Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-020-01751-3

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Sustainable supplier selection by a new possibilistic hierarchical

model in the context of Z‑information
Ali Reza Hoseini1 · Seyed Farid Ghannadpour1 · Roya Ghamari1

Received: 1 January 2020 / Accepted: 27 January 2020

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
In recent years, supplier selection has been significantly important with respect to dimensions and criteria of sustainability.
Organizations need to try to choose their suppliers based on how well their performances are in each of the economic, social,
and environmental criteria. On the other hand, since the methods of supplier selection depend on the experts’ opinions, which
have the potential of uncertainty and ambiguity, using Fuzzy sets to evaluate the criteria can be useful. Apart from considering
experts’ opinions on a fuzzy basis, probabilities are considered in experts’ opinions via Z-numbers in order to increase the
reliability of the data and the results. In this paper, after reviewing the literature, identifying the sustainability criteria, and
step-by-step explaining the presented method, a numerical example is studied for more clarification. Moreover, the results
of the conventional fuzzy sets are obtained and have been compared with those considering the probabilities (Z-number)
leading to the conclusion that applying the experts’ opinions will be effective in ranking the suppliers.

Keywords Sustainability · Supplier Selection · Fuzzy sets · Z-number

1 Introduction
Supplier selection is considered one of the key concepts in
supply chain management. Given that the suppliers’ perfor-
mances fundamentally influence the success or failure a sup-
ply chain, supplier selection is recognized as a strategic duty
(Sarwar et al. 2017). Two important reasons increasing the
significance of the supplier selection issue are that in many
organizations, the cost of the material and the purchased
goods are more than 60% of the cost of the sold goods (Bur-
ton 1988), and also over 50% of the total qualitative defects
may be attributed to the purchased material (Lascelles and
Dale 1989). Different criteria (quantitative and qualitative)
must be taken into consideration when selecting appropriate
suppliers since it is clear that a supplier cannot have the best
efficiency for all of the selected criteria. Sustainability is
* Seyed Farid Ghannadpour
ghannadpour@iust.ac.ir
Ali Reza Hoseini
Ali_RezaHoseini@ind.iust.ac.ir
Roya Ghamari
roya_ghamari@ind.iust.ac.ir
1
Department of Industrial Engineering, Iran University
of Science and Technology, Tehran 16846‑13114, Iran
one of the criteria that have been especially noted in recent
years (Humphreys et al. 2003). The concept of sustainability
means to wisely use the resources in a framework consist-
ing of environmental, economic, and social factors with the
aim of preventing the waste of resources and improving the
quality of current life along with preserving the quality of
the next generations’ lives (Erdoğan and Namlı 2019). Due
to the increase in preserving the environment and the aware-
ness of social occupations, this concept has turned into a
necessary philosophy for several industrial sectors (Haider
et al. 2019). Economic aspects such as cost reduction are
emphasized in designing the supply chain. With the increase
in customers’ knowledge about environmental and social
problems in addition to the stringency of politicians with
respect to the mentioned issues, these concepts are gain-
ing considerable attention in designing the supply chains
(Amindoust et al. 2012). Therefore, considering the concept
of sustainability in the supply chain has made the supplier
selection problem a challenging subject. Accordingly, the
starting point to achieve sustainability in the supply chain
is to choose the suppliers based on sustainability principals
(Büyüközkan and Çifçi 2011). Choosing inappropriate sup-
pliers, which lack the three levels of sustainability perfor-
mance, ruins the decent image of a company in the eyes of
the public. Therefore, identifying and signing contracts with

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 A. R. Hoseini et al.

the most appropriate sustainable suppliers play a crucial role information under uncertainty (Zhu et al. 2019). Fuzzy sets
to guarantee success in designing the supply chain (Lee et al. are briefly introduced as follows:
2009). Thus, it is not possible to choose the required supplier
by trial and error, like the past, since the damages resulting Definition 2.1 A fuzzy set A is defined on a universe X and
from inappropriate supplier selection are irreversible. Hence, is indicated as (Zadeh 1965): Eq. (1):
the most desirable supplier has to be chosen by using deci-
sion making approaches and prioritizing the required criteria
A = {⟨x, 𝜇A (x)⟩�x ∈ X} (1)
according to the importance of the organization (Humphreys
et al. 2003). In regards to the fact that the criteria of supply where 𝜇A ∼X → [0, 1] is the membership function A . The
selection evaluation are usually ambiguous, qualitative, and membership value 𝜇A (x) describes the degree of belonging-
oral, multi-criteria decision making approaches can be used ness of x ∈ X in A. Occasionally, the special fuzzy set, e.g.
(Ho et al. 2010). On the one hand, deciding on technical triangular fuzzy number, and trapezoidal fuzzy number are
problems is full of complexity and has various dimensions. used to express the main idea of the experts, we define them
This complexity consists of quantitative and qualitative as follows:
parameters and criteria at the same time, as a result of which
achieving definite and explicit judgments faces difficulties, Definition 2.2 A triangular fuzzy number à can be defined
especially in mental and non-discrete issues. Therefore, by a triplet (a1 , a2 , a3), where the membership can be speci-
human decisions are accompanied by uncertainties (Kang fied as Eq. (2) (Chen 1994):
et al. 2019). Therefore, fuzzy logic is used in these subjects
in order that the method would be more compatible with real ⎧ 0, � �
x ∈ � −∞, a�1
situations. In this way, the approach would further reflect ⎪ x−a1
⎪ 2 −a1 , x ∈ a1 , a2
the opinions of experts apart from dealing with the exist- 𝜇Ã (x) = ⎨ ac−x � � (2)
ing restrictions of these types of problems (Joshi 2019) On ⎪ a3 −a2 , x ∈ a2 , a3
� �
the other hand, considering the possibility and uncertainty ⎪ 0, x ∈ a3 , +∞
⎩
of fuzzy numbers is crucial for making the model as close
to reality as possible (Qiao et al. 2019). Z-number (Zadeh Similarly, we can define trapezoidal fuzzy number as
2011) is an extension of fuzzy sets that involves probability below:
levels in fuzzy numbers since experts’ judgments and lin-
guistic expressions always include uncertainties (Hendiani Definition 2.3( A trapezoidal ) fuzzy number A is defined by
̃
and Bagherpour 2019b). a quadruplet a1 , a2 , a3 , a4 , where the membership can be
Therefore, the innovations of this article are: specified as Eq. (3) AND Fig. 1 (Wang et al. 2006):

1. Using Z-number hierarchy approach along with the sus- ⎧ � �

⎪ 0, x ∈ −∞, a1
� �
tainability criteria for selecting the suppliers. ⎪ 1 x− a1
, x ∈ a1 , a2
2. Applying group decision making in the supplier selec- ⎪ (a2 −a1 ) a2 −a1 � �
tion of the suppliers using z-numbers method.
𝜇Ã (x) = ⎨ 1, x ∈ a2 , a3
� � (3)
⎪ −1 x + a4
, x ∈ a3 , a4
3. Presenting a new Fuzzy-probability range to score the ⎪ (a4 −a3 ) a4 −a3 � �
questionnaires. ⎪ 0, x ∈ a4 , + ∞
⎩

2 Literature review

2.1 Fuzzy set

The conception of fuzzy sets was initially presented by

(Zadeh 1965). Fuzzy sets introduce the notion of member-
ship function that deals with various linguistic variables
and has achieved lots of concerns, e.g., medical area (Xiao
2018), measurement of similarity for unsure information
(Fei et al. 2019), multi criteria group decision-making (Han
et al. 2019), selection of back up alternative (Chen and Yu
2019) and investigating supply chains with asymmetric
Fig. 1  Trapezoidal Fuzzy number (TFN)

13
Sustainable supplier selection by a new possibilistic hierarchical model in the context of…
2.2 Z–number theory and applications
The notion of Z-numbers defined in (Zadeh 2011) is mostly
used to model uncertain information; and is different from
what proposed by (Mahler 1968) as Z-number. Their innate
meaning and definition is indicated below: Eq. (4):
( )
Z = (A, B) = Z + A, 𝜇A .pXA is B (4)
This definition states that for an arbitrary variable XA, if
Z is an indicator of a Z +-number (Zadeh 2011), where pXA
+
is the probability of random variable XA for fuzzy set A. the
membership function of fuzzy set A is denoted as 𝜇A (x), such
that x ∈ XA and x ∈ R, where R is the real value domain, the
membership function of fuzzy set B is denoted as 𝜇B (x), such
that x ∈ XB and x ∈ R, in which R is the(real value domain.
Furthermore, 𝜇A ⋅ pXA is B indicates 𝜇B ∫ 𝜇A (x).pXA (x)dx .
) supplier selection problem via the Multi-criteria Optimiza-
If XA is chosen arbitrary, the notion of Z-number will be
explicated as Eq. (5):
( )
Z = Z + A, 𝜇A ⋅ pXA is B (5)
A simple Z-number is shown in Fig. 2. A number of pro-
found works have been investigated relying on the above
definition of Z-numbers like: the Z-number Extension of
Best–Worst method (ZBWM) for supplier assessment
(Aboutorab et al. 2018), combination of Z-numbers and
Bayesian decision theory (Marhamati et al. 2018), using
the Z-number Extension of Multi-criteria Optimization
and Compromise Solution (Z-VIKOR) for decision making
(Shen and Wang 2018), stochastic multi criteria acceptabil-
ity analysis (SMAA) model for decision supporting (Yang
and Wang 2018), data envelopment analysis (DEA) and neu-
ral network to assess a supply chain stability (Yazdanparast
et al. 2018) and portfolio selection model (Jirofti and Najafi
2018).
Fig. 2  A simple Z-number
2.3 Fuzzy and sustainable supplier selection
Kahraman (2003) there has been a large number of stud-
ies relating to the supply selection so far. The focus of this
article is on selecting the supplier considering fuzzy logic
because noting possibilities in linguistic variables is needed
to get closer to reality and better decision making. (Chen
et al. 2006) represent a multiple-criteria decision-making
(MCDM) method regarding economic criteria and Fuzzy-
sets theory. A Fuzzy TOPSIS was applied, and it was shown
that the proposed method is an appropriate tool for deci-
sion making. A Fuzzy Technique for Order of Preference
by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) was applied, and
it was shown that the proposed method is an appropriate tool
for decision making. (Shemshadi et al. 2011) set to solve the
tion and Compromise Solution (VIKOR) in a fuzzy envi-
ronment based on Shannon entropy notion, and finally, the
application of the presented framework was shown through
a numerical illustration. (Chang et al. 2011) tried to find
critical factors to choose and evaluate the suppliers by Fuzzy
decision making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMA-
TEL) and then by using questionnaires applied the arrayed
method for the electronic industry. The results showed that
the continuous delivery of goods has the most influence on
other factors. (Dursun and Karsak 2013) worked on multi-
criteria decision making using quality function deployment
(QFD). They first identify the relevant factors of the sup-
plier evaluation and then weighted factors via the fuzzy
weighted average (FWA). In the end, the presented method
was applied to a real supply selection problem. (Öztürk
and Özçelik 2014) performed the supplier selection prob-
lem considering three aspects of the economy, environment
and society, and sustainability and chose the best supplier
for an energy company using the Fuzzy TOPSIS method.
(Mehregan et al. 2014) investigated the interaction and
13
 A. R. Hoseini et al.

impacts of the sustainability factors to select the supplier
applying interpretive structural modeling (ISM), and Fuzzy
DEMATEL then tried it for a case study to show the effi-
ciency of the presented framework. (Galankashi et al. 2015)
paid attention to the green criteria and used Fuzzy Analytical
Network Process to evaluate and investigate the significance
of economic and environmental factors in decision making
for the supply selection. In recent years, other sustainability
criteria like environmental and economic criteria were taken
into accounts. There has been considerable attention to other
criteria of sustainability in recent years. (Wang Chen et al.
2016) presented a combinational framework consisting of
Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and Fuzzy TOPSIS
to select the supplier noting the economic and environmen-
tal criteria and applied it for a supplier selection problem
in the Learning Enrichment Foundation (LEF) industry to
show the appropriateness of this decision-making method.
(Fallahpour et al. 2017) used questionnaires to find the sus-
tainability indices in economic, environmental, and social
dimensions. The efficiency of the questionnaires was evalu-
ated by statistical tests, and the factors were weighted by
Fuzzy Preference Programming. Then the suppliers of a real
case study were ranked and evaluated via the Fuzzy TOPSIS
method. (Awasthi et al. 2018) selected the sustainable sup-
plier considering the aspects of the triple sustainability cri-
teria and the global risks. Fuzzy AHP-VIKOR method was
presented for this effort. The results showed that the eco-
nomic criteria have the most weight and importance, and the
global risks have the least ones in choosing the best supplier.
The latter matter shows that the global risks are not under
great scrutiny in the supplier selection issue. (Banaeian et al.
2018) set to compare Fuzzy TOPSIS, VIKOR, and grey
relational analysis (GRA) methods in choosing the supplier
for an agri-food sector considering green and economic cri-
teria. And the results showed that ranking the suppliers using
each of the three methods was the same beside Fuzzy GRA
has the least complexity in calculations respecting the two
other methods. (Hendiani and Bagherpour 2019a) proposed
a framework to select the supplier due to social criteria and
identified the significant amount of every social criterion via
Fuzzy logic and, in the end, presented suggestions for facing
the social barriers, which are in front of the supply selec-
tion for construction projects. (Rashidi and Cullinane 2019)
compared the two methods of the Fuzzy DEA and the Fuzzy
TOPSIS for choosing the sustainable supplier and concluded
that the Fuzzy TOPSIS method performance is better both
in the complexity of the calculations and the sensitivity to
the number of the suppliers. A brief of the number of papers
worked on the supplier selection field regarding the Fuzzy
sets, and the MCDM methods were placed in the Table 1.
Regarding the table of papers abstracts, this paper focuses
on the Z-numbers hierarchy approach using the sustainabil-
ity criteria. The reason for this approach is to engage prob-
abilities to fuzzy opinions of the experts causing the results
will be close to reality, and there is not a paper with this
approach to choosing the suppliers.
3 Methodology
The process of the research method is as in Fig. 3.

Table 1  A survey on several papers worked on the supplier selection field
Row References years Fuzzy-approach Sustainability
Environmental Social Economic

1 Kahraman 2003 F-AHP ✓

2 Chen et al. 2006 F-TOPSIS ✓
3 Shemshadi et al. 2011 F-VIKOR ✓
4 Chang et al. 2011 F-DMATEL ✓
5 Dursun and Karsak 2013 FWA + QFD ✓
6 Öztürk and Özçelik 2014 F-TOPSIS ✓ ✓
7 Mehregan et al. 2014 ISM + FDEMATEL ✓ ✓
8 Galankashi et al. 2015 F-ANP ✓ ✓
9 Wang Chen et al. 2016 FAHP + FTOPSIS ✓ ✓
10 Fallahpour et al. 2017 FPP + FTOPSIS ✓ ✓
11 Awasthi et al. 2018 FAHP + FVIKOR ✓ ✓ ✓
12 Banaeian et al. 2018 FVIKOR + FTOPSIS + FGRA​ ✓ ✓ ✓
13 Hendiani and Bagherpour 2019a, b FLogic
14 Rashidi and Cullinane 2019 FDEA + FTOPSIS ✓ ✓
15 This study 2020 Z-numbers ✓ ✓ ✓

13
Sustainable supplier selection by a new possibilistic hierarchical model in the context of…
3.1 Identification of sustainable criteria supplier
selection
In this article, all three economic, environmental, and social
dimensions have been considered in selecting the suppliers.
First, sub-criteria were identified in every dimension of sus-
tainability by reviewing the literature. The criteria of the eco-
nomic dimension were considered to increase the benefits and
revenues of the organizations by minimizing the costs. Social
criteria dealt with social problems an organization faces, and
the environmental criteria is related to issues such as recycling
the materials, using the recyclable materials, and designing
systems that produce the least possible pollution during the
production process, (Gören 2018) researchers have applied
several criteria to select suppliers in their studies, most of
which have considered these three dimensions. The sub-cri-
teria which have been addressed and used were chosen, and a
brief description has been presented in Tables 2, 3, 4.
3.2 The proposed Z‑information‑based
sustainability index
3.2.1 An overview of the concept of Z‑numbers
A Z-number is made of three components with the structure
(X, A, B). Obviously, for the sake of incomplete accuracy and
reliability, most of the data in diverse phenomena and deci-
sion-making problems are associated with Z-information,
though they are not treated such for the sake of hard calcu-
lations. (Kang et al. 2012) proposed a model for converting
Z-numbers to conventional fuzzy sets to simplify the com-
putations and subsequently develop the wide applications
of Z-numbers. According to Ref. Zadeh (2011), for a pair of
Z-number (A, B), if X is a random variable with a specific
distribution, then X is A that indicates a fuzzy event in R
with the probability as Eq. (4):
∫
p= 𝜇A (u)px (u)du
R 1.00, e.g. ([2, 4, 7, 9.5], [0.8, 0.8, 0.9, 1]). In such cases, the
where px is the probability distribution of X. As a restric-
tion, the structure (X, A, B) will be expressed on X as follows
(Zadeh 2011):
Prob (X is A)is B
By using Eq. (4), Prob (X is A) is B would be replaced with
p = ∫ 𝜇A (u)px (u)du as Eq. (5):
R
∫ in Fuzzy logic was presented by (Lin et al. 2006) in 2006.
p= 𝜇A (u)px (u)du is B
R Similar to the presented method by (Lin et al. 2006), two
Regarding probability rules, the complement of the Z is
Z’. In effect,
( as an)example, the complement of Z-number
(A, B) is A� , 1 − B or (events in R except A� , 1 − B) (Fig. 4)
The concept of Z +-number which is closely relevant
with the concept of Z-numbers is basically an ordered
pair of (A, R) in which A plays the same role that it does in
Z-numbers and R is the probability distribution of a random
number (Zadeh 2011).( Furthermore,
) a Z +-number could be
defined as a pair 𝜇A , pX in which - A plays the role of the
membership function of A and px indicates the probability
distribution of X . Actually, the difference between Z-number
and Z +-number is the fact that in Z-numbers, px (probabil-
ity distribution) is unknown; however, the probability value
of A is recognized (Zadeh 2011). The relations between
Z + -number and Z-number are elucidated in Eq. (6) as fol-
lows (Azadeh and Kokabi 2016; Zadeh 2011):
( )
Z(A, B) = Z + A, 𝜇A .pX is B (6)
According to the DE fuzzy model which is presented by
Kang et al. (2012),
{ for a specific Z-number
} with the pair of
Z = (A, B), B̃ = (x, 𝜇B̃ (x)|x 𝜀[0, 1] denotes the fuzzy reli-
ability value of and 𝜇B̃ (x) indicates the membership function.
Meanwhile, the crisp centroid (center of gravity) value of B̃
will be computed as Eq. (7) as follows:
∫ x𝜇B̃ (x)dx
∫ 𝜇B̃ (x)dx
𝛼= (7)
If B̃ ∼ TrFS[a, b, c], then[ the centroid defuzzification of
]
this set is a+b+c . If ̄ ∼ TrFS d, e, f the defuzzified Z-number
A
3
will be finally concluded as follows (Kang et al. 2012):
�√ √ √ � � �
A� = 𝛼d, 𝛼e, 𝛼f = d� , e� , f � (8)
By Applying defuzzification method, the following
expression will be definitely deduced. Figure 3 demonstrates
the situation where A′ < A. This situation implies that there
(4) were some (or only one) possibility component lesser than
𝛼 obtained by Eq. (7) is lesser than 1.00 (𝛼 < 1) and subse-
quently and makes the converted Z-number lesser than the
source. In contradiction with previous cases, there is also
a situation where all possibilities are deterministic and are
allocated by value 1.00 e.g. ([2, 4, 7, 9.5], [1, 1, 1, 1]). In such
cases, the Z-number can possibly be defined as a simple
fuzzy set (𝛼 ≤ 1) (Table 5).
3.2.2 Obtaining the new possibilistic sustainability index
One of the methods of evaluating and choosing suppliers
(5)
calculation stages are performed considering the enablers
13
 A. R. Hoseini et al.

Step 1
Linguistic variables and Linguistic possibilities and Linguistic variables and
corresponding fuzzy sets their corresponding fuzzy corresponding fuzzy sets
)Performance rating( sets )Importance Weights(

Identification of
Sustainable Criteria
Supplier Selection

Converted performance Z- Converted performance Z-

numbers with applied numbers with applied
possibilities possibilities
)Performance rating( )Importance Weights(
Step 2

Linguistic terms determined by DMs

The converted Z-numbers substituted

Step 3

with corresponding linguistic terms for

DMs

The obtained performance criteria and

enabler weights for suppliers by DMs

The obtained Sustainability Z-Index

for suppliers by DMs

Sustainability Z-Index Average

Obtained from DMs
Step 4

DeFuzzy by Different Methods

Supplier Ranking
Step 5

Compare Z-Number with Fuzzy Set

Fig. 3  Process of methodology

13
Sustainable supplier selection by a new possibilistic hierarchical model in the context of…

Table 2  Economics criteria and their descriptions

Sub criteria Description

Cost Elements of cost related to the purchase, transportation cost, manufacturing cost, ordering cost, inventory cost, and
warehouse cost
Quality Quality certification, inspection and control, rejection amount of the Product, etc
Delivery Delivery delays, delivery reliability, on-time delivery
Service Customer service, time to resolve the problems of customer
Flexibility Flexibility of providing material, price of the provided material, etc
Technology/Capability Technological facilities and development of the supplier, capability of R&D, technological compatibility
Sources Shemshadi et al. (2011), Chen et al. (2006), Mehregan et al. (2014), Banaeian et al. (2018), Fallahpour et al. (2017)

Table 3  Environmental criteria and their descriptions

Sub criteria Description

Environmental management systems Environmental certificates, green procedure planning, environmental guide-
lines, environmental performance assessment
Resource consumption Consumption of raw materials, energy and water, using renewable resources
Eco-design The effort of designing a system that decrease the environmentaleffects of
products, recycle of designed goods
Reduce, reuse and recycle Decrease the use of harmful materials, hazardous wastes, waste water, etc.
Sources Fallahpour et al. (2017), Mehregan et al. (2014), Öztürk and Özçelik (2014)

Table 4  Social criteria and their descriptions

Sub criteria Description

Occupational health and safety Employment quality of health and safety system, providing secure working suites
Employee right and welfare Employees’ contract, work insurance and compensation, overtime payment
Information disclosure Disclosure of information like the materials used, pollutants released during manufacturing, etc
Sources Mehregan et al. (2014), Hendiani and Bagherpour (2019a), Fallahpour et al. (2017), Zhou and Xu (2018)

The indices are summarized and coded and color code for criteria and enabler and Target in Table 5 for ease of work

and criteria, for evaluating and weighting the factors in the

Fig. 4  The probability distribution of X and trapezoidal membership
function of event A (Zadeh 2011)
present article. A questionnaire is designed for this crite-
rion in which the experts state their opinions on the per-
formance of each criterion with linguistic variables such as
“Low” and “Very High”. Then, the analogous trapezoidal
fuzzy numbers represented in Table 6 are considered for
each linguistic variable. The range of the numbers shown in
Table 6 has been presented by (Shemshadi et al. 2011) In the
present study, a probability is taken into consideration for
each fuzzy number by using Z numbers since linguistic vari-
ables do not always come with certainty, possibilities like
“Unlikely” and “Weak” have to be considered to obtain more
precise results. These probabilities are also determined by
the experts’ opinions for the linguistic variables in Table 6.
Subsequently, to be calculable, each linguistic possibility is
related to the corresponding possibility shown in Table 7.
Table 7 has been presented by (Hendiani and Bagherpour
2019b). As an example, in order to show that a criterion

13
 A. R. Hoseini et al.

Table 5  A summary of Sustainability

sustainability criteria
Target Sustainability criteria
enabler
Cost (ZI11)
Quality (ZI12)
Delivery (ZI13)
Economic (ZI1)
Service (ZI14)
Flexibility (ZI15)
Technology Capability (ZI16)
Z-Sustainability Index (ZI) Environmental Management Systems (ZI21)
Resource Consumption (ZI22)
Environmental (ZI2)
Eco-Design (ZI23)
Reduce, Reuse and Recycle (ZI24)
Occupational health and safety (ZI31)
Social (ZI3) Employee right and welfare (ZI32)
Information Disclosure (ZI33)

Table 6  Linguistic variables Performance rating Importance weights

and corresponding fuzzy sets
(Shemshadi et al. 2011) Linguistic variable Corresponding TrFS Linguistic variable Corresponding TrFS

Worst (W) [0,0,1,2] Very low (VL) [0,0,0.1,0.2]

Very poor (VP) [1,2,2,3] Low (L) [0.1,0.2,0.2,0.3]
Poor (P) [2,3,4,5] Fairly low (FL) [0.2,0.3,0.4,0.5]
Fair (F) [4,5,5,6] Medium (M) [0.4,0.5,0.5,0.6]
Good (G) [5,6,7,8] Fairly high (FH) [0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8]
Very good (VG) [7,8,8,9] High (H) [0.7,0.8,0.8,0.9]
Excellent (E) [8,9,10,10] Very high (VH) [0.8,0.9,1,1]

with a good performance has a high possibility, (good, most Table 7  Linguistic possibilities and their corresponding fuzzy sets
likely) is represented using Tables 6 and 7. (Hendiani and Bagherpour 2019b)
For the rest of the article, we provide a numerical value Linguistic possibilities Corresponding possibilities
for every corresponding possibility relating to each linguistic
possibility using the presented method by (Kang et al. 2012) Unlikely [0.1, 0.2, 0.2, 0.3]
which is shown in Table 8. After using Eq. (8) we apply Fairly impossible [0.3, 0.4, 0.4, 0.5]
Weak [0.4, 0.5, 0.5, 0.6]
these possibilities to the variables in Table 6 and the results
Maybe [0.5,0.6,0.6,0.7]
are formed as Table 9.
Likely [0.7, 0.8, 0.8, 0.9]
Providing the same method for importance weights and
Most likely [0.8, 0.9, 0.9, 1]
using Z numbers resulted in Table 10. These tables are, of
Certainly [1, 1, 1, 1]
course, a basic model to apply the Z numbers for Fuzzy sets,
and the other models can be shown based on the experts’
opinions. After identifying the linguistic variables, fuzzy
criteria can result in each enabler via Eq. (9).
∑� �
Wijk + Pijk �� � 4 An illustrative case
Pij = ∑� � where Wijk = 1 (9)
Wijk
In this section, for further clarification, the presented method
After calculating the values for criteria and enablers, has been applied on a numerical example. In this example,
using the Eq. (9), the Z-sustainability indices and then the 10 suppliers are available, among which the best is selected
total Z-sustainability index is calculated (Fig. 5). based on the 13 criteria in Table 5. Afterwards, for each of

13
Sustainable supplier selection by a new possibilistic hierarchical model in the context of…

Table 8  The centroid of each possibility measure calculated by these criteria, a linguistic description has been made for each
Eq. (7) in order to convert Z-numbers supplier’s performance by 4 decision makers (DMs) using
√ the linguistic variables and probabilities in Tables 6 and 7,
Linguistic possibilities Corresponding possibilities 𝛼 𝛼
and the results have been shown in Tables 11, 12, 13, and
Unlikely (U) [0.1, 0.2, 0.2, 0.3] 0.2 0.447 14. These results have been turned into the Z-numbers in
Fairly impossible (FI) [0.3, 0.4, 0.4, 0.5] 0.4 0.632 Tables 9 and 10 to be mathematically calculable in the next
Weak (W) [0.4, 0.5, 0.5, 0.6] 0.5 0.707 stage to be replaced with the linguistic variables which have
Maybe (M) [0.5,0.6,0.6,0.7] 0.6 0.774 been shown in Table 12 for the decision maker (1). After cal-
Likely (L) [0.7, 0.8, 0.8, 0.9] 0.8 0.894 culating the weights on which the possibilities are applied,
Most likely (ML) [0.8, 0.9, 0.9, 1] 0.9 0.948 the weights relating to criteria and enablers are calculated
Certainly (C) [1, 1, 1, 1] 1 1 using Eq. (9) for all three sustainability dimensions followed
by that for the total z-sustainability index. For example, to
calculate the Fuzzy index of the Social criteria (­ Zl3) for DM
(1) and Supplier (1) the following is obtained using Eq. (9):

(W31 ⊗ P31 + W32 ⊗ P32 + W33 ⊗ P33 )

P3 = ( )
W31 + W32 + W33
( )
[0.47, 0.57, 0.67, 0.76] ⊗ [3.16, 3.792, 4.424, 5.056] + [0.31, 0.39, 0.39, 0.46] ⊗ [0, 0, 0.632, 1.264]+
[0.72, 0.80, 0.89, 0.89] ⊗ [0.707, 1.414, 1.414, 2.121]
=
([0.47, 0.57, 0.67, 0.76] + [0.31, 0.39, 0.39, 0.46] + [0.72, 0.80, 0.89, 0.89])
= [4.86, 5.62, 5.99, 6.56]

Table 9  Converted performance Z-numbers with applied possibilities using Eq. (8)
Performance rating
Linguistic variable Corresponding Z-applied set Linguistic variable Corresponding Z-applied set

Worst-unlikely (W, U)
Worst-fairly impossible (W, FI)
Worst-weak (W, W)
Worst-maybe (W, M)
Worst-likely (W, L)
Worst-most likely (W, ML)
Worst-certainly (W, C)
Very poor-unlikely (VP, U)
Very poor-fairly impossible (VP, FI)
Very poor-weak (VP, W)
Very poor-maybe (VP, M)
Very poor-Likely (VP, L)
Very poor-most likely (VP, ML)
Very poor-certainly (VP,C)
Poor-unlikely (P,U)
Poor-fairly impossible (P, FI)
Poor-weak (P, W)
Poor-maybe (P, M)
Poor-likely (P, L)
Poor-most likely (P, ML)
Poor-certainly (P,C)
Fair-unlikely (F, U)
Fair-fairly impossible (F, FI)
Fair-weak (F, W)
Fair-maybe (F, M)
[0, 0, 0.447, 0.894]
[0, 0, 0.632, 1.264]
[0, 0, 0.707, 1.414]
[0, 0, 0.774, 1.548]
[0, 0, 0.894, 1.788]
[0, 0, 0.948, 1.896]
[0, 0, 1, 2]
[0.447, 0.894, 0.894, 1.341]
[0.632, 1.264, 1.264, 1.896]
[0.707, 1.414, 1.414, 2.121]
[0.774, 1.548, 1.548, 2.322]
[0.894, 1.788, 1.788, 2.682]
[0.948, 1.896, 1.896, 2.844]
[1, 2, 2, 3]
[0.894, 1.341, 1.788, 2.235]
[1.264, 1.896, 2.528, 3.16]
[1.414, 2.121, 2.828, 3.535]
[1.548, 2.322, 3.096, 3.87]
[1.788, 2.682, 3.576, 4.47]
[1.896, 2.844, 3.792, 4.74]
[2, 3, 4, 5]
[1.788, 2.235, 2.235, 2.682]
[2.528, 3.16, 3.16, 3.792]
[2.828, 3.535, 3.535, 4.242]
[3.096, 3.87, 3.87, 4.644]
Fair-likely (F, L)
Fair-most likely (F, ML)
Fair-certainly (F, C)
Good-unlikely (G, U)
Good-fairly impossible (G, FI)
Good-weak (G, W)
Good-maybe (G, M)
Good-likely (G, L)
Good-most likely (G, ML)
Good-certainly (G, C)
Very good-unlikely (VG, U)
Very good-fairly impossible (VG, FI)
Very good-weak (VG, W)
Very good-maybe (VG, M)
Very good-likely (VG, L)
Very good-most likely (VG, ML)
Very good-certainly (VG, C)
Excellent-unlikely (E,U)
Excellent-fairly impossible (E, FI)
Excellent-weak (E, W)
Excellent-maybe (E,M)
Excellent-likely (E, L)
Excellent-most likely (E,ML)
Excellent-certainly (E, C)
[3.576, 4.47, 4.47, 5.364]
[3.792, 4.74, 4.74, 5.688]
[4, 5, 5, 6]
[2.235, 2.682, 3.129, 3.576]
[3.16, 3.792, 4.424, 5.056]
[3.535, 4.242, 4.949, 5.656]
[3.87, 4.644, 5.418, 6.192]
[4.47, 5.364, 6.258, 7.152]
[4.74, 5.688, 6.636, 7.584]
[5, 6, 7, 8]
[3.129, 3.576, 3.576, 4.023]
[4.424, 5.056, 5.056, 5.688]
[4.949, 5.656, 5.656, 6.363]
[5.418, 6.192, 6.192, 6.966]
[6.258, 7.152, 7.152, 8.046]
[6.636, 7.584, 7.584, 8.532]
[7, 8, 8, 9]
[3.576, 4.023, 4.47, 4.47]
[5.056, 5.688, 6.32, 6.32]
[5.656, 6.363, 7.07, 7.07]
[6.192, 6.966, 7.74,7.74]
[7.152, 8.046, 8.94, 8.94]
[7.584, 8.532, 9.48, 9.48]
[8, 9, 10,10]

13

Table 10  Converted weights Z-numbers with applied possibilities using Eq. (8)
Importance weights
Linguistic variable
Very low-unlikely (V, LU)
Very low-fairly impossible (VL, FI)
Very low-weak (VL, W)
Very low-maybe (VL, M)
Very low-likely (VL, L)
Very low-most likely (VL,ML)
Very low-certainly (VL, C)
Low-unlikely (L, U)
Low-fairly impossible (L, FI)
Low-weak (L, W)
Low-maybe (L, M)
Low-likely (L, L)
Low-most likely(L, ML)
Low-certainly (L, C)
Fairly low-unlikely (FL, U)
Fairly low-fairly impossible (FL,
FI)
Fairly low-weak (FL, W)
Fairly low-maybe (FL, M)
Fairly low-likely (FL, L)
Fairly low-most likely (FL, ML)
Fairly low-certainly (FL, C)
Medium-unlikely (M, U)
Medium-fairly impossible (M, FI)
Medium-weak (M, W)
Medium-maybe (M, M)
Fig. 5  The converted Z-number
before and after applying pos-
sibilities ( < 1)
13
Corresponding Z-applied set
[0, 0, 0.0447, 0.0894]
[0, 0, 0.0632, 0.1264]
[0, 0, 0.0707, 0.1414]
[0, 0, 0.0774, 0.1548]
[0, 0, 0.0894, 0.1788]
[0, 0, 0.0948, 0.1896]
[0, 0, 0.1, 0.2]
[0.0447, 0.0894, 0.0894, 0.1341]
[0.0632, 0.1264, 0.1264, 0.1896]
[0.0707, 0.1414, 0.1414, 0.2121]
[0.0774, 0.1548, 0.1548, 0.2322]
[0.0894, 0.1788, 0.1788, 0.2682]
[0.0948, 0.1896, 0.1896, 0.2844]
[0.1, 0.2, 0.2, 0.3]
[0.0894, 0.1341, 0.1788, 0.2235]
[0.1264, 0.1896, 0.2528, 0.316]
[0.1414, 0.2121, 0.2828, 0.3535]
[0.1548, 0.2322, 0.3096, 0.387]
[0.1788, 0.2682, 0.3576, 0.447]
[0.1896, 0.2844, 0.3792, 0.474]
[0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5]
[0.1788, 0.2235, 0.2235, 0.2682]
[0.2528, 0.316, 0.316, 0.3792]
[0.2828, 0.3535, 0.3535, 0.4242]
[0.3096, 0.387, 0.387, 0.4644]
Linguistic variable
Medium-likely (M, L)
Medium-most likely (M, ML)
Medium-certainly (M, C)
Fairly high-unlikely (FH, U)
Fairly high-fairly impossible (FH,
FI)
Fairly high-weak (FH, W)
Fairly high-maybe (FH, M)
Fairly high-likely (FH, L)
Fairly high-most likely (FH, ML)
Fairly high-certainly (FH, C)
High-unlikely (H, U)
High-fairly impossible (H, FI)
High-weak (H, W)
High-maybe (H, M)
High-likely (H, L)
High-most likely (H, ML)
High-certainly (H, C)
Very high-unlikely (VH, U)
Very high-fairly impossible (VH, FI)
Very high-weak (VH, W)
Very high-maybe (VH, M)
Very high-likely (VH, L)
Very high-most likely (VH, ML)
Very high-certainly (VH, C)
A. R. Hoseini et al.
Corresponding Z-applied set
[0.3576, 0.447, 0.447, 0.5364]
[0.3792, 0.474, 0.474, 0.5688]
[0.4, 0.5, 0.5, 0.6]
[0.2235, 0.2682, 0.3129, 0.3576]
[0.316, 0.3792, 0.4424, 0.5056]
[0.3535, 0.4242, 0.4949, 0.5656]
[0.387, 0.4644, 0.5418, 0.6192]
[0.447, 0.5364, 0.6258, 0.7152]
[0.474, 0.5688, 0.6636, 0.7584]
[0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8]
[0.3129, 0.3576, 0.3576, 0.4023]
[0.4424, 0.5056, 0.5056, 0.5688]
[0.4949, 0.5656, 0.5656, 0.6363]
[0.5418, 0.6192, 0.6192, 0.6966]
[0.6258, 0.7152, 0.7152, 0.8046]
[0.6636, 0.7584, 0.7584, 0.8532]
[0.7, 0.8, 0.8, 0.9]
[0.3576, 0.4023, 0.447, 0.447]
[0.5056, 0.5688, 0.632, 0.632]
[0.5656, 0.6363, 0.707, 0.707]
[0.6192, 0.6966, 0.774, 0.774]
[0.7152, 0.8046, 0.894, 0.894]
[0.7584, 0.8532, 0.948, 0.948]
[0.8, 0.9, 1, 1]
Sustainable supplier selection by a new possibilistic hierarchical model in the context of…

Table 11  Linguistic terms determined by DM1

Sustainability Linguistic weights Linguistic performance Criteria

Enabler Criteria Enabler Criteria S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10

ZI11 (VH,ML) (VG, ML) (VP, ML) (G, W) (E, M) (P, W) (VP, ML) (VG, C) (F, M) (W, U) (VG, ML)

ZI12 (FH,L) (E, FI) (F, ML) (P, W) (G, FI) (VG, C) (P, FI) (VP, U) (G, L) (E, FI) (G, U)

ZI13 (M,L) (F, C) (G, M) (E, FI) (F, M) (VP, FI) (VP, L) (E, M) (W, L) (G, C) (P, U)
ZI1 (VH,ML)
ZI14 (FH,FI) (P, C) (W, U) (F, M) (VG, ML) (E, W) (P, U) (F, ML) (VG, C) (F, ML) (E, W)

ZI15 (FL,W) (G, W) (VP, C) (VG, FI) (E, W) (F, U) (VG, C) (G, L) (VP, U) (E, W) (P, C)

ZI16 (L,U) (F, M) (E, M) (P, ML) (VP, U) (E, C) (E, M) (P, W) (F, L) (VG, C) (F, U)

ZI21 (M,FI) (E, L) (P, U) (G, FI) (VG, FI) (P, U) (VG, M) (VP, C) (E, FI) (P, U) (VP, M)

ZI22 (FH,M) (P, M) (VG, U) (VP, U) (F, ML) (G, U) (E, ML) (G, C) (P, L) (F, C) (VG, FI)
ZI2 (H,L)
ZI23 (H,ML) (VP, FI) (F, M) (VG, L) (P, W) (VG, M) (F, ML) (F, ML) (G, C) (VP, U) (E, ML)

ZI24 (H,C) (VG, L) (E, FI) (VP, C) (VP, U) (VP, L) (G, L) (P, L) (E, ML) (P, FI) (G, M)

ZI31 (FH,ML) (G, FI) (P, ML) (F, ML) (G, ML) (F, FI) (W, M) (VG, ML) (P, W) (VG, U) (VP, C)

ZI3 ZI32 (FH,M) (M,M) (W, FI) (G, FI) (W, M) (P, L) (W, U) (G, C) (E, M) (VP, U) (VP, FI) (F, L)

ZI33 (FH,L) (VP, W) (VG, L) (E, ML) (W, U) (G, FI) (F, ML) (W, W) (VG, M) (G, L) (W, C)

And also, the calculation of the sustainable index for the results attained by DMs is obtained for each supplier.
the first supplier is in the followings (based on the DM1’s The resulting numbers are close to each other and a precise
opinions): conclusion cannot be deduced by comparing them; hence,

(W1 ⊗ ZI1 + W2 ⊗ ZI2 + W3 ⊗ ZI3 )

Z − Index = ( )
W1 + W 2 + W 3
([0.76, 0.85, 0.95, 0.95] ⊕ [4.86, 5.62, 5.99, 6.56] + [0.63, 0.72, 0.72, 0.80] ⊕ [3.60, 4.40, 4.63, 5.32]+
[0.39, 0.46, 0.54, 0.62] ⊕ [1.34, 1.87, 2.29, 2.98]])
=
([0.76, 0.85, 0.95, 0.95] + [0.63, 0.72, 0.72, 0.80] + [0.39, 0.46, 0.54, 0.62])
= [3.646, 4.338, 4.638, 5.205]

The results of these calculations for all ten suppliers are
represented in Tables 13 and 14 in a questionnaire filled
by DM1. This operation has been done for all other DMs,
and the brief results are placed in Table 15 similarly as
the performed calculations for DM1. How to calculate the
Sustainability Z-Index (S ZI) of each Supplier and for each
decision-maker in Figs. 6, 7. (Continue to Appendix A).
In order to decide which supplier has had the best per-
formance based on the sustainability criteria, the average of
DeFuzzy methods are used for making the attained results
comparable. In this study, 5 of the most conventional and
useful DeFuzzy methods presented in Table 16 are utilized
(Fig. 8).
The attained results from defuzzification have been rep-
resented in Table 17. As it is observed, the rankings gained
by all these five DeFuzzy methods have the same result such
that S7 > S10 > S4 > S3 > S9 > S1 > S8 > S2 > S5 > S6 the
diagrams of which have been depicted in the Fig. 9.

13
13
Table 12  The converted Z-numbers substituted with corresponding linguistic terms for DM1
Sustainability Linguistic weights Linguistic performance Criteria
target
Enabler Criteria Enabler Criteria S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10
[0.948, [3.535, [6.192, [1.414, [0.948,
[0.76, 0.85, [6.64, 7.58, [3.096, 3.87, [0, 0, 0.447, [6.64, 7.58,
ZI11 1.896, 1.896, 4.242, 4.949, 6.966, 7.74 2.121, 2.828, 1.896, 1.896, [7, 8, 8, 9]
0.95, 0.95] 7.58, 8.53] 3.87, 4.644] 0.894] 7.58, 8.53]
2.844] 5.656] ,7.74] 3.535] 2.844]
[1.414, [3.16, 3.792, [1.264, [0.447, [4.47, 5.364, [5.056,
[0.72, 0.81, [5.06, 5.69, [3.792, 4.74, [2.24, 2.68,
ZI12 2.121, 2.828, 4.424, [7, 8, 8, 9] 1.896, 2.528, 0.894, 0.894, 6.258, 5.688, 6.32,
0.9, 0.89] 6.32, 6.32] 4.74, 5.688] 3.13, 3.58]
3.535] 5.056] 3.16] 1.341] 7.152] 6.32]
[0.894,
[3.87, 4.644, [5.056, [0.632, [0.894, [6.192,
[0.36, 0.45, [3.096, 3.87, [0, 0, 0.894, 1.341,
ZI13 [4, 5, 5, 6] 5.418, 5.688, 6.32, 1.264, 1.264, 1.788, 1.788, 6.966, 7.74 [5, 6, 7, 8]
0.45, 0.54] 3.87, 4.644] 1.788] 1.788,
6.192] 6.32] 1.896] 2.682] ,7.74]
[0.76, 0.85, 2.235]
ZI1 0.95, 0.95] [6.636, [5.656, [0.894, [5.656,
[0.32, 0.38, [0, 0, 0.447, [3.096, 3.87, [3.792, 4.74, [3.792, 4.74,
ZI14 [2, 3, 4, 5] 7.584, 7.584, 6.363, 7.07, 1.341, 1.788, [7, 8, 8, 9] 6.363, 7.07,
0.44, 0.51] 0.894] 3.87, 4.644] 4.74, 5.688] 4.74, 5.688]
8.532] 7.07] 2.235] 7.07]
[3.535, [4.424, [5.656, [1.788, [4.47, 5.364, [0.447, [5.656,
[0.14, 0.21,
ZI15 4.242, 4.949, [1, 2, 2, 3] 5.056, 5.056, 6.363, 7.07, 2.235, 2.235, [7, 8, 8, 9] 6.258, 0.894, 0.894, 6.363, 7.07, [2, 3, 4, 5]
0.28, 0.35]
5.656] 5.688] 7.07] 2.682] 7.152] 1.341] 7.07]
[1.788,
[6.192, [1.896, [0.447, [6.192, [1.414,
[0.04, 0.09, [3.096, 3.87, [3.576, 4.47, 2.235,
ZI16 6.966, 7.74 2.844, 3.792, 0.894, 0.894, [8, 9, 10 ,10] 6.966, 7.74 2.121, 2.828, [7, 8, 8, 9]
0.09, 0.13] 3.87, 4.644] 4.47, 5.364] 2.235,
,7.74] 4.74] 1.341] ,7.74] 3.535]
2.682]
[0.774,
[7.152, [0.894, [3.16, 3.792, [4.424, [0.894, [5.418, [5.056, [0.894,
[0.25, 0.32, 1.548,
ZI21 8.046, 8.94, 1.341, 1.788, 4.424, 5.056, 5.056, 1.341, 1.788, 6.192, 6.192, [1, 2, 2, 3] 5.688, 6.32, 1.341, 1.788,

index
0.32, 0.38] 1.548,
8.94] 2.235] 5.056] 5.688] 2.235] 6.966] 6.32] 2.235]
2.322]

Z-Sustainability
[4.424,
[1.548, [3.129, [0.447, [2.235, [7.584, [1.788,
[0.39, 0.46, [3.792, 4.74, 5.056,
ZI22 2.322, 3.096, 3.576, 3.576, 0.894, 0.894, 2.682, 3.129, 8.532, 9.48, [5, 6, 7, 8] 2.682, 3.576, [4, 5, 5, 6]
[0.63, 0.72, 0.54, 0.62] 4.74, 5.688] 5.056,
ZI2 3.87] 4.023] 1.341] 3.576] 9.48] 4.47]
0.72, 0.80] 5.688]
[0.632, [6.258, [1.414, [5.418, [0.447, [7.584,
[0.66, 0.76, [3.096, 3.87, [3.792, 4.74, [3.792, 4.74,
ZI23 1.264, 1.264, 7.152, 7.152, 2.121, 2.828, 6.192, 6.192, [5, 6, 7, 8] 0.894, 0.894, 8.532, 9.48,
0.76, 0.85] 3.87, 4.644] 4.74, 5.688] 4.74, 5.688]
1.896] 8.046] 3.535] 6.966] 1.341] 9.48]
[6.258, [5.056, [0.447, [0.894, [4.47, 5.364, [1.788, [7.584, [1.264, [3.87, 4.644,
[0.7, 0.8,
ZI24 7.152, 7.152, 5.688, 6.32, [1, 2, 2, 3] 0.894, 0.894, 1.788, 1.788, 6.258, 2.682, 3.576, 8.532, 9.48, 1.896, 2.528, 5.418,
0.8, 0.9]
8.046] 6.32] 1.341] 2.682] 7.152] 4.47] 9.48] 3.16] 6.192]
[3.16, 3.792, [1.896, [4.74, 5.688, [6.636, [1.414, [3.129,
[0.47, 0.57, [3.792, 4.74, [2.528, 3.16, [0, 0, 0.774,
ZI31 4.424, 2.844, 3.792, 6.636, 7.584, 7.584, 2.121, 2.828, 3.576, 3.576, [1, 2, 2, 3]
0.67, 0.76] 4.74, 5.688] 3.16, 3.792] 1.548]
5.056] 4.74] 7.584] 8.532] 3.535] 4.023]
[3.16, 3.792, [1.788, [6.192, [0.447, [0.632,
[0.39, 0.46, [0.31, 0.39, [0, 0, 0.632, [0, 0, 0.774, [0, 0, 0.447, [3.576, 4.47,
ZI3 ZI32 4.424, 2.682, 3.576, [5, 6, 7, 8] 6.966, 7.74 0.894, 0.894, 1.264, 1.264,
0.54, 0.62] 0.39, 0.46] 1.264] 1.548] 0.894] 4.47, 5.364]
5.056] 4.47] ,7.74] 1.341] 1.896]
[0.707, [6.258, [7.584, [3.16, 3.792, [5.418, [4.47, 5.364,
[0.72, 0.80, [0, 0, 0.447, [3.792, 4.74, [0, 0, 0.707,
ZI33 1.414, 1.414, 7.152, 7.152, 8.532, 9.48, 4.424, 6.192, 6.192, 6.258, [0, 0, 1, 2]
0.89, 0.89] 0.894] 4.74, 5.688] 1.414]
2.121] 8.046] 9.48] 5.056] 6.966] 7.152]
A. R. Hoseini et al.
Sustainable supplier selection by a new possibilistic hierarchical model in the context of…

Table 13  The obtained performance criteria and enabler weights for 10 suppliers by DM1
Sustainability Linguistic weights Linguistic performance Criteria
target
Enabler Enabler S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10

[4.86, 5.62, 5.99, 6.56]

[0.76, 0.85, 0.95, 0.95]

[2.24, 3.07, 3.19, 4.05]

[3.08, 3.83, 4.36, 5.01]

[4.71, 5.40, 5.95, 6.33]

[3.73, 4.49, 4.85, 5.42]

[1.50, 2.43, 2.77, 3.65]

[4.17, 4.95, 5.14, 5.86]

[3.42, 4.04, 4.46, 5.19]

[3.31, 3.99, 4.52, 5.15]

[3.90, 4.48, 4.91, 5.39]

ZI1

[0.63, 0.72, 0.72, 0.80]

[4.03, 4.82, 5.14, 5.74]

[3.60, 4.40, 4.63, 5.32]

[3.20, 3.84, 4.25, 4.76]

[2.73, 3.44, 3.56, 4.36]

[2.38, 3.16, 3.70, 4.46]

[2.34, 2.91, 3.07, 3.70]

[4.13, 4.89, 5.46, 6.21]

[3.95, 4.91, 5.45, 6.30]

[4.09, 4.85, 5.49, 5.99]

[1.66, 2.27, 2.55, 3.14]

Z-Sustainability
index

ZI2

[4.61, 5.35, 6.04, 6.46]

[0.39, 0.46, 0.54, 0.62]

[1.34, 1.87, 2.29, 2.98]

[2.39, 3.09, 3.49, 4.39]

[4.05, 4.84, 5.66, 6.25]

[2.84, 3.53, 4.10, 4.94]

[2.25, 2.70, 3.15, 3.52]

[2.08, 2.82, 3.23, 4.10]

[4.17, 4.88, 5.12, 5.97]

[3.41, 4.17, 4.31, 5.02]

[1.90, 2.62, 3.06, 4.01]

ZI3

Table 14  The obtained performance criteria weights for 10 DM1

Linguistic performance Criteria
target
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10
Z-Sustainability Index

[3.646, 4.338, 4.638, 5.205]

[2.612, 3.345, 3.608, 4.380]

[3.171, 3.923, 4.420, 5.117]

[3.477, 4.180, 4.763, 5.333]

[2.914, 3.525, 3.855, 4.341]

[2.552, 3.386, 3.755, 4.638]

[4.095, 4.918, 5.239, 6.039]

[3.656, 4.352, 4.762, 5.418]

[3.010, 3.694, 4.252, 4.812]

[3.509, 4.176, 4.529, 5.152]

(ZI)

5 Discussions and validation has been represented in the Fig. 12, triangular fuzzy sets
consider one point on the highest membership degree which
As it is shown in the Fig. 10, fuzzy numbers are placed results sensitivity in the calculations. Instead, trapezoidal
before Z-numbers when 𝛼 > 1 (“𝛼 ”s are obtained by Eq. (7)) fuzzy sets consider an interval for the highest membership
since the root square of the “𝛼 > 1”s shown in Table 8 are degree, which makes it closer to reality in decision-making.
multiplied by fuzzy numbers resulting in smaller Z-numbers. The findings of this study can help the experts and deci-
Z-numbers and fuzzy numbers are equal when 𝛼 = 1, and the sion makers in the supplier selection in order to choose the
diagrams in Fig. 11 coincide. sustainable supplier considering the probabilities in the lin-
A comparison of the results obtained from the case guistic variables. Furthermore, the presented method can be
where fuzzy numbers are considered without probabilities applied in various industries regarding the experts’ criteria
with the case where Z-numbers are applied is summarized related to the industry. The highlights of this study include
in Table 18. As mentioned, exerting probabilities in fuzzy the following:
numbers leads to more reliable results. When the experts
select the linguistic variables associated with their opin- • Decision makers can use the presented framework for the
ions with high uncertainty, exerting Z-numbers can lead supplier selection considering the sustainability criteria
to different results. Although when linguistic variables are instead of the traditional supplier selection methods. This
selected with high certainty the results from fuzzy numbers is due to the fact that merely considering the traditional
and Z-numbers have no significant differences, it is better economic factors is not enough to choose the appropri-
to use z-numbers for more reliable results since it is never ate supplier nowadays. As such, other criteria such as
pre-determined how much uncertainty exists in the opinions. environmental and social criteria must be taken into con-
The comparison of the results obtained by these two condi- sideration.
tions are presented as the diagrams in Table 18. • This study has proposed the possibilistic linguistic terms
In this article, trapezoidal fuzzy membership function which can make the results more precise. These possibili-
has been used since although triangular membership func- ties come along with two pairs of performance rates and
tions will lead to simpler mathematical calculations, as it importance weights which are selected by the experts.

13
 A. R. Hoseini et al.

Table 15  The obtained performance criteria weights for each DM

Z-Sustainability Linguistic performance Criteria

Index (ZI) S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10

[2.61, 3.33, 3.61, 4.39]

[3.17, 3.92, 4.42, 5.12]

[2.91, 3.53, 3.86, 4.34]

[2.55, 3.39, 3.76, 4.64]

[4.10, 4.92, 5.24, 6.04]

[3.66, 4.35, 4.76, 5.42]

[3.51, 4.18, 4.53, 5.15]

[3.47, 4.18, 4.76, 5.33]

[3.01, 3.69, 4.25, 4.81]

[3.64, 4.33, 4.63, 5.2]
DM1

[3.42, 4.26, 4.59, 5.51]

[3.28, 3.95, 4.29, 4.84]

[3.11, 3.91, 4.39, 5.13]

[3.30, 4.06, 4.43, 5.08]

[2.95, 3.64, 3.84, 4.53]

[2.369, 3.0, 3.43, 3.99]

[2.33, 3.03, 3.45, 4.20]

[3.76, 4.41, 4.75, 5.34]

[3.26, 3.97, 4.51, 5.09]

[3.14, 3.96, 4.52, 5.33]

DM2

[3.28, 4.033, 4.59, 5.30]

[3.29, 3.99, 4.48, 5.04]
[2.87, 3.51, 3.72, 4.29]

[3.15, 3.93, 4.29, 5.04]

[3.19, 3.95, 4.49, 5.19]

[3.59, 4.27, 4.79, 5.41]

[2.75, 3.51, 3.85, 4.67]

[3.02, 3.67, 4.08, 4.66]

[2.51, 3.17, 3.46, 4.16]

[3.13, 3.93, 4.39, 5.06]

DM3
[3.04, 3.65, 3.97, 4.472]

[2.40, 3.12, 3.52, 4.28]

[2.79, 3.44, 3.81, 4.53]

[3.28, 4.04, 4.45, 5.17]

[3.01, 3.73, 4.18, 4.89]

[3.22, 3.99, 4.28, 5.17]

[3.05, 3.75, 4.21, 4.83]

[3.28, 3.94, 4.39, 5.08]

[2.93, 3.62, 3.97, 4.67
[3.05, 3.71, 4.2, 4.78]

DM4
[3.21, 3.86, 4.16, 4.70]

[3.13, 3.87, 4.37, 5.05]

[3.25, 3.96, 4.41, 5.04]

[2.95, 3.56, 3.97, 4.57]

[2.73, 3.49, 3.88, 4.67]

[3.47, 4.18, 4.56, 5.23]

[3.08, 3.79, 4.09, 4.82]

[3.11, 3.86, 4.34, 4.93]

[3.30, 4.03, 4.51, 5.20]

[2.89, 3.66, 4.0, 4.8]

Average

• The presented approach can help future studies related current model helps the decision makers achieve more reli-
to Fuzzy sets to achieve more precise results by applying able results which are closer to the real world. Using prob-
Z-numbers in their work. Moreover, it is better for the abilities in the presented model can lead to completely dif-
experts to use the presented method to gain more reliable ferent results, especially when there is ambiguity and high
results due to probabilities in decision making, especially uncertainty in the experts’ opinions. In this article, linguistic
in the conditions where the experts suffer from lack of terms and corresponding fuzzy numbers for each criterion
high certainty when answering the questionnaires. The and suppliers were used by the method presented by (Shem-
experts can represent their opinions about performance shadi et al. 2011) and the Z-numbers have been turned into
rate and weights of attributes using Tables 9 and 10. possibilistic fuzzy sets by applying the method presented by
• The presented method has less complexity in calculations (Kang et al. 2012) in order to obtain a basic model in which
than many conventional decision making methods which, the experts present their opinions about the sustainablity
in turn, will reduce the time spent during the supplier criteria as linguistic variables considering the probability of
selection process. each variable. Findings of this study propose a model that
produces more practical and more reliable results in com-
parison with conventional fuzzy approaches. The implica-
6 Conclusions and further tions of this paper are summarized as the following:
recommendations
• A new method for supplier selection considering the sus-
In this article, a model was presented based on Fuzzy sets tainability criteria was presented in which, by exerting
considering the probabilities to select the supplier consid- probabilities in the experts’ opinions about the indices,
ering the sustainability criteria. Exerting Z-numbers in the

13
Sustainable supplier selection by a new possibilistic hierarchical model in the context of…

Economic Criteria
(Ec.C)

Economic Criteria Economic Criteria

Performance Weight
(Ec.CP) ΣEc.CP×Ec.CW (Ec.CW)

ΣEc.CW

Enabler
(E) =

Economic
Enabler Weight
Economic
Enabler Performance
ΣEn.CP×En.CW
(Ec.EP)
ΣEP×EW
(EW)
ΣEn.CW
Environmental Criteria
Environmental ΣEW Environmental (En.C)
Enabler Weight Enabler Performance
(En.EP) (EW)

Social
Social Enabler Weight
Enabler Performance
(So.EP)
(EW)

Social Criteria
(So.C)

ΣSo.CP×So.CW
=
ΣSo.CW

Sustainability Z-Index
(S ZI)

Fig. 6  Calculate the sustainability Z-index (S IZ)

more logical and more precise results can be obtained
than by the conventional fuzzy models.
• In this article, trapezoidal fuzzy membership function
was used instead of triangular fuzzy set.
• The presented method was applied in a numerical exam-
ple consisting of 10 suppliers and 13 sustainability cri-
teria attained by reviewing the literature so that the pre-
sented model would be explained more explicitly, and the
results of the suppliers’ ranking were represented based
on their performances in each sustainability dimension.
• Finally, the mean value of the output weights for all 10
suppliers were defuzzified by a number of most famous
and practical Defuzzy methods, and it was observed that
the resulted ranking from all methods lead to the same
findings.

13
 A. R. Hoseini et al.

Z-Value Criteria
For Environmental Resource Consumption
Reduce, Reuse And Recycle
Aspect

Environmental Management Systems Environmental Eco-Design

Supplier
Z-Sustainability

Occupational Health And Safety

Cost
Social
Economic Service
Employee Right And Welfare
Quality

Z-Value Criteria
For Social Aspect Technology Capability Z-Value Criteria For
Economic Aspect
Information Disclosure Delivery

Flexibility

Fig. 7  View of sustainability Z-index (S IZ)

Table 16  DeFuzzy methods Row Methods Formulation References

1 Adamo AD𝛼 (A) = a+𝛼 Adamo (1980)

2 Center of maxima CoM(A) =
a+1 +a+2 Klir and Yuan (1995)
∫−∞ xA(x)dx
2
3 Center of gravity +∞
Østergaard (1976)
∫−∞ A(x)dx
CoG(A) = +∞

EP (A) = ∫ 𝛼 a+𝛼 + a−𝛼 d𝛼

4 Possibilistic mean 1 ( ) Carlsson and Fullér (2009)
0

Y2 (A) = ∫ M A𝛼 d𝛼
5 Yager’s approaches hgt(A) ( ) Yager (1979)
0

13
Sustainable supplier selection by a new possibilistic hierarchical model in the context of…

Fig. 8  Figure of suppliers Rankings of suppliers based on DeFuzzy methods

rankings
5

Defuzzy
2

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Supplier

Adamo Center of maxima Center of gravity

Possibilisc mean Yager’s approaches

Table 17  Rankings of suppliers Methods S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10

based on DeFuzzy methods
Adamo 4.27 4.16 4.51 4.54 4.09 4.03 4.70 4.23 4.46 4.65
Center of maxima 4.01 3.83 4.12 4.19 3.77 3.68 4.37 3.94 4.09 4.27
Center of gravity 3.97 3.84 4.10 4.16 3.75 3.69 4.36 3.94 4.05 4.26
Possibilistic mean 3.99 3.84 4.11 4.17 3.76 3.69 4.37 3.94 4.07 4.26
Yager’s approaches 3.98 3.84 4.11 4.16 3.75 3.69 4.36 3.94 4.05 4.26

Fig. 9  Comparison of rankings Comparison of results using Fuzzy sets and Z-numbers
using Fuzzy sets and Z-numbers
12

10 10
9 9
8 8 8
Ranking

7 7
6 6 6
5 5
4 4 4
3 3
2 2
1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Supplier
Fuzzy numbers Z_numbers

13
 A. R. Hoseini et al.

Fig. 10  Before and after apply-

ing possibilities (𝛼 > 1)

After Applying Before Applying

Possibilities Possibilities
A´ A

• Ranking of the suppliers was obtained for the case in

which Z-numbers had not been used by the conventional
fuzzy sets, and the results from both methods were com-
before and after pared. Although the same supplier was selected as the
applying possibilities best supplier in both models, there had been differences
between the two models in general rankings of 10 suppli-
ers. For instance, the supplier number 4 was ranked six
when the probabilities had not been considered while it
ranked three in the opposite condition.
Fig. 11  Before and after applying possibilities (𝛼 = 1)
For future research, the presented model can be used in
other fields such as project selection, supply chain, and green
production to evaluate indices and criteria, especially when
ambiguity and high uncertainty exist in the performance of
practices. Furthermore, the presented method can be applied
by focusing on one dimension of sustainability, or by con-
sidering other criteria such as the criteria associated with
designing a lean system. Besides, in this study, a numerical
example has been used to show the application of the pre-
Z-Number Fuzzy sented method; thus, considering a real case and applying
the existing method on a real problem can be interesting.

Fig. 12  The converted Z-number before and after applying possibili-

ties

Table 18  Comparison of results Supplier Fuzzy DeFuzzy Ranking Z-number DeFuzzy Ranking
using fuzzy sets and Z-numbers
S1 [4.14, 5.01, 5.46, 6.20] 5.232 5 [3.21, 3.86, 4.16, 4.70] 4.009 6
S2 [3.60, 4.54, 4.97, 5.97] 4.753 9 [2.90, 3.66, 4.0, 4.8] 3.8315 8
S3 [4.08, 4.97, 5.61, 6.46] 5.29 3 [3.13, 3.87, 4.37, 5.05] 4.1235 4
S4 [4.03, 4.92, 5.48, 6.28] 5.2005 6 [3.25, 3.96, 4.41, 5.04] 4.1865 3
S5 [3.93, 4.82, 5.41, 6.23] 5.1135 7 [2.92, 3.56, 3.97, 4.57] 3.7655 9
S6 [3.46, 4.41, 4.89, 5.87] 4.649 10 [2.73, 3.49, 3.88, 4.67] 3.684 10
S7 [4.36, 5.28, 5.80, 6.65] 5.5355 1 [3.47, 4.18, 4.56, 5.23] 4.3725 1
S8 [3.84, 4.76, 5.14, 6.09] 4.952 8 [3.08, 3.79, 4.09, 4.82] 3.937 7
S9 [4.01, 4.93, 5.57, 6.34] 5.252 4 [3.11, 3.84, 4.34, 4.93] 4.0885 5
S10 [4.12, 5.03, 5.60, 6.45] 5.317 2 [3.30, 4.03, 4.51, 5.20] 4.269 2

13
Sustainable supplier selection by a new possibilistic hierarchical model in the context of…

Appendix

See Tables 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30.

Table 19  Linguistic terms determined by DM2

Sustainability Linguistic weights Linguistic performance Criteria

Enabler Criteria Enabler Criteria S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10

ZI11 (VH, ML) (E, W) (VP, C) (G, L) (F, ML) (P, U) (VP, FI) (VG, C) (VP, ML) (G, L) (F, L)

ZI12 (FH, L) (VG, W) (W, M) (P, C) (G, M) (E, U) (P, C) (F, W) (VG, ML) (E, ML) (P, ML)

ZI13 (M, L) (P, C) (F, U) (VP, M) (E, L) (F, C) (VP, ML) (P, M) (G, L) (P, ML) (W, C)
ZI1 (VH, ML)
ZI14 (FH, FI) (G, W) (E, L) (G, W) (P, U) (G, M) (P, ML) (VG, U) (VG, C) (VP, C) (G, L)

ZI15 (FL, W) (E, U) (VP, L) (VG, ML) (G, U) (VG, ML) (F, W) (VP, M) (VP, L) (VG, M) (VP, M)

ZI16 (L, U) (F, L) (G, FI) (F, ML) (E, C) (VP, W) (VG, ML) (G, ML) (E, ML) (G, C) (VG, W)

ZI21 (M, FI) (P, L) (VG, L) (G, L) (VG, W) (F, ML) (G, U) (VP, W) (VG, W) (VG, W) (F, FI)

ZI22 (FH, M) (VG, ML) (P, C) (W, ML) (F, ML) (F, W) (VG, M) (P, ML) (G, W) (W, U) (E, U
ZI2 (H, L)
ZI23 (H, ML) (G, U) (F, C) (E, L) (VG, ML) (W, FI) (F, C) (E, C) (F, M) (F, U) (P, C)

ZI24 (H, C) (F, L) (E, L) (P, L) (VP, C) (G, U) (G, FI) (G, L) (P, U) (E, FI) (VP, L)

ZI31 (FH, ML) (VP, W) (VG, C) (F, U) (P, FI) (VP, W) (W, W) (F, W) (W, FI) (P, C) (VG, W)

ZI3 ZI32 (FH, M) (M, M) (W, M) (G, M) (VG, ML) (W, L) (P, FI) (G, U) (W, ML) (F, W) (VP, FI) (G, C)

ZI33 (FH, L) (VP, C) (P, C) (VP, C) (VP, L) (VP, FI) (E, C) (E, M) (P, U) (F, W) (E, L)

Table 20  Linguistic terms determined by DM3

Sustainability Linguistic weights Linguistic performance Criteria

Enabler Criteria Enabler Criteria S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10

ZI11 (VH, ML) (F, W) (VG, ML) (VP, U) (P, M) (E, L) (W, M) (F, M) (VP, FI) (P, ML) (G, ML)

ZI12 (FH, L) (VG, L) (VP, ML) (G, M) (E, L) (P, W) (F, M) (G, U) (VG, FI) (VP, FI) (F, W)

ZI13 (M, L) (E, U) (VG, FI) (VG, M) (G, M) (W, FI) (P, W) (VP, FI) (F, FI) (VG, ML) (E, FI)
ZI1 (VH, ML)
ZI14 (FH, FI) (P, C) (W, L) (G, C) (E, C) (P, FI) (G, W) (F, U) (P, FI) (G, W) (VG, FI)

ZI15 (FL, W) (VG, FI) (P, L) (F, U) (P, ML) (E, ML) (F, ML) (VG, M) (G, L) (VG, L) (G, ML)

ZI16 (L, U) (G, W) (G, C) (E, W) (F, C) (F, U) (G, FI) (VP, C) (E, L) (W, W) (E, M)

ZI21 (M, FI) (E, U) (F, L) (VP, C) (VG, U) (VP, ML) (E, W) (G, U) (VG, U) (F, M) (P, L)

ZI22 (FH, M) (P, U) (E, ML) (VG, W) (F, M) (G, M) (VG, W) (P, U) (E, C) (G, U) (F, M)
ZI2 (H, L)
ZI23 (H, ML) (F, L) (G, W) (P, L) (G, C) (VG, ML) (VP, ML) (E, C) (G, L) (P, M) (VP, M)

ZI24 (H, C) (G, FI) (VP, ML) (F, M) (VG, U) (F, M) (P, W) (W, FI) (F, C) (E, FI) (W, FI)

ZI31 (FH, ML) (VP, U) (P, ML) (E, L) (VP, C) (G, ML) (VG, W) (E, ML) (P, FI) (F, M) (VG, ML)

ZI3 ZI32 (FH, M) (M, M) (W, M) (F, ML) (P, ML) (W, C) (VG, M) (E, M) (P, ML) (VP, ML) (VP, L) (P, L)

ZI33 (FH, L) (VP, C) (E, ML) (W, L) (VP, L) (VP, U) (VP, M) (VG, FI) (W, M) (E, L) (VP, ML)

13
 A. R. Hoseini et al.

Table 21  Linguistic terms determined by DM4

Sustainability Linguistic weights Linguistic performance Criteria

Enabler Criteria Enabler Criteria S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10

ZI11 (VH, ML) (VG, L) (W, U) (P, M) (VP, W) (W, L) (VG, L) (VP, L) (W, M) (E, FI) (E, ML)

ZI12 (FH, L) (P, FI) (VP, M) (E, W) (F, ML) (VG, W) (VP, ML) (F, U) (VP, U) (G, W) (W, ML)

ZI13 (M, L) (G, U) (P, L) (VP, C) (VP, M) (P, L) (E, L) (VG, W) (F, ML) (VG, M) (VP, U)
ZI1 (VH, ML)
ZI14 (FH, FI) (E, FI) (VG, M) (F, M) (VG, M) (G, U) (E, ML) (P, C) (G, FI) (P, FI) (G, W)

ZI15 (FL, W) (VG, FI) (E, M) (VP, ML) (G, W) (VP, FI) (G, ML) (VP, U) (P, ML) (E, M) (P, W)

ZI16 (L, U) (F, C) (F, ML) (VG, U) (F, ML) (E, ML) (F, U) (F, M) (G, C) (G, W) (E, C)

ZI21 (M, FI) (G, FI) (VG, C) (F, W) (P, W) (G, C) (P, L) (E, FI) (P, M) (VG, L) (F, W)

ZI22 (FH, M) (VP, L) (E, ML) (G, ML) (VG, W) (E, C) (VG, C) (G, FI) (VG, L) (VP, L) (G, M)
ZI2 (H, L)
ZI23 (H, ML) (E, M) (G, U) (W, M) (G, C) (VG, M) (G, U) (W, C) (E, C) (F, ML) (VP, L)

ZI24 (H, C) (F, FI) (P, W) (VG, C) (E, L) (F, U) (P, ML) (G, M) (F, FI) (VP, L) (VG, L)

ZI31 (FH, ML) (W, FI) (G, W) (P, W) (P, M) (P, M) (F, M) (E, W) (VG, ML) (P, M) (F, W)

ZI3 ZI32 (FH, M) (M, M) (VP, FI) (F, M) (G, W) (E, U) (VP, FI) (VP, C) (P, M) (E, FI) (W, L) (P, L)

ZI33 (FH, L) (P, W) (VP, U) (E, U) (W, L) (F, ML) (W, L) (VG, L) (VP, C) (F, C) (VG, FI)

13
 Table 22  The converted Z-numbers substituted with corresponding linguistic terms for DM2

Sustainability Linguistic weights Linguistic performance Criteria

target
Enabler Criteria Enabler Criteria S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10

[0.76, 0.85, [5.656,6.363, [4.47,5.364,6. [3.792,4.74,4. [0.894,1.341, [0.632,1.264, [0.948,1.896, [4.47,5.364,6. [3.576,4.47,4.
ZI11 [1,2,2,3] [7,8,8,9]
0.95, 0.95] 7.07,7.07] 258,7.152] 74,5.688] 1.788,2.235] 1.264,1.896] 1.896,2.844] 258,7.152] 47,5.364]

[0.72, 0.81, [4.949,5.656, [0,0,0.774,1.5 [3.87,4.644,5. [3.576,4.023, [2.828,3.535, [6.636,7.584, [7.584,8.532, [1.896,2.844,
ZI12 [2,3,4,5] [2,3,4,5]
0.9, 0.89] 5.656,6.363] 48] 418,6.192] 4.47,4.47] 3.535,4.242] 7.584,8.532] 9.48,9.48] 3.792,4.74]

[0.36, 0.45, [1.788,2.235, [0.774,1.548, [7.152,8.046, [0.948,1.896, [1.548,2.322, [4.47,5.364,6. [1.896,2.844,

ZI13 [2,3,4,5] [4,5,5,6] [0,0,1,2]
0.45, 0.54] 2.235,2.682] 1.548,2.322] 8.94,8.94] 1.896,2.844] 3.096,3.87] 258,7.152] 3.792,4.74]
[0.76, 0.85,
ZI1 0.95, 0.95]
[0.32, 0.38, [3.535,4.242, [7.152,8.046, [3.535,4.242, [0.894,1.341, [3.87,4.644,5. [1.896,2.844, [3.129,3.576, [4.47,5.364,6.
ZI14 [7,8,8,9] [1,2,2,3]
0.44, 0.51] 4.949,5.656] 8.94,8.94] 4.949,5.656] 1.788,2.235] 418,6.192] 3.792,4.74] 3.576,4.023] 258,7.152]

[0.14, 0.21, [3.576,4.023, [0.894,1.788, [6.636,7.584, [2.235,2.682, [6.636,7.584, [2.828,3.535, [0.774,1.548, [0.894,1.788, [5.418,6.192, [0.774,1.548,
ZI15 0.28, 0.35] 4.47,4.47] 1.788,2.682] 7.584,8.532] 3.129,3.576] 7.584,8.532] 3.535,4.242] 1.548,2.322] 1.788,2.682] 6.192,6.966] 1.548,2.322]

[0.04, 0.09, [3.576,4.47,4. [3.16,3.792,4. [3.792,4.74,4. [0.707,1.414, [6.636,7.584, [4.74,5.688,6. [7.584,8.532, [4.949,5.656,
ZI16 [8,9,10,10] [5,6,7,8]
0.09, 0.13] 47,5.364] 424,5.056] 74,5.688] 1.414,2.121] 7.584,8.532] 636,7.584] 9.48,9.48] 5.656,6.363]

[0.25, 0.32, [1.788,2.682, [6.258,7.152, [4.47,5.364,6. [4.949,5.656, [3.792,4.74,4. [2.235,2.682, [0.707,1.414, [4.949,5.656, [4.949,5.656, [2.528,3.16,3.
ZI21 0.32, 0.38] 3.576,4.47] 7.152,8.046] 258,7.152] 5.656,6.363] 74,5.688] 3.129,3.576] 1.414,2.121] 5.656,6.363] 5.656,6.363] 16,3.792]

index
Sustainable supplier selection by a new possibilistic hierarchical model in the context of…

[0.39, 0.46, [6.636,7.584, [0,0,0.948,1.8 [3.792,4.74,4. [2.828,3.535, [5.418,6.192, [1.896,2.844, [3.535,4.242, [0,0,0.447,0.8 [3.576,4.023,

Z-Sustainability
ZI22 [2,3,4,5]
0.54, 0.62] 7.584,8.532] 96] 74,5.688] 3.535,4.242] 6.192,6.966] 3.792,4.74] 4.949,5.656] 94] 4.47,4.47]
[0.63, 0.72,
ZI2 0.72, 0.80]
[0.66, 0.76, [2.235,2.682, [7.152,8.046, [6.636,7.584, [0,0,0.632,1.2 [3.096,3.87,3. [1.788,2.235,
ZI23 [4,5,5,6] [4,5,5,6] [8,9,10,10] [2,3,4,5]
0.76, 0.85] 3.129,3.576] 8.94,8.94] 7.584,8.532] 64] 87,4.644] 2.235,2.682]

[0.7, 0.8, [3.576,4.47,4. [7.152,8.046, [1.788,2.682, [2.235,2.682, [3.16,3.792,4. [4.47,5.364,6. [0.894,1.341, [5.056,5.688, [0.894,1.788,
ZI24 [1,2,2,3]
0.8, 0.9] 47,5.364] 8.94,8.94] 3.576,4.47] 3.129,3.576] 424,5.056] 258,7.152] 1.788,2.235] 6.32,6.32] 1.788,2.682]

[0.47, 0.57, [0.707,1.414, [1.788,2.235, [1.264,1.896, [0.707,1.414, [0,0,0.707,1.4 [2.828,3.535, [0,0,0.632,1.2 [4.949,5.656,
ZI31 [7,8,8,9] [2,3,4,5]
0.67, 0.76] 1.414,2.121] 2.235,2.682] 2.528,3.16] 1.414,2.121] 14] 3.535,4.242] 64] 5.656,6.363]

[0.39, 0.46, [0.31, 0.39, [0,0,0.774,1.5 [3.87,4.644,5. [6.636,7.584, [0,0,0.894,1.7 [1.264,1.896, [2.235,2.682, [0,0,0.948,1.8 [2.828,3.535, [0.632,1.264,
ZI3 ZI32 [5,6,7,8]
0.54, 0.62] 0.39, 0.46] 48] 418,6.192] 7.584,8.532] 88] 2.528,3.16] 3.129,3.576] 96] 3.535,4.242] 1.264,1.896]

[0.72, 0.80, [0.894,1.788, [0.632,1.264, [6.192,6.966, [0.894,1.341, [2.828,3.535, [7.152,8.046,

ZI33 [1,2,2,3] [2,3,4,5] [1,2,2,3] [8,9,10,10]
0.89, 0.89] 1.788,2.682] 1.264,1.896] 7.74,7.74] 1.788,2.235] 3.535,4.242] 8.94,8.94]

13
13
Table 23  The converted Z-numbers substituted with corresponding linguistic terms for DM3

Sustainability Linguistic weights Linguistic performance Criteria

target
Enabler Criteria Enabler Criteria S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10

[0.76, 0.85, [2.828,3.535, [6.636,7.584, [0.447,0.894, [1.548,2.322, [7.152,8.046, [0,0,0.774,1.5 [3.096,3.87,3. [0.632,1.264, [1.896,2.844, [4.74,5.688,6.
ZI11 0.95, 0.95] 3.535,4.242] 7.584,8.532] 0.894,1.341] 3.096,3.87] 8.94,8.94] 48] 87,4.644] 1.264,1.896] 3.792,4.74] 636,7.584]

[0.72, 0.81, [6.258,7.152, [0.948,1.896, [3.87,4.644,5. [7.152,8.046, [1.414,2.121, [3.096,3.87,3. [2.235,2.682, [4.424,5.056, [0.632,1.264, [2.828,3.535,
ZI12 0.9, 0.89] 7.152,8.046] 1.896,2.844] 418,6.192] 8.94,8.94] 2.828,3.535] 87,4.644] 3.129,3.576] 5.056,5.688] 1.264,1.896] 3.535,4.242]

[0.36, 0.45, [3.576,4.023, [4.424,5.056, [5.418,6.192, [3.87,4.644,5. [0,0,0.632,1.2 [1.414,2.121, [0.632,1.264, [2.528,3.16,3. [6.636,7.584, [5.056,5.688,
ZI13 0.45, 0.54] 4.47,4.47] 5.056,5.688] 6.192,6.966] 418,6.192] 64] 2.828,3.535] 1.264,1.896] 16,3.792] 7.584,8.532] 6.32,6.32]
[0.76, 0.85,
ZI1 0.95, 0.95]
[0.32, 0.38, [0,0,0.894,1.7 [1.264,1.896, [3.535,4.242, [1.788,2.235, [1.264,1.896, [3.535,4.242, [4.424,5.056,
ZI14 [2,3,4,5] [5,6,7,8] [8,9,10,10]
0.44, 0.51] 88] 2.528,3.16] 4.949,5.656] 2.235,2.682] 2.528,3.16] 4.949,5.656] 5.056,5.688]

[0.14, 0.21, [4.424,5.056, [1.788,2.682, [1.788,2.235, [1.896,2.844, [7.584,8.532, [3.792,4.74,4. [5.418,6.192, [4.47,5.364,6. [6.258,7.152, [4.74,5.688,6.
ZI15 0.28, 0.35] 5.056,5.688] 3.576,4.47] 2.235,2.682] 3.792,4.74] 9.48,9.48] 74,5.688] 6.192,6.966] 258,7.152] 7.152,8.046] 636,7.584]

[0.04, 0.09, [3.535,4.242, [5.656,6.363, [1.788,2.235, [3.16,3.792,4. [7.152,8.046, [0,0,0.707,1.4 [6.192,6.966,

ZI16 [5,6,7,8] [4,5,5,6] [1,2,2,3]
0.09, 0.13] 4.949,5.656] 7.07,7.07] 2.235,2.682] 424,5.056] 8.94,8.94] 14] 7.74,7.74]

[0.25, 0.32, [3.576,4.023, [3.576,4.47,4. [3.129,3.576, [0.948,1.896, [5.656,6.363, [2.235,2.682, [3.129,3.576, [3.096,3.87,3. [1.788,2.682,
ZI21 [1,2,2,3]
0.32, 0.38] 4.47,4.47] 47,5.364] 3.576,4.023] 1.896,2.844] 7.07,7.07] 3.129,3.576] 3.576,4.023] 87,4.644] 3.576,4.47]

index
[0.39, 0.46, [0.894,1.341, [7.584,8.532, [4.949,5.656, [3.096,3.87,3. [3.87,4.644,5. [4.949,5.656, [0.894,1.341, [2.235,2.682, [3.096,3.87,3.

Z-Sustainability
ZI22 [8,9,10,10]
0.54, 0.62] 1.788,2.235] 9.48,9.48] 5.656,6.363] 87,4.644] 418,6.192] 5.656,6.363] 1.788,2.235] 3.129,3.576] 87,4.644]
[0.63, 0.72,
ZI2 0.72, 0.80]
[0.66, 0.76, [3.576,4.47,4. [3.535,4.242, [1.788,2.682, [6.636,7.584, [0.948,1.896, [4.47,5.364,6. [1.548,2.322, [0.774,1.548,
ZI23 [5,6,7,8] [8,9,10,10]
0.76, 0.85] 47,5.364] 4.949,5.656] 3.576,4.47] 7.584,8.532] 1.896,2.844] 258,7.152] 3.096,3.87] 1.548,2.322]

[0.7, 0.8, [3.16,3.792,4. [0.948,1.896, [3.096,3.87,3. [3.129,3.576, [3.096,3.87,3. [1.414,2.121, [0,0,0.632,1.2 [5.056,5.688, [0,0,0.632,1.2
ZI24 [4,5,5,6]
0.8, 0.9] 424,5.056] 1.896,2.844] 87,4.644] 3.576,4.023] 87,4.644] 2.828,3.535] 64] 6.32,6.32] 64]

[0.47, 0.57, [0.447,0.894, [1.896,2.844, [7.152,8.046, [4.74,5.688,6. [4.949,5.656, [7.584,8.532, [1.264,1.896, [3.096,3.87,3. [6.636,7.584,
ZI31 [1,2,2,3]
0.67, 0.76] 0.894,1.341] 3.792,4.74] 8.94,8.94] 636,7.584] 5.656,6.363] 9.48,9.48] 2.528,3.16] 87,4.644] 7.584,8.532]

[0.39, 0.46, [0.31, 0.39, [0,0,0.774,1.5 [3.792,4.74,4. [1.896,2.844, [5.418,6.192, [6.192,6.966, [1.896,2.844, [0.948,1.896, [0.894,1.788, [1.788,2.682,
ZI3 ZI32 [0,0,1,2]
0.54, 0.62] 0.39, 0.46] 48] 74,5.688] 3.792,4.74] 6.192,6.966] 7.74,7.74] 3.792,4.74] 1.896,2.844] 1.788,2.682] 3.576,4.47]

[0.72, 0.80, [7.584,8.532, [0,0,0.894,1.7 [0.894,1.788, [0.447,0.894, [0.774,1.548, [4.424,5.056, [0,0,0.774,1.5 [7.152,8.046, [0.948,1.896,
ZI33 [1,2,2,3]
0.89, 0.89] 9.48,9.48] 88] 1.788,2.682] 0.894,1.341] 1.548,2.322] 5.056,5.688] 48] 8.94,8.94] 1.896,2.844]
A. R. Hoseini et al.
 Table 24  The converted Z-numbers substituted with corresponding linguistic terms for DM4

Sustainability Linguistic weights Linguistic performance Criteria

target
Enabler Criteria Enabler Criteria S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10

[0.76, 0.85, [6.258,7.152, [0,0,0.447,0.8 [1.548,2.322, [0.707,1.414, [0,0,0.894,1.7 [6.258,7.152, [0.894,1.788, [0,0,0.774,1.5 [5.056,5.688, [7.584,8.532,
ZI11 0.95, 0.95] 7.152,8.046] 94] 3.096,3.87] 1.414,2.121] 88] 7.152,8.046] 1.788,2.682] 48] 6.32,6.32] 9.48,9.48]

[0.72, 0.81, [1.264,1.896, [0.774,1.548, [5.656,6.363, [3.792,4.74,4. [4.949,5.656, [0.948,1.896, [1.788,2.235, [0.447,0.894, [3.535,4.242, [0,0,0.948,1.8
ZI12 0.9, 0.89] 2.528,3.16] 1.548,2.322] 7.07,7.07] 74,5.688] 5.656,6.363] 1.896,2.844] 2.235,2.682] 0.894,1.341] 4.949,5.656] 96]

[0.36, 0.45, [2.235,2.682, [1.788,2.682, [0.774,1.548, [1.788,2.682, [7.152,8.046, [4.949,5.656, [3.792,4.74,4. [5.418,6.192, [0.447,0.894,
ZI13 [1,2,2,3]
0.45, 0.54] 3.129,3.576] 3.576,4.47] 1.548,2.322] 3.576,4.47] 8.94,8.94] 5.656,6.363] 74,5.688] 6.192,6.966] 0.894,1.341]
[0.76, 0.85,
ZI1 0.95, 0.95]
[0.32, 0.38, [5.056,5.688, [5.418,6.192, [3.096,3.87,3. [5.418,6.192, [2.235,2.682, [7.584,8.532, [3.16,3.792,4. [1.264,1.896, [3.535,4.242,
ZI14 [2,3,4,5]
0.44, 0.51] 6.32,6.32] 6.192,6.966] 87,4.644] 6.192,6.966] 3.129,3.576] 9.48,9.48] 424,5.056] 2.528,3.16] 4.949,5.656]

[0.14, 0.21, [4.424,5.056, [6.192,6.966, [0.948,1.896, [3.535,4.242, [0.632,1.264, [4.74,5.688,6. [0.447,0.894, [1.896,2.844, [6.192,6.966, [1.414,2.121,
ZI15 0.28, 0.35] 5.056,5.688] 7.74,7.74] 1.896,2.844] 4.949,5.656] 1.264,1.896] 636,7.584] 0.894,1.341] 3.792,4.74] 7.74,7.74] 2.828,3.535]

[0.04, 0.09, [3.792,4.74,4. [3.129,3.576, [3.792,4.74,4. [7.584,8.532, [1.788,2.235, [3.096,3.87,3. [3.535,4.242,

ZI16 [4,5,5,6] [5,6,7,8] [8,9,10,10]
0.09, 0.13] 74,5.688] 3.576,4.023] 74,5.688] 9.48,9.48] 2.235,2.682] 87,4.644] 4.949,5.656]

[0.25, 0.32, [3.16,3.792,4. [2.828,3.535, [1.414,2.121, [1.788,2.682, [5.056,5.688, [1.548,2.322, [6.258,7.152, [2.828,3.535,
ZI21 [7,8,8,9] [5,6,7,8]
0.32, 0.38] 424,5.056] 3.535,4.242] 2.828,3.535] 3.576,4.47] 6.32,6.32] 3.096,3.87] 7.152,8.046] 3.535,4.242]

index
Sustainable supplier selection by a new possibilistic hierarchical model in the context of…

[0.39, 0.46, [0.894,1.788, [7.584,8.532, [4.74,5.688,6. [4.949,5.656, [3.16,3.792,4. [6.258,7.152, [0.894,1.788, [3.87,4.644,5.

Z-Sustainability
ZI22 [8,9,10,10] [7,8,8,9]
0.54, 0.62] 1.788,2.682] 9.48,9.48] 636,7.584] 5.656,6.363] 424,5.056] 7.152,8.046] 1.788,2.682] 418,6.192]
[0.63, 0.72,
ZI2 0.72, 0.80]
[0.66, 0.76, [6.192,6.966, [2.235,2.682, [0,0,0.774,1.5 [5.418,6.192, [2.235,2.682, [3.792,4.74,4. [0.894,1.788,
ZI23 [5,6,7,8] [0,0,1,2] [8,9,10,10]
0.76, 0.85] 7.74,7.74] 3.129,3.576] 48] 6.192,6.966] 3.129,3.576] 74,5.688] 1.788,2.682]

[0.7, 0.8, [2.528,3.16,3. [1.414,2.121, [7.152,8.046, [1.788,2.235, [1.896,2.844, [3.87,4.644,5. [2.528,3.16,3. [0.894,1.788, [6.258,7.152,
ZI24 [7,8,8,9]
0.8, 0.9] 16,3.792] 2.828,3.535] 8.94,8.94] 2.235,2.682] 3.792,4.74] 418,6.192] 16,3.792] 1.788,2.682] 7.152,8.046]

[0.47, 0.57, [0,0,0.632,1.2 [3.535,4.242, [1.414,2.121, [1.548,2.322, [1.548,2.322, [3.096,3.87,3. [5.656,6.363, [6.636,7.584, [1.548,2.322, [2.828,3.535,
ZI31 0.67, 0.76] 64] 4.949,5.656] 2.828,3.535] 3.096,3.87] 3.096,3.87] 87,4.644] 7.07,7.07] 7.584,8.532] 3.096,3.87] 3.535,4.242]

[0.39, 0.46, [0.31, 0.39, [0.632,1.264, [3.096,3.87,3. [3.535,4.242, [3.576,4.023, [0.632,1.264, [1.548,2.322, [5.056,5.688, [0,0,0.894,1.7 [1.788,2.682,
ZI3 ZI32 [1,2,2,3]
0.54, 0.62] 0.39, 0.46] 1.264,1.896] 87,4.644] 4.949,5.656] 4.47,4.47] 1.264,1.896] 3.096,3.87] 6.32,6.32] 88] 3.576,4.47]

[0.72, 0.80, [1.414,2.121, [0.447,0.894, [3.576,4.023, [0,0,0.894,1.7 [3.792,4.74,4. [0,0,0.894,1.7 [6.258,7.152, [4.424,5.056,
ZI33 [1,2,2,3] [4,5,5,6]
0.89, 0.89] 2.828,3.535] 0.894,1.341] 4.47,4.47] 88] 74,5.688] 88] 7.152,8.046] 5.056,5.688]

13
 Z-Sustainability Z-Sustainability
index

target
index

target

13
ZI3
ZI2
ZI1

ZI3
ZI2
ZI1
Enabler

Enabler
Sustainability

Sustainability
[0.39, 0.46, 0.54, 0.62] [0.63, 0.72, 0.72, 0.80] [0.76, 0.85, 0.95, 0.95] [0.39, 0.46, 0.54, 0.62] [0.63, 0.72, 0.72, 0.80] [0.76, 0.85, 0.95, 0.95]
weights

Enabler

weights

Enabler
Linguistic

Linguistic
S1

S1
[0.62,1.20,1.38,2.09] [2.91,3.56,3.85,4.44] [3.99,4.72,4.96,5.61] [0.70,1.37,1.56,2.37] [3.50,4.27,4.63,5.40] [4.43,5.09,5.61,6.00]
S2

S2
[2.71,3.38,3.86,4.45] [3.20,4.12,4.66,5.42] [3.33,4.08,4.25,5.11] [3.92,4.90,5.25,6.27] [5.21,6.14,6.57,7.30] [1.68,2.32,2.72,3.50]
S3

S3
[3.09,3.74,4.61,5.20] [3.41,4.27,4.88,5.55] [3.06,3.80,4.13,4.89] [2.26,3.02,3.14,3.91] [3.60,4.29,4.77,5.42] [3.14,4.07,4.82,5.68]
S4

S4
[1.47,2.22,2.35,3.21] [2.86,3.48,3.78,4.54] [4.56,5.38,6.22,6.68] [2.53,3.21,3.84,4.37] [3.02,3.77,3.96,4.82] [3.92,4.76,5.12,5.77]

S5
S5

[2.62,3.19,3.57,4.44] [4.39,5.23,5.53,6.38] [3.42,4.06,4.92,5.23] Table 26  The obtained performance criteria and enabler weights for 10 suppliers by DM3 [2.56,3.26,3.71,4.14] [1.56,2.07,2.40,3.06] [2.94,3.63,4.06,4.68]
Table 25  The obtained performance criteria and enabler weights for 10 suppliers by DM2

S6
S6

[3.45,4.33,4.39,5.22] [3.31,4.15,4.54,5.20] [1.93,2.52,3.02,3.87] [2.90,3.33,3.91,4.37] [2.95,3.52,3.85,4.55] [1.52,2.46,2.89,3.81]

Linguistic performance Criteria
Linguistic performance Criteria

S7
S7

[3.13,3.90,4.22,4.90] [3.73,4.33,5.14,5.49] [2.38,3.00,3.21,3.81] [3.27,3.83,4.25,4.70] [3.84,4.52,5.14,5.74] [3.94,4.63,4.75,5.42]

S8
S8

[0.41,0.74,1.22,1.96] [3.78,4.61,5.11,5.77] [2.53,3.28,3.49,4.22] [1.74,2.22,2.40,2.98] [2.22,2.77,3.06,3.73] [4.17,5.13,5.24,6.21]

S9
S9

[4.45,5.16,5.72,6.01] [2.86,3.54,3.92,4.46] [2.68,3.58,3.99,4.94] [1.70,2.48,2.91,3.70] [2.55,3.10,3.44,3.93] [4.63,5.50,6.24,6.78]

[3.41,4.14,4.74,5.50] [2.10,2.78,3.27,4.09] [4.19,5.02,5.50,6.22]

S10

[4.92,5.77,6.31,6.95] [2.82,3.68,4.14,4.89] [2.49,3.22,3.80,4.65]

S10
A. R. Hoseini et al.
 Z-Sustainability
Z-Sustainability Index Z-Sustainability Index Z-Sustainability Index index

target
(ZI) (ZI) (ZI)

target
target
target
ZI3
ZI2
ZI1
Enabler

S1
S1
S1
[3.04, 3.65, 3.97, 4.472] [2.87, 3.51, 3.72, 4.29] [3.28, 3.95, 4.29, 4.84]
Sustainability

[0.39, 0.46, 0.54, 0.62] [0.63, 0.72, 0.72, 0.80] [0.76, 0.85, 0.95, 0.95]
weights

Enabler
Linguistic

S2
S2
S2
[2.40, 3.12, 3.52, 4.28] [3.15, 3.93, 4.29, 5.04] [3.42, 4.26, 4.59, 5.51]
S1

[0.81,1.25,1.77,2.36] [3.51,4.21,4.46,4.94] [3.79,4.49,4.87,5.45]

S3
S3
S3
[3.05, 3.71, 4.2, 4.78] [3.19, 3.95, 4.49, 5.19] [3.11, 3.91, 4.39, 5.13]
S2

[1.97,2.63,2.87,3.61] [3.52,4.29,4.93,5.53] [1.69,2.40,2.82,3.66]

S4
S4
S4
[2.93, 3.62, 3.97, 4.67 [3.29, 3.99, 4.48, 5.04] [3.30, 4.06, 4.43, 5.08]
S3

[2.88,3.46,4.00,4.40] [3.31,3.95,4.47,5.29] [2.93,3.66,4.10,4.59]

Table 30  The obtained performance criteria weights for 10 DM4

Table 29  The obtained performance criteria weights for 10 DM3
Table 28  The obtained performance criteria weights for 10 DM2
S4

[1.23,1.63,2.36,3.12] [4.46,5.21,5.83,6.33] [2.53,3.37,3.49,4.34]

S5
S5
S5
[2.79, 3.44, 3.81, 4.53] [3.59, 4.27, 4.79, 5.41] [2.369, 3.0, 3.43, 3.99]
S5

[2.43,3.19,3.49,4.20] [3.64,4.36,4.80,5.38] [2.28,2.80,3.25,4.01]

Sustainable supplier selection by a new possibilistic hierarchical model in the context of…

S6
S6
[3.28, 4.04, 4.45, 5.17] [2.75, 3.51, 3.85, 4.67] [2.33, 3.03, 3.45, 4.20] S6
Table 27  The obtained performance criteria and enabler weights for 10 suppliers by DM4

Linguistic performance Criteria

Linguistic performance Criteria

Linguistic performance Criteria

S6

[1.19,1.69,2.13,3.08] [2.78,3.60,4.10,4.91] [4.77,5.70,6.04,6.76]

S7
S7
S7

[3.01, 3.73, 4.18, 4.89] [3.02, 3.67, 4.08, 4.66] [3.76, 4.41, 4.75, 5.34]
Linguistic performance Criteria

S7

[5.09,5.84,6.32,6.78] [3.00,3.58,4.44,5.02] [1.95,2.70,2.77,3.55]

S8
S8
S8

[3.22, 3.99, 4.28, 5.17] [2.51, 3.17, 3.46, 4.16] [2.95, 3.64, 3.84, 4.53]
S8

[3.62,4.61,4.77,5.71] [5.24,6.05,6.47,6.99] [1.36,1.94,2.35,3.27]

S9
S9
S9

[3.05, 3.75, 4.21, 4.83] [3.13, 3.93, 4.39, 5.06] [3.26, 3.97, 4.51, 5.09]
S9

[2.40,3.04,3.53,4.31] [2.08,2.86,3.07,3.96] [4.17,4.89,5.46,5.90]

S10
S10
S10

[3.28, 3.94, 4.39, 5.08] [3.28, 4.033, 4.59, 5.30] [3.14, 3.96, 4.52, 5.33] [3.37,4.04,4.24,4.90] [3.26,4.07,4.29,5.10] [3.25,3.78,4.55,5.00]
S10

13
 A. R. Hoseini et al.

References Hendiani S, Bagherpour M (2019b) Development of sustainability

index using Z-numbers: a new possibilistic hierarchical model
in the context of Z-information. Environ Dev Sustain. https​://doi.
Aboutorab H, Saberi M, Asadabadi MR, Hussain O, Chang E
org/10.1007/s1066​8-019-00464​-8
(2018) ZBWM: the Z-number extension of best worst method
Ho W, Xu X, Dey PK (2010) Multi-criteria decision making approaches
and its application for supplier development. Expert Syst Appl
for supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review. Eur J
107:115–125
Oper Res 202:16–24
Adamo J (1980) Fuzzy decision trees. Fuzzy Sets Syst 4:207–219
Humphreys P, Wong Y, Chan F (2003) Integrating environmental cri-
Amindoust A, Ahmed S, Saghafinia A, Bahreininejad A (2012) Sus-
teria into the supplier selection process. J Mater Process Technol
tainable supplier selection: a ranking model based on fuzzy infer-
138:349–356
ence system. Appl Soft Comput 12:1668–1677
Jirofti A, Najafi AA (2018) Portfolio selection using Z-number theory:
Awasthi A, Govindan K, Gold S (2018) Multi-tier sustainable global
two solution methodologies. Int J Fuzzy Syst 20:2484–2496
supplier selection using a fuzzy AHP-VIKOR based approach. Int
Joshi R (2019) A new multi-criteria decision-making method based on
J Prod Econ 195:106–117
intuitionistic fuzzy information and its application to fault detec-
Banaeian N, Mobli H, Fahimnia B, Nielsen IE, Omid M (2018) Green
tion in a machine. J Ambient Intell Human Comput 11:739–753
supplier selection using fuzzy group decision making methods:
Kahraman C (2003) Multi-criteria supplier selection using fuzzy AHP.
a case study from the agri-food industry. Comput Oper Res
Log Inform Manag 16:382–394. https​://doi.org/10.1108/09576​
89:337–347
05031​05033​67
Burton TT (1988) JIT/repetitive sourcing strategies: ‘tying the
Kang B, Wei D, Li Y, Deng Y (2012) A method of converting Z-num-
knot’with Y. Prod Invent Manag J 29:38
ber to classical fuzzy number. J Inform Comput Sci 9:703–709
Büyüközkan G, Çifçi G (2011) A novel fuzzy multi-criteria decision
Kang B, Zhang P, Gao Z, Chhipi-Shrestha G, Hewage K, Sadiq R
framework for sustainable supplier selection with incomplete
(2019) Environmental assessment under uncertainty using Demp-
information. Comput Ind 62:164–174
ster-Shafer theory and Z-numbers. J Ambient Intell Human Com-
Carlsson C, Fullér R (2009) Possibilistic mean value and variance of
put. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1265​2-019-01228​-y
fuzzy numbers: some examples of application. In: 2009 IEEE
Klir GJ, Yuan B (1995) Fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic: theory and applica-
International Conference on Fuzzy Systems, IEEE, pp 587–592
tions. Prentice-Hall, Inc., United States
Chang B, Chang C-W, Wu C-H (2011) Fuzzy DEMATEL method
Lascelles DM, Dale BG (1989) The buyer-supplier relationship in total
for developing supplier selection criteria. Expert Syst Appl
quality management. J Purch Mater Manag 25:10–19
38:1850–1858
Lee AH, Kang H-Y, Hsu C-F, Hung H-C (2009) A green supplier selec-
Chen S-M (1994) Fuzzy system reliability analysis using fuzzy number
tion model for high-tech industry. Expert Syst Appl 36:7917–7927
arithmetic operations. Fuzzy Sets Syst 64:31–38
Lin C-T, Chiu H, Tseng Y-H (2006) Agility evaluation using fuzzy
Chen L, Yu H (2019) Emergency alternative selection based on an
logic. Int J Prod Econ 101:353–368
E-IFWA approach IEEE. Access 7:44431–44440
Mahler K (1968) An unsolved problem on the powers of 3/2. J Aust
Chen C-T, Lin C-T, Huang S-F (2006) A fuzzy approach for supplier
Math Soc 8:313–321
evaluation and selection in supply chain management. Int J Prod
Marhamati N, Buxton EK, Rahimi S (2018) Integration of Z-numbers
Econ 102:289–301
and Bayesian decision theory: a hybrid approach to decision
Dursun M, Karsak EE (2013) A QFD-based fuzzy MCDM approach
making under uncertainty and imprecision. Appl Soft Comput
for supplier selection. Appl Math Model 37:5864–5875
72:273–290
Erdoğan Z, Namlı E (2019) A living environment prediction model
Mehregan MR, Hashemi SH, Karimi A, Merikhi B (2014) Analysis of
using ensemble machine learning techniques based on quality of
interactions among sustainability supplier selection criteria using
life index. J Ambient Human Comput. https​://doi.org/10.1007/
ISM and fuzzy DEMATEL. Int J Appl Decis Sci 7:270–294
s1265​2-019-01432​-w
Østergaard J-J (1976) Fuzzy logic control of a heat exchanger process.
Fallahpour A, Olugu EU, Musa SN, Wong KY, Noori S (2017) A deci-
Stærkstrømsafdelingen, Danmarks Tekniske Højskole
sion support model for sustainable supplier selection in sustain-
Öztürk BA, Özçelik F (2014) Sustainable supplier selection with a
able supply chain management. Comput Ind Eng 105:391–410
fuzzy multi-criteria decision making method based on triple bot-
Fei L, Wang H, Chen L, Deng Y (2019) A new vector valued similarity
tom line. Bus Econ Res J 5:129
measure for intuitionistic fuzzy sets based on OWA operators. Iran
Qiao D, Shen K-w, Wang J-q, Wang T-l (2019) Multi-criteria PRO-
J Fuzzy Syst 16:113–126
METHEE method based on possibility degree with Z-numbers
Galankashi MR, Chegeni A, Soleimanynanadegany A, Memari A,
under uncertain linguistic environment. J Ambient Intell Human
Anjomshoae A, Helmi SA, Dargi A (2015) Prioritizing green sup-
Comput. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1265​2-019-01251​-z
plier selection criteria using fuzzy analytical network process.
Rashidi K, Cullinane K (2019) A comparison of fuzzy DEA and fuzzy
Procedia CIRP 26:689–694
TOPSIS in sustainable supplier selection: implications for sourc-
Gören HG (2018) A decision framework for sustainable supplier
ing strategy. Expert Syst Appl 121:266–281
selection and order allocation with lost sales. J Clean Prod
Sarwar A, Zeng Z, AduAgyapong R, ThiHoaiThuong N, Qadeer T
183:1156–1169
(2017) A fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approach for sup-
Haider SW, Zhuang G, Ali S (2019) Identifying and bridging the
plier selection under fuzzy environment. In: Xu J, Gen M, Haji-
attitude-behavior gap in sustainable transportation adoption
yev A, Cooke F (eds) Proceedings of the eleventh international
Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized. Computing
conference on management science and engineering management.
10:3723–3738
ICMSEM 2017. Lecture notes on multidisciplinary industrial
Han Y, Deng Y, Cao Z, Lin C-T (2019) An interval-valued Pythago-
engineering. Springer, Cham
rean prioritized operator-based game theoretical framework with
Shemshadi A, Shirazi H, Toreihi M, Tarokh MJ (2011) A fuzzy VIKOR
its applications in multicriteria group decision making. Neural
method for supplier selection based on entropy measure for objec-
Comput and Appl. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s0052​1-019-04014​-1
tive weighting. Expert Syst Appl 38:12160–12167
Hendiani S, Bagherpour M (2019a) Developing an integrated index to
Shen K-w, Wang J-q (2018) Z-VIKOR method based on a new compre-
assess social sustainability in construction industry using fuzzy
hensive weighted distance measure of Z-number and its applica-
logic. J of Clean Prod 230:647–662
tion. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 26:3232–3245

13
Sustainable supplier selection by a new possibilistic hierarchical model in the context of…
Wang Chen HM, Chou S-Y, Luu QD, Yu TH-K (2016) A fuzzy
MCDM approach for green supplier selection from the eco-
nomic and environmental aspects. Math Prob Eng. https​://doi.
org/10.1155/2016/80973​86
Wang Y-M, Yang J-B, Xu D-L, Chin K-S (2006) On the centroids of
fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy Sets Syst 157:919–926
Xiao F (2018) A hybrid fuzzy soft sets decision making method in
medical diagnosis IEEE. Access 6:25300–25312
Yang Y, Wang J-Q (2018) SMAA-based model for decision aiding
using regret theory in discrete Z-number context. Appl Soft Com-
put 65:590–602
Yager RR (1979) Ranking fuzzy subsets over the unit interval. In:
1978 IEEE conference on decision and control including the
17th symposium on adaptive processes. https​://doi.org/10.1109/
CDC.1978.26815​4
Yazdanparast R, Tavakkoli-Moghaddam R, Heidari R, Aliabadi
L (2018) A hybrid Z-number data envelopment analysis and
neural network for assessment of supply chain resilience: a case
study. Central Eur J Oper Res. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1010​
0-018-0596-x
Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy Sets. Inf Control 8:338–353
Zadeh LA (2011) A note on Z-numbers. Inf Sci 181:2923–2932
Zhou X, Xu Z (2018) An integrated sustainable supplier selection
approach based on hybrid information aggregation. Sustainabil-
ity 10:2543
Zhu K, Shen J, Yao X (2019) A three-echelon supply chain with asym-
metric information under uncertainty. J Ambient Intell Human
Comput 10:579–591
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remainsneutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13