1 Enhancing Circular Transformation: Integrating Technological

2 Advancements and Supply Chain Attributes for Sustainable Practices Commented [Ma1]: Is file me ap ne Most of page pe
section break and page break kr rakha Why? Kindly is ko
thek kren
3 Abstract
4 This study presents the results of an evaluation conducted on Company ABC, an SME with a
5 prominent Involvement within the Spanish Food and Beverage industry., focusing on their
6 transition towards circularity through Logistics network transformations. A committee of four
7 clusters of decision-makers, identified as D-M1, D-M2, D-M3, and D-M4, was established to
8 assess the potential benefits of various technological advancements. These D-Ms were responsible
9 for evaluating seven identified advantages (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7) connected to the
10 examined technological advancements, with parameters including Revenue (P1), Innovation (P2),
11 Environmental Responsibility (P3), and Efficiency Improvement (P4). Using the fuzzy TOPSIS
12 technique, this analysis involved a computational process with nine critical steps. The linguistic
13 variables, used to convey the importance of each parameter and evaluate potential benefits,
14 transformed triangular fuzzy numbers. This procedure entailed the creation of a fuzzy decision
15 matrix and fuzzy weights for P1, P2, P3, and P4. Subsequently, we produced both the fuzzy-
16 weighted normalized decision matrix and the fuzzy normalized decision matrix. Additionally, we
17 defined the fuzzy positive-ideal solution (FPIS) and fuzzy negative-ideal solution (FNIS) and
18 computed the distance of each alternative (advantage) from both FPIS and FNIS. This calculation
19 enabled us to ascertain the proximity coefficient for each alternative. Ultimately, based on this
20 proximity coefficient, we established a ranking order. The outcomes of the fuzzy TOPSIS analysis
21 revealed that A1 is the most significant technological advancement among the preferences of the
22 four clusters of decision-makers. Therefore, it is recommended that Company ABC adopt a Cyber-
23 Physical System (CPS) as its primary technological advancement, as it closely aligns with the
24 identified advantages. Commented [Ma2]: Kindly, is format se paragraph
25 Keywords: Sustainable circular supply chain practices; Technological advancements; Small and spacing set kren ji Abstract ki hen.
26 Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs); Fuzzy TOPSIS; Logistics network; Operational effectiveness

27 1. Introduction
28 The 21st century has brought about unprecedented challenges for businesses across the globe.
29 Among these, the ongoing challenge of natural resource scarcity is a defining issue shaping how
30 businesses operate and plan for their future environmental responsibility. Traditionally, businesses
31 have operated within a linear economic model characterized by the extraction of natural resources,
32 production, consumption, and waste disposal. This linear model, often referred to as the "take-
33 make-dispose" approach, resulted in the exhaustion of resources and environmental deterioration,
34 along with waste accumulation, which is no longer sustainable in the long term (Tushar et al.,
35 2022).
36 In this study to address these urgent concerns, there has been a notable shift in thinking toward
37 embracing a circular economy (CE) as a hopeful remedy. The fundamental principle of the circular
38 economy revolves around closing the loops of resources, leading to waste reduction, resource
39 preservation, and promoting sustainable approaches. In contrast to the linear economy, where
40 resources are extracted, used once, and discarded, the circular economy concentrates on the design
41 of supply chains, products, and services that facilitate the refurbishing, reusing, recycling, and
42 remanufacturing of materials. It ultimately results in a closed-loop system that minimizes waste
43 (Mabrouk, 2020).
44 Supply chain management (SCM) has taken on a pivotal role in enabling the transition
45 towards a circular economy. The expansion of circular approaches has given rise to the emergence
46 of sustainable supply chain practices within the circular economy context, where the focus is not
47 only on the efficient movement of goods but also on optimizing the use of resources, reducing
48 waste, and promoting environmental responsibility (Hailiang et al., 2023). Sustainable circular
49 supply chain practices aim to create an all-encompassing and self-contained method in which
50 products and materials are consistently repurposed and recycled, thus decreasing the demand for
51 new resources and reducing waste production (Sagnak et al., 2021).
52 1.1 The Rise of Sustainable circular supply chain practices
53 Different business models and strategies have been implemented to facilitate the shift towards
54 sustainable circular supply chain practices. Closed-loop supply chains (CLSCs) have gained
55 significant attention and represent the pinnacle of sustainable circular supply chain practices.
56 Closed-Loop Supply Chains (CLSCs) are structured to acquire, reclaim, and re-incorporate end-
57 of-life products and materials into the supply chain, consequently lessening the requirement for
58 fresh resources and lowering the disposal of waste in landfills (Evangelista et al., 2023).
59 Fundamental principles of closed-loop supply chains include reverse logistics, product take-
60 back programs, remanufacturing, and recycling. These principles encourage companies to create
61 easily recyclable and reusable products and proactively oversee the retrieval and reclamation of
62 products once they reach the end of their useful life. This approach employed by CLSCs lessens
63 environmental effects and opens prospects for generating revenue and cutting costs (Kazancoglu
64 et al., 2022).
65 Forming cooperative alliances among supply chain members has become essential in
66 attaining a circular approach. Companies increasingly recognize that achieving Sustainable
67 circular supply chain practices requires cooperation, information sharing, and joint efforts along
68 the supply chain. This collaborative approach extends beyond the boundaries of individual
69 organizations and involves suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and even consumers
70 working together to close the resource loop (Tanveer et al., 2023).
71 Organizations increasingly use advanced technological solutions to achieve circular material
72 flows and establish sustainable circular supply chain practices. These solutions, often associated
73 with Industry 4.0, comprise technologies such as cyber-physical systems (CPS), cloud-based
74 manufacturing (CM), extensive data analytics (BDA), and the Internet of Things (IoT). Integrating
75 these technologies into supply chain operations offers significant advantages in advancing
76 environmental responsibility and circularity. These technological progressions hold the capacity
77 to transform and Manage the supply chain efficiently and accelerate the transition to circular
78 methodologies (Khokhar, Hou, et al., 2020). However, successfully adopting and implementing
79 these technologies requires careful consideration and evaluation. Organizations must assess and
 80 select the most suitable technological advancements to effectively transition to sustainable circular
81 supply chain practices (Misra et al., 2008).
82 Choosing the suitable technological advancement for sustainable circular supply chain
83 practices is a multifaceted and intricate decision-making procedure. It entails assessing different
84 options using a range of Variables, which may cover ecological, financial, technical, and societal
85 elements. Additionally, decision-makers frequently confront uncertain or indistinct data in real-
86 world situations (Deepu & Ravi, 2021).
87 In this study, decision-makers can find value in utilizing multi-criteria decision-making
88 (MCDM) approaches to tackle these difficulties. MCDM provides a structured approach to
89 evaluate and rank alternatives by considering multiple conflicting criteria. An example of a
90 methodology that has gained acclaim for its efficacy in choosing technology is the Technique for
91 Order Performance by Similarity to the Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) (Khokhar, Iqbal, et al., 2020).
92 TOPSIS is a widely recognized MCDM technique that provides a straightforward and
93 uncomplicated decision-making method. It relies on closeness to the optimal selection and
94 remoteness from the poorest alternative. In essence, TOPSIS aims to identify the resort closest to
95 the ideal solution while being farthest from the worst, providing a comprehensive evaluation of
96 the available choices. TOPSIS has found extensive application across diverse fields, such as
97 engineering, finance, and environmental stewardship, to assist decision-makers in picking the most
98 appropriate choices from a selection of possibilities. Its simplicity and effectiveness make it a
99 valuable tool for decision support in complex decision-making scenarios (Khokhar, Zia, et al.,
100 2022).
101 While traditional TOPSIS effectively handles crisp data, real-world decision-making often
102 involves imprecise or uncertain information. In such cases, Fuzzy TOPSIS provides a valuable
103 extension of the conventional method. Fuzzy TOPSIS incorporates fuzzy logic to deal with
104 imprecision, vagueness, and ambiguity in data (Shen & Tsai, 2022).
105 Fuzzy logic allows decision-makers To indicate the level of belongingness of an alternative
106 to a particular category rather than assigning a binary value (e.g., yes or no). This degree of
107 membership reflects the uncertainty and vagueness present in many real-world situations. Fuzzy
108 TOPSIS considers this fuzziness when evaluating alternatives, making it particularly valuable
109 when data is not quantifiable (Irshad et al., 2019).
110 1.2 Applications of Fuzzy TOPSIS in Supply Chain Management
111 Fuzzy TOPSIS has found successful application in various Supply chain management
112 difficulties, encompassing, though not restricted to, choosing suitable suppliers is critical for
113 supply chain Operational effectiveness and environmental responsibility. Fuzzy TOPSIS can help
114 organizations evaluate and select suppliers considering quality, cost, and environmental
115 consequences. Identifying environmentally responsible suppliers is essential for organizations
116 committed to environmental responsibility. Fuzzy TOPSIS enables assessing potential green
117 suppliers by considering quantitative and qualitative factors. Transitioning to a circular economy
118 often requires a reevaluation of business models. Fuzzy TOPSIS can assist in analyzing and
119 selecting Business models that are in harmony with circular principles and environmental
120 responsibility goals.
121 1.3 Research Gap and Motivation
122 This research paper seeks to fill a significant void in the current body of literature by
123 examining the Pythagorean Fuzzy TOPSIS method for choosing technological advancements
124 within sustainable circular supply chain practices. This research centers on the food industry,
125 representing a vital sector with significant environmental and social impacts. The motivation for
126 this research stems from the urgent necessity to integrate cutting-edge technologies to fulfill
127 worldwide sustainable development objectives, specifically those linked to circular practices and
128 efficient resource utilization. The United Nations' 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda, which
129 incorporates its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), sets ambitious standards for
130 addressing global challenges, such as advancing sustainable consumption and production (SDG
131 12) and acting on climate change (SDG 13) and fostering partnerships for sustainable development
132 (SDG 17). The attainment of these objectives demands transformative actions across industries,
133 and Incorporating cutting-edge technologies into circular supply chain strategies represents a
134 crucial step towards meeting these targets (Jahani et al., 2021).
135 Furthermore, the research is guided by the vision of achieving sustainable development goals
136 by 2060, as outlined in various global initiatives and agreements. This long-term perspective
137 underscores the need for systematic and practical decision-making processes to guide the selection
138 of technological advancements that will substantially influence the future of environmental
139 accountability in the supply chains (HOU et al., 2021).
140 1.4 Research Objectives and Scope
141 The findings of this research study can be condensed into the following summary:
142 • To introduce and illustrate using Pythagorean Fuzzy TOPSIS as a decision-making method
143 for choosing technological advancement within environmentally responsible circular supply chain
144 practices.
145 • To assess the impact of selected technological advancements on circularity in food supply
146 chain management, focusing on parameters aligned with circular material flows, resource
147 efficiency, and environmental responsibility.
148 • To provide practical insights and recommendations for organizations in the food industry
149 seeking to enhance their supply chain environmental responsibility by adopting advanced
150 technologies.
151 The scope of this research is centered on the food industry. Still, the methodology and the
152 discoveries can provide valuable perspectives for various industries embarking on their
153 Sustainable circular supply chain practices journey. The research endeavors to add to the
154 expanding pool of information regarding incorporating advanced technologies into Sustainable
155 circular supply chain practices, explicitly emphasizing the role of fuzzy decision-making
156 methodologies in handling complex and uncertain data (Amoozad Mahdiraji et al., 2022).
157 This research paper offers an innovative approach to technology selection in sustainable
158 circular supply chains. It makes a noteworthy contribution to supply chain management and
159 environmental responsibility practices. By addressing the research objectives and exploring the
160 potential of fuzzy decision-making methodologies, this study aims to advance our understanding
161 of how advanced technologies can be harnessed to drive circularity and environmental
162 responsibility within the supply chain, with a specific emphasis on the food sector as an illustrative
163 example (Khokhar, Devi, et al., 2022).

164 2. Literature Review

165 The Circular Economy (CE) idea has garnered considerable interest in practical
166 implementations and scholarly investigations in the past few decades. This heightened interest is
167 driven by growing concerns over the environmental and economic impacts of the traditional linear
168 economic model, characterized by resource extraction, production, consumption, and disposal,
169 often referred to as the "take-make-dispose" model. The linear model has been linked to numerous
170 environmental issues, including environmental contamination, dwindling natural resources, and
171 the production of significant waste (Pourjavad & Shahin, 2020).
172 The Circular Economy signifies a fundamental departure from the linear model, offering a
173 more sustainable alternative. Unlike the linear model, the CE operates on the principle that its
174 boundaries align with the availability of natural resources provided by nature. It operates as a self-
175 contained system, continuously restoring and reusing materials, and energy within its confines,
176 minimizing environmental harm. This fundamental "cradle-to-cradle" approach ensures that the
177 waste produced does not harm the environment, resulting in reduced levels of environmental
178 degradation (Mothafar et al., 2022).
179 The "cradle-to-cradle" model starkly contrasts with the traditional "cradle-to-grave" model,
180 synonymous with the linear economic model. In the CE framework, the shift towards a Circular
181 Economy, product design is crucial in averting material exhaustion When a product concludes its
182 lifecycle. This study underscores the significance of early material consideration during the design
183 phase. The shift toward a Circular Economy involves companies adopting environmental
184 consciousness, promoting creativity, and adopting appropriate business models. In the field of
185 Supply Chain Management (SCM), businesses need to align their structures with circular
186 principles, with a specific emphasis on the "reduce, reuse, and recycle" (3R) framework (Hosseini
187 Dolatabad et al., 2023).
188 The amalgamation of Circular Economy principles with Supply Chain Management (SCM)
189 concepts has led to the emergence of Sustainable Circular Supply Chain Practices. Before
190 exploring the incorporation of Circular Economy (CE) methods into SCM, it is imperative to
191 delineate the core principles of sustainable supply chain management. Sustainable supply chain
192 management encompasses societal, environmental, and economic objectives and aims associated
193 with operational efficiency. In today's competitive business landscape, supply chains face various
194 risks, including unforeseeable climatic changes, market fluctuations, and price unpredictability,
195 necessitating a transformation in logistics networks to ensure stability and efficiency (Khokhar et
196 al., 2019).
197 Sustainable Circular Supply Chain Practices align with CE principles, aiming to maximize
198 product lifespans and eliminate waste. Closed-loop supply chains are a prominent model within
199 Sustainable Circular Supply Chain Practices, where organizations implement measures to
200 guarantee the absence of waste ends up in landfills, applying the 3R framework to extend product
201 lifecycles and maintain quality. Collaboration is essential within the supply chain network for
202 Sustainable Circular Supply Chain Practices, as it enables the circular flow of components
203 accessible to all stakeholders. Retaining ownership of products and offering them as services to
204 customers increases product life and reduces energy consumption (Husain et al., 2021).
205 2.1 Technological Advancements in Sustainable Circular Supply Chain Practices
206 Incorporating technological advancements within the supply chain operations signifies a shift
207 toward a more digitalized logistics network. While this transition to digitalization has begun, many
208 industries are still working to integrate technological advancements effectively within the SCM
209 context. There is limited research exploring the interplay between CE ideals and technological
210 advances.
211 Technological advancements, particularly those associated with Industry 4.0, are considered
212 enablers for implementing CE principles within SCM. Industry 4.0 emphasizes interconnectivity
213 among stakeholders, including manufacturers, suppliers, retailers, and customers, fostering self-
214 governing systems that optimize decision-making throughout a product's lifecycle. Critical
215 components of Industry 4.0 include Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS), Cloud Manufacturing (CM),
216 Big Data Analytics (BDA) and Internet of Things (IoT) (Mastrocinque et al., 2022).
217 I. Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS)
218 CPS merges the tangible and virtual realms, enabling immediate control and automation of
219 supply chain operations. This integration enhances efficiency and responsiveness, improving
220 resource management and reducing waste.
221 II. Cloud Manufacturing (CM)
222 CM leverages cloud computing and data analytics to optimize manufacturing processes. It
223 enables sharing of production data across the supply chain, facilitating collaborative efforts to
224 reduce waste and improve environmental responsibility.
225 III. Big Data Analytics (BDA)
226 BDA harnesses the power of large datasets to identify patterns, trends, and opportunities for
227 improvement. BDA can help organizations optimize product design, distribution, and end-of-life
228 processes within sustainable circular supply chain practices.
229 IV. Internet of Things (IoT)
230 IoT devices facilitate monitoring materials and products and real-time tracking across the
231 supply chain. They offer essential information regarding product conditions, whereabouts, and
232 usage, allowing organizations to make informed decisions to reduce waste and optimize resource
233 use.
234 Technological advancements positively impact various aspects of business operations, but
235 their role in promoting circularity within SCM is a crucial focus of this research. Aligning Industry
236 4.0's technological advancements with circularity principles is a promising approach for
237 sustainable supply chains. Each of these technologies enables circularity in different ways (Çalık,
238 2021).
239 Internet of Things offers solutions for closing the loop in products, providing traceability of
240 materials, enabling real-time monitoring, and supporting the 3R framework. Cyber-physical
241 system limits dependence on new materials by allowing traceability and real-time data access,
242 optimizing machine operational effectiveness, and preventing waste (Majeed et al., 2018). CM
243 technologies create collaborative supply chain networks, facilitating sterilization, maximizing
244 product lifecycles, and promoting resource efficiency and waste reduction. BDA aids
245 environmental responsibility by improving forecasting, encouraging collaboration among supply
246 chain partners, and supporting environmentally driven frameworks (Kusi-Sarpong et al., 2021).
247 2.2 Conceptual Framework Structure
248 The literature review provides the foundation for constructing a conceptual framework that
249 integrates technological advancements into SCM, focusing on their circular and supply chain
250 advantages. Table 1 outlines the advantages linked to technological advancements, separately for
251 both supply chain and circular advantages. The table aims to serve as the foundation for the data
252 analysis process employed in this study. This structured framework will be enriched by identifying
253 specific supply chain characteristics related to circularity and advantages (Resende et al., 2021).
254 The resulting framework will serve as the basis for data analysis using the fuzzy TOPSIS method,
255 enabling the prioritization of alternatives based on technological advancements adoption, as shown
256 in Figure 1.

257 3. Methodology
258 3.1 Cases Selection
259 The Spanish Food and Beverage sector is significant in Spanish manufacturing [98]. To align
260 with environmental responsibility goals, many beverage companies in Spain need to reorient their
261 operations, especially in Supply Chain Management (SCM). As previously discussed, embracing
262 circular practices in SCM offers a viable solution for sustainable development. (Xin et al., 2022)
263 In 2022, Spain's circular material utilization rate stood at 7.4%, slightly under the European Union
264 (EU) mean of 12.8%. Nevertheless, Spain outperformed other EU nations like Austria, Belgium,
265 and Croatia in this regard. It's important to note that factors like consumer actions, waste handling
266 methods, and recycling facilities can influence circular material utilization rates.
267 The Food and Beverage economy dramatically relies on the industry sector. However, the
268 prevailing model in this sector is linear. Consequently, there's a pressing need to explore how this
269 lucrative industry can transition toward Circular Economy (CE) principles within the context of
270 SCM. To address this, (Amin et al., 2023) emphasize the adoption of Technological advancements
271 in the Food and Beverage sector, and progress is being made to promote circularity within the
272 supply chain. In Spain, a substantial portion of businesses in the Food and Beverage sector belong
273 to the group of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs). Hence, this research focuses on a
274 specific SME beverage company located in Majorca, a prominent island in Spain, referred to as
275 Company ABC. Established in 2010, Company ABC has been a prominent player in the Food and
276 Beverage sector, employing approximately 150 individuals and maintaining a distribution network
277 that covers all corners of Spain. Given the sector's economic importance in Spain, as highlighted
278 earlier, this company serves as a fitting case study for addressing the research question.
279 3.2 Parameters for Technological Advancement Selection
280 The shift toward a digitalized era of SCM is already underway for organizations. As outlined
281 earlier, a novel conceptual framework demonstrates how Technological advancements influence
282 circularity within SCM. According to (Hettiarachchi et al., 2022), embracing Industry 4.0 brings
283 substantial financial advantages to companies, optimizing production systems and enhancing
284 warehouse management, thereby increasing overall enterprise gains. Consequently, the primary
285 parameter organizations should consider when evaluating Technological advancements is their
286 revenue potential.
287 Viewed from a different perspective, (Ishizaka et al., 2023) assert that it is inherent to circular
288 business models that they embody innovation. Similarly, a significant level of innovation is closely
289 linked to the digital transformation of the supply chain. Digitalization can be seen as a catalyst for
290 circularity. Therefore, innovation constitutes the second parameter for companies contemplating
291 the adoption of technological advancement.
1

Technological Supply chain Circular Supply chain

advancement advantages advantages attributes

292 Figure 1: The preliminary iteration of the theoretical framework.

293 Table 1: The benefits provided by each evaluated technological advancement in the supply chain
294 and the concept of a circular economy domain. Commented [Ma3]: Kindly is format ko follow kren or
professional Table isi tarhan Create hota hai
Technological Supply chain advantages Circular economy advantages
advancement
Cyber-Physical Assessment of the efficiency of Demonstration of the eco-friendliness
Systems different processes within of resource utilization in the
manufacturing systems. (A1). production process.
Waste generation is minimized during
manufacturing.
Big data They advanced predictive methods Reduced waste resulting from well-
analytics to guarantee optimal production optimized production plans.
line performance (A2).
 Cloud Autonomous decision-making Modes of operation focused on
Manufacturing systems are driven by both self- providing services.
sufficiency and data (A3). The lifespan of the product is
Interpretation of manufacturing prolonged.
resources using cloud-based
technology (A4).
Internet of Ongoing updates regarding the Sustainable circular supply chain.
things condition of the product Application of the 3 R approach,
components (A5). encompassing reduction, reuse, and
Enhanced control over warehouse recycling.
and logistics operations (A6). Customers are always kept aware of a
Efficient production strategies product's status.
(A7).
295 An increasing body of research highlights the fundamental role of environmental
296 accountability within the Circular Economy (CE). Technological progressions and emerging Commented [Ma4]:
297 patterns underpin the shift towards sustainable development. Additionally, (Mastrocinque et al.,
298 2022) highlight that companies aspiring to embrace Industry 4.0 must effectively address
299 Environmental responsibility-related challenges. Consequently, Environmental responsibility
300 emerges as the third parameter in the Technological advancement's selection process.
301 (Lahane et al., 2023) argue that intelligent machines enable optimal decisions within digitally
302 transformed factories by efficiently managing resources. Moreover, (Toker & Görener, 2023) note
303 that Industry 4.0's integrated Technological advancements support efficiency improvement.
304 Consequently, efficiency improvement is the fourth parameter for decision-makers when selecting
305 various Technological advancements. Following the guidance provided by (Lahane et al., 2020),
306 these parameters (as shown in Table 2) were selected and aligned with relevant research studies.
307 3.3 Data collection
308 This research aims to assess the advantages of implementing Technological advancements in
309 Sustainable circular supply chain practices. This study employed a self-administered questionnaire
310 to gather the preferences of individuals responsible for innovations in the supply chain, quality
311 control, and oversight of supply chain operations (see Appendix 1). The questionnaire includes
312 questions related to four parameters: Revenue, Innovation, Environmental responsibility, and
313 efficiency improvement, as discussed in Section 3.2. Decision makers in Company ABC,
314 representing different roles and responsibilities, were invited to provide their insights on the
315 advantages of adopting Technological advancements, as shown in Table 3.
316 The selection of experts or decision-makers for this study was determined by their roles
317 within Company ABC. Decision maker one is engaged in operational supply chain management,
318 possessing expertise in logistics, inventory management, and day-to-day supply chain operations.
319 Decision makers 2 and 3 occupy strategic and analytical management positions responsible for
320 making high-level strategic decisions, and they possess knowledge of supply chain strategy and
321 long-term planning. Decision Maker 4 is affiliated with the Quality Assurance Group, focusing on
322 quality control procedures and compliance with industry standards.
323 Out of 150 employees, 101 questionnaires were collected, ensuring representation of different
324 roles and perspectives within the company. This response rate is considered relatively high and
325 enhances the validity of the results. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was conducted to
326 scrutinize the dataset further, emphasizing the primary cluster of decision-makers within Company
327 ABC. The four groups of decision-makers demonstrate distinct characteristics, which are concisely
328 outlined in Table 3. In this research undertaking, applying the fuzzy TOPSIS technique requires
329 acquiring quantitative data, a topic that will be comprehensively explored in the subsequent
330 section. It is essential to note that because of the descriptive nature of the fuzzy TOPSIS approach,
331 previous studies employing this method also used small sample sizes.
332 3.4 Fuzzy TOPSIS
333 Selecting the most suitable Technological advancements within Sustainable circular supply
334 chain practices involves complex judgments by decision-makers (D-Ms). In this particular
335 context., (Mahmoudi et al., 2022) Suggested expanding the traditional TOPSIS technique, called
336 fuzzy TOPSIS, a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) approach.
337 Table 2: The advantages of each assessed technological advancement for the circular economy and
338 supply chain.
Parameters Selection
(P1) Revenue The utilization of circular economy strategies
must be grounded in the economic feasibility
of a business.
(P2) Innovation The requirement for customer participation in
developing environmentally friendly circular
products through digitalization is essential.
(P3) Environmental responsibility I am integrating environmentally responsible
principles and approaches into the circular
business model.
(P4) Efficiency improvement Effective resource utilization in alignment
with the 5 R's concept (Decline, Minimize,
Reutilize, Repurpose, Recycle).
339 Table 3: The list of participant clusters in the research.
Groups of individuals making decisions Overview of the cluster.
D-M1 Supply chain - Operational Management
D-M2 Supply chain – Analytical management
D-M3 Supply chain – Strategic Management
D-M4 Quality Control Team
340 Fuzzy TOPSIS has found applications in various SCM-related studies. For instance,
341 (Deretarla et al., 2023) used it to pinpoint and choose environmentally friendly suppliers according
342 to their environmental practices in supply chain management. (Rajesh, 2020) applied fuzzy
343 TOPSIS to prioritize barriers to circularity. (Ul Islam et al., 2022) Used this technique to analyze
344 obstacles to Circular Economy adoption within the automotive sector in India, while (Joshi et al.,
345 2023) employed fuzzy TOPSIS to identify sustainable locations for electronic waste (e-waste)
346 collection centers. (Biswas et al., 2023) employed spherical fuzzy TOPSIS to assess circular
347 economy business models for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Table 4 furnishes a
348 summary of recent research initiatives that have utilized the fuzzy TOPSIS method as a decision
349 analysis tool within the sphere of the circular economy.
350 In the fuzzy TOPSIS approach, linguistic variables replace numerical ones, as numerical
351 expressions are employed because they are deemed insufficient for capturing decision-makers
352 preferences in a fuzzy setting. Linguistic importance weights are assigned to each parameter after
353 determining their count. This research utilizes the fuzzy TOPSIS method, assuming that the
354 parameters are independent, meaning the assessment of one parameter doesn't influence the
355 evaluation of others. This reasoning substantiates the use of the traditional fuzzy TOPSIS method
356 as opposed to the weighted variant. Tables 5 and 6 provide visual representations of linguistic
357 variables expressed as positive triangular fuzzy numbers, applied in the fuzzy TOPSIS method
358 according to (Wu et al., 2020). These linguistic variables are essential for capturing the fuzzy
359 nature of decision-makers' preferences and assessments.
360 3.5 Calculation of Importance Weights and Alternatives' Ratings
361 According to (Qu et al., 2020), A cluster of K decision-makers (D-Ms) is established, and
362 they employ linguistic terms to assign importance weights to parameters and rate proposed
363 alternatives concerning these parameters. Importance weights and alternative ratings can be
364 calculated using equation 1 and 2.
1
365 𝑥̃𝑖𝑗 & = [𝑥̃𝑖𝑗1 (+)𝑥̃𝑖𝑗2 (+) … . (+)𝑥̃𝑖𝑗𝑘 ] (1) Commented [Ma5]: Equations k no Add kren and isi
k format se.
1
366 ̃𝑗 & =
𝑊 ̃ 𝑗1 (+)𝑊
[𝑊 ̃ 𝑗2 (+) … . (+)𝑊
̃ 𝑗𝑘 ] (2)
k

367 In the case where the Kth decision-maker provides their ratings (𝑥̃𝑖𝑗𝑘 ) for each alternative,
368 ̃ 𝑘 ) assigned to the defined parameters. It's worth noting that
along with the importance weights (𝑊 𝑗
369 the fuzzy TOPSIS method requires representing an MCDM issue in a fuzzy context tabular format.
370 Consequently, we present the following fuzzy decision matrix is provided to depict the analyzed
371 Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) issue using equation 3 and 4:
372
𝑥̃11 𝑥̃12 … 𝑥̃1𝑛
373 𝐷 = ̃12..
̃ 𝑥 𝑥̃22.
..
… 𝑥̃2𝑛
.
.. (3)
.
𝑥̃𝑚1 𝑥̃𝑚2 … 𝑥̃𝑚𝑛
374 ̃ = 𝑊
𝑊 ̃1 , 𝑊
̃2 , . . . , 𝑊
̃𝑛 (4)
375 Table 4: Evaluating the utilization of Fuzzy TOPSIS in a circular economy strategy framework.
Researchers and Application Methodology Parameter for Results and Discoveries
year Evaluation
(Tirkolaee et al., Management of Fuzzy TOPSIS Nine parameters: It is identifying the
2021) Operations with a (1) Cooperative optimal process design
Circular Economy Partnerships and product to enable a
focus (2) Day-to-Day shift toward a circular
Operations economy.
(3) Accessible
Assets
(4) Value
Propositions
(5) Client
Engagement
(6) Logistics and
Distribution
Channels
(7) Specific
Customer Groups
(8) Cost
Framework
(9) Income Streams
(I. Ali & Kannan, Logistics - Fuzzy TOPSIS Seventeen criteria Determination among
2022) (Selection of encompass aspects the key factors, one of
Environmentally related to the the most critical is:
Friendly Suppliers) configuration of the (1) Managerial
selected supplier Dedication to
firms and their environmentally friendly
engagement with practices,
customers. (2) Development of eco-
friendly product designs,
(3) Compliance with
environmental
regulations,
(4) Minimization of the
use of hazardous
materials.
(Sahu et al., 2023) Operations Spherical fuzzy Four primary SME managers should
Management and TOPSIS categories with a prioritize enhancing
Small and total of twelve sub- internal procedures,
Medium-sized criteria: particularly the
Enterprises 1. Restoration and implementation of
(SMEs). Reduction suitable business
2.Reconsideration models, to facilitate a
and seamless transition into
Reconfiguration a circular economy.
3. Competencies
and Skills
4. Financial
Resilience
(Jahani et al., Selecting Pythagorean fuzzy There are 27 The task involves
2021) Environmentally TOPSIS criteria categorized identifying the most
Friendly Suppliers into four distinct appropriate
in Logistics groups: environmentally friendly
1. Operational and supplier for providing
Supply Chain cardboard boxes to the
Management food industry.
2. Financial
Considerations
 3. Societal and
Promotional
Factors
4. Environmental
factors
considerations
(Agrawal et al., The automotive Fuzzy TOPSIS A total of 20 We are identifying the
2023) industry potential most significant barrier
hindrances were impeding the embrace of
utilized as a circular economy.
parameters.
(Ada, 2022) Management of Fuzzy Best-Worst There are three The primary
Electronic Waste and Fuzzy TOPSIS primary divisions consideration is the cost
Collection in with a combined of transportation, and the
Logistics total of 23 sub- most favourable choice
criteria, each for establishing a
evaluated across sustainable collection
seven regions: center is Çigli.
1. Economic
Segment
2. Social Segment
3. Environmental
Segment
376 Table 5: Linguistic descriptors are used to indicate the importance of each parameter.
Significance Magnitude
Extremely minimal (EM) (0,0.1,0.2,0.3)
Minimal (Mi) (0,0.2,0.3,0.4)
Moderate minimal (MM) (0.2,0.3,0.4,0.5)
Moderate (Mo) (0.3,0.4,0.5,0.6)
Moderate high (MH) (0.4,0.5,0.6 ,0.7)
High (H) (0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8)
Extremely High (EH) (0.6,0.7,0.8,0.9)
377 Table 6: Verbal expressions used to convey evaluations for each option.
Significance Magnitude
Evil (EB) (0,1,2,3)
Inferior (I) (0,2,3,4)
Somewhat subpar (SS) (2,3,4,5)
Reasonable (R) (3,4,5,6)
Moderately excellent (ME) (4,5,6,7)
Excellent (E) (5,6,7,8)
Exceptionally excellent (EE) (6,7,8,9)
378 ̃ , denoted as Ɐij, each element, precisely (𝑥̃𝑖𝑗 ), is represented as
In the context of the array 𝐷
379 a linguistic expression. Additionally, within array 𝑊 ̃ , denoted as Ɐij, each component, 𝑊 ̃ j, for
380 each value of j from 1 to n, inclusive, it is regarded as a linguistic variable. These linguistic
381 variables contained in these arrays can be portrayed as triangular fuzzy numbers.
382 The subsequent stage in the fuzzy TOPSIS procedure entails the formation of the normalized
383 fuzzy matrix represented as R ̃. Normalization is crucial to ensure that the triangular fuzzy numbers
384 are constrained within the closed interval [0, 1]. To achieve this, the matrix 𝑅̃ It is constructed in
385 the following manner as shown in equation 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
386 𝑅̃ = [𝑅̃𝑖𝑗 ] (5)
𝑚×𝑛

𝑎𝑖𝑗 𝑏𝑖𝑗 𝑐𝑖𝑗

387 [𝑟̃𝑖𝑗 ] = (𝐶 ∗ , 𝐶 ∗ , 𝐶 ∗ ) , 𝑗 ∈ 𝐴 (6)
𝑗 𝑗 𝑗

𝑗𝑎 𝑗 𝑎𝑗 𝑎
388 [𝑟̃𝑖𝑗 ] = (𝑐 , 𝑏 , 𝑎 ) , 𝑗 ∈ 𝐷 (7)
𝑖𝑗 𝑖𝑗 𝑖𝑗

389 𝐶𝑗∗ = 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑐𝑖𝑗 𝑖𝑓 𝑗 ∈ 𝐴 (8)

390 𝐶𝑗− = 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑖𝑗 𝑖𝑓 𝑗 ∈ 𝐷 (9)
391 A represents a collection of advantageous parameters, and D represents a set of cost-related
392 parameters accordingly.
393 Subsequently, the weighted and standardized fuzzy matrix is constructed by employing the
394 following process using equation 10 in the next stage.
395 𝑣̃ = [𝑢̃𝑖𝑗 ] , 𝑖 = 0,1,2, … , 𝑚 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑗 = 0,1,2, … , 𝑛 (10)
𝑚×𝑛

396 ̃𝑗 .
𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑢̃𝑖𝑗 = 𝑟̃𝑖𝑗 (•)𝑊
397 Once we have the weighted and standardized fuzzy matrix v ̃, the following steps involve
398 computing the fuzzy positive-ideal solution (FPIS, denoted as A∗), and the fuzzy negative-ideal
399 explanation (FNIS, denoted as A−) are delineated in equation 11 and 12:

400 &𝐴∗ = (𝑢̃1∗ , 𝑢̃2∗ , … ̃

, 𝑢𝑛∗ ) (11)
401 &
402 𝐴− = (𝑢̃1− , 𝑢̃2− , … , 𝑢̃𝑛− ) (12)
403 Where:
404 𝑢̃𝑗∗ is represented as (0, 0, 0) and
405 𝑢̃𝑗− is represented as (1, 1, 1) for all j = 1, 2, 3, … n.
406 Subsequently, we proceed to measure the distance between each of the suggested choices and
407 determine both FPIS and FNIS. Using equation 13 and 14:
408 𝐷𝑗∗ = ∑𝑛𝑗=1 𝑑 (𝑢̃𝑖𝑗 , 𝑢̃𝑗∗ ) (13)

409 𝐷𝑗− = ∑𝑛𝑗=1 𝑑(𝑢̃𝑖𝑗 , 𝑢̃𝑗− ) (14)

410 For each j ranging from 1 to m, we determine the measurement of separation between two
411 triangular fuzzy numbers, denoted as 𝑑 (𝑢̃𝑖𝑗 , 𝑢̃𝑗∗ ) and 𝑑(𝑢̃𝑖𝑗 , 𝑢̃𝑗− ), using equation 15:
 1
412 𝑑 (𝑎̃, 𝑏̃) = √3 [(𝑎1 − 𝑏1 )2 + (𝑎2 − 𝑏2 )2 + (𝑎3 − 𝑏3 )2 ] (15)

413 Ultimately, the fuzzy TOPSIS process concludes when we Compute the proximity coefficient,
414 considering the preference ranking for all evaluated alternatives, denoted as Ai (where i = 0, 1, 2,
415 3, ..., m). The coefficient of proximity for each of the suggested alternatives is computed using
416 equation 16:
𝑑−
417 𝑖
𝐶𝐶𝑖 = 𝑑− +𝑑 − , 𝑖 = 0,1,2, … , 𝑚. (16)
𝑖 𝑖

418 The coefficient of proximity near 1 indicates the observation is made that an alternative Ai is
419 closer to FPIS and more distant from FNIS, which aligns with the favorable criteria of the fuzzy
420 TOPSIS approach. Once the coefficient of proximity for each alternative has been calculated, it
421 allows for establishing a ranking order, signifying the optimal selection among all the proposed
422 choices.

423 4. Results and Discussions

424 4.1 Fuzzy TOPSIS Results
425 This section presents the evaluation results of Company ABC, which operates as an SME
426 with a significant presence in the Spanish Food and Beverage sector. Their shift toward circularity
427 involves a series of Logistics network changes. A committee comprising four clusters of decision-
428 makers (D-Ms), denoted as D-M1, D-M2, D-M3, and D-M4, has been established to assess the
429 potential advantages of various technological advancements. These decision-makers evaluate
430 seven identified advantages (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7) associated with the examined
431 technological advancements. The parameters selection process is elaborated further in Section 3.2.
432 This context involves the consideration of four advantage parameters:
433 i. Revenue (P1).
434 ii. Innovation (P2).
435 iii. Environmental responsibility (P3).
436 iv. Efficiency improvement (P4).
437 The layered arrangement of the decision dilemma, which encompasses the choice of the most
438 appropriate Technological advancements, is depicted in Figure 2.
439 As previously mentioned, the prospective benefits are delineated as follows, along with the
440 advantages linked to each technological advancement, as presented in Table 7:
441 (A1) Assessment of the efficiency of different processes within the manufacturing systems.
442 (A2) Advanced predictive methods to guarantee optimal production line performance.
443 (A3) Autonomous decision-making systems driven by both self-sufficiency and data.
444 (A4) Interpretation of manufacturing resources using cloud-based technology.
445 (A5) Ongoing updates regarding the condition of the product components.
446 (A6) Enhanced control over warehouse and logistics operations.
447 (A7) Efficient production strategies.
448 As detailed in Section 3.4, we utilize the fuzzy TOPSIS approach for the analysis. The
449 computational procedure of this method consists of nine stages:
450 Step 1: The grouping of D-Ms (D-M1, D-M2, D-M3, D-M4) and their assignment of linguistic
451 variables (as displayed in Table 5) to signify the significance of each parameter (P1, P2, P3, P4).
452 The assigned importance weights are presented in Table 8 as follows:
453 Step 2: Step 2 involves the group of D-Ms (D-M1, D-M2, D-M3, D-M4) using linguistic variables
454 (as displayed in Table 6) to assess the ratings of potential benefits related to the examined
455 technological advancements concerning P1, P2, P3, and P4. The outcomes are displayed in Table
456 9.
457 Step 3 involves converting the linguistic expressions from Tables 8 and 9 into triangular fuzzy
458 numerical values computed. Following the calculation of these fuzzy numerical values, we
459 construct the fuzzy decision matrix, and subsequently, we ascertain the fuzzy weights for P1, P2,
460 P3, and P4. The outcomes are illustrated in Table 10.
461 Step 4: In Step 4, we present the fuzzy normalized decision matrix, which can be found in Table
462 11.
463 Step 5: The fuzzy-weighted normalized decision matrix is generated in this phase, as presented in
464 Table 12.
465 Step 6: During Step 6, we define the fuzzy positive-ideal solution (FPIS, denoted as A∗) and the
466 fuzzy negative-ideal solution (FNIS, denoted as A−) as outlined below:
467 A∗ = [(2, 2, 2), (2, 2, 2), (2, 2, 2), (2, 2, 2)]
468 A− = [(1, 1, 1), (1, 1, 1), (1, 1, 1), (1, 1, 1)]
469 Step 7: In Step 7, we calculate the extent of separation between each alternative (advantage) and
470 the FPIS and FNIS, with the outcomes presented in Table 13.
471 Step 8: In Step 8, we determine the proximity coefficient for each alternative, as illustrated in table
472 14.
473 Step 9: Utilizing the proximity coefficient for each option as a basis, we establish the ranking
474 sequence presented in Table 15.
475 This sequence represents the order of preference for the evaluated advantages. Technological
476 advancements are as follows:
477 A1 > A5 > A4 > A3 > A2 > A7 > A6 or CPS >IoT > CM > BDA
478 The findings from the fuzzy TOPSIS analysis indicate that A1 (Evaluation of the efficiency
479 of distinct processes in manufacturing systems) emerges as the foremost option with a substantial
480 advantage among technological advancements compared to the other options under examination.
 1
1
Technological advancement
2 selection

P1 P2 P3 P4

Revenue Innovation Environmental Efficiency

responsibility improvement
5

8
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7
481
9
482 Figure 2: Structure with different levels. Commented [Ma6]: Dekhen Figure ki direction line hen
ye bohat bold hen in ko unbold kren and first line Arro me
483 Table 7: Advantages linked to every technological advancement. den

Technological advancement Supply chain advantages

Cyber-Physical Systems A1
Big data analytics A2
Cloud Manufacturing A3, A4
Internet of things A5, A6, A7
484 Table 8: Importance Weights for P1, P2, P3, P4.
Parameters Groups of decision-makers

D-M1 D-M2 D-M3 D-M4

P1 MM MM EH EH

P2 MM EM EM MH

P3 EH MM EM EH

P4 EH EM EH MH

485 Table 9: Assessments of the advantages concerning each standard.

Parameters Advantages Groups of individuals responsible for making decisions
D-M1 D-M2 D-M3 D-M4
P1 A1 R ME ME R
A2 ME R E R
 A3 ME ME E R
A4 ME F ME ME
A5 EE F E ME
A6 F ME ME R
A7 ME ME E ME
P2 A1 R ME E E
A2 F F ME E
A3 F F E ME
A4 F ME ME E
A5 R F E EE
A6 R F EE ME
A7 EE F EE EE
P3 A1 R ME E F
A2 R F E F
A3 R ME E F
A4 R F E F
A5 R ME E ME
A6 R F E ME
A7 R ME E ME
P4 A1 ME F EE EE
A2 R ME EE F
A3 R F EE ME
A4 ME ME EE F
A5 R F EE ME
A6 R F E F
A7 ME ME E EE
486 Table 10: A decision matrix incorporating fuzziness and fuzzy weightings for seven options.
Advantage Parameters
s
P1 P2 P3 P4
A1 (7.4,9.4,10.9, (7.4,9.4,10.8,9.9) (7.4,9.4,10.8,10.1 (7.4,9.4,10.8,10)
8.8) )
A2 (6.8,8.8,10.4, (6.8,8.8,10,8.9) (6.8,8.4,9.3,9.9) (6.8,8.8,10,8.9)
7.9)
A3 (6,8,9.8,6,1) (8,10,11,7.9) (6.8,8.8,10,6.5) (7.4,9.4,10.8,10.1)
A4 (7.4,9.4,10.8, (8.8,10.4,11,8.9) (7.4,9.4,10.8,4.9) (8,9.8,10.8,9.9)
8.1)
A5 (7.4,9.4,10.8, (6.8,8.8,9.4,10) (6.8,8.8,9.4,8.2) (8,10,11,8.9)
1.6)
A6 (6.8,8.8,10,9,9) (6,8,10.8,7.9) (7.4,9.4,10.8,7.9) (6.8,8.8,10,6.9)
A7 (6,8,9.8,5.8) (7.4,9.4,10.8,6.9) (7.4,9,10,10) (8,9.8,10.8,8.9)
Weights (0.8,0.98,0.10,0.9 (0.68,0.88,0.9,0.8 (0.68,0.88,0.10, (0.64,0.94,0.98,0.99
) ) 0.88) )
487 Table 11: Normalized Decision Matrix with Fuzziness.
 P1 P2 P3 P4

A1 (0.4,0.4,0.9,0.8) (0.74,0.94,0.10,0.9) (0.4,0.4,0.8,0.1) (0.74,0.4,0.18,0.10)

A2 (0.8,0.8,0.4,0.9) (0.8,0.8,0.10,0.9) (0.8,0.4,0.3,0.9) (0.68,0.88,0.10,0.9)

A3 (1,0.8,0.98,0.96) (0.8,0.10,0.1,0.9) (0.8,0.8,1,0.5) (0.4,094,0.8,1.1)

A4 (0.74,0.94,0.10,0.81) (0.8,0.4,0.1,0.9) (0.4,0.4,0.8,0.9) (0.8,0.8,0.8,0.9)

A5 (0.4,0.4,0.18,0.6) (0.8,0.8,0.4,0.10) (0.8,0.8,0.4,0.2) (0.8,0.10,0.11,0.89)

A6 (0.68,0.8,0.10,0.99) (0.88,0.7,0.18,0.9) (0.4,0.4,0.8,0.9) (0.68,0.88,0.10,0.69)

A7 (0.6,0.8,0.98,0.58) (0.4,0.4,0.8,0.9) (0.4,0.9,0.10,1) (0.08,0.98,0.18,0.9)

488 Table 12: Normalized decision matrix with fuzzy weightings.

P1 P2 P3 P4

A1 (0.5,0.3,0.6,0.3) (0.54,0.44,0.30,0.8) (0.6,0.4,0.2,0.3) (0.54,0.6,0.6,0.20)

A2 (0.7,0.89,0.5,0.4) (0.5,0.6,0.70,0.7) (0.48,0.6,0.7,0.8) (0.48,0.33,0.12,0.1)

A3 (1,0.6,0.99,0.76) (0.4,0.30,0.2,0.4) (0.3,0.2,1,0.1) (0.9,0.5,0.4,0.8)

A4 (0.43,0.84,0.50,0.61) (0.6,0.8,0.8,0.5) (0.47,0.8,0.9,0.09) (0.6,0.4,0.2,0.4)

A5 (0.3,0.2,0.23,0.4) (0.4,0.20.1,0.40) (0.7,0.6,0.5,0.24) (0.7,0.16,0.51,0.97)

A6 (0.28,0.4,0.16,0.59) (0.66,0.8,0.6,0.5) (0.2,0.3,0.83,0.4) (0.66,0.5,0.44,0.5)

A7 (0.4,0.5,0.68,0.78) (0.5,0.3,0.2,0.94) (0.1,0.2,0.30,1) (0.88,0.76,0.43,0.56)

489 Table 13: The measurement of the separation between each advantage and the FPIS (Fuzzy
490 Positive Ideal Solution) and the FNIS (Fuzzy Negative Ideal Solution).
Proximity concerning the Proximity concerning the
FPIS FNIS

A1 2.29 3.10
A2 2.45 3.39
A3 2.67 3.53
A4 2.80 3.78
A5 2.10 3.92
 A6 2.12 3.19
A7 2.55 3.12
491 Table 14: Proximity factor.
Advantages Coefficient of proximity CPi.
A1 0.77
A2 0.7213
A3 0.7219
A4 0.74
A5 0.75
A6 0.61
A7 0.7
492 Table 15: Arrangement of the choices in order of preference.
Advantages Ranking Sequence
A1 1
A2 5
A3 4
A4 3
A5 2
A6 7
A7 6
493 Consequently, considering the inclinations of the four clusters of decision-makers (D-Ms),
494 Company ABC should adopt a CPS as its primary technological advancement, as it is closely
495 associated with the mentioned advantages. Additionally, adopting CPS implies the sustainable use
496 of resources during production, minimizing waste generation in the production process.
497 As previously mentioned, Technological advancements provide numerous advantages to
498 companies aiming to achieve circularity within their supply chain management. In the upcoming
499 section, we elaborate on the conceptual framework by shedding light on additional benefits of
500 technological advancements within the circular context, focusing on how these technologies
501 impact supply chain attributes. This study will provide insights into How effectively each
502 technological innovation aids organizations in their operations in line with circular economy
503 principles.
504 This research section delves into the additional circular advantages of the proposed
505 technological advancements, building upon the framework introduced in Section 2. The results of
506 the fuzzy TOPSIS analysis outlined in section 4 substantiate these innovations' alignment with the
507 Circular Economy (CE) and supply chain attributes, offering a more detailed perspective on their
508 potential benefits.
509 4.2 Circular Advantages of CPS (Cyber-Physical Systems)
510 Implementing Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) within the examined company, as identified
511 through the fuzzy TOPSIS analysis, offers compelling circular advantages. As discussed in Section
512 2, CPS Plays a crucial role in guaranteeing the sustainable utilization of essential production
513 resources, thereby minimizing waste generation. Moreover, research conducted by (Demiralay &
514 Paksoy, 2022) suggests CPS enables companies to evaluate the sustainability of machinery
515 operation, ultimately prolonging the equipment's lifespan. This perspective is further supported by
516 (Su et al., 2021), who emphasize the potential for sustainable maintenance activities facilitated by
517 CPS. In essence, CPS emphasizes the holistic management of a product's lifespan, from its creation
518 to the maintenance of the production machinery responsible for it.
519 Beyond resource efficiency, CPS offers real-time data provision to supply chain network
520 members. This enhanced traceability and transparency allow waste to be effectively redirected
521 back to manufacturers as raw materials within a collaborative supply chain network. Consequently,
522 this reduces landfill waste, promotes a more sustainable and circular approach to resource
523 utilization and integrates circular advantages and supply chain attributes into the conceptual
524 framework initially established in Section 2.
525 4.3 Circular Advantages of IoT (Internet of Things)
526 The fuzzy TOPSIS analysis in Section 4 identified IoT-enabled technological advancements
527 as the runner-up option for adoption by decision-makers at Company ABC. IoT technologies,
528 encompassing sensors, RFID, and tags, play a crucial role in expediting the transition towards
529 circular logistics network, as elaborated upon in chapter 2. The sophisticated technology embedded
530 in IoT accelerates the loop closure within the supply chain network. It plays a substantial role in
531 facilitating the attainment of a closed-loop supply chain model, where products are refurbished,
532 reused, or recycled. This robust support for reverse logistics approaches effectively increases
533 sustainability within organizations.
534 Additionally, IoT fosters a more collaborative network of stakeholders within the supply
535 chain by enabling seamless product tracking and data-sharing. This newfound transparency
536 enhances organizations' ability to modify products and extend their lifecycle. As a result, IoT
537 contributes to resource conservation and encourages a circular approach to product management.
538 4.4 Circular Advantages of CM (Condition Monitoring)
539 Based on the fuzzy TOPSIS analysis, Condition Monitoring (CM) is the third option among
540 the assessed technological advancements. As underscored in section 2, CM harmonizes seamlessly
541 with circular business models oriented towards services. In these models, organizations derive
542 financial benefits from minimal resource requirements for offering used products as services,
543 enhancing flexibility and cost-effectiveness across the supply chain. From another perspective, (S.
544 B. Ali, 2022) argues that CM technology empowers enterprises to view waste as a valuable
545 resource for reuse, recovery, and regeneration. This shift in perspective leads to adopting
546 sustainable practices and further contributes to the circular economy paradigm.
547 4.5 Circular Advantages of BDA (Big Data Analytics)
548 While the fuzzy TOPSIS calculations position Big Data Analytics (BDA) as the least
549 preferred technological advancement, it still plays a crucial role in facilitating decision-making.
550 Within sustainable circular supply chain practices, BDA aids organizations in making sense of
551 large volumes of production data. Companies that utilize big data analytics (BDA) can attain
552 effective resource management, thus aligning with principles of sustainable production. As a result,
553 the logistics network becomes data-driven, profoundly influencing decision-making processes. As
554 emphasized by (Vafadarnikjoo et al., 2021), small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) have
555 unique needs when adapting to technological advancements, and our approach has been
556 specifically tailored to address these requirements.
557 Several factors, including internationalization, operational behavior, and initial financial
558 investment, influence the selection process for technological advancements. From a managerial
559 standpoint, concrete evidence is crucial for constructing a robust framework encompassing the
560 circular benefits of technological innovations and their broader implications on society, the
561 environment, and financial performance. Adopting the Fuzzy TOPSIS approach outlined in this
562 study can empower organizations to make informed decisions regarding technological
563 advancements adoption, ultimately enhancing SME operational effectiveness while considering
564 the needs of their employees.
565 Theoretically, this study provides a comprehensive understanding of the problem by
566 integrating four key parameters and seven supply chain advantages. It considers employees' roles
567 and highlights the interconnections among the selected advantages and parameters, offering
568 valuable guidance for future research in operational research or analytics within the supply chain.

569 5. Conclusion
570 This research investigation has delved into the significant influence of accessible
571 technological advancements, namely CPS Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS), the Internet of Things
572 (IoT), Condition Monitoring (CM), and Big Data Analytics (BDA) on the concept of circularity in
573 the domain of Supply Chain Management (SCM). The motivation behind this investigation
574 emerged from a recognized research gap in the literature concerning Circular Economy (CE),
575 technological advancements, and Supply Chain Management. In this comprehensive conclusion,
576 we will summarize this section, highlight this study's main discoveries and contributions,
577 acknowledge its constraints, and sketch possible avenues for future research.
578 At the outset, this study laid the groundwork for an innovative conceptual framework
579 (depicted in Figure 1) that emphasizes supply chain characteristics derived from supply chain and
580 circular benefits. This framework was a guiding structure for understanding how technological
581 advancements could influence circularity within supply chains. It was instrumental in facilitating
582 the selection of appropriate technologies that align with circular economy principles.
583 A single case study involving questionnaires distributed among employees of an SME
584 beverage company in Spain was conducted to explore the impact of these technological
585 advancements empirically. The descriptive nature of this study facilitated the application of the
586 fuzzy TOPSIS approach for data analysis. This method proved valuable as it automatically
587 determined specific circular advantages associated with each technological advancement once the
588 ranking order of alternative options (technological advancements) was obtained. This not only aids
589 in selecting the most suitable technology for implementation but also highlights the circular
590 attributes each technology brings to the table.
591 The practical significance of this research lies in its applicability to real-world decision-
592 making within organizations. An enterprise aspiring to transform its logistics network digitally can
593 depend on the fuzzy TOPSIS method to make informed decisions. This method helps identify the
594 optimal technology for adoption, enhancing the potential for transitioning towards accomplishing
595 a circular economy as a global priority. Furthermore, researchers and practitioners can apply this
596 method in similar decision-making processes regarding technological advancement selection for
597 organizations across various industries and locations.
598 Finally, the conceptual framework in section 2 gains richer insights into supply chain
599 attributes once the circular advantages and selected technological advancements are known. This
600 holistic understanding can guide organizations in strategic planning, helping them integrate
601 circularity into their supply chain practices more effectively.
602 5.1 Limitations
603 While this study has made valuable contributions, it is essential to acknowledge its
604 limitations:
605 The sample size employed in this study was relatively small, comprising 101 participants
606 from a specific SME beverage company in Spain. This study shows that future research should
607 gather empirical data from diverse domestic and global sectors to establish a more comprehensive
608 and integrated theoretical foundation. Consideration of industry type and location is critical, as
609 these factors significantly influence the selection of technological advancements in sustainable
610 circular supply chain practices.
611 The primary data gathered in this study may be susceptible to bias due to its reliance on human
612 participation in the decision-making process. Future studies could explore supplementary data
613 sources in this study and employ more advanced and impartial prescriptive analytics methods to
614 mitigate this potential bias.
615 The parameters used in this study were based on prevalent patterns in relevant literature.
616 While this study focused on revenue, innovation, environmental responsibility, and efficiency
617 improvement as significant parameters, it is crucial to recognize that other factors may also
618 influence technological advancement selection in sustainable circular supply chain practices.
619 Additionally, the parameters were assigned equal weights without emphasizing their relative
620 importance in the decision-making process. Future research could delve deeper into parameter
621 selection and weighting methodologies. Sensitivity analysis may be valuable for assessing
622 variations among the four technological advancements. Our approach prioritized transparency for
623 operational research specialists and policymakers in the industrial domain. Future investigations
624 may explore sensitivity analysis to offer a more detailed comprehension of the influence of various
625 technologies.
626 5.2 Future Research Directions
627 Several promising avenues for future research emerge for expanding on the discoveries and
628 constraints of this study. Future research could explore the distinctions between fuzzy TOPSIS,
629 and distance based VIKOR methods in adopting new technological advancements in sustainable
630 circular supply chain practices. Such a comparison would shed light on the strengths and
631 weaknesses of these approaches, providing valuable insights for decision-makers. Considering the
632 factors identified through PCA analysis and the subjectivity in human judgment, future research
633 could apply confirmatory factor analysis to validate these factors with another sample from the
634 same enterprise.
635 This study would enhance the reliability and robustness of the factors influencing
636 technological advancements selection. In this study, subsequent research endeavours could
637 incorporate diverse analytical approaches to enhance objectivity. For instance, fuzzy TOPSIS,
638 tailored for qualitative data assessment, can be integrated with established optimization-based
639 management science techniques like Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) for quantitative data
640 assessment within a Circular Economy (CE) framework. This combined approach could provide a
641 more holistic understanding of technological selection. Given the dynamic nature of technological
642 innovation, future research should consider the inclusion of additional technological advancements
643 supported by Industry 4.0, such as additive manufacturing, cloud computing, and virtual or
644 augmented reality, in the technology selection process. These technologies could introduce new
645 dimensions to sustainability and circularity within supply chains.
646 In this study, future research should conduct cross-industry and international comparative
647 studies to generalize the findings and enhance their applicability. This approach would offer a more
648 comprehensive understanding of how technological advancements are selected and implemented
649 in various contexts, contributing to a broader knowledge base. This research study has taken
650 significant strides in bridging the gap between Circular Economy principles, technological
651 advancements, and Supply Chain Management. It has provided valuable insights into selecting
652 technological advancements that align with circularity goals. While limitations exist, these
653 findings offer a foundation for future research endeavors to advance sustainability and circularity
654 within supply chains further, ultimately contributing to a more environmentally responsible and
655 economically efficient global economy. As the world continues to grapple with sustainability
656 challenges, the role of technological advancements in shaping our collective future cannot be
657 underestimated, making research in this area more pertinent than ever.

658 Appendix 1
659 1. Kindly answer the following query by selecting (✓) a single option from each line. This question
660 employs a seven-point rating scale for measurement, encompassing options such as Extremely
661 minimal (EM), Minimal (Mi), Moderate minimal (MM), Moderate (Mo), Moderate high (MH),
662 High (H), Extremely High (EH).
Parameters EM Mi MM Mo MH H EH
Revenue (P1)
Innovation
(P2)
Environmental
responsibility
(P3)
Efficiency
improvement
(P4)
663
664 2. Kindly answer the subsequent queries by selecting (✓) a single option from each line. These
665 questions employ a seven-point rating scale for measurement, encompassing choices like Evil
666 (EB), Inferior (I), Somewhat subpar (SS), Reasonable (R), Moderately excellent (ME), Excellent
667 (E), Exceptionally excellent (EE)
Revenue (P1)
Advantages EB I SS R ME E EE
- Implementation of advanced forecasting methods to
optimize production line performance.
- Ongoing updates regarding the composition of product
materials.
- Enhanced management of warehouse and logistics.
- Optimum production scheduling.
- Assessment of different activities within production systems.
- Both self-sufficiency and data drive autonomous decision
systems.
- Interpretation of manufacturing resources using cloud-based
technology.
668

Innovation (P2)
Advantages EB I SS R ME E EE
- Implementation of advanced forecasting methods
for streamlined production line efficiency.
- Consistent monitoring of product materials'
condition.
- Enhanced management of warehouse and
logistics.
- Ideal production strategies.
- Assessment of various operations' performance in
production systems.
- Autonomous decision systems guided by self-
sufficiency and data.
- Interpretation of manufacturing resources through
cloud-based technology.
669

Environmental
responsibility (P3)
Advantages EB I SS R ME E EE
- Ongoing updates on the condition of product
materials.
- Enhanced management of warehouses and
logistics.
- Perfect production strategies.
- Assessment of the performance of diverse
operations in production systems.
 - Both self-sufficiency and data drive autonomous
decision systems.
- Interpretation of manufacturing resources using
cloud-based technology.
- Utilization of advanced forecasting methods for
the efficiency of production lines.
670

Efficiency
improvement (P4)
Advantages EB I SS R ME E EE
- Regular updates regarding the condition of
product constituents.
- Enhanced management of warehouses and
logistics.
- Evaluation of production schedules.
- Assessment of the efficiency of different processes
within production systems.
- Both self-sufficiency and data drive autonomous
decision systems.
- Interpretation of manufacturing resources through
cloud-based technology.
- Employment of advanced forecasting methods to
guarantee the efficient operation of production
lines.

671 References
672 Ada, N. (2022). Sustainable Supplier Selection in Agri-Food Supply Chain Management.
673 International Journal of Mathematical, Engineering and Management Sciences, 7(1), 115–
674 130. https://doi.org/10.33889/IJMEMS.2022.7.1.008
675 Agrawal, D., Dwivedi, A., Patil, A., & Paul, S. K. (2023). Impediments of product recovery in
676 circular supply chains: Implications for sustainable development. Sustainable Development,
677 31(3), 1618–1637. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2472
678 Ali, I., & Kannan, D. (2022). Mapping research on healthcare operations and supply chain
679 management: a topic modelling-based literature review. Annals of Operations Research,
680 315(1), 29–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-022-04596-5
681 Ali, S. B. (2022). Industrial Revolution 4.0 and Supply Chain Digitization. South Asian Journal of
682 Social Review, 1(1), 21–41. https://doi.org/10.57044/sajsr.2022.1.1.2205
683 Amin, A., Nabil, D. H., & Baldacci, R. (2023). Exploring Blockchain Implementation Challenges
684 for Sustainable Supply Chains : An Integrated Fuzzy TOPSIS – ISM Approach.
685 Amoozad Mahdiraji, H., Yaftiyan, F., Abbasi-Kamardi, A., & Garza-Reyes, J. A. (2022).
686 Investigating potential interventions on disruptive impacts of Industry 4.0 technologies in
687 circular supply chains: Evidence from SMEs of an emerging economy. Computers and
688 Industrial Engineering, 174(October), 108753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2022.108753
689 Biswas, S., Sanyal, A., Božanić, D., Puška, A., & Marinković, D. (2023). Critical Success Factors
690 for 5G Technology Adaptation in Supply Chains. Sustainability, 15(6), 5539.
691 https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065539
692 Çalık, A. (2021). A novel Pythagorean fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methodology for green
693 supplier selection in the Industry 4.0 era. Soft Computing, 25(3), 2253–2265.
694 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-020-05294-9
695 Deepu, T. S., & Ravi, V. (2021). Supply chain digitalization: An integrated MCDM approach for
696 inter-organizational information systems selection in an electronic supply chain.
697 International Journal of Information Management Data Insights, 1(2), 100038.
698 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjimei.2021.100038
699 Demiralay, E., & Paksoy, T. (2022). Strategy development for supplier selection process with
700 smart and sustainable criteria in fuzzy environment. Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain,
701 5(February), 100076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clscn.2022.100076
702 Deretarla, Ö., Erdebilli, B., & Gündoğan, M. (2023). An integrated Analytic Hierarchy Process
703 and Complex Proportional Assessment for vendor selection in supply chain management.
704 Decision Analytics Journal, 6(August 2022), 100155.
705 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dajour.2022.100155
706 Evangelista, S. S., Aro, J. L., Selerio, E., Maturan, F., Atibing, N. M., Ocampo, L., & Pamucar, D.
707 (2023). An Integrated Fermatean Fuzzy Multi-attribute Evaluation of Digital Technologies
708 for Circular Public Sector Supply Chains. International Journal of Computational
709 Intelligence Systems, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44196-023-00294-7
710 Hailiang, Z., Khokhar, M., Islam, T., & Sharma, A. (2023). A model for green-resilient supplier
711 selection: fuzzy best–worst multi-criteria decision-making method and its applications.
712 Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(18), 54035–54058.
713 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-25749-4
714 Hettiarachchi, B. D., Seuring, S., & Brandenburg, M. (2022). Industry 4.0-driven operations and
715 supply chains for the circular economy: a bibliometric analysis. Operations Management
716 Research, 15(3–4), 858–878. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-022-00275-7
717 Hosseini Dolatabad, A., Heidary Dahooie, J., Antucheviciene, J., Azari, M., & Razavi Hajiagha,
718 S. H. (2023). Supplier selection in the industry 4.0 era by using a fuzzy cognitive map and
719 hesitant fuzzy linguistic VIKOR methodology. Environmental Science and Pollution
720 Research, 30(18), 52923–52942. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-26004-6
721 HOU, Y., Khokhar, M., Khan, M., Islam, T., & Haider, I. (2021). Put Safety First: Exploring the
722 Role of Health and Safety Practices in Improving the Performance of SMEs. SAGE Open,
723 11(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211032173
724 Husain, Z., Maqbool, A., Haleem, A., Pathak, R. D., & Samson, D. (2021). Analyzing the business
725 models for circular economy implementation: a fuzzy TOPSIS approach. Operations
726 Management Research, 14(3–4), 256–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-021-00197-w
727 Irshad, M., Liu, W., Arshad, J., Sohail, M. N., Murthy, A., Khokhar, M., & Uba, M. M. (2019). A
728 novel localization technique using luminous flux. Applied Sciences (Switzerland), 9(23), 1–
729 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9235027
730 Ishizaka, A., Khan, S. A., Kheybari, S., & Zaman, S. I. (2023). Supplier selection in closed loop
731 pharma supply chain: a novel BWM–GAIA framework. Annals of Operations Research,
732 324(1–2), 13–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-022-04710-7
733 Jahani, N., Sepehri, A., Vandchali, H. R., & Tirkolaee, E. B. (2021). Application of industry 4.0
734 in the procurement processes of supply chains: A systematic literature review. Sustainability
735 (Switzerland), 13(14), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147520
736 Joshi, S., Sharma, M., Ekren, B. Y., Kazancoglu, Y., Luthra, S., & Prasad, M. (2023). Assessing
737 Supply Chain Innovations for Building Resilient Food Supply Chains: An Emerging
738 Economy Perspective. Sustainability (Switzerland), 15(6).
739 https://doi.org/10.3390/su15064924
740 Kazancoglu, Y., Ozbiltekin-Pala, M., Sezer, M. D., Kumar, A., & Luthra, S. (2022). Circular dairy
741 supply chain management through Internet of Things-enabled technologies. Environmental
742 Science and Pollution Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17697-8
743 Khokhar, M., Devi, A., Siddiqui, M. B., & Bhatti, A. A. (2022). Performance of the Cosmetics
744 Industry from the Perspective of Corporate Social Responsibility and Circular Economy: A
745 Cross?Cultural Current Challenges Faced In the Cosmetics Industry. Pakistan Journal of
746 Humanities and Social Sciences, 10(4), 1571–1579.
747 https://doi.org/10.52131/pjhss.2022.1004.0310
748 Khokhar, M., Hou, Y., Rafique, M. A., & Iqbal, W. (2020). Evaluating the social sustainability
749 criteria of supply chain management in manufacturing industries: A role of BWM in MCDM.
750 Problemy Ekorozwoju, 15(2), 185–194. https://doi.org/10.35784/pe.2020.2.18
751 Khokhar, M., Hou, Y., Sethar, I., Amin, W., & Shakib, M. (2019). Occupational health & safety
752 implementation framework for pakistani construction industry in Sindh province. 3C
753 Tecnología_Glosas de Innovación Aplicadas a La Pyme, November, 253–285.
754 https://doi.org/10.17993/3ctecno.2019.specialissue3.253-285
755 Khokhar, M., Iqbal, W., Hou, Y., Abbas, M., & Fatima, A. (2020). Assessing supply chain
756 performance from the perspective of pakistan’s manufacturing industry through social
757 sustainability. Processes, 8(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/pr8091064
758 Khokhar, M., Zia, S., Islam, T., Sharma, A., Iqbal, W., & Irshad, M. (2022). Going green supply
759 chain management during covid-19, assessing the best supplier selection criteria: A triple
760 bottom line (tbl) approach. Problemy Ekorozwoju, 17(1), 36–51.
761 https://doi.org/10.35784/pe.2022.1.04
762 Kusi-Sarpong, S., Gupta, H., Khan, S. A., Chiappetta Jabbour, C. J., Rehman, S. T., & Kusi-
763 Sarpong, H. (2021). Sustainable supplier selection based on industry 4.0 initiatives within the
764 context of circular economy implementation in supply chain operations. Production Planning
765 and Control, 34(10), 999–1019. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2021.1980906
766 Lahane, S., Kant, R., & Shankar, R. (2020). Circular supply chain management: A state-of-art
767 review and future opportunities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 258.
768 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120859
769 Lahane, S., Kant, R., Shankar, R., & Patil, S. K. (2023). Circular supply chain implementation
770 performance measurement framework: a comparative case analysis. Production Planning and
771 Control, 0(0), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2023.2180684
772 Mabrouk, N. Ben. (2020). Green supplier selection using fuzzy delphi method for developing
773 sustainable supply chain. Decision Science Letters, 10(1), 63–70.
774 https://doi.org/10.5267/j.dsl.2020.10.003
775 Mahmoudi, A., Sadeghi, M., & Deng, X. (2022). Performance measurement of construction
776 suppliers under localization, agility, and digitalization criteria: Fuzzy Ordinal Priority
777 Approach. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 0123456789.
778 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02301-x
779 Majeed, M. H., Khokhar, M. A., Abid, M., Raza, A., Qaisar, M. N., Ali, A. A., & Waqas, A.
780 (2018). Frequency and correlates of symptoms of anxiety and depression among young
781 caregivers of cancer patients: A pilot study. BMC Research Notes, 11(1), 1–6.
782 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-018-3740-8
783 Mastrocinque, E., Ramírez, F. J., Honrubia-Escribano, A., & Pham, D. T. (2022). Industry 4.0
784 enabling sustainable supply chain development in the renewable energy sector: A multi-
785 criteria intelligent approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 182(June).
786 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121813
787 Misra, S. K., Puri, V. K., Correa, R., Burange, L. G., Suguna, V., Krishna, G. R., Moss, A. G., &
788 Brahmananda, P. R. (2008). Indian Economy Reforms , Institutions and Policies : Challenges
789 Confronting the Indian Economy Indian Economy in the Economic Reforms in India :
790 Retrospect and Prospect Open Economic Development Money , Income , Prices in 19Th
791 Century India Economic Growt.
792 Mothafar, N. A., Khokhar, M., Zehra, N., Zeb Khaskhelly, F., Haris Mirza, M., Asim Rafique, M.,
793 & raza, A. (2022). Aligning Organization And Human Resource Management Practices For
794 Business Strategy. Journal of Positive School Psychology , 2022(12), 236–248.
795 https://www.journalppw.com/index.php/jpsp/article/view/14679
796 Pourjavad, E., & Shahin, A. (2020). A hybrid model for analyzing the risks of green supply chain
797 in a fuzzy environment. Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, 37(8), 422–433.
798 https://doi.org/10.1080/21681015.2020.1833995
799 Qu, G., Zhang, Z., Qu, W., & Xu, Z. (2020). Green supplier selection based on green practices
800 evaluated using fuzzy approaches of TOPSIS and ELECTRE with a case study in a Chinese
801 internet company. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,
802 17(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17093268
803 Rajesh, R. (2020). Sustainable supply chains in the Indian context: An integrative decision-making
804 model. Technology in Society, 61(January). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101230
805 Resende, C. H. L., Geraldes, C. A. S., & Lima Junior, F. R. (2021). Decision models for supplier
806 selection in industry 4.0 era: A systematic literature review. Procedia Manufacturing, 55(C),
807 492–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2021.10.067
808 Sagnak, M., Berberoglu, Y., Memis, İ., & Yazgan, O. (2021). Sustainable collection center
809 location selection in emerging economy for electronic waste with fuzzy Best-Worst and fuzzy
810 TOPSIS. Waste Management, 127, 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2021.03.054
811 Sahu, A., Agrawal, S., & Kumar, G. (2023). Challenges of implementing industry 4.0 in achieving
812 sustainable development goals: a case of Indian manufacturing organization. Energy Sources,
813 Part A: Recovery, Utilization and Environmental Effects, 45(3), 8125–8139.
814 https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2023.2226098
815 Shen, S. P., & Tsai, J. F. (2022). Evaluating the Sustainable Development of the Semiconductor
816 Industry Using BWM and Fuzzy TOPSIS. Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(17).
817 https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710693
818 Su, Z., Zhang, M., & Wu, W. (2021). Visualizing sustainable supply chain management: A
819 systematic scientometric review. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(8).
820 https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084409
821 Tanveer, U., Dominikos, M., Roussinos, N., Ishaq, S., Sotirios, L., & Vlontzos, G. (2023). Supply
822 Chain Analytics A fuzzy TOPSIS model for selecting digital technologies in circular supply
823 chains. Supply Chain Analytics, 4(August), 100038.
824 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sca.2023.100038
825 Tirkolaee, E. B., Sadeghi, S., Mooseloo, F. M., Vandchali, H. R., & Aeini, S. (2021). Application
826 of Machine Learning in Supply Chain Management: A Comprehensive Overview of the Main
827 Areas. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2021(Ml).
828 https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/1476043
829 Toker, K., & Görener, A. (2023). Evaluation of circular economy business models for SMEs using
830 spherical fuzzy TOPSIS: an application from a developing countries’ perspective. In
831 Environment, Development and Sustainability (Vol. 25, Issue 2). Springer Netherlands.
832 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02119-7
833 Tushar, Z. N., Bari, A. B. M. M., & Khan, M. A. (2022). Circular supplier selection in the
834 construction industry: A sustainability perspective for the emerging economies. Sustainable
835 Manufacturing and Service Economics, 1(October), 100005.
836 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smse.2022.100005
837 Ul Islam, S. M., Khan, S., Ahmad, H., Ur Rahman, M. A., Tomar, S., & Khan, M. Z. (2022).
838 Assessment of challenges and problems in supply chain among retailers during COVID-19
839 epidemic through AHP-TOPSIS hybrid MCDM technique. Internet of Things and Cyber-
840 Physical Systems, 2(October), 180–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iotcps.2022.10.001
841 Vafadarnikjoo, A., Badri Ahmadi, H., Liou, J. J. H., Botelho, T., & Chalvatzis, K. (2021).
842 Analyzing blockchain adoption barriers in manufacturing supply chains by the neutrosophic
843 analytic hierarchy process. Annals of Operations Research, 327(1), 129–156.
844 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-021-04048-6
845 Wu, C., Lin, C., Barnes, D., & Zhang, Y. (2020). Partner selection in sustainable supply chains: A
846 fuzzy ensemble learning model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 275, 0–59.
847 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123165
848 Xin, L., Lang, S., & Mishra, A. R. (2022). Evaluate the challenges of sustainable supply chain 4.0
849 implementation under the circular economy concept using new decision making approach.
850 Operations Management Research, 15(3–4), 773–792. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-021-
851 00243-7
852
1