in terms of sustainable performance. With a focus on
I4.0 factors, three main criteria, namely, logistics management (five sub‑criteria), produc‑
tion and operations management (four sub‑criteria), and environmental competency (three
sub‑criteria), were introduced to OPA to find the weights of criteria. Then, the ranking of
five candidates in the Vietnamese textile industry was obtained by MARCOS. The results
of OPA revealed that the top five crucial criteria are “Green product innovation”, “Cloud
computing”, “Service level”, “Blockchain”, and particularly “Green image”, the most sig‑
nificant criteria (wC12 = 0.156). Based on the acquired criteria, the top three suppliers,
denoted as {SUP‑03, SUP‑01, SUP‑04}, were found with utility function scores of 0.7210,
0.5706, and 0.4442. The results of the sensitivity analysis of criteria and comparative anal‑
ysis of methods show that the priorities of the experts are reliable and practical.
This paper’s findings confirm the results of Çalık et al. [6] that “Service level” is one of
the most important factors in selecting sustainable suppliers in I4.0. Nevertheless, “Cloud
computing” and “Green image” were not more significant than “IoT” in the study by Çalık
et al. [6], which is in contrast to our outcomes. To achieve global net zero by mid‑century,
as defined in COP26 in Glasgow [77], the green concept is in demand for supplier per‑
formance, and thus, “Green image” and “Green product innovation” have become great
concerns in sustainable supplier selection. The growth of the global trade network and the
impact of COVID‑19 have driven the increased requirement for “Cloud Computing” to
maintain supply chain information collaboration despite the distance of stakeholders [78].
Though sharing information is the core of supply chain information collaboration, the au‑
thenticity of products can be exposed to information leakage. Hence, “Block Chain” has
emerged as a technological breakthrough to secure the competitiveness and cybersecu‑
rity of enterprises [79]. Regarding the Vietnamese industry, technology has been defined
as one of the key drivers of the national strategy for sustainable development until 2030;
thus, around 1.2–1.5% of GDP is promised to be invested by 2025 [80]. “Cloud Comput‑
ing” and “Block Chain” are the focus of information technology applications in Vietnam, as
claimed in [81]. The textile industry, therefore, has adopted key technologies in I4.0, such
as “Cloud Computing” and “Block Chain”, to promote innovation and environmentally
friendly strategies, such as “Green image” and “Green product innovation”, to achieve
sustainability [82,83].
This paper demonstrates the key criteria to evaluate supplier performance in the con‑
text of both sustainability and I4.0. As a result, this set of criteria can guide suppliers and
partners to focus on what value they should obtain to meet customer demands and gain
competence. In addition to the contribution of this research, by combining OPA and fuzzy
MARCOS, a new approach to assessing sustainable suppliers for adapting to I4.0 was developed.

7. Conclusions
This paper presents a new model of decision making to support decision makers in
the selection of sustainable suppliers by applying a hybrid method of OPA and fuzzy MAR‑
COS, two variants of MCDM. The weights of criteria were calculated by OPA before rank‑
ing the suppliers by fuzzy MARCOS. Technological factors regarding sustainable perfor‑
mance were taken into account to build the criteria. A case study of five suppliers in Viet‑
nam’s leather and footwear industry was illustrated to prove the feasibility of the model.
The results show that “green image”, “green product innovation”, “cloud computing”,
“service level”, and “blockchain” are the topmost significant criteria in evaluating sustain‑
able practices in the supply chain from the I4.0 perspective. This work introduces not only
a new tool for decision making but also the discovery of a combination of OPA and fuzzy
MARCOS. In addition to its contribution, this study can be a reference for research on sus‑
tainable supplier selection with attention to I4.0 elements. The scope of research, on the
other hand, was the limitation of this study in terms of alternatives, number of factors, and
geography. For research in the future, it is suggested that the area of investigation be ex‑
Processes 2022, 10, 2351 17 of 20

panded to the global scale. In addition, more technological concepts should be included
to obtain a wider range of criteria.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, T.‑T.D.; data curation, N.‑A.‑T.N.; formal analysis, T.T.T.N.;
funding acquisition, C.‑N.W.; investigation, N.‑A.‑T.N.; methodology, T.‑T.D.; project administra‑
tion, C.‑N.W.; software, T.‑T.D.; validation, T.T.T.N.; writing—original draft, T.T.T.N.; writing—
review and editing, T.‑T.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors appreciate the support from the National Kaohsiung University of
Science and Technology, Taiwan; and Hong Bang International University, Vietnam.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Joshi, S. A Review on Sustainable Supply Chain Network Design: Dimensions, Paradigms, Concepts, Framework and Future
Directions. Sustain. Oper. Comput. 2022, 3, 136–148. [CrossRef]
2. Pigosso, D.C.A.; De, M.; Pieroni, P.; Kravchenko, M.; Awan, U.; Sroufe, R.; Bozan, K. Designing Value Chains for Industry 4.0
and a Circular Economy: A Review of the Literature. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7084. [CrossRef]
3. Simonetto, M.; Sgarbossa, F.; Battini, D.; Govindan, K. Closed Loop Supply Chains 4.0: From Risks to Benefits through Advanced
Technologies. A Literature Review and Research Agenda. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2022, 253, 108582. [CrossRef]
4. Khatri, J.; Srivastava, M. Technology Selection for Sustainable Supply Chains. Int. J. Technol. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2016, 15,
275–289. [CrossRef]
5. Rinaldi, M.; Caterino, M.; Fera, M.; Manco, P.; Macchiaroli, R. Technology Selection in Green Supply Chains–The Effects of
Additive and Traditional Manufacturing. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 282, 124554. [CrossRef]
6. Çalık, A. A Novel Pythagorean Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS Methodology for Green Supplier Selection in the Industry 4.0
Era. Soft Comput. 2021, 25, 2253–2265. [CrossRef]
7. Mahmoudi, A.; Deng, X.; Javed, S.A.; Zhang, N. Sustainable Supplier Selection in Megaprojects: Grey Ordinal Priority Approach.
Bus. Strategy Environ. 2021, 30, 318–339. [CrossRef]
8. Jauhar, S.K.; Pant, M. Integrating DEA with DE and MODE for Sustainable Supplier Selection. J. Comput. Sci. 2017, 21, 299–306.
[CrossRef]
9. Song, W.; Xu, Z.; Liu, H.C. Developing Sustainable Supplier Selection Criteria for Solar Air‑Conditioner Manufacturer: An
Integrated Approach. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 79, 1461–1471. [CrossRef]
10. Gören, H.G. A Decision Framework for Sustainable Supplier Selection and Order Allocation with Lost Sales. J. Clean. Prod. 2018,
183, 1156–1169. [CrossRef]
11. Ghadimi, P.; Toosi, F.G.; Heavey, C. A Multi‑Agent Systems Approach for Sustainable Supplier Selection and Order Allocation
in a Partnership Supply Chain. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2018, 269, 286–301. [CrossRef]
12. Amindoust, A. A Resilient‑Sustainable Based Supplier Selection Model Using a Hybrid Intelligent Method. Comput. Ind. Eng.
2018, 126, 122–135. [CrossRef]
13. Khan, S.A.; Kusi‑Sarpong, S.; Arhin, F.K.; Kusi‑Sarpong, H. Supplier Sustainability Performance Evaluation and Selection: A
Framework and Methodology. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 205, 964–979. [CrossRef]
14. Jain, N.; Singh, A.R. Sustainable Supplier Selection under Must‑Be Criteria through Fuzzy Inference System. J. Clean. Prod. 2020,
248, 119275. [CrossRef]
15. Kannan, D. Role of Multiple Stakeholders and the Critical Success Factor Theory for the Sustainable Supplier Selection Process.
Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2018, 195, 391–418. [CrossRef]
16. Nascimento, D.L.M.; Alencastro, V.; Quelhas, O.L.G.; Caiado, R.G.G.; Garza‑Reyes, J.A.; Rocha‑Lona, L.; Tortorella, G. Exploring
Industry 4.0 Technologies to Enable Circular Economy Practices in a Manufacturing Context: A Business Model Proposal. J.
Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2018, 30, 607–627. [CrossRef]
17. Liu, B.; De Giovanni, P. Green Process Innovation through Industry 4.0 Technologies and Supply Chain Coordination. Ann.
Oper. Res. 2019, 1–36. [CrossRef]
18. Diba, S.; Xie, N. Sustainable Supplier Selection for Satrec Vitalait Milk Company in Senegal Using the Novel Grey Relational Anal‑
ysis Method. In Grey Systems: Theory and Application; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019.
19. Jia, R.; Liu, Y.; Bai, X. Sustainable Supplier Selection and Order Allocation: Distributionally Robust Goal Programming Model
and Tractable Approximation. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2020, 140, 106267. [CrossRef]
Processes 2022, 10, 2351 18 of 20

20. Hoseini, S.A.; Fallahpour, A.; Wong, K.Y.; Mahdiyar, A.; Saberi, M.; Durdyev, S. Sustainable Supplier Selection in Construction
Industry through Hybrid Fuzzy‑Based Approaches. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1413. [CrossRef]
21. Kuo, T.‑C.; Muniroh, M.; Fau, K.H. An Integrated Kano Model, Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process, and Decision Matrix for
Sustainable Supplier Selection in Palm Oil Industries Indonesia, a Case Study. Processes 2021, 9, 1078. [CrossRef]
22. Ecer, F.; Torkayesh, A.E. A Stratified Fuzzy Decision‑Making Approach for Sustainable Circular Supplier Selection; A Stratified
Fuzzy Decision‑Making Approach for Sustainable Circular Supplier Selection. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2022, 1–15. [CrossRef]
23. Ataei, Y.; Mahmoudi, A.; Feylizadeh, M.R.; Li, D.F. Ordinal Priority Approach (OPA) in Multiple Attribute Decision‑Making.
Appl. Soft Comput. J. 2020, 86, 105893. [CrossRef]
24. Stankovi’c, M.S.; Stevi’cstevi’c, Ž.; Das, D.K.; Suboti’c, M.S.; Pamučar, D. A New Fuzzy MARCOS Method for Road Traffic Risk
Analysis. Mathematics 2020, 8, 457. [CrossRef]
25. Ecer, F.; Böyükaslan, A.; Zolfani, S.H. Article Evaluation of Cryptocurrencies for Investment Decisions in the Era of Industry 4.0:
A Borda Count‑Based Intuitionistic Fuzzy Set Extensions EDAS‑MAIRCA‑MARCOS Multi‑Criteria Methodology. Axioms 2022,
11, 404. [CrossRef]
26. Campilho, D.S.G.; Shanmugasundar, G.; Fegade, V.; Mahdal, M.; Kalita, K. Optimization of Variable Stiffness Joint in Robot
Manipulator Using a Novel NSWOA‑MARCOS Approach. Processes 2022, 10, 1074. [CrossRef]
27. Stević, Ž.; Pamučar, D.; Puška, A.; Chatterjee, P. Sustainable Supplier Selection in Healthcare Industries Using a New MCDM
Method: Measurement of Alternatives and Ranking According to COmpromise Solution (MARCOS). Comput. Ind. Eng. 2020,
140, 106231. [CrossRef]
28. Govindan, K.; Kadziński, M.; Sivakumar, R. Application of a Novel PROMETHEE‑Based Method for Construction of a Group
Compromise Ranking to Prioritization of Green Suppliers in Food Supply Chain. Omega 2017, 71, 129–145. [CrossRef]
29. Qin, J.; Liu, X.; Pedrycz, W. An Extended TODIM Multi‑Criteria Group Decision Making Method for Green Supplier Selection
in Interval Type‑2 Fuzzy Environment. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2017, 258, 626–638. [CrossRef]
30. Mousakhani, S.; Nazari‑Shirkouhi, S.; Bozorgi‑Amiri, A. A Novel Interval Type‑2 Fuzzy Evaluation Model Based Group Decision
Analysis for Green Supplier Selection Problems: A Case Study of Battery Industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 168, 205–218. [CrossRef]
31. Yazdani, M.; Chatterjee, P.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Hashemkhani Zolfani, S. Integrated QFD‑MCDM Framework for Green Supplier
Selection. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 3728–3740. [CrossRef]
32. Luthra, S.; Govindan, K.; Kannan, D.; Mangla, S.K.; Garg, C.P. An Integrated Framework for Sustainable Supplier Selection and
Evaluation in Supply Chains. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 1686–1698. [CrossRef]
33. Banaeian, N.; Mobli, H.; Fahimnia, B.; Nielsen, I.E.; Omid, M. Green Supplier Selection Using Fuzzy Group Decision Making
Methods: A Case Study from the Agri‑Food Industry. Comput. Oper. Res. 2018, 89, 337–347. [CrossRef]
34. Erdogan, M.; Ozkan, B.; Karasan, A.; Kaya, I. Selecting the Best Strategy for Industry 4.0 Applications with a Case Study. In
Industrial Engineering in the Industry 4.0 Era; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 109–119.
35. Cheraghalipour, A.; Farsad, S. A Bi‑Objective Sustainable Supplier Selection and Order Allocation Considering Quantity Dis‑
counts under Disruption Risks: A Case Study in Plastic Industry. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2018, 118, 237–250. [CrossRef]
36. Awasthi, A.; Govindan, K.; Gold, S. Multi‑Tier Sustainable Global Supplier Selection Using a Fuzzy AHP‑VIKOR Based Ap‑
proach. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2018, 195, 106–117. [CrossRef]
37. Mondragon, A.E.C.; Mastrocinque, E.; Tsai, J.‑F.; Hogg, P.J. An AHP and Fuzzy AHP Multifactor Decision Making Approach
for Technology and Supplier Selection in the High‑Functionality Textile Industry. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2019, 68, 1112–1125.
[CrossRef]
38. Wu, Q.; Zhou, L.; Chen, Y.; Chen, H. An Integrated Approach to Green Supplier Selection Based on the Interval Type‑2 Fuzzy
Best‑Worst and Extended VIKOR Methods. Inf. Sci. 2019, 502, 394–417. [CrossRef]
39. Gupta, S.; Soni, U.; Kumar, G. Green Supplier Selection Using Multi‑Criterion Decision Making under Fuzzy Environment: A
Case Study in Automotive Industry. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2019, 136, 663–680. [CrossRef]
40. Liang, R.; Chong, H.‑Y. A Hybrid Group Decision Model for Green Supplier Selection: A Case Study of Megaprojects. Eng.
Constr. Archit. Manag. 2019, 26, 1712–1734. [CrossRef]
41. Mishra, A.R.; Rani, P.; Pardasani, K.R.; Mardani, A. A Novel Hesitant Fuzzy WASPAS Method for Assessment of Green Supplier
Problem Based on Exponential Information Measures. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 238, 117901. [CrossRef]
42. Ulutag, A.; Topal, A.; Bakhat, R. An Application of Fuzzy Integrated Model in Green Supplier Selection. Math. Probl. Eng. 2019,
2019, 4256359. [CrossRef]
43. Yucesan, M.; Mete, S.; Serin, F.; Celik, E.; Gul, M. Mathematics An Integrated Best‑Worst and Interval Type‑2 Fuzzy TOPSIS
Methodology for Green Supplier Selection. Mathematics 2019, 7, 182. [CrossRef]
44. Liou, J.J.H.; Chuang, Y.C.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Tzeng, G.H. Data‑Driven Hybrid Multiple Attribute Decision‑Making Model for
Green Supplier Evaluation and Performance Improvement. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 241, 118321. [CrossRef]
45. Demircan Keskin, F.; Kabasakal, İ.; Kaymaz, Y.; Soyuer, H. An Assessment Model for Organizational Adoption of Industry
4.0 Based on Multi‑Criteria Decision Techniques. In Proceedings of the The International Symposium for Production Research,
Vienna, Austria, 28–31 August 2018; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 85–100.
46. Sachdeva, N.; Shrivastava, A.K.; Chauhan, A. Modeling Supplier Selection in the Era of Industry 4.0. Benchmarking Int. J. 2021,
28, 1809–1836. [CrossRef]
Processes 2022, 10, 2351 19 of 20

47. Rashidi, K.; Cullinane, K. A Comparison of Fuzzy DEA and Fuzzy TOPSIS in Sustainable Supplier Selection: Implications for
Sourcing Strategy. Expert Syst. Appl. 2019, 121, 266–281. [CrossRef]
48. Liu, H.C.; Quan, M.Y.; Li, Z.W.; Wang, Z.L. A New Integrated MCDM Model for Sustainable Supplier Selection under Interval‑
Valued Intuitionistic Uncertain Linguistic Environment. Inf. Sci. 2019, 486, 254–270. [CrossRef]
49. Yadavalli, V.S.S.; Darbari, J.D.; Bhayana, N.; Jha, P.C.; Agarwal, V. An Integrated Optimization Model for Selection of Sustainable
Suppliers Based on Customers’ Expectations. Oper. Res. Perspect. 2019, 6, 100113. [CrossRef]
50. Yu, C.; Shao, Y.; Wang, K.; Zhang, L. A Group Decision Making Sustainable Supplier Selection Approach Using Extended TOPSIS
under Interval‑Valued Pythagorean Fuzzy Environment. Expert Syst. Appl. 2019, 121, 1–17. [CrossRef]
51. Xu, Z.; Qin, J.; Liu, J.; Martínez, L. Sustainable Supplier Selection Based on AHPSort II in Interval Type‑2 Fuzzy Environment.
Inf. Sci. 2019, 483, 273–293. [CrossRef]
52. Abdel‑Baset, M.; Chang, V.; Gamal, A.; Smarandache, F. An Integrated Neutrosophic ANP and VIKOR Method for Achieving
Sustainable Supplier Selection: A Case Study in Importing Field. Comput. Ind. 2019, 106, 94–110. [CrossRef]
53. Memari, A.; Dargi, A.; Jokar, M.R.A.; Ahmad, R.; Rahim, A.R.A. Sustainable Supplier Selection: A Multi‑Criteria Intuitionistic
Fuzzy TOPSIS Method. J. Manuf. Syst. 2019, 50, 9–24. [CrossRef]
54. Li, J.; Fang, H.; Song, W. Sustainable Supplier Selection Based on SSCM Practices: A Rough Cloud TOPSIS Approach. J. Clean.
Prod. 2019, 222, 606–621. [CrossRef]
55. Rouyendegh, B.D.; Yildizbasi, A.; Üstünyer, P. Intuitionistic Fuzzy TOPSIS Method for Green Supplier Selection Problem. Soft
Comput. 2020, 24, 2215–2228. [CrossRef]
56. Hasan, M.M.; Jiang, D.; Ullah, A.M.M.S.; Noor‑E‑Alam, M. Resilient Supplier Selection in Logistics 4.0 with Heterogeneous
Information. Expert. Syst. Appl. 2020, 139, 112799. [CrossRef]
57. Chen, Z.; Ming, X.; Zhou, T.; Chang, Y. Sustainable Supplier Selection for Smart Supply Chain Considering Internal and External
Uncertainty: An Integrated Rough‑Fuzzy Approach. Appl. Soft Comput. 2020, 87, 106004. [CrossRef]
58. Tirkolaee, E.B.; Mardani, A.; Dashtian, Z.; Soltani, M.; Weber, G.‑W. A Novel Hybrid Method Using Fuzzy Decision Making and
Multi‑Objective Programming for Sustainable‑Reliable Supplier Selection in Two‑Echelon Supply Chain Design. J. Clean. Prod.
2020, 250, 119517. [CrossRef]
59. Hendiani, S.; Mahmoudi, A.; Liao, H. A Multi‑Stage Multi‑Criteria Hierarchical Decision‑Making Approach for Sustainable
Supplier Selection. Appl. Soft Comput. 2020, 94, 106456. [CrossRef]
60. Zadeh, L.A. Fuzzy Sets as a Basis for a Theory of Possibility. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1978, 1, 3–28. [CrossRef]
61. Zadeh, L.A. The Concept of a Linguistic Variable and Its Application to Approximate Reasoning—I. Inf. Sci. 1975, 8, 199–249.
[CrossRef]
62. Applying 4.0 Technology in the Leather and Footwear Industry: It Is Necessary to Fully Assess the Impacts on Production and
Society. Available online: https://congthuong.vn/ung‑dung‑cong‑nghe‑40‑trong‑nganh‑da‑giay‑can‑danh‑gia‑day‑du‑cac‑tac‑
dong‑doi‑voi‑san‑xuat‑va‑xa‑hoi‑138348.html (accessed on 24 September 2022).
63. Nofer, M.; Gomber, P.; Hinz, O.; Schiereck, D. Blockchain. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 2017, 59, 183–187. [CrossRef]
64. KENTON, W. Green Tech. Available online: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/green_tech.asp#:~{}:text=Greentech‑
‑orgreentechnology,%2Cmaterialscience%2Candhydrology (accessed on 11 September 2022).
65. Global Infrastructure Hub Smart Containers. Available online: https://www.gihub.org/infrastructure‑technology‑use‑cases/
case‑studies/smart‑containers/#:~{}:text=SUMMARY,GPStrackingandsolarpanels (accessed on 11 September 2022).
66. Mittal, R.; Arora, S.; Kuchhal, P.; Bhatia, M.P.S. An Insight into Tool and Software Used in AI, Machine Learning and Data
Analytics. In AI and Machine Learning Paradigms for Health Monitoring System; Malik, H., Fatema, N., Alzubi, J.A., Eds.; Springer:
Singapore, 2021; pp. 45–64. ISBN 978‑981‑33‑4412‑9.
67. Dantas, J.; Matos, R.; Araujo, J.; Oliveira, D.; Oliveira, A.; Maciel, P. Hierarchical Model and Sensitivity Analysis for a Cloud‑
Based VoD Streaming Service. In Proceedings of the 2016 46th Annual IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable
Systems and Networks Workshop (DSN‑W), Toulouse, France, 28 June–1 July 2016; pp. 10–16.
68. Ouadah, A.; Hadjali, A.; Nader, F.; Benouaret, K. SEFAP: An Efficient Approach for Ranking Skyline Web Services. J. Ambient
Intell. Humaniz. Comput. 2019, 10, 709–725. [CrossRef]
69. Li, L.; Liu, M.; Shen, W.; Cheng, G. Recommending Mobile Services with Trustworthy QoS and Dynamic User Preferences via
FAHP and Ordinal Utility Function. IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput. 2020, 19, 419–431. [CrossRef]
70. Alinezhad, A.; Amini, A. Sensitivity Analysis of TOPSIS Technique: The Results of Change in the Weight of One Attribute on
the Final Ranking of Alternatives. J. Optim. Ind. Eng. 2011, 7, 23–28.
71. Božanić, D.; Tešić, D.; Kočić, J. Multi‑Criteria FUCOM—Fuzzy MABAC Model for the Selection of Location for Construction of
Single‑Span Bailey Bridge. Decis. Mak. Appl. Manag. Eng. 2019, 2, 132–146. [CrossRef]
72. Agarwal, S.; Kant, R.; Shankar, R. Evaluating Solutions to Overcome Humanitarian Supply Chain Management Barriers: A
Hybrid Fuzzy SWARA—Fuzzy WASPAS Approach. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020, 51, 101838. [CrossRef]
73. Yazdani, M.; Alidoosti, A.; Zavadskas, E.K. Risk Analysis of Critical Infrastructures Using Fuzzy Copras. Econ. Res. 2011, 24,
27–40. [CrossRef]
74. Ecer, F.; Pamucar, D. Sustainable Supplier Selection: A Novel Integrated Fuzzy Best Worst Method (F‑BWM) and Fuzzy CoCoSo
with Bonferroni (CoCoSo’B) Multi‑Criteria Model. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 266, 121981. [CrossRef]
Processes 2022, 10, 2351 20 of 20

75. Sun, C.‑C. A Performance Evaluation Model by Integrating Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS Methods. Expert Syst. Appl. 2010, 37,
7745–7754. [CrossRef]
76. Roszkowska, E.; Kacprzak, D. The Fuzzy Saw and Fuzzy TOPSIS Procedures Based on Ordered Fuzzy Numbers. Inf. Sci. 2016,
369, 564–584. [CrossRef]
77. UKCOP26 What do We Need to Achieve at COP26? Available online: https://ukcop26.org/cop26‑goals/ (accessed on 17 October
2022).
78. Chen, J.; Ma, Y.W. The Research of Supply Chain Information Collaboration Based on Cloud Computing. Procedia. Environ. Sci.
2011, 10, 875–880. [CrossRef]
79. Li, Q.; Ji, H.; Huang, Y. The Information Leakage Strategies of the Supply Chain under the Block Chain Technology Introduction.
Omega 2022, 110, 102616. [CrossRef]
80. Part 1: Strategy for Science, Technology and Innovation Development until 2030 Approved|Sci‑Tech|Vietnam + (Vietnam‑
Plus). Available online: https://en.vietnamplus.vn/part‑1‑strategy‑for‑science‑technology‑and‑innovation‑development‑until‑
2030‑approved/240042.vnp (accessed on 17 October 2022).
81. Part 3: Strategy for Science, Technology and Innovation Development until 2030 Approved|Sci‑Tech|Vietnam + (Vietnam‑
Plus). Available online: https://en.vietnamplus.vn/part‑3‑strategy‑for‑science‑technology‑and‑innovation‑development‑until‑
2030‑approved/240046.vnp (accessed on 17 October 2022).
82. Ứng Dụng Công Nghệ, Định Hình Sản Phẩm Mới Của Ngành Dệt May Việt Nam Giai Đoạn 2022–2025. Available online:
https://moit.gov.vn/khoa‑hoc‑va‑cong‑nghe/ung‑dung‑cong‑nghe‑dinh‑hinh‑san‑pham‑moi‑cua‑nganh‑det‑may‑viet‑nam‑
giai‑doan‑2022‑2025.html (accessed on 17 October 2022).
83. Xu Hướng Phát Triển Của Ngành Dệt May Việt Nam. Available online: http://vsi.gov.vn/vn/tin‑cong‑nghiep‑ho‑tro/xu‑huong‑
phat‑trien‑cua‑nganh‑det‑may‑viet‑nam‑c1id1872.html (accessed on 17 October 2022).