Credit Risk Assessment Based On Sustainable Supply Chain Finance

(/) (/)
Journals (/about/journals) Topics (/topics) Information (/authors)

searchmenu
Author Services
(/authors/english) Initiatives (/about/initiatives) About (/about)
Sign In / Sign Up (/user/login)
Submit (https://susy.mdpi.com/user/manuscripts/upload?
journal=sustainability)
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email 

Annotate
Sustainability
All Article Types
Search
Advanced Search

Journals (/about/journals) / Sustainability (/journal/sustainability) / Volume 14 (/2071-1050/14) /
Issue 19 (/2071-1050/14/19) / 10.3390/su141912836 /
(/journal/sustainability)
Submit to this Journal

(https://susy.mdpi.com/user/manuscripts/upload?
form%5Bjournal_id%5D%3D15)
Review for this Journal

(https://susy.mdpi.com/volunteer/journals/review)
Edit a Special Issue

(/journalproposal/sendproposalspecialissue/sustainability)
► Article Menu
Article (/)Menu
Academic Editor keyboard_arrow_up
Donato(https://sciprofiles.com/profile/487455)
searchmenu
Morea
Subscribe SciFeed (/2071-

1050/14/19/12836/scifeed_display)
Recommended Articles
Related
 Info Link keyboard_arrow_down 
More by Authors Links keyboard_arrow_down

Article Views 1403
Citations 1
Table of Contents keyboard_arrow_up

lens
Abstract
lens
Introduction
lens
Review
lens
Method
lens
Case Study
lens
Conclusions
lens
Author Contributions
lens
Funding
lens
Institutional Review Board
Statement
lens
Informed Consent Statement
lens
Data Availability Statement
lens
Conflicts of Interest
lens
References
first_page share
Order Article Reprints (/2071-1050/14/19/12836/reprints
Share
announcement
Open Access Article
Help
Farmers’
(/) Credit Risk Assessment Based on Sustainable format_quote
Cite
question_answer
Supply Chain Finance for Green Agriculture
by searchmenu
Discuss in
SciProfiles
Yuehua Xia (https://sciprofiles.com/profile/author/YXVWS0VPK0JMRGtUUjNVSjllaFJiM
(https://s
1,
groups/p
thumb_up
Honggen Long (https://sciprofiles.com/profile/2411156) 2,*  (mailto:please_login)
(https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2072-8616),
Zhi Li (https://sciprofiles.com/profile/347196) 2 and Endorse
2
Jiasen Wang (https://sciprofiles.com/profile/author/VjBMNzI2NHNJbmhhcU90UUQrOU
textsms
Comment
 
1 Department of Mathematics, Gansu Normal College for Nationalities, Hezuo 747000,
China
2 Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Business School, Sichuan
University, Chengdu 610041, China
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(19), 12836; https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912836

(https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912836)
Received: 26 August 2022 / Revised: 30 September 2022 / Accepted: 1 October 2022 /

Published: 8 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Research in Green Supply Chain
Management ( /journal/sustainability/special_issues/Green_Supply_Chain_Managee ))
Download Browse Figures (https://pub.mdpi-
res.com/sustainability/sustainability-14-
12836/article_deploy/html/images/sustainability-14-12836-g001.png?1665385665)
(https://pub.mdpi-res.com/sustainability/sustainability-14-
(https://pub.mdpi-res.com/sustainability/sustainability-14-
Versions Notes (/2071-1050/14/19/12836/notes)
(/)
Abstract
With the development of green agriculture, the demand of farmers for operation loans is
searchmenu
increasing. Supply chain finance is becoming a new way to solve the problem of difficult
credit in agricultural development. As the importance of sustainability issues continues to rise,
there are growing numbers of practical examples of combining agricultural supply chain
finance (ASCF) with sustainability, and the attendant risks are emerging. The objectives of
this study are first to construct a risk indicator system for sustainable ASCF, then to propose a
fuzzy decision method that considers the confidence of decision-makers, and finally to
perform a risk assessment of a credit case in the coffee bean supply chain. A combination of
the neutrosophic enhanced best–worst method (NE-BWM) and combined compromise
 
solution (COCOSO) is used to evaluate risk problems. The practicality and effectiveness of
this research method is verified by a numerical simulation and a comparison with the method.
The results show that the credit rating of core companies is the most important indicator. In
the context of green and sustainable development, this indicator system is more suitable for
the current green transformation development of agriculture and can help decision-makers
scientifically and reasonably assess the risk level of ASCF. When loans are needed to
transform green agriculture, this study provides new ideas for credit models for various actors
in the agricultural supply chain and offers a new entry point to the issue of sustainable
agricultural development.
Keywords: credit risk evaluation (/search?q=credit+risk+evaluation); green agriculture
(/search?q=green+agriculture); sustainable supply chain finance (/search?
q=sustainable+supply+chain+finance); neutrosophic enhanced best–worst method
(/search?q=neutrosophic+enhanced+best%E2%80%93worst+method); combined
compromise solution (/search?q=combined+compromise+solution)
1. Introduction
The development of agriculture in the new era has sharply shifted from a strategy that
focuses on increasing the yield of traditional crops to one that seeks to produce labor-
intensive, high-value cash crops and meat products [1]. Moreover, the development of
modern agriculture is not only considering economic output, but is also moving towards what
is known as green agriculture [2]. However, the rapid pace of development has more stringent
requirements for Farmers’ new production techniques, new production equipment, etc., while
farmers are currently facing problems such as backward production tools, backward road
traffic facilities, and difficulties in financing [3].
China, as the largest developing country in the world, has a population of 1.4 billion
people according to 2021 data, of which the village population totals 800 million people,
accounting for about 58.3% of the total population ratio [4]. Since 1978, China's grain
production has doubled, but at the same time, the use of agricultural input resources has
(/)
increased dramatically, i.e., the use of nitrogen (N) fertilizers has tripled, the use of
searchmenu
phosphorus (P) fertilizers has increased 11-fold, and the use of irrigation water on farmland
has increased by 50% [5]. To address these issues, the Chinese government has explicitly
introduced the national concept of green development, which aims to fundamentally address
issues related to agriculture, rural areas, and rural populations, the so-called "three rural
issues". One of the most important issues is to promote a shift in China's agricultural
development from a high-input, high environmental footprint model to a sustainable
intensification model [6,7]. Therefore, there is an urgent need for China to shift its current
agricultural practices from a high resource consumption and high productivity model to a
green sustainability model. China's green agricultural development bottlenecks are an
important
 reference for other economies in the world with similar problems. 
With the rapid development of green agriculture, a large group of new farmers has
emerged, and the agricultural credit needs of these farmers have changed, with increased
demand for large loans for professional breeding, planting typical cash crops and new
production [3]. More and more farmers have the need for production and operation loans, but
the difficulty of financing is still a problem that plagues China's agricultural development.
Although the Chinese government proposes to support farmers through finance in three
aspects: organizational system, agricultural products and services, and incentive policies, the
government-led formal financial institutions still have difficulty in accessing credit for farmers.
Because agriculture is naturally a weak industry, affected by natural disasters, long
production cycles, large production inputs, unclear information on Farmers’ funds, and lack of
financial knowledge [8,9], financial institutions have difficulty in sorting out these situations
scientifically and lack a sound reference indicator system, which makes it difficult to
overcome the Farmers’ credit restriction dilemma.
To effectively promote the development of green agriculture, inhibiting the credit
constraints of farmers is a necessary methodological measure. Currently, the emergence of
agricultural supply chain finance (SCF) has eased Farmers’ credit constraints, while
achieving commercial development and the long-term development of agriculture [10].
Agricultural supply chain finance refers to a new financing method in which various financial
institutions provide services to all enterprises and farmers in the supply chain by examining
the entire agricultural supply chain, focusing on the core enterprises and so on, according to
the business flow, logistics, and information flow in the supply chain operation. In agricultural
supply chains (ASC), Yi et al. found that intermediary platforms acting as guarantees to help
farmers obtain bank loans can significantly increase Farmers’ welfare and total supply chain
profits [9]. China Ali's implementation of the supply chain and industry model is a prime
example of how agricultural supply chain finance can address the challenges of financing
agriculture, bringing social, economic, and environmental benefits, as shown in Figure 1. The
model is executed as follows: Alibaba cooperates with agricultural processors and
agribusinesses buy agricultural products from farmers and sell them directly or indirectly
through T-Mall. Ali deducts the purchase cost from the product sales revenue and the farmers
(/)
buy production materials and tools from Ali's Rural Taobao through the accumulated credit
searchmenu
line [11]. In this way, farmers are ensured to purchase pesticides and fertilizers that meet food
and environmental safety requirements. Starbucks uses green agriculture sustainable supply
chain finance to help farmers with green credit and condition improvement. Farmers who
meet green production requirements can receive more subsidies and support. In this way,
Starbucks wants to ensure that its coffee suppliers are engaged in environmentally
responsible production activities that do not pollute the environment and do not use
environmentally damaging processes or ingredients on the farm. Puma has launched a
sustainable supply chain financial service that directly links supply chain financial services to
the sustainability and social responsibility performance of suppliers. Suppliers that are "more
environmentally
 conscious and employee-friendly" will receive lower interest rates on supply 
chain finance or earlier access to sales payments [12].
Figure 1. Alibaba's agricultural supply chain finance model.
Up to 90% of the world's 250 largest companies report their social performance, with
67% of them pledging to reduce their carbon emissions in 2017 in pursuit of green
sustainability [11]. Achieving sustainable development has become a global priority [13]. As
core enterprises pay more and more attention to green and sustainable development, when
farmers have demand for green loans, core enterprises are more willing to share the risk with
farmers and help farmers to start the supply chain finance model of loans. Agricultural supply
chain finance is a feasible method to curb the credit constraints of farmers and promote the
development of green agriculture, and such methods are gradually being promoted in China.
Therefore, it is realistic and feasible to use an agricultural supply chain finance model to solve
the problem of Farmers’ credit difficulties in developing countries and thus break the
bottleneck of green agriculture development, and it has an important research value. In
addition, the green credit policy is one of the policies strongly promoted by the Chinese
government, and Chinese banks are paying more and more attention to green credit [14].
However, for green agricultural supply chain finance, banks lack reference indicators related
to green sustainability, which is relatively disconnected for the development of green
agriculture.
In summary, the main contributions of this study are as follows:
The operational model of agricultural supply chain finance was analyzed and the
(/)
importance of green sustainability issues in it is explained.
searchmenu
The credit risk of farmers was considered and a credit risk assessment indicator system for
sustainable supply chain finance for green agriculture was constructed.
Considering the uncertainty problem in the assessment, a multi-criteria decision method of
NE-BWM-COCOSO was constructed, and the weights of each indicator were analyzed.
Through the simulation case, the comparison proves the advantages of NE-BWM-
COCOSO, verifies the risk-sharing property of supply chain finance, and finds that the
indicator system is more suitable for the current green transformation development of
agriculture.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 represents a review of
 
related studies on agricultural supply chain finance, green agriculture sustainability, and the
NE-BWM-COCOSO. Section 3 shows how to establish the indicator system and the
evaluation methodology. The result of the study is discussed in Section 4. Finally, Section 5
concludes the implications of the study.
2. Review
This study is related to the research literature regarding the credit subjects of ASCF,
green development and sustainable financing, and risk assessment methods, which are
respectively reviewed through the following subsections. Research gaps are described at the
end of each paragraph, and study contributions are explained in the final section.
2.1. Credit Subjects of ASCF
Default risk can greatly affect the stable development of the supply chain [15]. To cope
with the risk problem in agricultural supply chain finance, some studies have used
quantitative methods to assess the risk. Liu et al. constructed a credit risk assessment
system for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in supply chain finance using a
support vector mechanism and neural network methods to improve the accuracy of banks’
prediction of SMEs’ default behavior [16]. Wu and Liao used a utility-based hybrid fuzzy
axiomatic design approach to develop a credit risk assessment model to evaluate the risk
problem in SCF [17]. Zhu et al. used machine learning methods to predict the credit risk of
SMEs in supply chain finance [18]. In addition, there are also qualitative methods used in risk
assessment. Xu et al. developed a framework to assess supply chain sustainability risks by
measuring operational, social, and environmental risks across the supply chain, resulting in
an aggregated metric for industry and enterprise risk ratings [19]. Liang et al. studied a
method for processing the hybrid heterogeneous evaluation information of SMEs and
proposed a co-decision method for the credit rating of agricultural SMEs with the help of
three-way decisions, so as to evaluate the credit rating of agricultural SMEs [20]. However,
the credit subjects of these ASCFs are often SMEs. In the real case, more and more farmers
are starting to become credit subjects of ASCF, and their lending characteristics are not the
(/)
same as those of SMEs. Farmers are often considered high-risk loan candidates by banks
searchmenu
due to their lack of creditworthiness and valuable collateral [9]. The rapid spread of Farmers’
credit defaults will seriously affect the stability of agricultural supply chains and the
widespread use of agricultural supply chain finance [21]. Therefore, to address this issue and
fill the corresponding research gap, this study analyzes the credit characteristics of farmers
and translates them into some indicators for ASCF risk assessment.
2.2. Sustainable Development of ASCF
In supply chain finance, sustainability issues are also of great concern. Schoeggl et al.
proposed three approaches that allow the aggregation of individual company sustainability
performance across the supply chain through quantitative and qualitative indicators, enabling
 
corporate decision-makers to assess and track the supply chain sustainability performance of
products and organizations [22]. Abdel-Basset et al. added risk indicators related to
environmental aspects and social aspects to integrate sustainability issues into SCF, and
evaluated a set of measures to provide sustainable SCF for the gas industry under
uncertainty [23]. Using multiple game models, Hosseini-Motlagh et al. analyzed food supply
chain development strategies that consider environmental sustainability [24]. Chen et al.
argued that sustainable development in agriculture should be reflected in three dimensions of
environmental protection, social responsibility, and economic returns in the agricultural supply
chain [12]. Tseng et al. constructed an assessment index for sustainable supply chain finance
from three aspects: social, environmental, and economic [25]. In the following year, Tseng et
al. listed more detailed risk assessment indicators for sustainable SCF through a more
extensive classification framework, including collaboration value innovation, strategic
competitive advantage, financial practices, etc [26]. However, this system of risk indicators is
constructed with the case target of the textile industry, which is not appropriate for agricultural
supply chains, especially for farmers. For agricultural supply chains, current risk assessment
focus on the state of national agricultural development [27,28], the quality and credit status of
agricultural SMEs [29,30], the credit status of leading firms [31], and the status of cooperative
relationships [32]. Green sustainability issues are rarely studied, which is out of step with the
rapid development of agriculture [33]. Therefore, to fill the corresponding research gap, this
article identifies sustainability assessment indicators among green ASCF to pave the
foundation for subsequent research.
2.3. Risk Assessment Methods Considering Fuzzy
To date, many scholars have used different multi-criteria decision methods (MCDM) to
assess the level of integrated risk in sustainable supply chain finance. Liang et al. used a
triangular fuzzy number to represent the evaluation language of an expert (or a decision-
maker) and the fuzzy TOPSIS (technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal
solution) method to evaluate sustainable supply chain financing decisions based on the triple
bottom line theory [34]. Some scholars have also used the best–worst method (BWM) to
(/)
determine the weights, and used TODIM (acronym in Portuguese for interactive and multi-
criteria decision-making) and TOPSIS methods to evaluate a set of measurements for
searchmenu
providing sustainable supply chain finance in the gas industry under uncertainty [23]. Liu and
Yan used the method of fuzzy control to deal with qualitative indicators and initially analyzed
a system of indicators for Farmers’ borrowing risk, but the system lacked sustainability factors
[16]. Tseng et al. developed a sustainable supply chain financing model under uncertainty
using fuzzy TOPSIS and identified the problems and shortcomings of the financing model. In
the case of supply chain finance in the textile industry, a fuzzy interpretive structural model
was developed to build a hierarchical model, and a fuzzy TODIM was applied to determine
the linguistic preferences and identify the benefits and costs [26]. It can be found that for the
determination
 of weights, most of the previous studies have focused on such methods as 
hierarchical analysis and the original BWM. Since there are more than 20 indicators in this
study, an efficient indicator weight determination method such as the BWM seems to be more
suitable. However, the original BWM requires experts to provide their best and worst
indicators and the corresponding pairwise comparisons but does not consider the doubt of
experts in the process. In real-world problems, there are often situations where the experts
have more confidence in their evaluations on one separation rather than the other. In this
context, Vafadarnikjoo et al. proposed the neutrosophic enhanced BWM (NE-BWM), which
takes into account the hesitation level of decision-makers compared to the original BWM, and
thus can achieve more reliable rankings in real-world decision-making problems [35]. Once
the weights of the indicators have been determined, the scores of the qualitative indicators
still need to be assessed by experts. The combined compromise solution (COCOSO)
method, a new multi-criteria decision-making technique, provides a more integrated
compromise than the TOPSIS ranking method mentioned earlier [36]. The COCOSO method
uses three strategies to rank the alternatives and is therefore more flexible in ranking the
alternatives than the other methods currently proposed [37]. The COCOSO model takes into
account the interaction between multiple input attributes, enabling flexible decision making
and eliminating the effects of extreme/awkward data [38]. The COCOSO model allows us to
check the robustness of the results by changing the parameters and checking their impact on
the final decision [39]. Therefore, this study combines the NE-BWM with the COCOSO
method for solving the multi-criteria decision making in sustainable supply chain finance for
green agriculture. The method is better able to cope with sustainable supply chain finance
risk assessment with a large number of indicators, and the NE-BWM-COCOSO method
allows us to adjust its own parameters to different environments when dealing with different
practical scenarios.
In summary, the innovation points of this study are:
1. The credit risk assessment problem of green agricultural supply chain finance is explored
(/)
by innovatively considering the credit characteristics of farmers and their co-operation
mode with core enterprises;
searchmenu
2. The consideration of the influence of green sustainability factors to improve the credit risk
assessment indicator system of sustainable supply chain finance for green agriculture;
3. The use of the NE-BWM-COCOSO method to obtain more effective and eclectic evaluation
results.
3. Method
3.1. Establishment of Evaluation Indicator System
 Traditional subject credit evaluation methods analyze the future solvency and default 
possibility of farmers based on their existing business status, which cannot accurately assess
the credit risk of farmers in agricultural supply chain finance. The debt appraisal considers
factors such as external guarantees or collateral for the debt, the flow of loan funds, and the
terms of the loan, and measures the probability that the loan will still be collectible if the
farmer defaults. The "subject+debt" credit evaluation method combines the advantages of
both subject and debt credit evaluation methods and has become the most common
evaluation method for credit risk measurement. Among them, the credit rating of the main
body is based on the existing business condition of the credited farmer and analyzes the
future solvency and default possibility of the farmer; the debt rating considers the repayment
order of the debt, loan terms, flow of loan funds, external guarantee or collateral, etc. Based
on this, this paper comprehensively and reasonably measures the credit risk of green
agricultural sustainable supply chain finance from five aspects: the credit status of farmers,
qualification of core enterprises, asset situation under financing, operation status of the
agricultural supply chain, and green sustainability, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Green agriculture sustainable supply chain finance risk assessment indicators
system.
4. Credit status of farmers (C1). Chinese Farmers’ production is mainly embodied as a small
farmer economy, which is characterized by a small-scale production and operation, opaque
financial information, few collateralizable and secured assets, high financing cost, serious
information asymmetry between banks and farmers, and a high risk of agricultural
production and operation. These characteristics are likely to lead to Farmers’ default after
the loan contract is signed, resulting in high supervision costs and difficulties for
(/)
commercial banks in the process of credit allocation. The credit status of farmers, as the
searchmenu
main subjects in agricultural supply chain finance, is closely related to the loan recovery
rate of commercial banks. Therefore, when evaluating the credit risk of farmers in ASCF,
the credit status of farmers needs to be considered. Referring to Bai et al. [40], this study
analyzed Farmers’ credit status in terms of three aspects: farmer characteristics, household
endowment, and social capital. The Farmers’ characteristics included age (C11), education
level (C12), and health status (C13). Household endowment included the number of
household laborers (C14), per capita net household income (C15), and the type of farming
operation (C16), such as general, part-time, professional, or non-farming. Social capital
referred to organizational and political ties (C17, whether the household is also an officer of
 a regional organization, etc.) and relatives and neighbors (C18, the number of relatives and 
friends attached to the household and whether the neighbors are harmonious).
5. Qualification of core enterprises (C2). Unlike traditional credit, agricultural supply chain
finance is also related to the qualification level of core enterprises. The core companies act
as a guarantee for the financing agents in the agricultural supply chain. Once the core
enterprise’s profitability and solvency problems occur, it will increase the possibility of the
entire agricultural supply chain capital break. This will lead to difficulties in securing the
source of repayment for farmers’ credit, and commercial banks’ loan recovery will be
affected. With reference to previous studies [34,41], the qualification level of core
enterprises in agricultural supply chain finance is evaluated from four aspects, including the
credit rating of core enterprises (C21), industry status (C22), sales margin (C23), and quick
ratio (C24).
6. Asset situation under financing (C3). The pledge is a security for the debt relationship. The
credit risk of agricultural supply chain finance will be directly affected by farmers’
falsification in the quantity and quality of pledges, significant fluctuations in the market price
of pledges, or breakage, moisture, and deformation of pledges' packaging. Therefore, it is
necessary to consider the quality of assets under financing as part of the overall risk
assessment. The main two aspects of analysis are pledge characteristics and receivables
characteristics [26,40]. The characteristics of pledges are often evaluated in terms of price
stability (C31), liquidity (C32), and their vulnerability (C33). Accounts receivable
characteristics usually include age and maturity (C34), return history (C35), and fiduciary
bad debt ratio (C36).
7. Operation status of the agricultural supply chain (C4). The operational performance of the
agricultural supply chain is closely related to the business risks of farmers. Poorly operated
agricultural supply chains can lead to a subsequent increase in credit risk for farmers.
Therefore, the overall operational situation in the agricultural supply chain deserves
attention. Referring to previous studies [18,29,42], the operational status of agricultural
supply chains can be assessed in four ways. The growth of the industry (C41) can better
reflect the future development trend of the agricultural supply chain. The number of years
of transactions (C42) and the frequency of transactions (C43) can reflect the closeness of
(/)
the upstream and downstream of the agricultural supply chain. The performance rate (C44)
searchmenu
reflects the stable development of the agricultural supply chain and should be included in
the risk assessment.
8. Green sustainability (C5). Pollution-based production by upstream farmer suppliers can
affect the reputation of core enterprises and even the stability of the entire supply chain,
affecting the sustainability of the green agricultural supply chain. Based on the existing
literature on the environmental factors considered in sustainable supply chain finance
[25,34], this paper summarizes four categories of risk indicators for environmental aspects.
Waste discharge (C51) includes exhaust emissions, sewage discharge, solid waste
discharge, and damage to the natural environment, such as soil and water in the
 agricultural supply chain. Resource consumption (C52) mainly refers to the use and

recycling of water resources, electricity resources, soil resources, etc., in the agricultural
supply chain. The proportion of environmental investment by core companies (C53) reflects
the urgency of green agricultural supply chains for sustainable development. Green
technology (C54) refers to the use of one or more environmentally relevant devices in the
agricultural supply chain to measure, simulate, and protect the natural environment and
resources to mitigate the negative impacts caused by humans.
3.2. Neutrosophic Enhanced BWM
The BWM was first proposed by Rezaei in 2015 to solve multi-criteria decision problems
[43]. In a decision-making system with n, traditional multi-criteria decision-making methods
require 𝑛(𝑛 − 1)/2 comparisons. However, the comparison in the BWM is only between the
𝑎 𝑎
best factor and the worst factor ( 𝐵𝑊 ), between the best factor and other factors ( 𝐵𝑗 ), and
between other factors and the worst factor ( 𝑎𝑗𝑊 ), that is, 2𝑛 − 3 comparisons are required.
When 𝑛 > 3, the number of BWM comparisons needed is significantly less than in other
traditional comparison methods, which improves decision-making efficiency [44,45].
However, the degree of the DMs’ confidence in the best-to-others preferences
(Separation I) and others-to-worst preferences (Separation II) has been overlooked in the
original BWM. The NE-BWM was proposed to overcome it and improve the efficiency of the
original BWM in the real-world applications in uncertain environments [35]. Moreover, the NE-
BWM can assist decision-makers to achieve more reliable rankings in real-world decision-
making problems.
The original BWM has five steps, while the NE-BWM adds two new steps, as explained
below:
Step 1. Determination of evaluation indicators/criteria
A set of indicators should be constructed to perform subsequent decision making and
analysis, as shown in Equation (1).
𝑁 = {𝐶1, 𝐶2,⋯, 𝐶𝑛 }
(1)
Step 2. The best and worst indicator
(/)
It is up to the expert (the decision-maker) to decide what he or she thinks is the most
important indicator (the best) and what is not (the worst).
Step 3. Best-to-others vector searchmenu
As shown in Table 2, the experts expressed their preferences for the most important
indicator over all other indicators using a scale from 1 to 9, with the resulting vector being
represented by 𝐵 𝐴 = (𝑎𝐵1 , 𝑎𝐵2 , 𝑎𝐵3 , ⋯ 𝑎𝐵n ), where 𝑎𝐵𝑖 signified the preference for the most
important indicator𝐶𝐵 over indicator 𝐶𝑖; it was also obvious that 𝑎𝐵𝐵 = 1 [43].
Table 2. Rating scale importance.
 
Step 4. Others-to-worst vector

Similarly, using Table 2, the experts determined their preferences for all other indicators
𝐶𝑖 compared to the least important indicator 𝐶𝑊 and constructed a comparison vector
𝐴𝑊 = (𝑎1𝑊 , 𝑎2𝑊 , 𝑎3𝑊 , ⋯ 𝑎𝑛𝑊 ), with 𝑎𝑖𝑊 representing their preference for the other indicators
𝐶𝑖 compared to the least important indicator 𝐶𝑊 .
The following two steps are uniquely enhanced and introduced for the proposed NE-
BWM:
Step 5. Expert’s uncertain confidence in the best-to-others preferences
An expert is asked to provide his/her confidence in the best-to-others preferences, which
would inherently include the uncertainty of their choice in the best criterion. An expert is
required to indicate his/her confidence using the linguistic phrases presented in Table 2. The
𝜌
neutrosophic value of the expert’s confidence in the best-to-others preferences ( + ) is a
single-valued trapezoidal neutrosophic number (SVTNN), which is then substituted for the
provided verbal term (Table 2) [35]. It reveals the degree of the DMs’ confidence in
Separation I. Based on the previous studies [46,47], the crisp values in Table 3 are calculated
based on Equation (2).
𝑆(̃𝑎 ) = 121 (𝑎 + 𝑏 + 𝑐 + 𝑑)(2 + 𝑤̃𝑎 − 𝑢̃𝑎 − 𝑦̃𝑎 ) (2)
Table 3. The confidence rating scale.

(/)
searchmenu
Step 6. Expert’s uncertain confidence in others-to-worst preferences
An expert is asked to provide his/her confidence in their others-to-worst preferences,
which inherently includes the uncertainty of their choice in the worst criterion. Based on the
linguistic phrases in Table 3, the expert was able to express his/her level of confidence. The
𝜌
neutrosophic value of the expert’s confidence in the others-to-worst preferences ( − ) is a
SVTNN, which can be converted to a crisp value using Equation (2). It reveals the degree of

expert’s confidence in Separation II. 
Step 7. Optimal weights
The initial BWM model can be represented by Model (3), which can be transformed to
obtain Model (4).
min max {| 𝑊𝐵 − 𝑎 |,| 𝑊𝑗 − 𝑎 |}

𝑗 𝑊𝑗 𝐵𝑗 𝑊𝑊 𝑗𝑊
𝑠.𝑡.
∑ 𝑊𝑗 = 1 (3)
𝑗
𝑊𝑗 ≥ 0,∀𝑗 ∈ 𝑁
where N is the set of all indicators.
min𝜀
𝑠.𝑡.
| 𝑊𝑊𝐵𝑗 − 𝑎𝐵𝑗 | ≤ 𝜀,| 𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑗 − 𝑎𝑗𝑊 | ≤ 𝜀 (4)
∑ 𝑊𝑗 = 1
𝑗
𝑊𝑗 ≥ 0,∀𝑗 ∈ 𝑁
By substituting 𝜌+ and 𝜌− into the objective function of Model (3), Model (5) can be
obtained.
(5)
min max
𝑗 { 𝜌 + | 𝑊𝐵
𝑊𝑗 − 𝑎𝐵𝑗 |, 𝜌− | 𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑗 − 𝑎𝑗𝑊 |}
𝑠.𝑡.
∑ 𝑊𝑗 = 1
𝑗
𝑊𝑗 ≥ 0,∀𝑗 ∈ 𝑁
where 0 ≤ 𝜌+ ≤ 1 and 0 ≤ 𝜌− ≤ 1.
(/)
Model (5) is then transformed into Models (6) and (7).
min{ 𝜌𝜀+ +
searchmenu
𝜌− }
𝜀
𝑠.𝑡.
| 𝑊𝑊𝐵𝑗 − 𝑎𝐵𝑗 | ≤ 𝜌ε+ ,| 𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑗 − 𝑎𝑗𝑊 | ≤ 𝜌𝜀− (6)
∑ 𝑊𝑗 = 1
𝑗
𝑊𝑗 ≥ 0,∀𝑗 ∈ 𝑁
 
Finally, by solving Model (7), the indicators weights are obtained.
min𝜀( 𝜌𝜌−−+𝜌𝜌++ )
𝑠.𝑡.
𝑊𝐵 − 𝜀 ≤ 𝑎 , 𝑊𝐵 + 𝜀 ≥ 𝑎 ,∀𝑗 ∈ 𝑁
𝑊 𝑗 𝜌+ 𝐵𝑗 𝑊𝑗 𝜌+ 𝐵𝑗
𝑊𝑗 𝜀− ≤ 𝑎𝑗𝑊 , 𝑊𝑗 + 𝜀− ≥ 𝑎𝑗𝑊 ,∀𝑗 ∈ 𝑁
𝑊𝑊 𝜌− 𝑊𝑊 𝜌
(7)
∑ 𝑊𝑗 = 1
𝑗
𝑊𝑗 ≥ 0,∀𝑗 ∈ 𝑁
The consistency ratio (CR), which is the cardinal and output-based consistency for NE-
BWM [48], is described in this section. The higher the CR, the lower the consistency of the
𝑎
evaluations. Given 𝐵𝑊 is the preference of the best criterion over the worst criterion, then a
comparison is completely consistent when 𝑎𝐵𝑗 × 𝑎𝑗𝑊 = 𝑎𝐵𝑊 . Referring to the previous studies
[35], Model (7) can be used to calculate the consistency ratio based on Equation (8).
𝜀 𝜀 𝜌 − + 𝜌+
(𝑎𝐵𝑗 − 𝜌+ ) × (𝑎𝑗𝑊 − 𝜌− ) = (𝑎𝐵𝑊 + 𝜀( 𝜌− 𝜌+ )) (8)
As for the minimum consistency, 𝑎𝐵𝑗 = 𝑎𝑗𝑊 = 𝑎𝐵𝑊 , Equation (9) is derived.
𝜀 𝜀 𝜌 − + 𝜌+
(𝑎𝐵𝑊 − 𝜌+ ) × (𝑎𝐵𝑊 − 𝜌− ) = (𝑎𝐵𝑊 + 𝜀( 𝜌− 𝜌+ )) (9)
Based on Equations (8) and (9), we can obtain Equation (10).
1
( 𝜌− 𝜌+ ) 𝜀 − (
2 𝑎 𝐵𝑊 ( 𝜌 − + 𝜌+ ) + 𝜌− + 𝜌+
)𝜀 + (𝑎2𝐵𝑊 − 𝑎𝐵𝑊 ) = 0
(10)
𝜌− 𝜌+
According to Table 2, 𝑎𝐵𝑊 can take on values {1, ⋯ , 9} . By using Table 3,
𝜌+ ∈ {0.26, 0.38, 0.50, 0.68, 0.90, 1.00} and 𝜌− ∈ {0.26, 0.38, 0.50, 0.68, 0.90, 1.00} can be
(/)
searchmenu
found. The maximum possible value of ε can be calculated by solving Equation (10). The
obtained values are recognized as the consistency index (CI) values. After solving Model (7),
the ε∗ is obtained, and then the CR can be calculated by Equation (11).
𝜀
𝐶𝑅 = 𝐶𝐼
∗
(11)
3.3. Combined Compromise Solution Method

After determining the weights of the indicators, the risk level of the farmers needs to be
assessed.
 This article uses the combined compromise solution (CoCoSo) method to solve 
the evaluation problem, which was proposed by Yazdani et al. [36]. This method combines
linear weighting with exponential weighting, which provides a compromise combination
solution for ranking alternatives. Based on the weights obtained in step 7 of the NE-BWM
above, CoCoSo starts from step 8:
Step 8. Forming a decision matrix
⎡⎢ 𝑥11 𝑥12 ⋯ 𝑥1𝑛 ⎤

𝑥𝑖𝑗 = ⎢⎢ 𝑥⋯21 𝑥22 ⋯ 𝑥2𝑛 ⎥⎥ ;𝑖 = 1,2,⋯,𝑚;𝑗 = 1,2,⋯,𝑛.
⎢𝑥 ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⎥⎥ (12)
⎣ 𝑚1 𝑥𝑚2 ⋯ 𝑥𝑚𝑛 ⎦
where 𝑥𝑖𝑗 denotes rating of alternative 𝑖 according to criterion 𝑗.
Step 9. Normalizing the decision matrix
In this step, the decision matrix becomes normal based on the compromise of the
normalization equation. For positive and negative indicators, two different equations are used:
𝑥𝑖𝑗 − min𝑖 𝑥𝑖𝑗

𝑟𝑖𝑗 = max𝑥𝑖𝑗 − min𝑥𝑖𝑗 ; for benefit criterion, (13)
𝑖 𝑖
max
𝑖 𝑥𝑖𝑗 − 𝑥𝑖𝑗
𝑟𝑖𝑗 = max𝑥𝑖𝑗 − min𝑥𝑖𝑗 ; for cost criterion. (14)
𝑖 𝑖
Step 10. Calculating weighted sum and weighted product values
𝑆
In this step, the sum of the weighted comparability sequence ( 𝑖 ) and power-weighted
𝑃
comparability sequences ( 𝑖 ) of alternative i is calculated.
𝑛
(/)
𝑆𝑖 = ∑ (𝑤𝑗 𝑟𝑖𝑗 ) (15)
𝑗=1
searchmenu
𝑛 𝑤𝑗
𝑝𝑖 = ∑ (𝑟𝑖𝑗 ) (16)
𝑗=1
Step 11: Determining the evaluation scores using three strategies
This part uses three evaluation score strategies to generate relative weights for the other
options, as follows:
 𝑘𝑖𝑎 = 𝑃𝑖 + 𝑆𝑖 
𝑚
∑𝑖=1 (𝑃𝑖 + 𝑆𝑖 ) (17)
𝑘𝑖𝑏 = min𝑆𝑖 𝑆𝑖 + min𝑃𝑖 𝑃𝑖 (18)

𝑖 𝑖
𝑘𝑖𝑐 = 𝜆(𝑆𝑖 ) + (1 − 𝜆)(𝑃𝑖) ;0 ≤ 𝜆 ≤ 1.

(𝜆max
𝑖 𝑆𝑖 + (1 − 𝜆) max
𝑖 𝑃𝑖 )
(19)
In Equation (19), λ (usually λ = 0.5) is chosen by the decision-makers. The final ranking
of the alternatives is determined based on 𝑘𝑖 .
𝑘𝑖 = (𝑘𝑖𝑎𝑘𝑖𝑏𝑘𝑖𝑐 ) 13 + 13 (𝑘𝑖𝑎 + 𝑘𝑖𝑏 + 𝑘𝑖𝑐 ) (20)
4. Case Study
The global oversupply of low-quality coffee has depressed prices in the world market,
making it difficult for coffee farmers to generate enough income to cover their production
costs [49]. Company A is a specialty coffee retailer with a high industry position and strict
requirements for coffee quality. Although Company A buys only the best quality Arabica coffee
and pays a premium, all farmers are economically affected by the oversupply of this low-
quality coffee. In order to help coffee farmers improve their livelihoods and ensure high-
quality coffee production in the long term, Company A wanted to use supply chain finance to
provide financial support to the farmers. Furthermore, Company A wants to ensure that the
coffee supplier engages in production activities that are environmentally friendly so that they
do not pollute the environment and do not use environmentally harmful processes or raw
materials (such as pesticides) on the farmland. Green sustainability goals make core
companies willing to provide risk guarantees for other peers in the supply chain for SCF. In
(/)
the context of green development, commercial banks also need to consider the
searchmenu
environmental impact of the supply chain and try to avoid lending to credit entities with high
pollution and high energy consumption.
Company A purchases produce from coffee bean Farmer B based on the market demand
forecasts. Farmer B fulfills the purchase and sale contract and has a certain period of
cooperation with Company A. Farmer B wants to combine with Company A's green
development concept to create green agriculture. In the process of development, Farmer B
has productive credit needs and applies to commercial banks for loans based on agricultural
supply chain finance. Commercial banks need to analyze the weights of each indicator of
Farmer B to assess the level of credit risk.
 Calculation of Indicator Weights
4.1. 
Against this background, seven bank experts who have long been involved in agricultural
credit were invited to participate in the evaluation. According to step 1 of the NE-BWM-
COCOSO method, the experts get a detailed understanding of the meaning of the indicator
system. With step 2, the experts identified the best and worst indicators. The best-to-others
vector was created in step 3 and the others-to-worst vector was created in step 4. With steps
5 and 6, it is possible to obtain the uncertain confidence in the best-to-others preferences (I)
and others-to-worst preferences (II), as shown in Table 4. The crisp value is based on Table
2. The results of Step 3 and Step 4 are shown in Table 5 and Table 6.
Table 4. Experts’ uncertain confidence.
Table 5. The best-to-others vector.
Table 6. The others-to-worst vector.

(/)
searchmenu
By step 7, the optimal weights of each expert can be obtained, as shown in Table 7.
Based on the optimal weights of each expert, the average optimal weights can be obtained,
as shown in Figure 2. Among them, blue (C11–C18) indicates the credit status of farmers, red
(C21–C24) indicates the qualification of core enterprises, gray (C31–C36) indicates the status
of assets under financing, yellow (C41–C44) indicates the status of agricultural supply chain
operation, and green (C51–C54) indicates green sustainable development.
 
Figure 2. Average optimal weights.
Table 7. Optimal weights.
Based on the reference table of the CI values specified by Vafadarnikjoo et al. [35], and
Equation (10), the CI values corresponding to each expert can be obtained using the
𝜀*
confidence levels shown in Table 4. By solving model (7), we can obtain . Using Equation
(11), the CR values of each expert can be obtained, as shown in Table 8. The CR values
evaluated by all experts were below two. In the case of 26 evaluation indicators and a 9-point
scale, the CR values of these scores are the acceptable threshold proposed by Liang et al.
[48], which indicates that the pairwise comparisons are cardinally consistent.
Table 8. Consistency ratio of each expert evaluation.

(/)
searchmenu
4.2. Simulation Analysis
To verify the usefulness and validity of the obtained evaluation indicators weights, this
study uses simulation data as an example to assess sustainable supply chain credit for
farmers. Through discussions with experts, this paper simulates four representative
𝐹
categories of farmers with production and business loan needs. 1 : the farmer's own credit
characteristics are at a normal level, but its downstream core business is poorly qualified and
its
 profitability has declined due to the various chain reactions generated by the new crown
𝐹
epidemic, and it has defaulted on a relatively large amount of payments to the bank. 2 : the
farmer has a normal credit standing and its downstream core business ranks high in the
regional industry, and there has been a period of cooperation between the farmer and the
𝐹
core business. 3 : the farmer has a poor credit standing, is old, and has some physical
illness. In addition, the farmer has a long and stable cooperation with the downstream core
𝐹
enterprise and the core enterprise has a high qualification and top regional ranking. 4 : the
farmer has a normal credit profile and the downstream core business is highly qualified. The
core business promotes a green mode of operation for better quality development. The
farmer wants to take out a loan to further improve the efficiency of the operation and reduce
the environmental impact. The evaluation scores of these four categories of farmers are
expressed by 1 to 9, as shown in Table 9.
Table 9. Raw scores.
Based on the raw scores and the weights of the various indicators, using the COCOSO
calculation method (steps 8 to 11), the results can be calculated as shown in Table 10, where
the higher the score the lower the risk.
Table 10. Evaluation results.

(/)
searchmenu
4.3. Comparison with the TOPSIS Method
TOPSIS is one of the classical decision methods that can also solve the problem of this
study [50]. With TOPSIS, based on the initial decision matrix (Table 9) and the combined
weight vector of the criterion (Table 7), the following results can be obtained: 0.3262 (F1),
0.4972 (F2), 0.4677 (F3), and 0.7857 (F4). The decision ranking of sustainable supply chain
finance for green agriculture is F4 > F2 > F3 > F1. As shown in Figure 3, the ranking results of
the
 TOPSIS method and the NE-BWM-CoCoSo method are the same, which verifies the 
feasibility of the proposed method. From the calculation results, the differences between the
alternatives calculated using the NE-BWM-CoCoSo method are more pronounced than those
calculated using the TOPSIS method.
Figure 3. Comparison of CoCoSo method and TOPSIS method.
4.4. Discussion
According to the results of the above analysis, it can be summarized as follows:
The first is the determination of the best and worst indicators and the confidence level of
experts. As can be seen from Table 5, most experts agree that C9 (the credit rating of the
core companies) is the most important indicator. This can be understood as the credit risk of
farmers which is mostly transferred to the credit risk of core enterprises in agricultural supply
chain finance. From Table 6, it can be found that three experts consider C42 (the number of
years the farmer has been trading with the core business) as the most irrelevant indicator.
This is because in the experience of these experts, often most of the farmers who need loans
for production and operation have not been working with the core business for a long time.
They need this loan to further improve production efficiency to meet the longer-term
partnership requirements of the core business. Based on their chosen best indicator and
(/)
worst indicator, the experts completed the best-to-others vector and the others-to-worst
searchmenu
vector. Table 4 shows the uncertain confidence of the experts in the scoring process. It can
be found that most of the experts' confidence level is between medium confidence and fairly
high confidence. Experts said that the number of indicators was relatively high due to the total
number of 26. Therefore, in the process of comparison, experts suspected that they would
make mistakes, leading to a decrease in confidence, which is something that needs to be
addressed in future studies. Yet, overall, there is a high level of confidence and a good
assurance of data consistency.
Secondly, the weights of each indicator were calculated by NE-BWM. Table 7 shows the
optimal weights of each expert for each indicator and because the weights of each expert are
defaulted
 to be the same, the average can be obtained, as shown in Figure 2. From Table 8,
it can be proved that the consistency ratio of these indicators is acceptable. The indicator with
the highest weight is C21 (credit rating level of core companies), with 0.076. Second, the
weights above 0.05 are C11 (the age of the farmers, 0.056), C22 (the industry status of the
core firms, 0.054), C52 (the resource consumption of farmers and core firms, 0.054), C31 (the
price stability of pledges, 0.051), and C13 (the health status of farmers, 0.05), in descending
order. Due to the risk-sharing property of agricultural supply chains, a large part of the
decision risk of Farmers’ loans is transferred to the core enterprises. The credit level of core
enterprises greatly affects the decision risk of agricultural supply chain finance. Similarly, the
higher the industry status of the core enterprises, the lower the overall supply chain risk.
Since the main subject of credit is still the farmer, the age and health status of the farmer
remains important. The younger and fitter the farmer, the more favored by banks.
Sustainability indicators play an important role in this system and can well solve the problem
of green agricultural supply chain finance decision making. Sustainability indicators play an
important role in this system and can fit well in green agriculture. However, it is worth noting
that agricultural supply chains that move toward low energy consumption and low pollution
are highly likely to already have a better foundation for development, and such influences are
reciprocal.
The third is the discussion on simulation analysis. The simulation analysis of the four
types of farmers leads to the evaluation results shown in Table 10. According to the score, it
can be found that F4 > F2 > F3 > F1. Compared with F2, the production operations of the core
enterprises and farmers in F4 pay more attention to low energy consumption and pollution,
and the core enterprises pay more attention to green and sustainable development and invest
more in environmental protection. In the context of sustainable development, there is a
greater probability that such farmers will be able to obtain loans. Sustainability indicators also
better distinguish this type of farmer from other types, thus gaining more opportunities for F4.
Comparing F2 and F3 with F1, some interesting phenomena can be found. Although the credit
status of farmers in the indicator system of this paper occupies 0.24, which is larger than the
0.209 of the core enterprise qualification, the adverse effects caused by poor core enterprises
in agricultural supply chain finance can be more serious than the farmers’ credit. This is
(/)
because the gap between farmers is not as big as the gap between core enterprises, while
searchmenu
core enterprises occupy a more dominant position in the agricultural supply chain and have
more influence on the operating conditions and environment of the supply chain, etc.
Therefore, when farmers choose whether to use supply chain finance to make loans, they
need to pay attention to the credit status of the core enterprises not being too bad.
The last thing worth discussing is the comparison of methods. Comparing the NE-BWM-
CoCoSO method with the original TOPSIS method, it can be found that the NE-BWM-
CoCoSo method produces more differentiated results. In other words, the NE-BWM-CoCoSo
method shows the differences between the ranking schemes better than the TOPSIS method.
The reason is that the NE-BWM-CoCoSo method uses three aggregation strategies, while
the
 TOPSIS method has only one aggregation strategy. Therefore, the calculation results of

the NE-BWM-CoCoSo method are clearer and more reliable.
5. Conclusions
Agricultural supply chain finance is an effective way to solve the problem of difficult loans
for farmers, and the goal of green and sustainable development makes the core enterprises
willing to share the supply risk for other companions in the supply chain. In the face of the
growing importance of sustainable supply chain finance for green agriculture, it is important
for banks to assess risks and make scientifically sound decisions. In view of this, this study
uses the NE-BWM-COCOSO approach to assess sustainable supply chain finance risk
decisions for green agriculture based on the experience of seven experts in the field of farmer
credit. The assessment is conducted in five aspects: the farmers’ credit status, core
enterprise qualification, assets under financing, agricultural supply chain operation status,
and green sustainability status, with a total of 26 indicators. With the NE-BWM, the
confidence of experts in the process of evaluating indicator weights is taken into account,
thus making the evaluation results more credible. The results show that the level of credit
rating of core companies is the most important indicator, with a weight of 0.076. The indicator
of Farmers’ organizational and political relations is relatively the least important, with a weight
of 0.013. In addition, based on discussions with experts, this study generated four categories
of typical farm households with production and business credit needs. Using the NE-BWM-
COCOSO treatment, the risk status of the four categories of farmers was assessed. The
evaluation results found that the agricultural supply chain finance risk indicator system, which
considers green and sustainable development factors, is more suitable for farmers in the
current green agricultural development and can provide more scientific and reasonable
suggestions for financial decision makers. Agricultural supply chain finance shifts some of the
credit risk of farmers to the core enterprises. Farmers need to consider the credit health of the
core business when lending, otherwise it will have the opposite effect and increase the overall
level of the risk. In addition, a comparison with TOPSIS reveals that the method in this study
is more stable and reliable. The case study of this research revolves around the agricultural
(/)
supply chain of coffee bean cultivation. In this case, banks can select a more sustainable
ASCF based on the index system and methodology of this study, reducing credit risk and
searchmenu
responding to the government's call. In this way, coffee retailers can obtain higher quality and
pollution-free coffee beans, helping farmers and making the supply chain more stable.
Farmers will also be able to obtain more loans and more stable jobs. In addition, the results of
this study can be applied to different scenarios of agricultural supply chains. If the indicators
of the farmers’ credit status are replaced, the results can be used to study sustainable SCF in
other industries.
As this study focuses more on green development and less on employee ethics, this
could be studied in more depth in the future. In addition, this study focuses on the agricultural
scenario
 in China and future studies can focus on many different industries in different 
countries. There are many other approaches that can be applied and improved to generate
meaningful results for multi-criteria decision issues.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, H.L. and Z.L.; methodology, H.L. and Y.X.; software, H.L.; validation,
H.L.; formal analysis, J.W.; investigation, H.L. and J.W.; resources, Y.X.; data curation, H.L.;
writing—original draft preparation, H.L. and J.W.; writing—review and editing, Y.X. and H.L;
visualization, Y.X.; supervision, Y.X. and Z.L.; project administration, Y.X.; funding acquisition,
Y.X. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by the Innovation Fund of Gansu Higher School, grant number
2021A-153.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement
The datasets used or analyzed during the current study are available from the
corresponding author on reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest
(/)
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
searchmenu
1. Huang, J.K.; Rozelle, S.; Zhu, X.K.; Zhao, S.J.; Sheng, Y. Agricultural and rural
development in China during the past four decades: An introduction. Aust. J. Agric.
Resour. Econ. 2019, 64, 1–13. [Google Scholar
(https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
title=Agricultural+and+rural+development+in+China+during+the+past+four+dec
ades:+An+introduction&author=Huang,+J.K.&author=Rozelle,+S.&author=Zhu,+
 X.K.&author=Zhao,+S.J.&author=Sheng,+Y.&publication_year=2019&journal=Au
st.+J.+Agric.+Resour.+Econ.&volume=64&pages=1%E2%80%9313&doi=10.1111/
1467-8489.12352)] [CrossRef (https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.12352)]
2. Li, Z.; Jin, M.; Cheng, J. Economic growth of green agriculture and its influencing
factors in china: Based on emergy theory and spatial econometric model. Environ.
Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 15494–15512. [Google Scholar
title=Economic+growth+of+green+agriculture+and+its+influencing+factors+in+c
hina:+Based+on+emergy+theory+and+spatial+econometric+model&author=Li,+
Z.&author=Jin,+M.&author=Cheng,+J.&publication_year=2021&journal=Environ.
+Dev.+Sustain.&volume=23&pages=15494%E2%80%9315512&doi=10.1007/s1066
8-021-01307-1)] [CrossRef (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01307-1)]
3. Chen, Z.; Chen, J.; Zhang, Z.; Zhi, X. Does network governance based on banks’ e-
commerce platform facilitate supply chain financing? China Agric. Econ. Rev. 2019, 11,
688–703. [Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
title=Does+network+governance+based+on+banks%E2%80%99+e-
commerce+platform+facilitate+supply+chain+financing?
&author=Chen,+Z.&author=Chen,+J.&author=Zhang,+Z.&author=Zhi,+X.&publica
tion_year=2019&journal=China+Agric.+Econ.+Rev.&volume=11&pages=688%E2
%80%93703&doi=10.1108/CAER-06-2018-0132)] [CrossRef
(https://doi.org/10.1108/CAER-06-2018-0132)]
4. National Bureau of statistics of the people's Republic of China. China population
census yearbook 2020; China Statistics Press: Beijing, China, 2021.
5. Shen,
(/)
J.; Zhu, Q.; Jiao, X.; Ying, H.; Wang, H.; Wen, X.; Xu, W.; Li, T.; Cong, W.; Liu,
X.; et al. Agriculture Green Development: A model for China and the world. Front.
Agric. Sci. Eng. 2020, 7,
5–13. [Google Scholar
searchmenu
title=Agriculture+Green+Development:+A+model+for+China+and+the+world&aut
hor=Shen,+J.&author=Zhu,+Q.&author=Jiao,+X.&author=Ying,+H.&author=Wang
,+H.&author=Wen,+X.&author=Xu,+W.&author=Li,+T.&author=Cong,+W.&author=
Liu,+X.&publication_year=2020&journal=Front.+Agric.+Sci.+Eng.&volume=7&pa
ges=5%E2%80%9313&doi=10.15302/J-FASE-2019300)] [CrossRef
(https://doi.org/10.15302/J-FASE-2019300)][Green Version (http://journal.hep.co
m.cn/fase/EN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=26431)]
 
6. Shen, J.; Cui, Z.; Miao, Y.; Mi, G.; Zhang, H.; Fan, M.; Zhang, C.; Jiang, R.; Zhang, W.;
Li, H.; et al. Transforming agriculture in China: From solely high yield to both high yield
and high resource use efficiency. Glob. Food Secur. 2013, 2, 1–8. [Google Scholar
title=Transforming+agriculture+in+China:+From+solely+high+yield+to+both+hig
h+yield+and+high+resource+use+efficiency&author=Shen,+J.&author=Cui,+Z.&
author=Miao,+Y.&author=Mi,+G.&author=Zhang,+H.&author=Fan,+M.&author=Zh
ang,+C.&author=Jiang,+R.&author=Zhang,+W.&author=Li,+H.&publication_year=
2013&journal=Glob.+Food+Secur.&volume=2&pages=1%E2%80%938&doi=10.10
16/j.gfs.2012.12.004)] [CrossRef (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2012.12.004)]
7. Jiao, X.; Lyu, Y.; Wu, X.; Li, H.; Cheng, L.; Zhang, C.; Yuan, L.; Jiang, R.; Jiang, B.;
Rengel, Z.; et al. Grain production versus resource and environmental costs: Towards
increasing sustainability of nutrient use in China. J. Exp. Bot. 2016, 67, 4935–4949.
[Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
title=Grain+production+versus+resource+and+environmental+costs:+Towards+i
ncreasing+sustainability+of+nutrient+use+in+China&author=Jiao,+X.&author=L
yu,+Y.&author=Wu,+X.&author=Li,+H.&author=Cheng,+L.&author=Zhang,+C.&au
thor=Yuan,+L.&author=Jiang,+R.&author=Jiang,+B.&author=Rengel,+Z.&publica
tion_year=2016&journal=J.+Exp.+Bot.&volume=67&pages=4935%E2%80%93494
9&doi=10.1093/jxb/erw282)] [CrossRef (https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erw282)][Green
Version (https://academic.oup.com/jxb/article-pdf/67/17/4935/18074107/erw282.p
df)]
8. Bai, S.;
(/)
Jia, X. Agricultural Supply Chain Financing Strategies under the Impact of Risk
Attitudes. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8787. [Google Scholar
title=Agricultural+Supply+Chain+Financing+Strategies+under+the+Impact+of+Ri
searchmenu
sk+Attitudes&author=Bai,+S.&author=Jia,+X.&publication_year=2022&journal=S
ustainability&volume=14&pages=8787&doi=10.3390/su14148787)] [CrossRef
(https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148787)]
9. Yi, Z.; Wang, Y.; Chen, Y. Financing an Agricultural Supply Chain with a Capital-
Constrained Smallholder Farmer in Developing Economies. Prod. Oper. Manag. 2021,
30, 2102–2121. [Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
title=Financing+an+Agricultural+Supply+Chain+with+a+Capital-
 
Constrained+Smallholder+Farmer+in+Developing+Economies&author=Yi,+Z.&a
uthor=Wang,+Y.&author=Chen,+Y.&publication_year=2021&journal=Prod.+Oper.
+Manag.&volume=30&pages=2102%E2%80%932121&doi=10.1111/poms.13357)]
[CrossRef (https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.13357)]
10. Gouri, K.V.; Mahajan, V. Different Models of Financing Small Farmers’ Agricultural
Value Chains. In Financing Agriculture Value Chains in India: Challenges and
Opportunities; Springer Singapore: Singapore, 2017; pp. 33–53. [Google Scholar
title=Different+Models+of+Financing+Small+Farmers%E2%80%99+Agricultural+
Value+Chains&author=Gouri,+K.V.&author=Mahajan,+V.&publication_year=2017
&pages=33%E2%80%9353)] [CrossRef (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5957-
5_3)]
11. Zhou, Q.; Chen, X.; Li, S. Innovative Financial Approach for Agricultural Sustainability:
A Case Study of Alibaba. Sustainability 2018, 10, 891. [Google Scholar
title=Innovative+Financial+Approach+for+Agricultural+Sustainability:+A+Case+
Study+of+Alibaba&author=Zhou,+Q.&author=Chen,+X.&author=Li,+S.&publicati
on_year=2018&journal=Sustainability&volume=10&pages=891&doi=10.3390/su1
0030891)] [CrossRef (https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030891)]
12. Chen, X.H.B.W.Y. Sustainable Supply Chain Finance: Model innovation and
Application—Taking agricultural supply chain as an example. Supply Chain. Manag.
2020, 9, 36–43. [Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
title=Sustainable+Supply+Chain+Finance:+Model+innovation+and+Application%
E2%80%94Taking+agricultural+supply+chain+as+an+example&author=Chen,+X.
H.B.W.Y.&publication_year=2020&journal=Supply+Chain.+Manag.&volume=9&pa
ges=36%E2%80%9343&doi=10.19868/j.cnki.gylgl.2020.09.004)] [CrossRef
(https://doi.org/10.19868/j.cnki.gylgl.2020.09.004)]
13. Yang,
(/)
Z.; Li, Q. Research on the construction of social co-governance system of
ecological environment protection. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 632,
052060. [Google Scholar
searchmenu
title=Research+on+the+construction+of+social+co-
governance+system+of+ecological+environment+protection&author=Yang,+Z.&
author=Li,+Q.&publication_year=2021&journal=IOP+Conf.+Ser.+Earth+Environ.+
Sci.&volume=632&pages=052060&doi=10.1088/1755-1315/632/5/052060)]
[CrossRef (https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/632/5/052060)]
14. Deng, L.; Xu, W.; Luo, J. Optimal Loan Pricing for Agricultural Supply Chains from a
Green Credit Perspective. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12365. [Google Scholar
 
title=Optimal+Loan+Pricing+for+Agricultural+Supply+Chains+from+a+Green+Cr
edit+Perspective&author=Deng,+L.&author=Xu,+W.&author=Luo,+J.&publication
_year=2021&journal=Sustainability&volume=13&pages=12365&doi=10.3390/su1
32212365)] [CrossRef (https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212365)]
15. Johari, M.; Hosseini-Motlagh, S.-M. Evolutionary behaviors regarding pricing and
payment-convenience strategies with uncertain risk. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2022, 297,
600–614. [Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
title=Evolutionary+behaviors+regarding+pricing+and+payment-
convenience+strategies+with+uncertain+risk&author=Johari,+M.&author=Hosse
ini-Motlagh,+S.-
M.&publication_year=2022&journal=Eur.+J.+Oper.+Res.&volume=297&pages=60
0%E2%80%93614&doi=10.1016/j.ejor.2021.05.012)] [CrossRef
(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2021.05.012)]
16. Liu, Y.; Yan, H. A Credit Risk Evaluation on Supply Chain Financing for Farmers’
Cooperatives. J. Nonlinear Convex Anal. 2020, 21, 1813–1828. [Google Scholar
title=A+Credit+Risk+Evaluation+on+Supply+Chain+Financing+for+Farmers%E2
%80%99+Cooperatives&author=Liu,+Y.&author=Yan,+H.&publication_year=2020
&journal=J.+Nonlinear+Convex+Anal.&volume=21&pages=1813%E2%80%93182
8)]
17. Xingli,
(/)
W.; Liao, H. Utility-based hybrid fuzzy axiomatic design and its application in
supply chain finance decision making with credit risk assessments. Comput. Ind. 2019,
114, 103144. [Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
title=Utility-
searchmenu
based+hybrid+fuzzy+axiomatic+design+and+its+application+in+supply+chain+fi
nance+decision+making+with+credit+risk+assessments&author=Xingli,+W.&aut
hor=Liao,+H.&publication_year=2019&journal=Comput.+Ind.&volume=114&page
s=103144&doi=10.1016/j.compind.2019.103144)] [CrossRef
(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2019.103144)]
18. Zhu, Y.; Zhou, L.; Xie, C.; Wang, G.-J.; Nguyen, T.V. Forecasting SMEs’ credit risk in
supply chain finance with an enhanced hybrid ensemble machine learning approach.
 
Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2019, 211, 22–33. [Google Scholar
title=Forecasting+SMEs%E2%80%99+credit+risk+in+supply+chain+finance+with
+an+enhanced+hybrid+ensemble+machine+learning+approach&author=Zhu,+Y.
&author=Zhou,+L.&author=Xie,+C.&author=Wang,+G.-
J.&author=Nguyen,+T.V.&publication_year=2019&journal=Int.+J.+Prod.+Econ.&v
olume=211&pages=22%E2%80%9333&doi=10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.01.032)] [CrossRef
(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.01.032)][Green Version (http://bura.brunel.ac.u
k/bitstream/2438/17809/2/FullText.pdf)]
19. Xu, M.; Cui, Y.; Hu, M.; Xu, X.; Zhang, Z.; Liang, S.; Qu, S. Supply chain sustainability
risk and assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 225, 857–867. [Google Scholar
title=Supply+chain+sustainability+risk+and+assessment&author=Xu,+M.&author
=Cui,+Y.&author=Hu,+M.&author=Xu,+X.&author=Zhang,+Z.&author=Liang,+S.&
author=Qu,+S.&publication_year=2019&journal=J.+Clean.+Prod.&volume=225&p
ages=857%E2%80%93867&doi=10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.307)] [CrossRef
(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.307)]
20. Liang, D.; Cao, W.; Wang, M. Credit rating of sustainable agricultural supply chain
finance by integrating heterogeneous evaluation information and misclassification risk.
Ann. Oper. Res. 2021, 1–31. [Google Scholar
title=Credit+rating+of+sustainable+agricultural+supply+chain+finance+by+integ
rating+heterogeneous+evaluation+information+and+misclassification+risk&auth
or=Liang,+D.&author=Cao,+W.&author=Wang,+M.&publication_year=2021&journ
al=Ann.+Oper.+Res.&pages=1%E2%80%9331&doi=10.1007/s10479-021-04453-x)]
[CrossRef (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-021-04453-x)]
21. Li, X.;
(/)
Sun, Y. Network Evolutionary Game-Based Diffusion Mechanism regarding the
Nonperformance of Farmers in Agricultural Supply Chain Finance. Discret. Dyn. Nat.
Soc. 2022, 2022, 8550974. [Google
searchmenu
Scholar
(https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Network+Evolutionary+Game-
Based+Diffusion+Mechanism+regarding+the+Nonperformance+of+Farmers+in+
Agricultural+Supply+Chain+Finance&author=Li,+X.&author=Sun,+Y.&publicatio
n_year=2022&journal=Discret.+Dyn.+Nat.+Soc.&volume=2022&pages=8550974&
doi=10.1155/2022/8550974)] [CrossRef (https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/8550974)]
22. Schöggl, J.-P.; Fritz, M.M.; Baumgartner, R.J. Toward supply chain-wide sustainability
assessment: A conceptual framework and an aggregation method to assess supply
chain performance. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 131, 822–835. [Google Scholar
 
(https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Toward+supply+chain-
wide+sustainability+assessment:+A+conceptual+framework+and+an+aggregati
on+method+to+assess+supply+chain+performance&author=Sch%C3%B6ggl,+J.
-
P.&author=Fritz,+M.M.&author=Baumgartner,+R.J.&publication_year=2016&journ
al=J.+Clean.+Prod.&volume=131&pages=822%E2%80%93835&doi=10.1016/j.jcle
pro.2016.04.035)] [CrossRef (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.035)]
23. Abdel-Basset, M.; Mohamed, R.; Sallam, K.; Elhoseny, M. A novel decision-making
model for sustainable supply chain finance under uncertainty environment. J. Clean.
Prod. 2020, 269, 122324. [Google Scholar
(https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=A+novel+decision-
making+model+for+sustainable+supply+chain+finance+under+uncertainty+envi
ronment&author=Abdel-
Basset,+M.&author=Mohamed,+R.&author=Sallam,+K.&author=Elhoseny,+M.&pu
blication_year=2020&journal=J.+Clean.+Prod.&volume=269&pages=122324&doi
=10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122324)] [CrossRef
(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122324)]
24. Hosseini-Motlagh,
(/)
S.-M.; Johari, M.; Zirakpourdehkordi, R. Grain production
management to reduce global warming potential under financial constraints and time

searchmenu
value of money using evolutionary game theory. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020, 59, 5108–
5129.
title=Grain+production+management+to+reduce+global+warming+potential+und
er+financial+constraints+and+time+value+of+money+using+evolutionary+game
+theory&author=Hosseini-Motlagh,+S.-
M.&author=Johari,+M.&author=Zirakpourdehkordi,+R.&publication_year=2020&j
ournal=Int.+J.+Prod.+Res.&volume=59&pages=5108%E2%80%935129&doi=10.10
80/00207543.2020.1773562)] [CrossRef
(https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2020.1773562)]
 
25. Tseng, M.-L.; Wu, K.-J.; Hu, J.; Wang, C.-H. Decision-making model for sustainable
supply chain finance under uncertainties. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2018, 205, 30–36.
[Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Decision-
making+model+for+sustainable+supply+chain+finance+under+uncertainties&au
thor=Tseng,+M.-L.&author=Wu,+K.-J.&author=Hu,+J.&author=Wang,+C.-
H.&publication_year=2018&journal=Int.+J.+Prod.+Econ.&volume=205&pages=30
%E2%80%9336&doi=10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.08.024)] [CrossRef
(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.08.024)]
26. Tseng, M.-L.; Lim, M.K.; Wu, K.-J. Improving the benefits and costs on sustainable
supply chain finance under uncertainty. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2019, 218, 308–321.
title=Improving+the+benefits+and+costs+on+sustainable+supply+chain+finance
+under+uncertainty&author=Tseng,+M.-L.&author=Lim,+M.K.&author=Wu,+K.-
J.&publication_year=2019&journal=Int.+J.+Prod.+Econ.&volume=218&pages=30
8%E2%80%93321&doi=10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.06.017)] [CrossRef
(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.06.017)]
27. Qiao, Y.; Martin, F.; He, X.; Zhen, H.; Pan, X. The changing role of local government in
organic agriculture development in Wanzai County, China. Can. J. Dev. Stud. -Rev.
Can. D Etudes Du Dev. 2018, 40, 64–77. [Google Scholar
title=The+changing+role+of+local+government+in+organic+agriculture+develop
ment+in+Wanzai+County,+China&author=Qiao,+Y.&author=Martin,+F.&author=H
e,+X.&author=Zhen,+H.&author=Pan,+X.&publication_year=2018&journal=Can.+
J.+Dev.+Stud.+-
Rev.+Can.+D+Etudes+Du+Dev.&volume=40&pages=64%E2%80%9377&doi=10.10
80/02255189.2019.1520693)] [CrossRef
(https://doi.org/10.1080/02255189.2019.1520693)]
28. Fayyaz,
(/)
M.R.; Rasouli, M.R.; Amiri, B. A data-driven and network-aware approach for
credit risk prediction in supply chain finance. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2020, 121, 785–
808. [Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=A+data-
driven+and+network-
searchmenu
aware+approach+for+credit+risk+prediction+in+supply+chain+finance&author=
Fayyaz,+M.R.&author=Rasouli,+M.R.&author=Amiri,+B.&publication_year=2020&
journal=Ind.+Manag.+Data+Syst.&volume=121&pages=785%E2%80%93808&doi=
10.1108/IMDS-01-2020-0052)] [CrossRef (https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-01-2020-
0052)]
29. Lam, H.K.; Zhan, Y.; Zhang, M.; Wang, Y.; Lyons, A. The effect of supply chain finance
initiatives on the market value of service providers. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2019, 216, 227–
 
238. [Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
title=The+effect+of+supply+chain+finance+initiatives+on+the+market+value+of+
service+providers&author=Lam,+H.K.&author=Zhan,+Y.&author=Zhang,+M.&aut
hor=Wang,+Y.&author=Lyons,+A.&publication_year=2019&journal=Int.+J.+Prod.
+Econ.&volume=216&pages=227%E2%80%93238&doi=10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.04.031
)] [CrossRef (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.04.031)]
30. Wetzel, P.; Hofmann, E. Supply chain finance, financial constraints and corporate
performance: An explorative network analysis and future research agenda. Int. J. Prod.
Econ. 2019, 216, 364–383. [Google Scholar
title=Supply+chain+finance,+financial+constraints+and+corporate+performance:
+An+explorative+network+analysis+and+future+research+agenda&author=Wetz
el,+P.&author=Hofmann,+E.&publication_year=2019&journal=Int.+J.+Prod.+Econ
.&volume=216&pages=364%E2%80%93383&doi=10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.07.001)]
[CrossRef (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.07.001)]
31. Xu, X.; Chen, X.; Jia, F.; Brown, S.; Gong, Y.; Xu, Y. Supply chain finance: A systematic
literature review and bibliometric analysis. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2018, 204, 160–173.
title=Supply+chain+finance:+A+systematic+literature+review+and+bibliometric+
analysis&author=Xu,+X.&author=Chen,+X.&author=Jia,+F.&author=Brown,+S.&a
uthor=Gong,+Y.&author=Xu,+Y.&publication_year=2018&journal=Int.+J.+Prod.+E
con.&volume=204&pages=160%E2%80%93173&doi=10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.08.003)]
[CrossRef (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.08.003)]
32. Wuttke,
(/)
D.A.; Rosenzweig, E.D.; Heese, H.S. An empirical analysis of supply chain
finance adoption. J. Oper. Manag. 2019, 65, 242–261. [Google Scholar
title=An+empirical+analysis+of+supply+chain+finance+adoption&author=Wuttke
searchmenu
,+D.A.&author=Rosenzweig,+E.D.&author=Heese,+H.S.&publication_year=2019&
journal=J.+Oper.+Manag.&volume=65&pages=242%E2%80%93261&doi=10.1002/
joom.1023)] [CrossRef (https://doi.org/10.1002/joom.1023)]
33. Yoon, B.K.; Tae, H.; Jackman, J.A.; Guha, S.; Kagan, C.R.; Margenot, A.J.; Rowland,
D.L.; Weiss, P.S.; Cho, N.-J. Entrepreneurial Talent Building for 21st Century
Agricultural Innovation. ACS Nano 2021, 15, 10748–10758. [Google Scholar
 
title=Entrepreneurial+Talent+Building+for+21st+Century+Agricultural+Innovatio
n&author=Yoon,+B.K.&author=Tae,+H.&author=Jackman,+J.A.&author=Guha,+S.
&author=Kagan,+C.R.&author=Margenot,+A.J.&author=Rowland,+D.L.&author=
Weiss,+P.S.&author=Cho,+N.-
J.&publication_year=2021&journal=ACS+Nano&volume=15&pages=10748%E2%
80%9310758&doi=10.1021/acsnano.1c05980&pmid=34269059)] [CrossRef
(https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.1c05980)] [PubMed
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34269059)]
34. Liang, X.; Zhao, X.; Wang, M.; Li, Z. Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Sustainable
Supply Chain Financing Decision Based on Triple Bottom Line Theory. Sustainability
2018, 10, 4242. [Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
title=Small+and+Medium-
Sized+Enterprises+Sustainable+Supply+Chain+Financing+Decision+Based+on+
Triple+Bottom+Line+Theory&author=Liang,+X.&author=Zhao,+X.&author=Wang,
+M.&author=Li,+Z.&publication_year=2018&journal=Sustainability&volume=10&
pages=4242&doi=10.3390/su10114242)] [CrossRef
(https://doi.org/10.3390/su10114242)][Green Version (https://www.mdpi.com/2071
-1050/10/11/4242/pdf)]
35. Vafadarnikjoo,
(/)
A.; Tavana, M.; Botelho, T.; Chalvatzis, K. A neutrosophic enhanced
best–worst method for considering decision-makers’ confidence in the best and worst
criteria. Ann. Oper. Res. 2020,
289, 391–418. [Google
searchmenu
Scholar
title=A+neutrosophic+enhanced+best%E2%80%93worst+method+for+consideri
ng+decision-
makers%E2%80%99+confidence+in+the+best+and+worst+criteria&author=Vafad
arnikjoo,+A.&author=Tavana,+M.&author=Botelho,+T.&author=Chalvatzis,+K.&p
ublication_year=2020&journal=Ann.+Oper.+Res.&volume=289&pages=391%E2%
80%93418&doi=10.1007/s10479-020-03603-x)] [CrossRef
(https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-020-03603-x)]
 
36. Yazdani, M.; Zarate, P.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Turskis, Z. A combined compromise solution
(CoCoSo) method for multi-criteria decision-making problems. Manag. Decis. 2019,
57, 2501–2519. [Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
title=A+combined+compromise+solution+(CoCoSo)+method+for+multi-
criteria+decision-
making+problems&author=Yazdani,+M.&author=Zarate,+P.&author=Zavadskas,+
E.K.&author=Turskis,+Z.&publication_year=2019&journal=Manag.+Decis.&volum
e=57&pages=2501%E2%80%932519&doi=10.1108/MD-05-2017-0458)] [CrossRef
(https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2017-0458)]
37. Mishra, A.R.; Rani, P.; Krishankumar, R.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Cavallaro, F.;
Ravichandran, K.S. A Hesitant Fuzzy Combined Compromise Solution Framework-
Based on Discrimination Measure for Ranking Sustainable Third-Party Reverse
Logistic Providers. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2064. [Google Scholar
title=A+Hesitant+Fuzzy+Combined+Compromise+Solution+Framework-
Based+on+Discrimination+Measure+for+Ranking+Sustainable+Third-
Party+Reverse+Logistic+Providers&author=Mishra,+A.R.&author=Rani,+P.&auth
or=Krishankumar,+R.&author=Zavadskas,+E.K.&author=Cavallaro,+F.&author=R
avichandran,+K.S.&publication_year=2021&journal=Sustainability&volume=13&
pages=2064&doi=10.3390/su13042064)] [CrossRef
(https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042064)]
38. Banihashemi,
(/)
S.A.; Khalilzadeh, M.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Antucheviciene, J. Investigating
the Environmental Impacts of Construction Projects in Time-Cost Trade-Off Project
Scheduling Problems with CoCoSo Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 10922. [Google Scholar
searchmenu
title=Investigating+the+Environmental+Impacts+of+Construction+Projects+in+Ti
me-Cost+Trade-Off+Project+Scheduling+Problems+with+CoCoSo+Multi-
Criteria+Decision-
Making+Method&author=Banihashemi,+S.A.&author=Khalilzadeh,+M.&author=Z
avadskas,+E.K.&author=Antucheviciene,+J.&publication_year=2021&journal=Su
stainability&volume=13&pages=10922&doi=10.3390/su131910922)] [CrossRef
 (https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910922)] 
39. Stanujkic, D.; Popovic, G.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Karabasevic, D.; Binkyte-Veliene, A.
Assessment of Progress towards Achieving Sustainable Development Goals of the
“Agenda 2030” by Using the CoCoSo and the Shannon Entropy Methods: The Case of
the EU Countries. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5717. [Google Scholar
title=Assessment+of+Progress+towards+Achieving+Sustainable+Development+
Goals+of+the+%E2%80%9CAgenda+2030%E2%80%9D+by+Using+the+CoCoSo+
and+the+Shannon+Entropy+Methods:+The+Case+of+the+EU+Countries&author
=Stanujkic,+D.&author=Popovic,+G.&author=Zavadskas,+E.K.&author=Karabase
vic,+D.&author=Binkyte-
Veliene,+A.&publication_year=2020&journal=Sustainability&volume=12&pages=
5717&doi=10.3390/su12145717)] [CrossRef (https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145717)]
40. Bai, C.; Shi, B.; Liu, F.; Sarkis, J. Banking credit worthiness: Evaluating the complex
relationships. Omega 2019, 83, 26–38. [Google Scholar
title=Banking+credit+worthiness:+Evaluating+the+complex+relationships&auth
or=Bai,+C.&author=Shi,+B.&author=Liu,+F.&author=Sarkis,+J.&publication_year
=2019&journal=Omega&volume=83&pages=26%E2%80%9338&doi=10.1016/j.om
ega.2018.02.001)] [CrossRef (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2018.02.001)]
41. Mathivathanan,
(/)
D.; Kannan, D.; Haq, A.N. Sustainable supply chain management
practices in Indian automotive industry: A multi-stakeholder view. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 2018, 128, 284–305.
[Google
searchmenu
Scholar
title=Sustainable+supply+chain+management+practices+in+Indian+automotive+
industry:+A+multi-
stakeholder+view&author=Mathivathanan,+D.&author=Kannan,+D.&author=Haq,
+A.N.&publication_year=2018&journal=Resour.+Conserv.+Recycl.&volume=128
&pages=284%E2%80%93305&doi=10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.01.003)] [CrossRef
(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.01.003)]
42. Belhadi, A.; Kamble, S.S.; Mani, V.; Benkhati, I.; Touriki, F.E. An ensemble machine
 
learning approach for forecasting credit risk of agricultural SMEs’ investments in
agriculture 4.0 through supply chain finance. Ann. Oper. Res. 2021, 1–29. [Google
Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
title=An+ensemble+machine+learning+approach+for+forecasting+credit+risk+of
+agricultural+SMEs%E2%80%99+investments+in+agriculture+4.0+through+supp
ly+chain+finance&author=Belhadi,+A.&author=Kamble,+S.S.&author=Mani,+V.&
author=Benkhati,+I.&author=Touriki,+F.E.&publication_year=2021&journal=Ann.
+Oper.+Res.&pages=1%E2%80%9329&doi=10.1007/s10479-021-04366-9)]
[CrossRef (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-021-04366-9)]
43. Rezaei, J. Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega 2015, 53, 49–57.
[Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Best-
worst+multi-criteria+decision-
making+method&author=Rezaei,+J.&publication_year=2015&journal=Omega&vo
lume=53&pages=49%E2%80%9357&doi=10.1016/j.omega.2014.11.009)]
[CrossRef (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2014.11.009)]
44. Rezaei, J. Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a
linear model. Omega 2016, 64, 126–130. [Google Scholar
(https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Best-worst+multi-
criteria+decision-
making+method:+Some+properties+and+a+linear+model&author=Rezaei,+J.&pu
blication_year=2016&journal=Omega&volume=64&pages=126%E2%80%93130&
doi=10.1016/j.omega.2015.12.001)] [CrossRef
(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.12.001)]
45. Rezaei,
(/)
J.; Hemmes, A.; Tavasszy, L. Multi-criteria decision-making for complex
bundling configurations in surface transportation of air freight. J. Air Transp. Manag.
title=Multi-criteria+decision-
searchmenu
making+for+complex+bundling+configurations+in+surface+transportation+of+ai
r+freight&author=Rezaei,+J.&author=Hemmes,+A.&author=Tavasszy,+L.&public
ation_year=2017&journal=J.+Air+Transp.+Manag.&volume=61&pages=95%E2%8
0%93105&doi=10.1016/j.jairtraman.2016.02.006)] [CrossRef
(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2016.02.006)]
46. Wang, J.Q.; Zhang, Z. Aggregation operators on intuitionistic trapezoidal fuzzy number
and its application to multi-criteria decision making problems. J. Syst. Eng. Electron.
 
title=Aggregation+operators+on+intuitionistic+trapezoidal+fuzzy+number+and+i
ts+application+to+multi-
criteria+decision+making+problems&author=Wang,+J.Q.&author=Zhang,+Z.&pu
blication_year=2009&journal=J.+Syst.+Eng.+Electron.&volume=20&pages=321%
E2%80%93326)]
47. Ye, J. Some Weighted Aggregation Operators of Trapezoidal Neutrosophic Numbers

and Their Multiple Attribute Decision Making Method. Informatica 2017, 28, 387–402.
title=Some+Weighted+Aggregation+Operators+of+Trapezoidal+Neutrosophic+N
umbers+and+Their+Multiple+Attribute+Decision+Making+Method&author=Ye,+J.
&publication_year=2017&journal=Informatica&volume=28&pages=387%E2%80%
93402&doi=10.15388/Informatica.2017.108)] [CrossRef
(https://doi.org/10.15388/Informatica.2017.108)]
48. Liang, F.; Brunelli, M.; Rezaei, J. Consistency issues in the best worst method:
Measurements and thresholds. Omega 2019, 96, 102175. [Google Scholar
title=Consistency+issues+in+the+best+worst+method:+Measurements+and+thre
sholds&author=Liang,+F.&author=Brunelli,+M.&author=Rezaei,+J.&publication_
year=2019&journal=Omega&volume=96&pages=102175&doi=10.1016/j.omega.20
19.102175)] [CrossRef (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2019.102175)]
49. Stacy Duda, L.J.; Mackwani, Z.; Munoz, R.; Volk, D. Starbucks Corporation: Building a
Sustainable Supply Chain; Stanford Graduate School of Business: Palo Alto, CA, USA,
2008. [Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
title=Starbucks+Corporation:+Building+a+Sustainable+Supply+Chain&author=S
tacy+Duda,+L.J.&author=Mackwani,+Z.&author=Munoz,+R.&author=Volk,+D.&pu
blication_year=2008)]
50. Zavadskas,
(/)
E.K.; Mardani, A.; Turskis, Z.; Jusoh, A.; Nor, K. Development of TOPSIS
Method to Solve Complicated Decision-Making Problems—An Overview on
Developments from 2000 to 2015. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak. 2016, 15, 645–682.
searchmenu
title=Development+of+TOPSIS+Method+to+Solve+Complicated+Decision-
Making+Problems%E2%80%94An+Overview+on+Developments+from+2000+to+
2015&author=Zavadskas,+E.K.&author=Mardani,+A.&author=Turskis,+Z.&author
=Jusoh,+A.&author=Nor,+K.&publication_year=2016&journal=Int.+J.+Inf.+Techn
ol.+Decis.+Mak.&volume=15&pages=645%E2%80%93682&doi=10.1142/S0219622
016300019)] [CrossRef (https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622016300019)]
 
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC
BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.or
g/licenses/by/4.0/)).
Share and Cite
 (mailto:?
&subject=From%20MDPI%3A%20%22Farmers%26rsquo%3B%20Credit%20Risk%20As
sessment%20Based%20on%20Sustainable%20Supply%20Chain%20Finance%20for%2
0Green%20Agriculture"&body=https://www.mdpi.com/1872924%3A%0A%0AFarmers%
26rsquo%3B%20Credit%20Risk%20Assessment%20Based%20on%20Sustainable%20
Supply%20Chain%20Finance%20for%20Green%20Agriculture%0A%0AAbstract%3A%
20With%20the%20development%20of%20green%20agriculture%2C%20the%20demand
%20of%20farmers%20for%20operation%20loans%20is%20increasing.%20Supply%20c
hain%20finance%20is%20becoming%20a%20new%20way%20to%20solve%20the%20p
roblem%20of%20difficult%20credit%20in%20agricultural%20development.%20As%20t
he%20importance%20of%20sustainability%20issues%20continues%20to%20rise%2C
%20there%20are%20growing%20numbers%20of%20practical%20examples%20of%20c
ombining%20agricultural%20supply%20chain%20finance%20%28ASCF%29%20with%
20sustainability%2C%20and%20the%20attendant%20risks%20are%20emerging.%20Th
e%20objectives%20of%20this%20study%20are%20first%20to%20construct%20a%20ri
sk%20indicator%20system%20for%20sustainable%20ASCF%2C%20then%20to%20pro
pose%20a%20fuzzy%20decision%20method%20that%20considers%20the%20confiden
ce%20of%20decision-
makers%2C%20and%20finally%20to%20perform%20a%20risk%20assessment%20of%
20a%20credit%20case%20in%20the%20coffee%20bean%20supply%20chain.%20A%20
(/)
combination%20of%20the%20neutrosophic%20enhanced%20best%26ndash%3Bworst
%20method%20%28NE-
BWM%29%20and%20combined%20compromise%20solution%20%28COCOSO%29%20 searchmenu
is%20used%20to%20evaluate%20risk%20problems.%20The%20practicality%20and%2
0effectiveness%20of%20this%20research%20method%20is%20verified%20by%20a%2
0numerical%20simulation%20and%20a%20comparison%20with%20the%20method.%2
0The%20results%20show%20that%20the%20credit%20rating%20of%20core%20compa
nies%20is%20the%20most%20important%20indicator.%20In%20the%20context%20of
%20green%20and%20sustainable%20development%2C%20this%20indicator%20syste
m%20is%20more%20suitable%20for%20the[...]) 
(https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?
text=Farmers%E2%80%99+Credit+Risk+Assessment+Based+on+Sustainable+Supply+

Chain+Finance+for+Green+Agriculture&hashtags=mdpisustainability&url=https%3A%
2F%2Fwww.mdpi.com%2F1872924&via=Sus_MDPI) (
http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?
mini=true&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mdpi.com%2F1872924&title=Farmers%E2%80%
99%20Credit%20Risk%20Assessment%20Based%20on%20Sustainable%20Supply%20
Chain%20Finance%20for%20Green%20Agriculture%26source%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fw
ww.mdpi.com%26summary%3DWith%20the%20development%20of%20green%20agric
ulture%2C%20the%20demand%20of%20farmers%20for%20operation%20loans%20is%
20increasing.%20Supply%20chain%20finance%20is%20becoming%20a%20new%20wa
y%20to%20solve%20the%20problem%20of%20difficult%20credit%20in%20agricultural
%20development.%20As%20the%20importance%20of%20sustainability%20%5B...%5D
 (https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https://www.mdpi.com/1872924)
)
 (http://www.reddit.com/submit?url=https://www.mdpi.com/1872924)
(http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://www.mdpi.com/1872924)
MDPI and ACS Style

Xia, Y.; Long, H.; Li, Z.; Wang, J. Farmers’ Credit Risk Assessment Based on Sustainable
Supply Chain Finance for Green Agriculture. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12836.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912836
AMA Style
Xia Y, Long H, Li Z, Wang J. Farmers’ Credit Risk Assessment Based on Sustainable Supply
Chain Finance for Green Agriculture. Sustainability. 2022; 14(19):12836.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912836
Chicago/Turabian Style
Xia, Yuehua, Honggen Long, Zhi Li, and Jiasen Wang. 2022. "Farmers’ Credit Risk
(/)
Assessment Based on Sustainable Supply Chain Finance for Green Agriculture"
Sustainability 14, no. 19: 12836. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912836
Find Other Styles

searchmenu
Type a publisher, journal or format name
error_outline Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page
numbers. See further details here
(https://www.mdpi.com/about/announcements/784).
Article
 Metrics 
Citations
Crossref Scopus Google
Scholar

1 1 (https://
partnerID=HzO
title=Farmers%
Article Access Statistics
Article access statistics

2000
1500
1000
500
0
19 29 8. 18 28 8. 18 28 7.
.M . Ma Ju .J .J J ul .J .J Aug
ay y n un un ul ul
Article Views
For more information on the journal statistics, click here (/journal/sustainability/stats).

error_outline Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
(/)
searchmenu
Sustainability (/journal/sustainability), EISSN 2071-1050, Published by MDPI
RSS (/rss/journal/sustainability) Content Alert (/journal/sustainability/toc-alert)
Further Information
Article Processing Charges (/apc)

Pay an Invoice (/about/payment)
Open Access Policy (/openaccess)
 
Contact MDPI (/about/contact)
Jobs at MDPI (https://careers.mdpi.com)
Guidelines
For Authors (/authors)

For Reviewers (/reviewers)
For Editors (/editors)
For Librarians (/librarians)
For Publishers (/publishing_services)
For Societies (/societies)
For Conference Organizers (/conference_organizers)
MDPI Initiatives
Sciforum (https://sciforum.net)
MDPI Books (https://www.mdpi.com/books)
Preprints.org (https://www.preprints.org)
Scilit (https://www.scilit.net)
SciProfiles (https://sciprofiles.com)
Encyclopedia (https://encyclopedia.pub)
JAMS (https://jams.pub)
Proceedings Series (/about/proceedings)
Follow MDPI
LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/company/mdpi)
Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/MDPIOpenAccessPublishing)
Twitter (https://twitter.com/MDPIOpenAccess)
(/)
Subscribe to receive issue release searchmenu

notifications and newsletters from
MDPI journals
Select options
Enter your email address...
Subscribe
 
© 1996-2023 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated
Disclaimer Terms and Conditions (/about/terms-and-conditions)

Privacy Policy (/about/privacy)

Credit Risk Assessment Based On Sustainable Supply Chain Finance

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Credit Risk Assessment Based On Sustainable Supply Chain Finance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(/) (/)

Journals (/about/journals) Topics (/topics) Information (/authors)

(/authors/english) Initiatives (/about/initiatives) About (/about)

Sign In / Sign Up (/user/login)

Author / Affiliation / Email 

All Article Types

Submit to this Journal

Review for this Journal

Edit a Special Issue

Subscribe SciFeed (/2071-

More by Authors Links keyboard_arrow_down

Table of Contents keyboard_arrow_up

Sustainability 2022, 14(19), 12836; https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912836

Received: 26 August 2022 / Revised: 30 September 2022 / Accepted: 1 October 2022 /

Download Browse Figures (https://pub.mdpi-

Figure 1. Alibaba's agricultural supply chain finance model.

Step 4. Others-to-worst vector

𝑆(̃𝑎 ) = 121 (𝑎 + 𝑏 + 𝑐 + 𝑑)(2 + 𝑤̃𝑎 − 𝑢̃𝑎 − 𝑦̃𝑎 ) (2)

Table 3. The confidence rating scale.

min max {| 𝑊𝐵 − 𝑎 |,| 𝑊𝑗 − 𝑎 |}

Model (5) is then transformed into Models (6) and (7).

Based on Equations (8) and (9), we can obtain Equation (10).

3.3. Combined Compromise Solution Method

⎡⎢ 𝑥11 𝑥12 ⋯ 𝑥1𝑛 ⎤

𝑥𝑖𝑗 − min𝑖 𝑥𝑖𝑗

𝑘𝑖𝑏 = min𝑆𝑖 𝑆𝑖 + min𝑃𝑖 𝑃𝑖 (18)

𝑘𝑖𝑐 = 𝜆(𝑆𝑖 ) + (1 − 𝜆)(𝑃𝑖) ;0 ≤ 𝜆 ≤ 1.

Table 4. Experts’ uncertain confidence.

Table 5. The best-to-others vector.

Table 6. The others-to-worst vector.

Figure 2. Average optimal weights.

Table 7. Optimal weights.

Table 8. Consistency ratio of each expert evaluation.

Table 9. Raw scores.

Table 10. Evaluation results.

Figure 3. Comparison of CoCoSo method and TOPSIS method.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Informed Consent Statement

Data Availability Statement

[Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?

47. Ye, J. Some Weighted Aggregation Operators of Trapezoidal Neutrosophic Numbers

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Find Other Styles

Article Access Statistics

Article access statistics

For more information on the journal statistics, click here (/journal/sustainability/stats).

Article Processing Charges (/apc)

For Authors (/authors)

Subscribe to receive issue release searchmenu

Enter your email address...

Disclaimer Terms and Conditions (/about/terms-and-conditions)

You might also like