Procedia CIRP 97 (2020) 235–240

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Procedia CIRP
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/procir

An index-based sustainability assessment framework for

manufacturing organizations ✩
Olivia Kaldas a,∗, Lamia A. Shihata a,b, Jens Kiefer c
a
Design and Production Engineering Department, German University in Cairo, Egypt
b
Design and Production Engineering Department, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
c
University of Applied Sciences Ulm, Prittwitzstraße 10, 89075 Ulm, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: Sustainable manufacturing has recently gained great attention in the manufacturing industry. However,
Sustainable manufacturing there is still a lack of a comprehensive framework for enterprise level sustainability assessment of man-
Assessment framework
ufacturing companies making sustainability assessment time consuming to be implemented. This paper
Composite sustainability index
presents a newly developed framework for sustainability assessment of manufacturing organizations. In
Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP)
this context, a composite sustainability index is introduced, which covers the triple bottom line approach,
the total life cycle stages and the 6R principles. The framework consists of five main steps, which are the
selection of suitable indicators, data collection, data normalization, the application of the fuzzy analytic
hierarchy process to weight the identified indicators and finally the aggregation step to calculate the
sustainability index. Apart from pure methodical issues, a concrete application of this newly developed
framework is also presented. In this context, the sustainability index is calculated for a manufacturing
organization considering the years 2014 to 2018.
© 2020 The Authors, Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer review under the responsibility of the scientific committee of CIRP.
© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

1. Introduction mental and social effects. Consequently, it has become one of

The concept of sustainability is not necessarily modern and has
been around since the dawn of time in most communities. How-
ever, the term sustainability appeared in the early 1970s in the
United Nation’s Stockholm Conference (Poveda and Lipsett, 2011).
Recently, several definitions of sustainability have emerged, al-
though these definitions differ in details, they all turn out to agree
that the main aim of sustainability is to satisfy economic, environ-
mental, and social goals. These three goals have come to be known
as the triple bottom line (TBL), the three pillars of sustainability or
the 3Ps (profit, planet and people) (Labuschagne and Brent, 2005).
Recently, an increased pressure has been made on manufactur-
ing organizations to think beyond the economic benefits of their
processes and products and take into consideration the environ-
✩
The study presents a newly developed framework for the assessment of sustain-
ability performance of manufacturing companies through a composite sustainability
index.
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: olivia.louis@guc.edu.eg (O. Kaldas).
the main goals for manufacturers to promote manufactured prod-
ucts and manufacturing processes that reduce negative environ-
mental impacts while maintaining social and economic welfares
(Eslamia et al., 2018). This has led to the necessity of sustainable
manufacturing and sustainability assessment as an essential part
of sustainable development. The U.S. Department of Commerce de-
fined sustainable manufacturing as “the creation of manufactured
products that use processes that minimize negative environmental
impacts, conserve energy and natural resources, are safe for em-
ployees, communities, and consumers and are economically sound”
(Chan et al., 2016).
The main problem in the existing literature and frameworks for
sustainability assessment is the lack of a comprehensive frame-
work for sustainability assessment of manufacturing companies in
the enterprise level that covers the triple bottom line along with
the total life cycle stages (pre-manufacturing, manufacturing, use
and post use) and the 6R principles (reduce, reuse, recycle, re-
cover, redesign and remanufacture), making sustainability assess-
ment time consuming to be implemented.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2020.05.231
2212-8271/© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
O. Kaldas, L.A. Shihata and J. Kiefer
Fig. 1. Proposed framework for sustainability assessment.
In literature, there exist various attempts and frameworks for
sustainability assessment of manufacturing organizations. For ex-
ample, Singh et al., developed a sustainability performance index
for the steel industry. This index covered the TBL but partially cov-
ered both the 6R and the total life cycle concepts (Singh et al.,
2007). Another study performed by Badurdeen et al. proposed a
framework and metrics for enterprise level sustainability assess-
ment of manufacturing organizations which addressed that 6R
methodology and total life-cycle should be integrated for enter-
prise level metrics development. However, their work fell short of
proposing how the metrics can be translated for performance eval-
uation (Huang, 2017). Sihag et al. presented an approach for sus-
tainability assessment of machine tools. This approach considered
the triple bottom line but didn’t consider the 6R principles and the
total life cycle stages. In addition, it focused on the process level
only (Sihag and Sangwan, 2019).
The aim of this paper is to introduce a newly developed frame-
work for enterprise level sustainability assessment of manufactur-
ing companies through a composite sustainability index that covers
the triple bottom line, the total life cycle stages and the 6R princi-
ples.
2. Methodology
This section introduces the newly developed sustainability as-
sessment framework and the sequence of steps followed to reach
the goal of this framework which is developing a composite sus-
tainability index in the enterprise level. Fig. 1 illustrates the pro-
posed framework and the sequence of steps followed. These steps
are selection of indicators, data collection, normalization, weight-
ing and ranking and finally aggregation. Each one of these steps
will be discussed separately.
2.1. Selection of indicators
The first step for constructing the enterprise composite sus-
tainability index is selecting the suitable indicators and metrics
required to compose the sustainability index and grouping them
under the three dimensions of sustainability. The indicators were
selected based on the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) guidelines
(GRI, 2002) such that they cover the triple bottom line, the total
life cycle stages which are pre-manufacturing, manufacturing, use
and post use and the 6R principles which are reduce, reuse, recy-
cle, recover, redesign and remanufacture.
236
Procedia CIRP 97 (2020) 235–240
2.2. Data collection
The second step after selecting the suitable indicators and met-
rics is data measurement and/or collection where data is gathered
for the individual indicators to be used for further analysis. This
step can be carried out either by direct measurement of individual
indicators or using corporates’ annual sustainability reports.
2.3. Normalization
The major cause behind normalization in sustainability assess-
ment is converting measurements of indicators which are usually
obtained using different measurement units to dimensionless val-
ues to be able to use them in an aggregate sustainability score
Zhou et al., 2012). In this paper, the minimum-maximum normal-
ization method is used to normalize all the gathered data to val-
ues between 0 and 1 using Eqs. (1) and ((2), where Eq. (1) is
used for indicators having positive effect on sustainability perfor-
mance whereas Eq. (2) is used for indicators having negative effect
(Pollesch and Dale, 2016).
 
x∗i − mini x∗i
xi =    ∗ (1)
maxi x∗i − mini xi
 
x∗i − mini x∗i
xi = 1 −    ∗ (2)
maxi x∗i − mini xi
where xi is the normalized value of indicator i, x∗i is the measured
value of the indicator to be normalized, mini {x∗i } is the minimum
value of the indicator in the dataset and maxi {x∗i } is the maximum
value of the indicator in the dataset.
2.4. Weighting and ranking
The next step of the proposed framework focuses on assigning
weights to the individual elements (metrics, sub-clusters, clusters
and sub-indices) that will be used to calculate the overall sustain-
ability score. In this step, weights for each element are assigned
based on their relative importance (Huang, 2017). Fuzzy analytic
hierarchy process (FAHP) is used for the weighting process to de-
rive the final priority weights based on triangular fuzzy numbers
to deal with the imprecise or vague nature of linguistic assessment
(Sinuany-Stern et al., 20 0 0; Belton and Gear, 1983). The fuzzy AHP
consists of four main steps which are hierarchy construction, pair-
wise comparisons, aggregation of group decisions and finally de-
riving the normalized relative weights (Soberi and Ahmad, 2016).
The first step of the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process is con-
structing the hierarchy. The hierarchy consists of five levels as il-
lustrated in Fig. 2. Level 1 is the goal which is sustainable manu-
facturing, level 2 consists of the sub-indices which are the three
pillars of sustainable manufacturing (environment, economy and
society), level 3 consists of the clusters of the three pillars, level
4 consists of the sub-clusters and level 5 consists of the sustain-
ability indicators.
The second step of the fuzzy AHP is the construction of the
pairwise comparison matrices based on experts’ judgments, so a
survey was designed and distributed experts of managerial level in
six different manufacturing organizations to gather data about the
relative importance of elements in each level of the hierarchy com-
pared to each other. The pairwise comparison matrices are then
constructed using the fuzzy triangular scale shown in Table 1.
Since the pairwise comparisons are based on human judg-
ments, the consistency of evaluations has to be checked in order
to assure a certain quality level. This is done by calculating the
consistency ratio CR for all the pairwise comparison matrices using
O. Kaldas, L.A. Shihata and J. Kiefer Procedia CIRP 97 (2020) 235–240

Table 1
Fuzzy triangular scale (Jayawickrama et al., 2017).

Saaty scale Definition Fuzzy triangular scale Inverse scale

1 Equally Important (1,1,1) (1,1,1)

3 Moderately more important (1,3/2,2) (1/2,2/3,1)
5 Strongly more important (3/2,2,5/2) (2/5,1/2,2/3)
7 Very strongly more important (2,5/2,3) (1/3,2/5,1/2)
9 Absolutely more important (5/2,3,7/2) (2/7,1/3,2/5)

 
uαij = uij − uij − mij × α (7)
where liαj denotes the left-end value of α -cut for ai j and uαi j denotes
the right-end value of α -cut for ai j , α is the display of preference
and λ is the risk tolerance.
The third step of the FAHP is aggregation of group decisions.
Since each individual judgment matrix signifies the opinion of
only one decision maker or expert, aggregation is essential in or-
der to accomplish group consensus of decision-makers. The ap-
proach used for aggregating the decisions of the six experts is
the aggregation of individual judgments (AIJ) which is most often
performed using geometric mean operations where the individual
judgment matrices are used to obtain the group judgement matrix
Chen et al., 2015). Considering a group of K decision-makers in-
volved in the research, they make pairwise comparisons of n ele-
ments. As a result of the pairwise comparisons, a set of K matrices
are obtained; A˜ k = {a˜i jk }, where a˜i jk = (li jk , mi jk , ui jk ) represents a
relative importance of element i to j, as evaluated by the expert k.
The triangular fuzzy numbers in the group judgment matrix can be
obtained by using the geometric means as expressed by Eqs. (8)–
((10):
Fig. 2. Hierarchy for the fuzzy AHP.

1 / K

K
lij = lijk (8)
Table 2
Values of random consistency index (RI) per different number of criteria. k=1

1 / K
n RI n RI
K

3 0.58 8 1.41
mij = mijk (9)
4 0.90 9 1.45 k=1
5 1.12 10 1.49 
1 / K
6 1.24 11 1.51
K
7 1.32 12 1.48 uij = uijk (10)
k=1

The last step of the fuzzy AHP is calculating the normalized

Eqs. (3) and 4. A consistency ratio less than or equal to 0.15 can
relative weights of the alternatives where the geometric means of
be considered acceptable (Kaganski et al., 2018; Ho et al., 2005).
fuzzy comparison value r˜i are calculated using Eq. (11).
CI 
1/n
CR = (3)
n
RI
r˜i = a˜i j i = 1, 2, . . . n (11)
(λmax − n ) j=1
CI = (4)
n−1 These geometric means are then converted to relative fuzzy
where λmax is the maximum eigenvalue of the matrix, n is the weight by multiplying them with the total of reverse fuzzy ge-
matrix size which is equal to the number of alternatives being ometric means in increasing order. The relative fuzzy weight
compared and RI is a random consistency index which can be can be expressed as w ˜ i = (l wi , mwi , uwi ) (Dayanandan and
obtained from Table 2 depending on the matrix size (n). Kalimuthu, 2018).
TIn order to use this index to investigate the consistency of Finally, the relative non-fuzzy weight of each criteria (Mi ) is cal-
the evaluations, the pairwise comparison matrices have to be con- culated by using center of area method (COA) by averaging the
verted to crisp matrices. The method was proposed by chang et fuzzy numbers for each criteria. The normalized weights of each
al as mentioned in (Marimuthu et al., 2017) is utilized to de- criteria, (Ni ) are calculated by dividing each value of the relative
fuzzify the fuzzy numbers where a triangular fuzzy number de- non-fuzzy weight with the total of all criteria’s value (Aqil Burney
noted as a˜i j = (li j , mi j , ui j ) can be defuzzified to a crisp number and Ali, 2019).
using Eqs. (5)–(7).
( lwi + mwi + uwi )
 α λ     Mi =
aij = λ.lαij + 1 − λ uαij 0 ≤ α ≤ 1, 0 ≤ λ ≤ 1 (5) 3

  Mi
N i = n
lαij = mij − lij × α + lij (6) Mi
i=1

237
O. Kaldas, L.A. Shihata and J. Kiefer Procedia CIRP 97 (2020) 235–240

Rank

28
22
27
19
26
1
5
2
7
6
8
Global weight

0.06229

0.05777
0.07981

0.04288

0.01965
0.01383

0.01411
0.09509

0.05808

0.01077

0.02062
Local weight

0.2434

0.3126
0.5938
0.4062
0.444
1
1
1
1

1
1
Fig. 3. Composite sustainability index for the years 2014–2018.

Percentage of non-hazardous waste recycled/used

Percentage of hazardous waste recycled/used
2.5. Aggregation

Percentage of hazardous material use

The final step of the proposed framework is the aggregation to

Percentage of water recycled/used

calculate the sustainability index. The method used for aggregation

Total waste generation intensity

Percentage of renewable energy
is the linear aggregation (LIN) method where the composite sus-

Hazardous gaseous emission

tainability index is calculated by summation of weighted and nor-
malized individual indicators, sub-clusters, clusters and sub-indices

GHG release intensity

(Zhou et al., 2012).

Material intensity
SI = wEn En + wEc Ec + wSoSo

Energy intensity
Water Intensity
5 
7 
9
= wEn wci Cim + wEc wci Cim + wSo wci Cim ∀i

Indicator
i=1 i=6 i=8
S Mk
Cim = C nj wscj ∀j SC nj = wm
k ∀k
where wEn , wEc , wSo are the weighting factors for the environmen-

Weight

0.3958

0.4199

0.4397
0.6042

0.5801

0.5753
0.4247
0.5603
tal, economic and social sub-indices respectively.
En, Ec, So is the sub-index score for environmental, economic
and societal impact, respectively.

Energy from renewable resource

wci , wsc
j
, wm
k
is the weighting factor for ith cluster, jth sub-
cluster, kth metric.

Recycled Water efficiency

Product material content

C m is the score for mth cluster.

SC n is the score for the nth sub-cluster.
Material efficiency

Energy efficiency
Water efficiency

Mk is the score for the kth metric.

Sub-cluster

3. Case study
Emission
Waste

The proposed framework was applied to a case study where

the composite sustainability index for an FMCG company was cal-
Weight
Weights of the environmental sub-index, clusters, sub-clusters and indicators.

0.3314

0.2897

0.2126

0.1663

culated considering the years 2014 to 2018. First, the indicators

were selected such that they cover the triple bottom line, the to-
tal life cycle stages and the 6R principles. The study consisted of
29 indicators; 11 environmental, 11 economic and 7 social indica-
Other resources use and efficiency

tors. Then, data for the case study was obtained from the com-
pany’s annual sustainability reports during the time period from
Material use and efficiency

Energy use and efficiency

2014 to 2018. After data collection, the data was normalized to val-
ues in the interval [0,1] using the minimum-maximum normaliza-
Waste and emission

tion method. The fuzzy analytic hierarchy process was then applied
to derive the final local and global weights and ranks for each of
the 29 indicators as shown in Tables 3 and 4. These tables show
the weights of the sub-indices, clusters, sub-clusters and indica-
Cluster

tors derived from the fuzzy AHP based on data gathered from the
surveys.
Finally, the composite sustainability index was calculated using
Weight

0.4749

the linear aggregation method where the composite sustainability

index is calculated by summation of weighted and normalized in-
dividual indicators, sub-clusters, clusters and sub-indices.
Environmental

Fig. 3 shows the composite sustainability index of the company

Sub-index

during the time period from 2014 to 2018. From this figure, it can
be concluded that the best sustainability performance occurred in
Table 3

the year 2017, while the worst sustainability performance occurred

in the year 2014.

238
O. Kaldas, L.A. Shihata and J. Kiefer Procedia CIRP 97 (2020) 235–240

15
16

24

21

23
12

20

25
17
29
18
14

10

13

11
3

4
0.02524
0.02488

0.01778
0.07437

0.01871
0.03164

0.02043

0.01738
0.02003

0.00627
0.02071
0.02675
0.03833
0.03389

0.02687

0.03265
0.0217

0.0674
0.2638
0.2104
0.2074
0.1703
0.1482

0.5354
0.4646
0.7757
0.2243

0.3873
0.3424
0.2703

0.5895
0.4105
1

1
Employees exposed to high-risk work environment
Percentage of employees receiving safety training

Fig. 4. Comparison of the environmental, economic and social performance.

Community outreach/engagement activities

Work related injuries and incidents rate
Health/safety risk to community
Facilities and equipment
Other current assets
Transportation cost

Employee diversity
Employee training
Other fixed assets
R&‘D expenditure

Other expenses

Cost of capital
Sales revenue

Labor cost

Inventory
Taxes 0.3827
0.6173

0.4345

0.3249

0.2406
0.5949

0.4174
0.4051
0.5826
Employee diversity and well being

Fig. 5. Economic clusters performance from 2014 to 2018.

Other stakeholders development
Other stakeholder related

Fig. 4 shows a comparison between the environmental, eco-

Profit from operations

nomic and social performances of the company from 2014 to 2018.

The change in the sustainability performance from worst to best
Weights of the economic and social sub-indices, clusters, sub-clusters and indicators.

in 2014 and 2017 respectively can be attributed to the increased

Cost of capital
Current assets

Fixed assets

environmental and economic performance in 2017, both having

Employees

large effect on the overall sustainability performance of the com-

Taxes

pany having importance weights of 0.4749 and 0.2804 respectively.

The environmental performance increased from 0.2592 in 2014 to
0.5329 in 2017. Moreover, the economic performance improved
0.6802

0.3198
0.693

0.307

from 0.2368 in 2014 to 0.7414 in 2017.

Fig. 5 illustrates the performance of the economic clusters; the
performance of the net profit increased from 0.1321 in 2014 to
Stakeholder engagement

0.8569 in 2017 resulting in the enhanced economic performance

of 0.7414 in 2017 when compared to that in 2014 having a value of
Health and safety

0.2368.
Capital charge

The enhanced performance of the net profit cluster in the year

2017 can be referred to the increased performance of its two sub-
Net Profit

clusters which are profit from operations and taxes when com-
pared to their performance in 2014 as shown in Fig. 6.
For more illustration of the cause of the improved performance
of both profit from operations and taxes sub-clusters in 2017, the
0.2804

0.2446

normalized scores of the indicators are shown in Fig. 7. The figure

shows that all indicators had better performance in 2017 compared
to their performance in 2014 except for the labor cost indicator.
Economic

Similar analysis is conducted to compare the performance of

Social
Table 4

the clusters, sub-clusters and indicators of the environmental and

social sub-indices. The increase in the performance of the mate-
rial use and efficiency cluster from 0.1479 in 2014 to 0.6042 in
2017 and also the enhanced performance of the energy use and
efficiency cluster having a value of 0.6132 in 2017 were the main
cause of the enhanced environmental performance in 2017 when

239
O. Kaldas, L.A. Shihata and J. Kiefer
Fig. 6. Performance of net profit sub-clusters.
Fig. 7. Normalized scores of economic indicators.
compared to that in 2014. While the reduced performance of the
health and safety cluster from 0.7768 in 2014 to 0.2536 in 2017
was the main cause of the reduced social sub-index score in 2017
when compared to 2014.
4. Conclusions and future work
In this paper, a framework to evaluate the sustainability perfor-
mance of manufacturing organizations by calculating a composite
sustainability index has been introduced. This framework covered
three important sustainability aspects which are the triple bottom
line, the total life cycle stages and the 6R principles. The frame-
work consisted of five main steps which are selection of indica-
tors such that they cover the three mentioned aspects, data collec-
tion from corporate’s annual sustainability reports, normalization
using minimum- maximum technique, weighting and ranking by
applying fuzzy AHP and finally aggregation. By testing this frame-
work on a case study, it was clear that the introduced composite
sustainability index can be used to compare sustainability perfor-
mance of the same manufacturing organization in different time
periods and/or to compare sustainability performance of different
manufacturing organizations of the same industry.
240
Procedia CIRP 97 (2020) 235–240
The proposed framework has potential for further improvement.
Consequently, for further validation and improvement some rec-
ommendations for future work may include the use of design of
experiments to test the proposed sustainability assessment frame-
work using different combinations of data normalization, weight-
ing and aggregation methods. This can help in choosing the best
method and combination to develop a composite sustainability
index. Another recommendation would be performing sensitivity
analysis for the proposed framework to determine how the com-
posite sustainability index is affected by the variation in the in-
puts. The sensitivity analysis will also help identify the best and
most suitable methods to develop a composite sustainability in-
dex. Finally, further case studies can be applied for different types
of manufacturing industries to validate and improve the proposed
index based sustainability assessment framework.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
References
Aqil Burney, S.M., Ali, S.M., 2019. Fuzzy multi-criteria based decision support system
for supplier selection in textile industry. IJCSNS Int. J. Comput. Sci. Netw. Secur.
19 (1), 239–244.
Belton, V., Gear, A.E., 1983. On a shortcoming of Saaty’s method of analytic hierar-
chies. Omega 11 (3), 227–230.
Chan, F.T.S., Li, N., Chung, S.H., Saadat, M., 2016. Management of sustainable manu-
facturing systems-a review on mathematical problems. Int. J. Prod. Res. 55 (4),
1210–1225.
Chen, J.F., Hsieh, H.-N., Do, Q.H., 2015. Evaluating teaching performance based on
fuzzy AHP and comprehensive evaluation approach. Appl. Soft Comput. 28,
100–108.
Dayanandan, U., Kalimuthu, V., 2018. A fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (FAHP)
based software quality assessment model: maintainability analysis. Int. J. Intell.
Eng. Syst. 11 (4), 88–96.
Eslamia, Y., Dassistia, M., Lezoche, M., Panetto, H., 2018. A survey on sustainability
in manufacturing organisations: dimensions and future insights. Int. J. Prod. Res.
57 (15–16), 5194–5214.
GRI, "Sustainability reporting guidelines," Global Reporting Initiative, Boston (MA),
2002.
Ho, D., Newell, G., Walker, A., 2005. The importance of property-specific attributes
in assessing CBD office building quality. J. Prop. Invest. Financ. 23 (5), 424–444.
Huang, A., A Framework and Metrics for Sustainable Manufacturing Performance Eval-
uation at the Production Line, Plant and Enterprise Levels, 2017.
Jayawickrama, H.M.M.M, Kulatunga, A.K., Mathavan, S., 2017. Fuzzy AHP based plant
sustainability evaluation method. Procedia Manuf. 8, 571–578.
Kaganski, S., Majak, J., Karjust, K., 2018. Fuzzy AHP as a tool for prioritization of key
performance indicators. In: Proceedings of the 51st CIRP Conference on Manu-
facturing Systems.
Labuschagne, C., Brent, Alan C., 2005. Sustainable project life cycle management: the
need to integratelife cycles in the manufacturing sector. Int. J. Project Manag..
23 (2), 159–168.
Marimuthu, G., Sankaranarayanan, S., Sivakumar, G., 2017. Multicriteria decision
making method for obtaining crisp value under fuzzy AHP using α - cut based
method. Int. J. Pure Appl. Math. 117 (6), 217–222.
Pollesch, N.L., Dale, V.H., 2016. Normalization in sustainability assessment: methods
and implications. Ecol. Econ. 195–208.
Poveda, C.A., Lipsett, M.G., 2011. A review of sustainability assessment and sustain-
ability/environmental rating systems and credit weighting tools. J. Sustain. Dev.
4 (6), 36–55.
Sihag, N., Sangwan, K.S., 2019. Development of a sustainability assessment index for
machine tools. Procedia CIRP 80, 156–161.
Singh, R.K., Murty, H.R., Gupta, S.K., Dikshit, A.K., 2007. Development of composite
sustainability performance index for steel industry. Ecol. Indic. 7 (3), 565–588.
Sinuany-Stern, Z., Mehrez, A., Hadad, Y., 20 0 0. An AHP/DEA methodology for rank-
ing decision making units. Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 7 (2), 109–124.
Soberi, M.S.F., Ahmad, R., 2016. Application of fuzzy AHP for setup reduction in
manufacturing industry. J. Eng. Res. Educ. 8, 73–84.
Zhou, L., Tokos, H., Krajnc, D., Yang, Y., "Sustainability Performance Evaluation in
Industry by Composite Sustainability Index," pp. 789–803, 2012.