Journal Pre-proof

Sustainable supplier selection for smart supply chain considering internal

and external uncertainty: An integrated rough-fuzzy approach

Zhihua Chen, Xinguo Ming, Tongtong Zhou, Yuan Chang

PII: S1568-4946(19)30786-0
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2019.106004
Reference: ASOC 106004

To appear in: Applied Soft Computing Journal

Received date : 1 July 2019

Revised date : 4 December 2019
Accepted date : 4 December 2019

Please cite this article as: Z. Chen, X. Ming, T. Zhou et al., Sustainable supplier selection for smart
supply chain considering internal and external uncertainty: An integrated rough-fuzzy approach,
Applied Soft Computing Journal (2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2019.106004.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the
addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive
version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it
is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article.
Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the
content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

 Journal Pre-proof
Sustainable supplier selection for smart supply chain considering
internal and external uncertainty: An integrated rough-fuzzy
approach
Zhihua Chen1, Xinguo Ming1*, Tongtong Zhou1, Yuan Chang1
1
: Department of Industrial Engineering, School of Mechanical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong
University
Address: Dongchuan Road No. 800, Minhang District, Shanghai 200240, China

of
*
: Corresponding author
Abstract: This study proposes a novel framework to identify smart-sustainable SCMP (supply chain

pro
management practices) as supplier selection criteria for a smart supply chain. Supplier selection
consists of two parts: criteria weights determination and suppliers ranking. DEMATEL (Decision
Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory) has been acknowledged as a relatively feasible method for
determining the criteria weights due to its effectiveness in acquiring the interrelationships between
re-
criteria. TOPSIS (Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) has been
identified as the most frequently used method for supplier ranking due to its superiority in quickly
finding the best alternatives. However, most existing research contains scant study of the
lP

simultaneous manipulation of internal uncertainty (individual linguistic vagueness) and external

uncertainty (group preference diversity), which are involved in the supplier selection process.
Therefore, this study proposes a hybrid rough-fuzzy DEMATEL-TOPSIS approach to sustainable
supplier selection for a smart supply chain. The proposed method combines the strength of the fuzzy
a

set in handling internal uncertainty and the advantages of the rough set in manipulating external
urn

uncertainty. The effectiveness and accuracy of the proposed methodology are illustrated through its
application in sustainable vehicle transmission supplier selection and through comparisons with other
methods.
Key words: Smart supply chain; Sustainable management practices; Supplier selection; Rough-fuzzy
Jo

DEMATEL; Rough-fuzzy TOPSIS

1. Introduction
The recent development and implementation of advanced smart technologies (e.g. Internet-of-
Things (IoT), Cyber-Physical System (CPS), Big Data Analytics (BDA), Virtual and Augmented
Reality (VR & AR) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques), enable all components in a supply
chain to be perceptible, diagnosable, interpretable, predictable, controllable, and optimizable [1-5],
1
 Journal Pre-proof
and thus accelerate the transformation of the traditional supply chain towards a smart supply chain.
A smart supply chain is engineered to be agile and customized to be flexible based on the application
of advanced smart technologies [2, 3]. It presents better sustainability in economic, environmental
and social aspects (i.e., Triple Bottom Line, TBL [5]) by leveraging the smart technologies as essential
enablers for enhancing the sustainable supply chain management practices (SCMPs) [2]. For instance,
the IoT and big data analytics have been applied in the realm of logistics to optimize the transportation

of
costs, and in supplier management to improve flexibility of the supply (i.e., economic aspect) [1].
The pollution emission in the transportation process can be perceived to provide guidance for
emission reductions using the IoT technology (i.e., environmental aspect) [4]. Moreover, the

pro
application of VR/AR in the operator’s working process can improve both working efficiency and
safety (i.e., social aspect) [6].
Sustainable SCMPs refer to a set of tactical actions that can help a company to achieve more
sustainability in the economic, environmental and social dimensions [7]. Such actions focus on the
re-
implementation process of sustainable supply chain management (SCM), which highly affects a
company’s sustainability performance. Sustainable supplier selection is widely acknowledged as one
of the most crucial components of sustainable SCMPs. This is because suppliers’ activities are critical
lP

to helping the downstream firms to achieve a sustainable and collaborative competitive edge, since
such activities provide original inputs to organizational supply chains [8]. Therefore, some scholars
have identified sustainable SCMPs as easily operable and essential criteria for sustainable supplier
a

selection [9]. However, previous sustainable SCMPs have mainly been adapted to traditional supply
chains, while is not appropriate to a smart supply chain. Therefore, the current study identifies a set
urn

of smart-sustainable SCMPs by combining the features of a smart supply chain and the general
compositions of sustainable SCMPs. The identified practices are thus used as the sustainable supplier
selection criteria (SSSC) for a smart supply chain.
In addition, supplier selection can be regarded as a multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM)
Jo

process consisting of two phases: criteria weights determination and supplier ranking [10]. Among
various MCDM techniques for criteria weights determination, the Decision Making Trial and
Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) is acknowledged as a more effective and feasible method due to
its capacity to handle the interrelationships between criteria, and to reduce the computing complexity
[11]. In addition, the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) is

2
 Journal Pre-proof
the most frequently used method for supplier ranking because it is able to quickly find the best
alternatives [12]. However, these two crisp methods do not consider the inherent group DM’s decision
uncertainties, including internal uncertainty (individual linguistic vagueness) and external uncertainty
(group preference diversity) [13]. Fuzzy set theory has been widely integrated into the DEMATEL
and TOPSIS methods for handling internal uncertainty, and rough set theory presents high feasibility
for manipulating external uncertainty. However, neither the single fuzzy set-based nor rough set-

of
based method can fully handle the internal and external uncertainties at the same time. Additionally,
most existing studies have not yet presented a feasible method to simultaneously manipulate the two
types of uncertainties in the application of a DEMATEL-TOPSIS methodology. Moreover, the

pro
measurement of decision uncertainty has been rarely investigated in previous studies.
To fill the gaps discussed above, this study proposes a novel framework to identify the smart-
sustainable SCMPs as the evaluation criteria for the supplier selection for a smart supply chain, and
develops a novel rough-fuzzy DEMATEL-TOPSIS method to accurately select sustainable suppliers
re-
while simultaneously considering internal and external uncertainties. First, the sustainable supplier
selection criteria are identified by exploring the novel sustainable SCMPs under the significant impact
of advanced smart technologies. Second, a novel rough-fuzzy DEMATEL-TOPSIS model is proposed
lP

to select sustainable suppliers for smart supply chain, which integrates the strength of the fuzzy set
in handling internal uncertainty and the merits of the rough set in coping with external uncertainty. In
addition, the uncertainty information is considered throughout the whole computing process, and
a

rough-fuzzy relations among the SSSC and rough-fuzziness with the final weights of the SSSC are
presented. Hence, the proposed model can be deemed a feasible way of providing accurate evaluation
urn

results and rich information for decision uncertainties. Finally, the effectiveness and accuracy of the
proposed methodology are illustrated through the model’s application to the sustainable supplier
selection of vehicle transmission.
The structure of this paper is arranged as follows. Section 2 reviews some literature concerning
Jo

smart supply chains, smart-sustainable SCMPs, and methodologies for sustainable supplier selection.
In Section 3, the proposed rough-fuzzy DEMATEL-TOPSIS method is described. In Section 4, a real
industry case study is conducted to validate the proposed method. The theoretical and practical
implications, and conclusions, are presented in Sections 5 and 6, respectively.
2. Literature review

3
 Journal Pre-proof
2.1. Smart supply chain
The notion of smart supply chain was proposed by leveraging smart technologies as key enablers
for improving the performance of a supply chain’s flexibility, transparency, responsiveness,
integration and collaboration [1, 14]. Smart supply chain has gradually become a mainstream
company strategy for enhancing sustainable development due to its feasibility in achieving economic,
environmental and social benefits [2]. Since the concept of the smart supply chain is still an emerging

of
one, there has been little research on it, to date. Several studies have focused on exploring the impact
of digital or smart technologies on the supply chain and the new requirements for the components
incorporated in the chain. Valkokari et al. [15] discussed the capabilities required for different network

pro
roles (customer, manufacturer, supplier, and partner) in the transformation towards a collaborative
smart supply chain. Abdel-Basset et al. [3] explored the positive impacts of IoT technology on supply
chains, such as enhancing real-time supply chain management and maximizing supply chain
transparency. Tiwari et al. [16] surveyed the effects of big data analytics on the holistic supply chain
re-
process and proposed three unique capabilities required by a smart supply chain: descriptive
capability, predictive capability, and prescriptive capability. Frank et al. [6] stated that a digital
platform that connected all components in the supply chain enabled the flexibility, traceability and
lP

visibility of smart supply chain. It has been found that the smart supply chain brings novel insights
and characteristics compared with the traditional supply chain. In this respect, new requirements have
been addressed for supplier selection which are regarded as critical factors for a successful supply
a

chain [8].
2.2. Sustainable SCMPs for a smart supply chain
urn

Sustainable SCMPs refers to a set of tactical actions that can help a company achieve more
sustainability from the economic, environmental and social perspectives [17]. Such actions focus on
the implementation process of sustainable SCM and have a significantly positive impact on
sustainable SCM performance. Thus, the sustainable SCMPs is suitable to be indicators for evaluating
Jo

and selecting sustainable suppliers [9]. Some of the literatures studies the composition of sustainable
SCMP. For example, Esfahbodi et al. [18] emphasize that a company should be devoted to improving
sustainable practices in four key links: production, procurement, distribution, and logistics.
Miemczyk et al. [19] focus on environmental, social and risk assessment practices from a
macroscopic viewpoint. In addition to these three dimensions of sustainability, Das [20] suggests

4
 Journal Pre-proof
taking the operations practice and supply chain integration into account. In addition, Li et al. [9]
propose a list of sustainable SCMPs integrating traditional, green and sustainable SCMPs through a
literature review. However, most of the previous research has only explored sustainable SCM
practices for conventional supply chains, while omitting to reveal the effects of emerging smart
technologies such as IoT, big data analytics, AR/VR and AI, etc. The remainder of this section
summarizes a set of smart-sustainable SCMPs considering changes of the traditional concept of

of
sustainable SCMPs under the significant impact of smart technologies. These practices are described
as follows, and will be used as the sustainable supplier selection criteria (SSSC) for smart supply
chains in Section 4.

pro
(1) Economic practices
Cost reduction using smart technologies (EC1). Employing smart technologies to reduce
various costs along the whole supply chain, such as adopting IoT to monitor the real-time status of
machines, and using big data analytics and AI to reduce unplanned stoppages and product defects,
re-
etc. [16, 21]
Product quality improvement based on big data analytics (EC2). Applying smart devices and
big data analytics to improve product quality, e.g., using big data analytics to monitor, predict, control
lP

and trace product quality, etc. [3]

Smart delivery to customer (EC3). Delivering products in a timely manner using smart tools
and technologies, such as improving accuracy for forecasting customer needs by using AI technology
a

(e.g., machine learning), making reasonable and efficient production plans by applying the
reinforcement learning method, etc. [2]
urn

Enhancement of supply flexibility (EC4). Leveraging smart technologies to enhance the

flexibility of the supply chain, such as improving the functional flexibility (i.e., volume and lead time
flexibilities, capacity flexibility, and decision-making flexibility), and structural flexibility (i.e.,
supplier flexibility, channel flexibility, logistics flexibility), etc. [1]
Jo

(2) Environmental practices

Green design in a digital way (EN1). Employing digital technology to enhance eco-design, e.g.,
constructing product lifecycle digital twins with embedded green information; integrating
information pertaining to energy consumption, emission, pollution and maintenance into the design
process in order to design products with reduced energy consumption, etc. [22, 23]

5
 Journal Pre-proof
Green purchasing based on a digital platform (EN2). Applying a digital platform to manage
suppliers and ensure that purchased products are environmentally friendly. For example, building a
digital platform that can be used to monitor, visualize, predict, and optimize suppliers’ green
performance, and building a digital material system for searching the material environmental
information. [6, 24]
Green and smart manufacturing (EN3). Using smart technologies and advanced management

of
concepts to improve the manufacturing process for the purpose of reducing energy consumption,
increasing production efficiency and controlling polluting emissions. For example, applying big data
analytics and machine learning techniques to optimize the energy utilization efficiency of heavy

pro
production infrastructures. [25, 26]
Internal management awareness of using smart technologies for enhancing green
development (EN4). For instance, establishing the enterprise vision of smart green development,
and setting up an environmental evaluation system, reward system and performance indicators based
re-
on intelligent technology. [27]
Green and smart logistics (EN5). The application of smart technologies that enables product
transportation across the supply chain in a green way, such as via smart-electric vehicles and digital
lP

reverse logistics, etc. [22, 28]

(3) Social practices
Smart working environment (SC1). Providing smart working conditions for a safe and healthy
a

environment, such as, utilizing Virtual Reality or Augmented Reality tools to remotely operate
machines so as to ensure safe and healthy operation. [6, 29]
urn

Employee’s development in a smart atmosphere (SC2). Providing talent education of smart

technologies, job opportunities and flexible working arrangements. [30]
Ensure the rights of stakeholders using smart perception technology (SC3). Using smart
crowdsensing technology to perceive stakeholders needs and taking corresponding action to ensure
Jo

their rights and interests [31, 32].

Social activities for promoting smart technologies (SC4). Participating in social support
schemes concerning smart supply chain development, such as sponsoring university activities and
donations. [30]
2.3. Sustainable supplier selection methods

6
 Journal Pre-proof
Sustainable supplier selection, as a typical MCDM process [10], consists of two parts – criteria
weights determination and supplier ranking, both of which involve two types of uncertainties [13]:
internal uncertainty and external uncertainty. Internal uncertainty is caused by individual vagueness
in thinking and expressing preferences [33], while external uncertainty is associated with the diversity
of group preferences given the judgments of different persons [9]. Among the commonly used multi-
attribute decision-making methods for determining the SSSC weights such as AHP, ANP, DEA and

of
DEMATEL [34, 35], DEMATEL has been acknowledged as a relatively effective and feasible
technique with which to prioritize criteria, considering the effect-causal interrelationship between
various criteria [36]. According to Zimmer et al. [12], TOPSIS is the most frequently used MCDM

pro
method in the field of sustainable supplier ranking, compared to PROMETHEE, VIKOR and DEA
[37-39], finding the best alternatives more quickly [40]. Nevertheless, neither the traditional crisp
DEMATEL nor TOPSIS can fully deal with internal and external uncertainty at the same time. To
manipulate the internal uncertainty, fuzzy logic and grey logic have been combined into the
re-
DEMATEL-based approach and TOPSIS-based method in the supplier section field. For instance, the
triangular fuzzy set (TFS) has been widely integrated into DEMATEL [41, 42] and TOPSIS [43-45]
to handle the individual linguistic vagueness. The TFS operation makes it easy to perceive the vague
lP

human judgement by transforming the linguistic expression into a triangular fuzzy number with a
preset membership function. Furthermore, to avoid the subjectivity caused by the preset membership
function, some DEMATEL and TOPSIS methods based on grey logic or fuzzy logic have been
a

proposed, such as, intuitionistic fuzzy DEMATEL [27], hierarchical grey DEMATEL [46], interval-
valued hesitant fuzzy DEMATEL [47], grey-based TOPSIS [48] and intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS [49].
urn

Although these methods present different features and strengths in terms of the reduction of individual
subjectivity and operation convenience, they are not capable of handling the external uncertainty
caused by the diversity of different DMs’ preferences.
In numerous previous studies, the rough set has been applied to manipulate the external
Jo

uncertainty due to its strength in aggregating multiple judgements into flexible rough intervals that
contains adequate information pertaining to group DMs [9]. Its feasibility and effectiveness for coping
with external uncertainty have been verified by numerous applications in the DEMATEL-based and
TOPSIS-based approaches. For instance, Song et al. [50] proposed a rough AHP-DEMATEL method
to evaluate sustainable supplier selection criteria for solar air-conditioner manufacturers. Fang et al.

7
 Journal Pre-proof
[51] integrated prospect theory and rough TOPSIS to select sustainable site for photovoltaic power
plant. Li et al. [9] extended the cloud TOPSIS model using rough set theory for sustainable supplier
selection. These rough-based methods present with a high feasibility for manipulating external
uncertainty, although they are not suitable for handling the internal uncertainty. Thus, it is necessary
to develop a systematic methodology to simultaneously take the two types of uncertainty into account.
To solve this issue, Chen et al. [33] proposed a rough-fuzzy DEMATEL-ANP method to evaluate the

of
sustainable value requirement of product service system, providing a useful reference for handling
the internal and external uncertainty at the same time. However, this method leads to a heavy
workload since it makes it necessary to conduct a large amount of rough-fuzzy pairwise comparisons

pro
between various attributes belonging to different dimensions.
Therefore, the current study mainly focuses on developing an easily operated hybrid model by
integrating the fuzzy set theory, rough set theory, DEMATEL and TOPSIS method for the sustainable
supplier selection of smart supply chains, where both the internal and external uncertainties are
re-
simultaneously considered. In addition, both the strength of DEMATEL in simplifying complex
problems and the advantage of TOPSIS in quickly finding the best alternatives are integrated.
3. Sustainable supplier selection methodology based on rough-fuzzy DEMATEL-TOPSIS
lP

3.1. Overview of the proposed method

This study proposes an integrated model to select the sustainable suppliers as shown in Fig. 1.
The model consists of two phases: (1) rough-fuzzy DEMATEL for calculating SSSC weights, and (2)
a

rough-fuzzy TOPSIS for supplier ranking. The triangular fuzzy number and rough-fuzzy number are
combined to simultaneously deal with the linguistic vagueness (internal uncertainty) and group
urn

diversity (external uncertainty).

3.2. The proposed rough-fuzzy DEMATEL for SSSC evaluation
In this section, a model integrating fuzzy set, rough set, and DEMATEL is proposed to evaluate
the criteria for sustainable supplier selection in group decision environment. The computing
Jo

procedure of the hybrid model is shown as follows.

3.2.1. Step 1: Establish linguistic initial direct-relation matrix
Assuming that there is a decision group consisting of R DMs invited to evaluate the
interrelationships between n SSSC. The sth DM is asked to establish the linguistic initial direct-

relation matrix As as follows:

8
 Journal Pre-proof
0 a12s a1sn 
 s 
a 0 a2s n 
As   21 (1)
 
 s 
 an1 ans 2 0 
s
where aij represents the degree to which the ith criterion affects the jth criterion, and s = 1, 2, …, R.

of
pro
re-
a lP

Fig. 1 Flowchart in the proposed method

urn

3.2.2. Step 2: Form fuzzy initial direct-relation matrix

According to Sun [52], the TFN function is designed as Fig. 2, in order to transform experts’
linguistic variables to triangular fuzzy numbers (TFNs) easily and conveniently. The linguistic
variables “No influence (No)”, “Very low influence (VL)”, “Low influence (L)”, “Moderate influence
(M)”, “High influence (H)” and “Very high influence (VH)” can be respectively converted into
Jo

triangular fuzzy number : (0, 0, 0), (0, 0, 0.5), (0.5, 1, 1.5), (1.5, 2, 2.5), (2.5, 3, 3.5) and (3.5, 4, 4).

Following this fuzzy scale, the element aijs of the linguistic direct-relation matrix As is transformed

to aij  (lij , mij , uij ) , where lij , mij and uij denotes the low boundary, medium boundary and up
s s s s s s s

boundary of the TFN, respectively.

9
 Journal Pre-proof

u(x)

x
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Fig. 2 TFN scale for linguistic variables

Then, the fuzzy initial direct-relation matrix As is established as follows:

of
0 a12s a1sn 
 s 
a 0 a2s n 
As   21 (2)
 

pro
 s 
 an1 ans 2 0 

3.3.3. Step 3: Form group fuzzy initial direct-relation matrices

By assembling the fuzzy initial direct-relation matrices constructed by R DMs together, the

group fuzzy initial direct-relation matrices  can be formed as follows:

re-
0 aˆ12 aˆ1n 
 aˆ 0 aˆ2 n 
Aˆ   21 (3)
 
 
lP

 aˆn1 aˆn 2 0 

where aˆij  (lˆij , m 

ˆ ij , uˆij ) lˆij  lij1 , , lijs , , lijR  , mˆ ij  mij1 , , mijs , , mijR  , uˆij  uij1 , , uijs , , uijR  ,

and the group TFNs can also be expressed as aˆij  aij ,

1
 , aijs , , aijR  .
a

3.3.4. Step 4: Form the rough-fuzzy initial direct-relation matrix

urn

According to Pawlak [53], and Chen et al. [33], the group fuzzy TFNs aˆij can be converted to

rough-fuzzy number. The calculation steps are as follows:

Step 4.1: Obtain the lower and upper approximations of each TFN

For the group TFNs aˆij  aij ,

1
 , aijs , , aijR  , the lower and upper approximations of the sth
Jo

s
TFN aij can be obtained as follows [54]:

Lower approximation:

Apr (aijs )   aijt  aˆij / aijt  aijs  (4)

Upper approximation:

10
 Journal Pre-proof

Apr (aijs )   aijt  aˆij / aijt  aijs  (5)

s
where Apr (aij ) and Apr (aijs ) are respectively the lower and the upper approximation of the TFN

aijs .

Step 4.2: Obtain the lower limit and the upper limit of each TFN
s
Then the lower limit and the upper limit of TFN aij are defined as Lim(aijs ) and Lim(aijs )

of
as follows [55]:

Lim(aijs )  ( Lim(lijs ), Lim(mijs ), Lim(uijs ))

pro
 1 N sL
1 N sL
1 N sL  (6)
 L
 Ns  l
x, L
k
Ns
 m
x , L
k
Ns
 xk 
u

 k 1 k 1 k 1 

Lim(aijs )  ( Lim(lijs ), Lim(mijs ), Lim(uijs ))

 1 N sU
1 N sU
1 N sU  (7)
 U   y 
re- l m u
y, U y , U
 Ns k
Ns
k
Ns
k
 k 1 k 1 k 1 

where xkl , xkm , and xku are respectively the elements of lower approximation for low boundary,

s
lP

medium boundary, and up boundary of TFN aij , ykl , ykm , and yku are respectively the elements of

s
upper approximation for low boundary, medium boundary, and up boundary of TFN aij , N sL and

NsU are the number of objects included in the lower approximation and upper approximation of TFN
a

aijs .
urn

Step 4.3: Convert each TFN into rough-fuzzy form

s
The rough-fuzzy number form RF (aijs ) of aij can be described as follows [56]:

RF (aijs )   aijsL , aijsU   (lijsL , mijsL , uijsL ), (lijsU , mijsU , uijsU )  (8)

 aijsL , aijsU    Lim(aijs ), Lim(aijs ) 

Jo

(9)

(lijsL , mijsL , uijsL )  ( Lim(lijs ), Lim(mijs ), Lim(uijs )) (10)

(lijsU , mijsU , uijsU )  ( Lim(lijs ), Lim(mijs ), Lim(uijs )) (11)

sL sU sL
where aij and aij are the lower limit and upper limit of rough-fuzzy number RF (aijs ) ; lij and

11
 Journal Pre-proof

lijsU are the lower limit and upper limit of rough number RN (lijs ) ; mijsL and mijsU are the lower limit
sL sU
and upper limit of rough number RN (mijs ) ; uij and uij are the lower limit and upper limit of

rough number RN (uijs ) .

Step 4.4: Obtain rough-fuzzy interval number of group TFNs

The rough-fuzzy interval number RF (aˆij ) of the group TFNs aˆij  aij ,
1
 , aijs , , aijR  can be

of
acquired by using rough computation principles as follows [51]:

RF (aˆij )   aijL , aijU  (12)

pro
aijL  (lijL , mijL , uijL )
1 R 1 R 1 R  (13)
   lijsL ,  mijsL ,  uijsL 
 R s 1 R s 1 R s 1 
aijU  (lijU , mijU , uijU )
1 R  (14)
re-
1 R 1 R
   lijsU ,  mijsU ,  uijsU 
 R s 1 R s 1 R s 1 
L U
where aij and aij are the lower and upper limit of rough-fuzzy interval number RF (aˆij ) ; lijL and

lijU are the lower and upper limit of rough interval RN (lˆij ) ; mijL and mijU are the lower and upper
lP

ˆ ij ) ; uijL and uijU are the lower and upper limit of rough interval
limit of rough interval RN (m

RN (uˆij ) .
a

Step 4.5: Obtain rough-fuzzy initial direct-relation matrix

urn

After the group TFNs aˆij are aggregated into a rough-fuzzy number RF (aˆij ) , the group fuzzy

initial direction-relation matrix  can be converted to rough-fuzzy initial direct-relation matrix

RF ( Aˆ ) as follows [33]:

 0 RF (aˆ12 ) RF (aˆ1n ) 
Jo

 RF (aˆ ) 0 RF (aˆ2 n ) 
RF ( Aˆ )   21
(15)
 
 
 RF (aˆn1 ) RF (aˆn 2 ) 0 

3.3.5. Step 5: Obtain rough-fuzzy normalized direct-relation matrix

The rough-fuzzy normalized direct-relation matrix RF ( Dˆ )   RF (dˆij )  can be acquired

  nn

12
 Journal Pre-proof

through dividing each element by a rough number RN (r ) . The matrix RF ( Aˆ ) is converted to the

rough-fuzzy normalized direct-relation matrix RF ( Dˆ )   RF (dˆij )  through Equations (16) and

  nn

(17), where RF (dˆij )=  dijlL , dijmL , dijuL  ,  dijlU , dijmU , dijuU   .

RF (aˆij )
RF (dˆij )  (16)
RN (r )

 

of
n n
RN (r )   max  uijL , max  uijU  , i, j  1, 2, , n (17)
 j 1 j 1 

Thus, RF (dˆij ) can be written as:

pro
   
 L
lij mijL L
uij   U
lij U
mij U
uij 
RF (dˆij )=  , , , , ,  (18)
 n n n
L  
n n n
U 
 max  uij , max  uij , max  uij ,   max  uij , max  uij , max  uij ,  
L L U U

 j 1 j 1 j 1   j 1 j 1 j 1 
re-
3.3.6. Step 6: Acquire rough-fuzzy total-relation matrix
In this step, following the general operation approach in fuzzy DEMATEL method [42, 57], we

extract six crisp matrices DlL   dijlL  , DlU   dij  , DmL   dij  , DmU   dij  ,
lU mL mU
nn nn nn nn
lP

DuL  dijuL  and DuU   dij  from matrix RF ( Dˆ ) . The matrix DlL and DlU are defined
uU
nn nn

as follow examples [57]:

0 d12lL d1lLn   0 d12lU d1lUn 
 lL lL   lU 
a

d 0 d2n  d 0 d 2lUn 
DlL   21 , DlU   21
   
 lL   lU 
urn

 d n1 d nlL2 0   d n1 d nlU2 0 

The rough-fuzzy total-relation matrix RF (Tˆ ) is obtained as follows:

RF (Tˆ )  RF ( Dˆ )( I  RF ( Dˆ ))1 (19)

Let RF (Tˆ )=  RF (tˆij )  nn , where RF (tˆij )=  tijlL , tijmL , tijuL  ,  tijlU , tijmU , tijuU   , then:
Jo

TlL  tijlL   DlL ( I  DlL )1 (20)

nn

TlU  tijlU   DlU ( I  DlU )1 (21)

nn

Similarly, the matrices TmL  tijmL  , TmU  tij  , TuL  tij  and TuU  tij 
mU uL uU
can
nn nn nn nn

be acquired applying the Equations (19)~(21).

13
 Journal Pre-proof
3.3.7. Step 7: Calculate the sum of rows and columns of rough-fuzzy total-relation matrix

According to [56], in rough-fuzzy total-relation matrix RF (Tˆ ) , the sum of rows and sum of

columns are separately denoted as rough-fuzzy vectors RF ( R) and RF (C ) , rank n1:

RF ( R)   RF ( Ri )n1  ( RilL , RimL , RiuL ), ( RilU , RimU , RiuU ) 

n1

 n n n n n n  (22)
 ( tijlL ,  tijmL ,  tijuL ), ( tijlU ,  tijmU ,  tijuU ) 
 j 1 j 1 j 1 j 1 j 1 j 1  n1

of
RF (C )   RF (Ci ) n1  (CilL , CimL , CiuL ), (CilU , CimU , CiuU ) 
1n

 n n n n n n
 (23)

pro
 ( tijlL ,  tijmL ,  tijuL ), ( tijlU ,  tijmU ,  tijuU ) 
 i 1 i 1 i 1 i 1 i 1 i 1 1n

The value RF ( Ri ) denotes the sum of the ith row of matrix RF (Tˆ ) and shows the total direct

and indirect effects that the ith criterion delivers to other criteria. Similarly, the value RF (Ci ) is the
re-
sum of the ith column of matrix RF (Tˆ ) and represents the total direct and indirect effects that the

ith criterion receives from other criteria.

3.3.8. Step 8: Construct rough-fuzzy prominence-relation map
lP

To effectively determine the prominence, relation, relative weight and decision uncertainty of
the criteria, the rough-fuzzy prominence-relation map is constructed based on a novel proposed

graphics-based method. The rough-fuzzy vector RF ( X i ) named “rough-fuzzy prominence” is made

a

by adding RF ( Ri ) to RF (Ci ) . Similarly, the vector RF (Yi ) named “rough-fuzzy relation” is

urn

made by subtracting RF ( Ri ) to RF (Ci ) . Then, RF ( X i ) can be written as follows:

RF ( X i )  ( X ilL , X imL , X iuL ),( X ilU , X imU , X iuU ) 

(24)
 ( RilL  CilL , RimL  CimL , RiuL  CiuL ),( RilU  CilU , RimU  CimU , RiuU  CiuU ) 
Jo

Analogously, RF (Yi ) can be written as follows:

RF (Yi )  (Yi lL , Yi mL , Yi uL ),(Yi lU , Yi mU , Yi uU ) 

(25)
 ( RilL  CilL , RimL  CimL , RiuL  CiuL ),( RilU  CilU , RimU  CimU , RiuU  CiuU ) 


Define a points set Pi  pik  ( xik , yik ) k  1, 2, , 6 for the ith criterion, where:

14
 Journal Pre-proof

 xik   X ilL , X imL , X iuL , X ilU , X imU , X iuU 


 k (26)
 yi  Yi , Yi , Yi , Yi , Yi , Yi 
lL mL uL lU mU uU

To construct rough-fuzzy prominence-relation map for the ith criterion, the points set Pi is used

to build a closed convex polygon Gi . Firstly, it is necessary to transform the points set Pi to a new

points set Pi    pik  ( xik , yik ) k  1, 2, , 6 in which all the points pik  ( xik , yik ) are arranged in

of
clockwise order. The procedure for transforming Pi to Pi  is presented as Model (1).

Model (1): Define pi   xi , yi  as the center point of the points set Pi, where xi  1k 6 xik / 6 ,

pro
yi  1k 6 yik / 6 . The relative coordinates  xik , yik  of each point pik to center point pi is

calculated as: xik  xik  xi , yik  yik  yi . Then transform the relative coordinate to polar

coordinate   i
k
, ik  , where ik  arctan(yik / xik ) . Thus, the points set Pi is transformed to
re-
Pi  by ranking the ik in descending order.

By mapping the newly arranged points set Pi  for each criterion, a closed convex polygon Gi
lP

is built in the two-dimensional plane as shown in Fig. 3. The polygon Gi denotes the rough-fuzzy

region of the prominence and relation for the ith criterion, which is characterized by the area AiG .

The area AiG represents the decision uncertainty of the ith criterion, which reflects the preference
a

diversity and linguistic vagueness, calculated as follows [58]:

urn

  xi  yi  xi  yi 
1 6 k k 1 k 1 k
AiG  (27)
2 k 1

where xi7  xi1 , yi7  yi1 , since the ending point is also the starting point.
Jo

15
 Journal Pre-proof
p*1 *7
i ( pi )

Gi

Rough-fuzzy relation
p*6
i
CGi (xci, yci)

OCGi p*2
p*5
i
i

of
p*3
i
p*4
i

pro
Rough-fuzzy prominence

Fig. 3 Rough-fuzzy prominence-relation polygon

3.3.9. Step 9: Construct the crisp cause-effect diagram

As shown in Fig. 3, the point CiG  xic , yic  is centroid of the closed polygon. The abscissa xic
re-
and ordinate yic of the centroid CiG separately refers to crisp “prominence” and “relation” of the

ith SSSC and can be calculated as follows [58]:

  x  xik 1    xik yik 1  xik 1 yik  

6
lP

1 k
xic  i (28)
6 AiG k 1

  y  yik 1    xik yik 1  xik 1 yik  

6
1 k
y  G
c
i i (29)
6 Ai k 1
a

According to Song et al. [56], the vector yic divides the criteria into the cause and effect groups.
urn

The criterion belongs to the cause group when its value of yic is positive, which is a net cause for

other criteria. Contrary, if the value yic is negative, the criterion locates in the effect group, which is

dependent on other criteria. The crisp cause-effect diagram can be obtained by mapping the dataset
Jo

of the ( xic , yic ), which presents visible information concerning the interaction between various criteria.

3.3.10. Step 10: Determine the importance of the criteria

The importance of the ith criterion is represented by the length diOC of the vector OCiG

directed from the origin to the centroid CiG , which is calculated as follows:

16
 Journal Pre-proof

diOC  x   y 
c 2
i
c 2
i (30)

Then, the normalized weights i of the ith criterion can be obtained by normalizing the vector

length diOC which indicates the predominance of the criterion among the other ones, calculated as

follows:
diOC
i  (31)
1in diOC

of
3.4. The proposed rough-fuzzy TOPSIS for supplier ranking
In this section, the fuzzy set and rough set are integrated into the TOPSIS method which was

pro
proposed by Lai et al. [59] for evaluating the performance of the suppliers. The group DMs’ linguistic
assessment on the suppliers with respect to each criterion are converted to rough-fuzzy interval
number with objective of manipulating the internal and external uncertainty simultaneously. The
computational steps of the hybrid model are shown below.
re-
3.4.1. Step 1: Establish initial decision matrix
Assuming that there are p suppliers being evaluated by R DMs with respect to n criteria, the

linguistic initial evaluation matrix Vk which is made by the kth DM is established as follows:
lP

s1  v11k v12k v1kn 

 k k 
s2  v21 v22 v2kn 
Vk  (32)
 
 k 
s p v kp1 v kp 2 v pn 
a

where si denotes the ith supplier (i=1, 2, …, p), and vij represents the kth DM’s linguistic variable
urn

for the ith supplier’s performance under the jth criterion.

3.4.2. Step 2: Form group fuzzy decision matrix
The linguistic variables for the performance of suppliers with respect to the SSSC [60]: “Very
poor (VP)”, “Poor (P)”, “Fair (F)”, “Good (G)”, and “Very good (VG)” are respectively
Jo

corresponding to the TFNs (0, 0, 0.25), (0, 0.25,0.5), (0.25,0.5,0.75), (0.5, 0.75, 1), and (0.75, 1, 1).

Following this fuzzy scale, the element vij of the linguistic decision matrix Vk is transformed to

vijk  (lijvk , mijvk , uijvk ) . Then, the fuzzy decision matrix is formed as follows:

17
 Journal Pre-proof
s1  v11k v12k v1kn 
 
s2  v21k v22k v2kn 
Vk  (33)
 
 k 
s p v pk1 v pk 2 v pn 

The group fuzzy matrix Vˆ is introduced to better denote the multiple fuzzy matrices made by

R DMs. Each element of the group fuzzy matrix is obtained by combing together the corresponding
individual elements from R fuzzy matrices, shown as follows:

of
 vˆ11 vˆ12 vˆ1n 
 vˆ vˆ22 vˆ2 n 
V 
ˆ 21
(34)
 

pro
 
vˆ p1 vˆ p 2 vˆ pn 

where vˆij  (lˆijv , mˆ ijv , uˆijv ) or vˆij  vij1 , , vijk , , vijR  , and then lˆijv  lijv1 , , lijvk , , lijvR  ,

mˆ ijv  mijv1 , , mijvk , , mijvR  , uˆijv  uijv1 , , uijvk , , uijvR  .

re-
3.4.3. Step 3: Form rough-fuzzy decision matrix
Following Equations (4)~(15), the group fuzzy decision matrix can be converted to rough-fuzzy
decision matrix as follows:
lP

 RF (vˆ11 ) RF (vˆ12 ) RF (vˆ1n ) 

 RF (vˆ ) RF (vˆ22 ) RF (vˆ2 n ) 
RF (V )  
ˆ 21
(35)
 
 
 RF (vˆ p1 ) RF (vˆ p 2 ) RF (vˆ pn ) 

where RF (vˆij )  [vˆijL , vˆijU ] , and vˆijL =  vijlL , vijmL , vijuL  , vˆijU =  vijlU , vijmU , vijuU  .
a
urn

3.4.4. Step 4: Obtain weighted rough-fuzzy decision matrix

The weighted rough-fuzzy evaluation RF (vˆij ) is calculated by follows:

RF (vˆij )  w j  RF (vˆij )
  w j  vijlL , w j  vijmL , w j  vijuL  ,  w j  vijlU , w j  vijmU , w j  vijuU   (36)
Jo

  vijlL , vijmL , vijuL  ,  vijlU , vijmU , vijuU  

where wj is the weight of the jth criterion obtained from Equation (31).

3.4.5. Step 5: Identify rough-fuzzy positive and negative ideal solution

The rough-fuzzy positive and negative ideal solutions are identified from the weighted rough-
fuzzy decision matrix by using following formulas:
18
 Journal Pre-proof

RF  (vˆj ) max i RF (vˆij ) where vˆ

j
uU
 max i vˆijuU (37)

RF  (vˆj ) min i RF (vˆij ) where vˆj -lL  min i vˆijlL (38)

where RF  (vˆj ) and RF  (vˆj ) separately represents the rough-fuzzy positive and negative ideal

solution.
3.4.6. Step 6: Calculate the distance between each supplier and the ideal solution

of
The distances between each supplier and the ideal supplier are calculated as follows:

n  v    vijmL  v    vijuL  v   

lL lL 2 mL 2 uL 2
 v
1 

 ij j j j
di  (39)
6 j 1  vlU  vlU 2  vmU  v mU 2  vuU  vuU 2 
 ij   ij   ij j  

pro
j j

n  v    vijmL  v    vijuL  v   

lL lL 2 mL 2 uL 2
 v
1 

 ij j j j
di  (40)
6 j 1  vlU  vlU 2  vmU  vmU 2  vuU  vuU 2 
 ij j   ij j   ij j  
re-
where di represents the distance between the ith supplier and the positive ideal solution, and di

denotes the distance between the ith supplier and the negative ideal solution.
3.4.7. Step 7: Obtain the closeness coefficient of suppliers
lP

The closeness coefficient CCi of each supplier can be calculated as follows:

di
CCi   (41)
di  di

where CCi represents the priority of the ith supplier (i=1, 2, …, p).
a

4. Case study
urn

4.1. Background of case study

In this section, a realistic case study of new energy vehicle transmission is conducted to
demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed approach. Manufacturer M is a Fortune
500 vehicle company, whose offerings include traditional fuel vehicles, new energy vehicles (electric
Jo

vehicles) and the related services. The company M now is striving to build a smart supply chain for
the purpose of improving sustainability performance from the economic, environmental and social
aspects. Since the transmission is a core component of the electric vehicle, the accurate selection of
sustainable transmission supplier plays a critical role in the management of the smart supply chain
for new energy vehicle. To meet the requirements emerged in the context of the smart supply chain,
the company’s managers are looking for an appropriate method to identify and evaluate the candidate
19
 Journal Pre-proof
suppliers. The candidates are preliminarily examined whether they are in line with the identified
SSSC in Section 2.2. Four Chinese transmission suppliers are identified as the alternatives, i.e. SAGW
(Supplier A), Shaanxi Fast Auto Drive Co. (Supplier B), and ZFTS (Supplier C), and Qijiang Gear
Transmission Co. (Supplier D).
Then, a decision-making group including 8 DMs: 2 academic experts, 3 experienced purchasers
and 3 project managers, is invited to assess the importance of SSSC and the performance of each
supplier. The two academic experts’ experience in supply chain management exceeds 8 years. The

of
three purchasers and three managers have more than 5 years’ experience in their domains. Thus, all
the DMs are qualified to make decision for selecting sustainable suppliers of vehicle transmission.

pro
These DMs are numbered by DM1~8 respectively. After collecting the responses to questionnaires,
the selection results are described as follow sections. In addition, three comparisons among the crisp
DEMATEL-TOPSIS, fuzzy DEMATEL-TOPSIS, rough DEMATEL-TOPSIS, and the proposed
rough-fuzzy DEMATEL-TOPSIS methods are undertaken to validate the advantages of the proposed
re-
method.
4.2. Original data collection
The smart-sustainable SCMPs that are identified in Section 2.2 are used as SSSC for selecting
lP

sustainable supplier of vehicle transmission, and they are approved appropriate by the decision group.
Then, each member of the decision group provides linguistic judgements for pairwise comparison of
SSSC, respectively. Their linguistic initial direct-relation matrices are shown in Table 1.
a

Table 1
The linguistic initial direct-relation matrices for SSSC
urn

DM1 EC1 EC2 EC3 EC4 EN1 EN2 EN3 EN4 EN5 SC1 SC2 SC3 SC4
EC1 NO L M H L NO L L VL NO NO NO NO
EC2 H NO VH H NO VL NO VL NO NO NO NO NO
EC3 M L NO VH NO NO NO NO H NO VL NO L
EC4 H L L NO NO NO VL NO NO NO VL NO NO
Jo

EN1 H VH L VL NO H M VL H M NO L NO
EN2 H H L M H NO VH L L NO NO NO NO
EN3 VH VH H VH L L NO H M H L VL NO
EN4 L VL L L H H M NO H H H NO M
EN5 H VL VH M NO NO L L NO NO NO NO NO
SC1 L H M H L VL M L L NO H M M
SC2 VL M L L M L M H L H NO H M
SC3 VL NO VL VL NO VL NO L NO VL L NO L

20
 Journal Pre-proof
SC4 NO NO NO VL VL NO VL M NO NO NO VL NO

DM8 EC1 EC2 EC3 EC4 EN1 EN2 EN3 EN4 EN5 SC1 SC2 SC3 SC4
EC1 NO M H M VL VL NO VL NO NO VL NO L
EC2 H NO VH M NO VL NO VL VL NO NO NO NO
EC3 H M NO H NO NO VL NO H NO L NO NO
EC4 VH M M NO NO VL NO NO VL NO NO NO VL
EN1 M H VL NO NO H VH H L VL NO VL NO
EN2 M VH L L VL NO M L M NO NO NO NO

of
EN3 H H VL L VH H NO H H H VL NO VL
EN4 L NO M L H VH M NO M H M L L
EN5 L NO M L L L L L NO NO NO NO NO
SC1 M M M M L VL VL H VL NO M H M

pro
SC2 M L VL NO L NO NO L NO M NO M L
SC3 L M NO NO NO VL L L NO VL L NO L
SC4 NO L NO NO L NO NO VL L L NO VL NO

The initial linguistic assessment matrices for 4 candidate suppliers with respect to each SSSC
from 8 DMs are presented in Table 2.
re-
Table 2
DMs’ linguistic assessments on the performance of each supplier
EC1 EC2 EC3 EC4 EN1 EN2 EN3 EN4 EN5 SC1 SC2 SC3 SC4
lP

DM1 Supplier A P F F G VG VG P VP P F P G P
Supplier B VP P VG P G G F F P G F P VG
Supplier C G P F G P F P G F G P G G
Supplier D F G F F F G P G P VP P F P
DM2 Supplier A VP P P G G F F VP F VP G F VP
a

Supplier B P VP G F F P P P F P F G G
Supplier C P P G VG F P F F G G G P G
urn

Supplier D F F P P G F VP F P F G G F
DM3 Supplier A VP F F P G G P VP P P P P VP
Supplier B F F F F G VG P P F G P P G
Supplier C F P F P P F F F P G P P P
Supplier D P G F P F F VP F P VP G F P

DM8 Supplier A G F F F VG G F VP P P F VG P
Jo

Supplier B P VP F VP VG F G F G G F F G
Supplier C F P F G P F P G P G G P P
Supplier D F G F G F G P F P P P G P

4.3. SSSC evaluation results

4.3.1. Measurement of evaluation uncertainty for each SSSC
Owing to the length limitation of this paper, this section mainly presents some key computation
21
 Journal Pre-proof
results by applying the proposed rough-fuzzy DEMATEL method (see Section 3.2). Table 3 shows
the vertex coordinates and the area of each SSSC polygon. By mapping those coordinates in Table 3
in a two-dimensional plane, the closed polygon of each SSSC, i.e., rough-fuzzy prominence-relation
map, is constructed as shown in Fig. 4. This shows that each SSSC polygon has a distinctive size and
location. The area of a polygon represents the rough-fuzzy degree associated with the SSSC. A larger
polygon area means a higher uncertainty in terms of linguistic vagueness and preference diversity. It

of
is stated that the SSSC EC4 (Enhancement of supply flexibility) has the largest decision rough-
fuzziness with the largest polygon area of 0.589. This implies that the initial group assessments on
the interrelationship between EC4 and other SSSC have the largest uncertainty magnitudes. The

pro
decision uncertainty of the EC1, EN1, EC3 and SC1 criteria are following the EC4 in descending order.
It is supposed that the linguistic vagueness (internal uncertainty) resulted by individual DM has been
amplified by the external uncertainty caused by group DMs. In addition, SC4, SC3, SC2, and EN4 have
relatively smaller sizes of internal and external uncertainty, which implies the eight DMs are less
re-
controversial on the judgements of these criteria. This measurement can provide a significant
reference for understanding which criterion needs further surveys.
Table 3
lP

The point sets of polygons for SSSC

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 AiG

EC1 (3.492, (3.915, (2.332, (1.514, (1.290, (1.974, (3.492, 0.435

-1.627) -1.396) -1.018) -0.697) -0.644) -1.002) -1.627)
a

EC2 (3.259, (3.556, (1.342, (1.494, (1.929, (2.166, (3.259, 0.163

-1.152) -1.132) -0.402) -0.468) -0.669) -0.753) -1.152)
urn

EC3 (2.997, (3.559, (2.138, (1.402, (1.078, (1.700, (2.997, 0.424

-1.215) -1.023) -0.679) -0.390) -0.355) -0.647) -1.215)
EC4 (3.040, (3.569, (2.118, (1.413, (1.140, (1.750, (3.040, 0.589
-1.626) -1.314) -0.926) -0.610) -0.590) -0.961) -1.626)
EN1 (1.854, (1.229, (1.531, (2.375, (3.972, (3.346, (1.854, 0.430
0.692) 0.469) 0.464) 0.655) 0.902) 1.062) 0.692)
Jo

SC4 (1.016, (2.060, (1.381, (0.423, (0.637, (0.640, (1.016, 0.106

-0.282) -0.422) -0.229) -0.108) -0.174) -0.199) -0.282)

22
 Journal Pre-proof

1.0

0.5

Rough-fuzzy relation
0.0

-0.5

-1.0

of
-1.5 EC1 EC2 EC3 EC4
EN1 EN2 EN3 EN4 EN5
SC1 SC2 SC3 SC4
-2.0

pro
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Rough-fuzzy prominence

Fig. 4 Rough-fuzzy prominence-relation of SSSC

4.3.2. SSSC weight and interrelationships
Table 4 shows the specific parameters of rough-fuzzy prominence-relation polygon for each
re-
SSSC. The parameters xic and yic separately represents the abscissa and ordinate of the centroid

CiG of each SSSC polygon. diOC denotes the length of the vector OCiG that is directed from the
lP

origin to the centroid CiG . This parameter is used to measure the importance strength of the ith

criterion. The corresponding normalized weight, i.e. the relative weight, of each SSSC is represented

by i . The SSSC weights ranking is presented as follows:

a

EN3 (0.099) > EC1 (0.097) > EN4 (0.094) > EN1 (0.087) > SC1 (0.087) > EC4 (0.086) > EC2
urn

(0.085) > EC3 (0.081) > EN2 (0.073) > SC2 (0.071) > EN5 (0.058) > SC3 (0.044) > SC4 (0.038)
The EN3 (Cost reduction using smart technologies), EC1 (Green design in digital way), EN4
(Green and smart manufacturing), EN1 (Internal management awareness of using smart technologies
for enhancing green development) and SC1 (Smart working environment) emerge as the top five
Jo

criteria. In addition, as shown in Fig. 8(d), the SSSC EC1, EC2, EC3, EC4, EN5 and SC4 belong to the
effect emitting group, since the values of their centroid ordinates are negative, shown as the bold
number in Table 4. The remainder of the SSSC are identified as effect receiving criteria, e.g. EN1,
EN2, EN3 and EN4. It can be found that economic practices are mainly affected by the environmental
practices in the sustainable supplier selection.
Table 4
23
 Journal Pre-proof
The characterizing parameters of polygon for SSSC

xiC yiC d iOC i rank

EC1 2.863 -1.237 3.119 0.097 2
EC2 2.609 -0.864 2.748 0.085 7
EC3 2.478 -0.849 2.619 0.081 8
EC4 2.511 -1.162 2.767 0.086 6
EN1 2.688 0.785 2.800 0.087 4
EN2 2.306 0.400 2.341 0.073 9
EN3 3.045 0.937 3.186 0.099 1

of
EN4 2.914 0.775 3.016 0.094 3
EN5 1.854 -0.330 1.883 0.058 11
SC1 2.691 0.737 2.790 0.087 5

pro
SC2 2.153 0.812 2.301 0.071 10
SC3 1.398 0.209 1.414 0.044 12
SC4 1.204 -0.259 1.231 0.038 13

4.3.3. Supplier ranking

By applying Equations (32) and (38), both the rough-fuzzy positive and negative ideal solution
re-
are calculated and listed in Table 5. By applying Equations (39) and (40), the distances between
each supplier and the ideal solution are calculated and shown in Table 6. By applying Equation (41),
the closeness coefficient and ranking of each supplier are obtained, as shown in Table 6. The results
lP

show that the transmission suppliers are ranked as follows: Supplier B (Shaanxi Fast Auto Drive Co.) >
Supplier C (ZFTS) > Supplier D (Qijiang Gear Transmission Co.) > Supplier A (SAGW).
Table 5
The rough-fuzzy positive and negative ideal solution
a

Positive ideal solution Negative ideal solution

urn

EC1 [(0.009, 0.026, 0.050), (0.027, 0.052, 0.076)] [(0.003, 0.015, 0.039), (0.022, 0.046, 0.070)]
EC2 [(0.020, 0.042, 0.063), (0.044, 0.065, 0.080)] [(0.003, 0.024, 0.046), (0.019, 0.040, 0.062)]
EC3 [(0.029, 0.049, 0.069), (0.048, 0.068, 0.078)] [(0.008, 0.028, 0.048), (0.023, 0.043, 0.064)]
EC4 [(0.016, 0.038, 0.059), (0.037, 0.059, 0.080)] [(0.003, 0.019, 0.040), (0.013, 0.035, 0.056)]
EN1 [(0.024, 0.045, 0.067), (0.047, 0.068, 0.084)] [(0.010, 0.032, 0.054), (0.040, 0.062, 0.077)]
EN2 [(0.026, 0.044, 0.062), (0.043, 0.061, 0.070)] [(0.010, 0.028, 0.046), (0.022, 0.040, 0.058)]
Jo

EN3 [(0.006, 0.031, 0.055), (0.025, 0.050, 0.075)] [(0.000, 0.014, 0.038), (0.006, 0.030, 0.054)]
EN4 [(0.023, 0.046, 0.069), (0.041, 0.065, 0.088)] [(0.000, 0.000, 0.024), (0.000, 0.005, 0.029)]
EN5 [(0.006, 0.020, 0.035), (0.017, 0.031, 0.046)] [(0.002, 0.016, 0.031), (0.013, 0.027, 0.042)]
SC1 [(0.024, 0.046, 0.067), (0.040, 0.062, 0.084)] [(0.003, 0.010, 0.031), (0.019, 0.040, 0.061)]
SC2 [(0.005, 0.023, 0.041), (0.022, 0.040, 0.057)] [(0.004, 0.017, 0.035), (0.018, 0.037, 0.054)]
SC3 [(0.014, 0.025, 0.036), (0.019, 0.030, 0.041)] [(0.001, 0.007, 0.018), (0.010, 0.021, 0.032)]
SC4 [(0.020, 0.030, 0.038), (0.025, 0.034, 0.038)] [(0.000, 0.010, 0.019), (0.002, 0.012, 0.021)]

Table 6
24
 Journal Pre-proof
The distance to ideal solution, closeness coefficient, rank of each supplier

d i d i CCi rank
Supplier A 0.063 0.035 0.359 4
Supplier B 0.038 0.059 0.608 1
Supplier C 0.043 0.060 0.585 2
Supplier D 0.045 0.062 0.582 3

4.4. Comparisons and discussions

of
The feasibility and advantages of the proposed methodology are illustrated through three
comparisons between the proposed method and the other three relevant methods. The first comparison
is conducted by presenting the final supplier selection results of crisp-based, fuzzy-based, rough-

pro
based and rough-fuzzy-based DEMATEL-TOPSIS methods. The second comparison aims to uncover
the differences between the uncertainty manipulation mechanisms of the four types of DEMATEL-
TOPSIS. The third comparison reveals the evaluation differences between the SSSC weights among
the four approach-based DEMATEL.
re-
In these three comparisons, the linguistic responses from group DMs are respectively converted
to an average crisp number, triangular fuzzy number, rough number, and rough-fuzzy number. In
crisp-based approach, the judgements entered into the evaluation process are the arithmetical means
lP

of the 8 DMs’ initial scores. In the fuzzy-based approach, the group average fuzzy intervals number
is acquired by calculating the arithmetical mean value of the group fuzzy judgements. A rough
procedure is adopted for aggregating group crisp judgements to inform the group average rough
a

intervals number in the rough-based method. The four compared methods basically adopt an identical
body procedure to that of DEMATEL and TOPSIS.
urn

4.4.1. Comparisons of final supplier ranking under different DEMATEL-TOPSIS methods

The first comparison is conducted between the crisp DEMATEL-TOPSIS, fuzzy DEMATEL-
TOPSIS, rough DEMATEL-TOPSIS, and the proposed rough-fuzzy DEMATEL-TOPSIS in the same
case. As shown in Fig. 5, the suppliers’ closeness coefficient and ranking order present certain
Jo

differences among the four methods. For instance, with the crisp approach, Supplier C is ranked in
third place, while coming in second with the rough-fuzzy approach; Supplier D is ranked second with
the fuzzy approach and third with the rough-fuzzy one; while Supplier B emerges as the best supplier
in crisp, fuzzy, and rough-fuzzy approach, they come in third under the rough method. However,
Supplier A presents the worst performance under all four methods. The selection results’ difference

25
 Journal Pre-proof
among the four methods can be deduced from the impact of the uncertainty manipulation mechanism
on the DEMATEL-based evaluation results of SSSC weights and the final TOPSIS-based ranking
results of transmission suppliers.
0.9
crisp DEMATEL-TOPSIS fuzzy DEMATEL-TOPSIS
0.8 rough DEMATEL-TOPSIS rough-fuzzy DEMATEL-TOPSIS

0.608 (1)
0.601 (1)
0.592 (1)

0.593 (2)
0.587 (3)

0.585 (2)

0.582 (3)
0.7

0.545 (2)

0.548 (1)
0.544 (3)
Closeness coefficient (Rank)

0.515 (2)
0.6

of
0.447 (3)
0.446 (4)

0.5 0.437 (4)

0.359 (4)
0.349 (4)

0.4

pro
0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
Supplier A Supplier B Supplier C Supplier D
re-
Fig. 5 Suppliers’ closeness coefficient and rank under different DEMATEL-TOPSIS methods
4.4.2. Comparisons of estimation interval for manipulation of group judgements
The differences between the four methods are mainly caused by their different judgement
lP

manipulation mechanisms in terms of internal and external uncertainty. To compare this difference
across the four methods, the group linguistic judgements of the 3rd criterion EC3 relative to the 9th
criterion EN4 are taken as examples. The eight experts respectively give the influence degree of EC3
a

relative to EN4 as H, M, VH, L, H, L, VH, and H. As shown in Fig. 6, the corresponding crisp values
to those linguistic variables are 3, 2, 4, 1, 3, 1, 4, and 3; the fuzzy intervals are [2.5, 3.5], [1.5, 2.5],
urn

[3.5, 4], [0.5, 1.5], [2.5, 3.5], [0.5, 1.5], [3.5, 4] and [2.5, 3.5]; the rough intervals are [2.167, 3.400],
[1.333, 3.167], [2.625, 4.000], [1.000, 2.625], [2.167, 3.400], [1.000, 2.625], [2.625, 4.000] and
[2.167, 3.400]; and the rough-fuzzy intervals are [2.167, 3.300], [1.333, 3.083], [2.563, 3.750], [1.000,
2.563], [2.167, 3.300], [1.000, 2.563], [2.563, 3.750] and [2.167, 3.300]. Taking the judgements of
Jo

DM4 and DM6 whose crisp scores are 1 as examples, the different uncertainty manipulation
mechanism can be illustrated. This shows that the corresponding fuzzy interval has an overestimated
low boundary of 0.5 compared with the rough-fuzzy one of 1.0, because the fuzzy method only
considers the internal uncertainty without accounting for the effects of other DMs’ judgements.
Similarly, the fuzzy interval presents smaller value of 1.5 of the up boundary than the rough-fuzzy

26
 Journal Pre-proof
interval one of 2.563. Moreover, the rough interval [1.000, 2.625] has a larger value of up boundary
compared with the rough-fuzzy interval, since the rough method only considers the external
uncertainty without taking the individual internal uncertainty, i.e., linguistic vagueness, into account.
In addition, by aggregating the group intervals in arithmetic averages, the crisp average value emerges
as 2.625, and the group average intervals of the fuzzy, rough, and rough-fuzzy approaches are
respectively obtained as [2.125, 3.000], [1.885, 3.327] and [1.870, 3.201]. This shows that the upper

of
boundary of the rough-fuzzy average interval is situated between the lower boundaries of the fuzzy
and rough average interval. The group average rough-fuzzy interval comprehensively reflects the
actual situation of both the range of internal and external uncertainty. It can be concluded that the

pro
proposed rough-fuzzy method allows for a more accurate and realistic description of the SSSC status
for the smart supply chain of vehicle transmission.
5.0
crisp value fuzzy interval rough interval rough-fuzzy interval
4.5
re-
4.0 4.000 4.000
3.750 3.750

3.500
3.500

3.500

3.400
3.400

3.400

3.327
3.300
3.300

3.300

3.5

3.201
3.167

3.500

3.500
3.083

3.000
3.0 3.000 3.000
2.625

2.625

3.000
2.563

2.563
2.500

2.625
2.625

2.625

2.5
2.563

2.563

2.500
2.500

2.500
lP
2.167
2.167
2.167
2.167

2.167
2.167

2.125

2.0 2.000
1.885
1.500
1.500

1.870

1.5
1.500

1.333
1.333

1.0 1.000 1.000

0.5
0.500

0.500
a

0.0
DM1 DM2 DM3 DM4 DM5 DM6 DM7 DM8 Avg.
urn

Fig. 6 Comparisons of estimation interval

4.4.3. Comparisons of different DEMATEL for SSSC weights determination
The third comparison focuses on the SSSC weights determination using the crisp, fuzzy, rough,
and proposed rough-fuzzy DEMATEL method in the same case. Fig. 7 presents the related weight of
Jo

each criterion acquired from the four methods, which differ from each other. For instance, the SSSC
EN3, EC1, EN4, EN1, and SC1 are considered as the top five important criteria when using the rough-
fuzzy approach. However, the EN3, EC1, EN4, EN1 and EC4 criteria are considered as the five most
important criteria under the crisp and rough approach; the EN3, EN4, EC1, EN1, and EC2 criteria are
regarded as the five criteria of greatest significance using fuzzy approach. In addition, Fig. 8 shows
the different distribution of the cause-effect diagraph for the four methods. The arrows between the
27
 Journal Pre-proof
nodes show the interrelationship between each SSSC. Since the number of relationships can include
all the possibilities, we only map those relationships that are over thresholds. The thresholds

ta  2  1i  n 1 j  n tij , where tij denotes the element of SSSC i to SSSC j in the crisp total-relation

matrix. For the fuzzy DEMATEL method, tij  (tijl  4  tijm  tiju ) / 6 , where tijl , tijm and tiju

separately denotes the low boundary, medium boundary and up boundary of the fuzzy interval in

fuzzy total-relation matrix. For the rough DEMATEL method, tij  (tijL  tijU ) / 2 , where tijL and tijU

of
separately represents the lower limit and upper limit of the rough boundary in rough total-relation
matrix. For the proposed rough-fuzzy DEMATEL, by combining the rough-fuzzy total-relation

pro
matrix obtained in Equations (19)~(21), tij  (tijlL  4  tijmL  tijuL  tijlU  4  tijmU  tijuU ) /12 . It can be

seen thatthe grouping results (i.e., cause or effect group) for each criterion are identical across the
four methods. The SSSC EC1, EC2, EC3, EC4, EN5 and SC4 belong to the cause group, with the
re-
remainder of the SSSC in effect groups, e.g. EN1, EN2, EN3 and EN4. This implies that the four
methods present the same causal-effect distribution among the criteria, owing to the same calculation
procedure of DEMATEL being applied.
However, there exit some differences between the interrelationships among the criteria.
lP

Compared with crisp DEMATEL, the rough-fuzzy DEMATEL presents with higher influence
relationship among the SSSC EC1, EC2, EC3 and EC4. Moreover, in the proposed method, higher
influence relationship exit between EC4-EC1, EN1-EN3, EN1-EN5, EN4-EN1 and EN4-EN5, compared
a

to those relationship presented with the rough DEMATEL. Owing to the combination of the fuzzy set
urn

and rough set for fully handling the internal and external uncertainties, the proposed rough-fuzzy
DEMATEL exhibits a markedly different evaluation result compared with the other three methods.
Thus, the application of the rough-fuzzy method in DEMATEL has a significant effect on the final
result of the systematic DEMATEL-TOPSIS methodology. Moreover, the comparative results show
Jo

the feasibility of the proposed rough-fuzzy DEMATEL for manipulating internal and external
uncertainties.

28
 Journal Pre-proof
EC1 0
SC4 0.100
EC2
0.095
0.090 2
SC3 0.085 EC3
0.080
0.075 4
0.070
0.065
SC2 0.060 EC4 6

Rank
0.055
8

SC1 EN1
10

of
EN5 EN2
12
crisp DEMATEL fuzzy DEMATEL
EN4 EN3 14 rough DEMATEL rough-fuzzy DEMATEL
crisp DEMATEL fuzzy DEMATEL

pro
rough DEMATEL rough-fuzzy DEMATEL EC1 EC2 EC3 EC4 EN1 EN2 EN3 EN4 EN5 SC1 SC2 SC3 SC4

a. Criteria weighting b. Criteria ranking

Fig. 7 Comparisons of different DEMATEL in terms of a. Criteria weighting and b. Criteria ranking
re-
a lP

a. Crisp DEMATEL b. Fuzzy DEMATEL

urn
Jo

c. Rough DEMATEL d. Rough-fuzzy DEMATEL

Fig. 8 Comparisons of cause-effect diagraph of SSSC
29
 Journal Pre-proof
5. Theoretical and practical implications
5.1. Theoretical implications
This study contributes to the identification of a set of smart-sustainable SCMPs as the SSSC for
smart supply chain by undertaking a literature review, and to the development of a novel rough-fuzzy
DEMATEL-TOPSIS approach to sustainable supplier selection.
A new topic of sustainable supplier selection in the context of smart supply chain has been

of
originally explored in this study. The constructed smart-sustainable SCMP list combines the general
compositions of traditional sustainable SCMPs and the characteristics of a smart supply chain, thus
providing insight into the impact of smart technologies on traditional supply chain management. The

pro
detailed description of each practice provides a useful reference for identifying the supporting role of
smart technology in improving the sustainability of the supply chain.
In addition, this study proposes a novel rough-fuzzy DEMATEL-TOPSIS approach with
considering both internal and external uncertainties. First, compared with the single fuzzy-based
re-
approach or rough-based approach, the proposed rough-fuzzy method is found to perform better in
terms of providing more accurate and objective results, since it combines the advantage of the fuzzy
set in handling internal uncertainty and the merits of the rough set in manipulating external uncertainty.
lP

Second, the proposed rough-fuzzy DEMATEL makes it easy to understand the decision uncertainty
using the obtained rough-fuzzy prominence-relation polygon. The input decision uncertainty for
evaluating SSSC is converted into the rough-fuzziness with the final SSSC weights, thus providing
a

crucial guidance for deeper field surveys. Third, the combination of the fuzzy set, rough set,
DEMATEL and TOPSIS provides a clear procedure for handling multiple types of uncertainties. This
urn

combination remains the input decision uncertainties throughout the selection process, as well as
reduces the information distortion that may lead to inaccurate outputs. In conclusion, the rough-fuzzy
DEMATEL-TOPSIS can be said to achieve more accurate, objective, undistorted, and informative
results of criteria evaluation and supplier selection.
Jo

5.2. Practical implications

First, the systematic identification of smart-sustainable SCMPs reveals the actual effect of the
emerging advanced smart technologies on sustainable SCMPs. The identified smart-sustainable
SCMPs provides a valuable reference for managers to recognize appropriate suppliers in line with the
development requirements of the smart supply chain. These practices can help managers faster to

30
 Journal Pre-proof
target appropriate suppliers in the preliminary stage of sustainable supplier development. They may
help suppliers to focus on the area where they can meet emerging requirements with respect to both
sustainable and smart development. Second, by using the proposed rough-fuzzy DEMATEL-TOPSIS
method, company managers can easily capture the realistic judgements of group DMs under internal
and external uncertainty environment. The obtained rough-fuzzy prominence-relation map can be
used as a visualization tool for analyzing the interrelationship between sustainable SCMPs and

of
measuring the decision inconsistency. The presented method can also be converted into a computer
software so as to minimize the time and efforts needed to collect data from various participants.
6. Conclusions

pro
This paper constructs a list of SSSC by combining sustainable supply chain management
practices and smart supply chain characteristics and develops a hybrid rough-fuzzy DEMATEL-
TOPSIS method to evaluate sustainable suppliers. The identified criteria provide insights into smart
technologies’ positive effect on the economic, environmental and social sustainability of the whole
re-
supply chain. They can be used by managers to identify and select the best suppliers with respect to
sustainability, and by suppliers to diagnose their weakness and recognize the direction of future
transformation in line with the newly addressed requirement in the context of the smart age.
lP

In addition, a hybrid methodology is proposed to evaluate the SSSC and rank the alternative
suppliers. The proposed method integrates the fuzzy set and rough set to transform multiple DMs’
linguistic judgements into rough-fuzzy interval numbers, considering individual linguistic vagueness
a

and group preference diversity. Moreover, the proposed method combines the strength of DEMATEL
in handling the complex interrelationship and the merits of TOPSIS in quickly searching for the best
urn

alternatives. An illustrated example of the sustainable supplier selection for a new energy vehicle
transmission demonstrates the feasibility and accuracy of the proposed approach. The evaluation
results show that the SSSC EN3 (Green and smart manufacturing), EC1 (Cost reduction using smart
technologies), EN4 (Internal management awareness of using smart technologies for enhancing green
Jo

development), EN1 (Green design in a digital way), and SC1 (Smart working environment) emerge as
the top five criteria, and that the ranking order of transmission suppliers is as follows: Supplier B
(Shaanxi Fast Auto Drive Co.) > Supplier C (ZFTS) > Supplier D (Qijiang Gear Transmission Co.) >
Supplier A (SAGW). These results are also compared with those produced by other methods. This
study presents several contributions in the theory and practice of smart supply chain. The proposed

31
 Journal Pre-proof
rough-fuzzy approach is first used in the field of sustainable supplier selection. This study fills the
gap in the area of specific applications by constructing a list of smart-sustainable SCMPs for smart
supply chains with the proposed rough-fuzzy DEMATEL-TOPSIS.
Although this study proposes a feasible framework for evaluating the SSSC and sustainable
supplier selection for smart supply chains under an environment of multiple uncertainties, it still has
some limitations. The first limitation is that the individual weight of the multiple DMs is not
considered in the decision process. Future research should take the DMs’ weight into account in the

of
evaluation process. Another limitation is that the exploration of smart-sustainable SCMP for smart
supply chains should focus on the effect of the interrelationship between practices on the actual

pro
sustainability performance. Moreover, the mathematical mechanism of group decision rough-
fuzziness could be explored more deeply through additional numerical experiments. In addition,
future work should be carried out by developing the method into a computer software or a
standardized procedure. This can make the proposed method more easily used in practice and avoid
re-
the risk of inappropriate decision-making due to lack of knowledge. Besides, it is also necessary to
apply the proposed method in other fields with the objective of acquiring higher validity.
Reference
lP

[1] J. Oh, B. Jeong, Tactical supply planning in smart manufacturing supply chain. Robotics and Computer-
Integrated Manufacturing. 55 (2019) 217-233.
[2] G. Büyüközkan, F. Göçer, Digital Supply Chain: Literature review and a proposed framework for future research.
Computers in Industry. 97 (2018) 157-177.
[3] M. Abdel-Basset, G. Manogaran, M. Mohamed, Internet of Things (IoT) and its impact on supply chain: A
a

framework for building smart, secure and efficient systems. Future Generation Computer Systems. 86 (2018)
614-628.
urn

[4] M. Ben-Daya, E. Hassini, Z. Bahroun, Internet of things and supply chain management: a literature review.
International Journal of Production Research. 10.1080/00207543.2017.1402140 (2017) 1-24.
[5] C. Gimenez, V. Sierra, J. Rodon, Sustainable operations: Their impact on the triple bottom line. International
Journal of Production Economics. 140(1) (2012) 149-159.
[6] A.G. Frank, L.S. Dalenogare, N.F. Ayala, Industry 4.0 technologies: Implementation patterns in manufacturing
companies. International Journal of Production Economics. 210 (2019) 15-26.
Jo

[7] K. Govindan, M. Shankar, D. Kannan, Supplier selection based on corporate social responsibility practices.
International Journal of Production Economics. 200 (2018) 353-379.
[8] C. Bai, S. Kusi-Sarpong, H. Badri Ahmadi, J. Sarkis, Social sustainable supplier evaluation and selection: a
group decision-support approach. International Journal of Production Research.
10.1080/00207543.2019.1574042 (2019.
[9] J. Li, H. Fang, W. Song, Sustainable supplier selection based on SSCM practices: A rough cloud TOPSIS
approach. Journal of Cleaner Production. 222 (2019) 606-621.
[10] G. Büyüközkan, G. Çifçi, A novel fuzzy multi-criteria decision framework for sustainable supplier selection with

32
 Journal Pre-proof
incomplete information. Computers in Industry. 62(2) (2011) 164-174.
[11] S.-L. Si, X.-Y. You, H.-C. Liu, P. Zhang, DEMATEL technique: A systematic review of the state-of-the-art
literature on methodologies and applications. Mathematical Problems in Engineering. 2018 (2018.
[12] K. Zimmer, M. Fröhling, F. Schultmann, Sustainable supplier management - A review of models supporting
sustainable supplier selection, monitoring and development. International Journal of Production Research. 54(5)
(2016) 1412-1442.
[13] D. Wu, J.M. Mendel, Computing With Words for Hierarchical Decision Making Applied to Evaluating a Weapon
System. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems. 18(3) (2010) 441-460.
[14] V.L. da Silva, J.L. Kovaleski, R.N. Pagani, Technology transfer in the supply chain oriented to industry 4.0: a
literature review. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management. 31(5) (2019) 546-562.

of
[15] K. Valkokari, M. Kansola, T. Valjakka, Towards collaborative smart supply chains - Capabilities for business
development. International Journal of Enterprise Network Management. 4(4) (2011) 380-399.
[16] S. Tiwari, H.M. Wee, Y. Daryanto, Big data analytics in supply chain management between 2010 and 2016:

pro
Insights to industries. Computers & Industrial Engineering. 115 (2018) 319-330.
[17] A. Paulraj, I.J. Chen, C. Blome, Motives and Performance Outcomes of Sustainable Supply Chain Management
Practices: A Multi-theoretical Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics. 145(2) (2017) 239-258.
[18] A. Esfahbodi, Y. Zhang, G. Watson, Sustainable supply chain management in emerging economies: Trade-offs
between environmental and cost performance. International Journal of Production Economics. 181 (2016) 350-
366.
re-
[19] J. Miemczyk, D. Luzzini, Achieving triple bottom line sustainability in supply chains: the role of environmental,
social and risk assessment practices. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. (2018.
[20] D. Das, The impact of Sustainable Supply Chain Management practices on firm performance: Lessons from
Indian organizations. Journal of Cleaner Production. 203 (2018) 179-196.
[21] J.A. Laghari, H. Mokhlis, A.H.A. Bakar, H. Mohammad, A comprehensive overview of new designs in the
lP

hydraulic, electrical equipments and controllers of mini hydro power plants making it cost effective technology.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 20 (2013) 279-293.
[22] F. Tao, J. Cheng, Q. Qi, M. Zhang, H. Zhang, F. Sui, Digital twin-driven product design, manufacturing and
service with big data. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. 94(9) (2018) 3563-
3576.
a

[23] P.-Y. Foo, V.-H. Lee, G.W.-H. Tan, K.-B. Ooi, A gateway to realising sustainability performance via green supply
chain management practices: A PLS–ANN approach. Expert Systems with Applications. 107 (2018) 1-14.
urn

[24] R.M. Vanalle, G.M.D. Ganga, M. Godinho Filho, W.C. Lucato, Green supply chain management: An
investigation of pressures, practices, and performance within the Brazilian automotive supply chain. Journal of
Cleaner Production. 151 (2017) 250-259.
[25] X. Zhang, X. Ming, Z. Liu, Y. Qu, D. Yin, An overall framework and subsystems for smart manufacturing
integrated system (SMIS) from multi-layers based on multi-perspectives. The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology. 10.1007/s00170-019-03593-6 (2019.
Jo

[26] A. Fallahpour, E. Udoncy Olugu, S. Nurmaya Musa, K. Yew Wong, S. Noori, A decision support model for
sustainable supplier selection in sustainable supply chain management. Computers & Industrial Engineering.
105 (2017) 391-410.
[27] K. Govindan, R. Khodaverdi, A. Vafadarnikjoo, Intuitionistic fuzzy based DEMATEL method for developing
green practices and performances in a green supply chain. Expert Systems with Applications. 42(20) (2015)
7207-7220.
[28] A.A. Zaid, A.A.M. Jaaron, A. Talib Bon, The impact of green human resource management and green supply
chain management practices on sustainable performance: An empirical study. Journal of Cleaner Production.

33
 Journal Pre-proof
204 (2018) 965-979.
[29] G. Büyüközkan, F. Göçer, An extension of ARAS methodology under Interval Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy
environment for Digital Supply Chain. Applied Soft Computing. 69 (2018) 634-654.
[30] C. Bai, J. Sarkis, Integrating sustainability into supplier selection with grey system and rough set methodologies.
International Journal of Production Economics. 124(1) (2010) 252-264.
[31] S. Luthra, K. Govindan, D. Kannan, S.K. Mangla, C.P. Garg, An integrated framework for sustainable supplier
selection and evaluation in supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production. 140 (2017) 1686-1698.
[32] B. Guo, Q. Han, H. Chen, L. Shangguan, Z. Zhou, Z. Yu, The Emergence of Visual Crowdsensing: Challenges
and Opportunities. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials. 19(4) (2017) 2526-2543.
[33] Z. Chen, X. Ming, X. Zhang, D. Yin, Z. Sun, A rough-fuzzy DEMATEL-ANP method for evaluating sustainable

of
value requirement of product service system. Journal of Cleaner Production. 228 (2019) 485-508.
[34] G. Pishchulov, A. Trautrims, T. Chesney, S. Gold, L. Schwab, The Voting Analytic Hierarchy Process revisited:
A revised method with application to sustainable supplier selection. International Journal of Production

pro
Economics. 211 (2019) 166-179.
[35] G. Büyüközkan, S. Güleryüz, An integrated DEMATEL-ANP approach for renewable energy resources selection
in Turkey. International Journal of Production Economics. 182 (2016) 435-448.
[36] A. Mardani, A. Jusoh, E.K. Zavadskas, Fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making techniques and applications –
Two decades review from 1994 to 2014. Expert Systems with Applications. 42(8) (2015) 4126-4148.
[37] A. Mohammed, I. Harris, K. Govindan, A hybrid MCDM-FMOO approach for sustainable supplier selection
re-
and order allocation. International Journal of Production Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.02.003
(2019.
[38] K.-S. Chen, C.-H. Wang, K.-H. Tan, Developing a fuzzy green supplier selection model using six sigma quality
indices. International Journal of Production Economics. 212 (2019) 1-7.
[39] A. Awasthi, K. Govindan, S. Gold, Multi-tier sustainable global supplier selection using a fuzzy AHP-VIKOR
lP

based approach. International Journal of Production Economics. 195 (2018) 106-117.

[40] K. Sadeghzadeh, M.B. Salehi, Mathematical analysis of fuel cell strategic technologies development solutions
in the automotive industry by the TOPSIS multi-criteria decision making method. International Journal of
Hydrogen Energy. 36(20) (2011) 13272-13280.
[41] G.A. Keskin, Using integrated fuzzy DEMATEL and fuzzy C: means algorithm for supplier evaluation and
a

selection. International Journal of Production Research. 53(12) (2015) 3586-3602.

[42] R.-J. Lin, Using fuzzy DEMATEL to evaluate the green supply chain management practices. Journal of Cleaner
urn

Production. 40 (2013) 32-39.

[43] Y. Liu, C. Eckert, G. Yannou-Le Bris, G. Petit, A fuzzy decision tool to evaluate the sustainable performance of
suppliers in an agrifood value chain. Computers and Industrial Engineering. 127 (2019) 196-212.
[44] A. Mohammed, R. Setchi, M. Filip, I. Harris, X. Li, An integrated methodology for a sustainable two-stage
supplier selection and order allocation problem. Journal of Cleaner Production. 192 (2018) 99-114.
[45] I.J. Orji, S. Wei, An innovative integration of fuzzy-logic and systems dynamics in sustainable supplier selection:
Jo

A case on manufacturing industry. Computers and Industrial Engineering. 88 (2015) 1-12.

[46] C.-M. Su, D.-J. Horng, M.-L. Tseng, A.S. Chiu, K.-J. Wu, H.-P. Chen, Improving sustainable supply chain
management using a novel hierarchical grey-DEMATEL approach. Journal of Cleaner Production. 134 (2016)
469-481.
[47] Z. Liu, X. Ming, W. Song, A framework integrating interval-valued hesitant fuzzy DEMATEL method to capture
and evaluate co-creative value propositions for smart PSS. Journal of Cleaner Production. 215 (2019) 611-625.
[48] C. Bai, J. Sarkis, Integrating sustainability into supplier selection: A grey-based topsis analysis. Technological
and Economic Development of Economy. 24(6) (2018) 2202-2224.

34
 Journal Pre-proof
[49] A. Memari, A. Dargi, M.R. Akbari Jokar, R. Ahmad, A.R. Abdul Rahim, Sustainable supplier selection: A multi-
criteria intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method. Journal of Manufacturing Systems. 50 (2019) 9-24.
[50] W. Song, Z. Xu, H.C. Liu, Developing sustainable supplier selection criteria for solar air-conditioner
manufacturer: An integrated approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 79 (2017) 1461-1471.
[51] H. Fang, J. Li, W. Song, Sustainable site selection for photovoltaic power plant: An integrated approach based
on prospect theory. Energy Conversion and Management. 174 (2018) 755-768.
[52] C.C. Sun, A performance evaluation model by integrating fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods. Expert
Systems with Applications. 37(12) (2010) 7745-7754.
[53] Z. Pawlak, Rough sets. International Journal of Computer & Information Sciences. 11(5) (1982) 341-356.
[54] L.-Y. Zhai, L.-P. Khoo, Z.-W. Zhong, A rough set enhanced fuzzy approach to quality function deployment. The

of
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. 37(5) (2008) 613-624.
[55] W. Song, X. Ming, Y. Han, Z. Wu, A rough set approach for evaluating vague customer requirement of industrial
product-service system. International Journal of Production Research. 51(22) (2013) 6681-6701.

pro
[56] W. Song, J. Cao, A rough DEMATEL-based approach for evaluating interaction between requirements of
product-service system. Computers and Industrial Engineering. 110 (2017) 353-363.
[57] S. Tadić, S. Zečević, M. Krstić, A novel hybrid MCDM model based on fuzzy DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and fuzzy
VIKOR for city logistics concept selection. Expert Systems with Applications. 41(18) (2014) 8112-8128.
[58] C. Steger, On the Calculation of Moments of Polygons. Technical Report. (1996.
[59] Y.-J. Lai, T.-Y. Liu, C.-L. Hwang, TOPSIS for MODM. European Journal of Operational Research. 76(3) (1994)
re-
486-500.
[60] D. Dalalah, M. Hayajneh, F. Batieha, A fuzzy multi-criteria decision making model for supplier selection. Expert
systems with applications. 38(7) (2011) 8384-8391.
a lP
urn
Jo

35
 Journal Pre-proof

New topic on sustainable supplier selection for smart supply chain is put forward.
A novel rough-fuzzy TOPSIS-DEMATEL is proposed for sustainable supplier selection.
Internal and external uncertainties are manipulated by proposed rough-fuzzy numbers.
Decision uncertainty is measured through the presented rough-fuzzy polygons.
Showed the method’s feasibility with vehicle transmission supplier selection.

of
pro
re-
a lP
urn
Jo

36
 Journal Pre-proof
Declaration of interests

☒ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could
have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

☐The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as
potential competing interests:

of
pro
re-
Author contributions
Zhihua Chen and Xinguo Ming conceived of the presented idea. Zhihua Chen developed the
theory and performed the computations. Tongtong Zhou and Yuan Chang verified the analytical
lP

methods. Xinguo Ming encouraged Zhihua Chen to investigate the mathematical methods and the
sustainable supplier selection criteria for smart supply chain and supervised the findings of this work.
All authors discussed the results and contributed to the final manuscript.
a
urn
Jo

37