logistics

Review
Sustainable Supplier Selection through Multi-Criteria Decision
Making (MCDM) Approach: A Bibliometric Analysis
Khoiron Khulud 1 , Ilyas Masudin 2, * , Fien Zulfikarijah 1 , Dian Palupi Restuputri 2 and Abdul Haris 3

1 Department of Management, University of Muhammadiyah Malang, Jl. Raya Tlogomas 246,

Malang 65144, Indonesia; [email protected] (K.K.); [email protected] (F.Z.)
2 Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Muhammadiyah Malang, Jl. Raya Tlogomas 246,
Malang 65144, Indonesia; [email protected]
3 Department of Management, University of Panca Marga, Probolinggo 67216, Indonesia;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Background: The primary objective of this study was to examine the advancements in
sustainable supplier selection through multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) from the years 2013 to
2022. In the recent past, researchers have carried out a significant amount of research in this field over
the course of several years; Methods: a total of 121 scientific publications sourced from the Scopus
database were chosen for analysis, employing the bibliometric method and graphical visualization
of the VOS viewer application to visually analyze and map research networks and collaboration
patterns, aiding in the evaluation of scientific impact and knowledge dissemination; Results: the
findings of this study indicate that the research trend in sustainable supplier selection through MCDM
witnessed its most significant growth in the year 2019. Researchers predominantly disseminated their
scientific findings through articles, accounting for 81% of the publications, followed by conference
papers at 14%, and book chapters at 2.5%; Conclusions: the primary area of focus in these studies
pertains to decision-making processes involved in sustainable supplier selection. The implications
and theoretical contributions derived from this research, coupled with the latest advancements, serve
as a foundation for further exploration and development of sustainable supplier selection research
through MCDM.
Citation: Khulud, K.; Masudin, I.;
Zulfikarijah, F.; Restuputri, D.P.;
Keywords: sustainability; supplier selection; MCDM; bibliometrics; VOS viewer
Haris, A. Sustainable Supplier
Selection through Multi-Criteria
Decision Making (MCDM) Approach:
A Bibliometric Analysis. Logistics
2023, 7, 96. https://doi.org/10.3390/ 1. Introduction
logistics7040096 In recent years, companies have faced increased competition in the market. The field
Academic Editor: Robert Handfield
of decision making involves the evaluation and selection of the most optimal course of
action within the existing circumstances, aiming to achieve their objectives [1–3]. This
Received: 2 September 2023 study of decision making spans multiple academic disciplines, attracting the attention of
Revised: 7 November 2023 scholars and professionals alike. Scientific methodologies are of paramount importance in
Accepted: 24 November 2023 decision making, alongside the factors of intelligence, intuition, and experience [4,5]. This
Published: 8 December 2023
heightened competition necessitates that companies across various industries seek innova-
tive and efficient solutions to enhance supply chain management, thereby contributing to
sustainable value creation. Supplier selection stands out as a critical step in the supply
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
chain management process. Supply chain management encompasses a comprehensive
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. strategy aimed at seamlessly integrating the supply chain from product procurement to
This article is an open access article the final customer delivery [6,7]. The role of suppliers within the supply chain is pivotal,
distributed under the terms and ensuring that companies have access to the necessary goods and services at competitive
conditions of the Creative Commons prices [8,9]. Furthermore, a closer relationship between the company and the customer
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// offers numerous advantages, including reduced purchase costs, higher quality goods and
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ services, improved communication, and enhanced customer service. Effective workforce
4.0/). management plays a vital role in determining supply chain performance [10,11].

Logistics 2023, 7, 96. https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics7040096 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/logistics

Logistics 2023, 7, 96 2 of 21

The selection of supplier partners plays a crucial role in the broader spectrum of supply
chain management, and is a strategic decision that holds the potential to significantly
enhance a company’s competitive advantage [12]. Entrepreneurs are continually devising
strategies to outperform their competitors, with supply chain performance improvement
being a common and impactful approach. A well-executed supply chain strategy not only
positively influences business operations but also bolsters overall competitiveness, enabling
sustainable success in terms of product quality and supplier engagement [13,14]. In the
realm of supply chain management, the choice of raw material suppliers stands out as a
critical component, exerting profound short-term and long-term effects on a company’s
success [15]. The quality of raw materials supplied via a chosen supplier directly impacts
the quality of the end products [16]. Furthermore, a supplier’s ability to meet the company’s
specific raw material needs is paramount, as any disruption to the production schedule can
lead to a failure in realizing the company’s vision [17,18]. Effective supplier performance
assessment is essential, and this process must consider the unique characteristics of each
supplier, ensuring a comprehensive evaluation [19–24]. Beyond fostering strong relations
with suppliers, this approach results in reduced procurement costs, improved product
quality, and more efficient delivery timelines, ultimately strengthening the company’s
competitive position [25].
The selection of sustainable suppliers through MCDM approaches is not merely an
operational consideration but a strategic necessity in today’s competitive landscape. It
empowers companies to make data-driven decisions that not only optimize costs but also
enhance product quality, customer satisfaction, and overall competitiveness [26]. As the
business world continues to evolve, sustainable supplier selection remains a pivotal element
in the broader framework of supply chain management, offering companies the means to
secure their position and thrive in an increasingly demanding and competitive market [27].
Moreover, the adoption of MCDM approaches in sustainable supplier selection reflects a
broader commitment to corporate social responsibility and environmental stewardship.
Companies that prioritize sustainable supplier selection could align themselves with the
values of ethical and eco-conscious consumers and also reduce their ecological footprint [28].
As regulatory bodies and consumers increasingly demand transparency and accountability
in supply chain practices, businesses that leverage MCDM methods to select sustainable
suppliers are better equipped to mitigate risks and strengthen their brand reputation.
Moreover, the authors of [29,30] believed that sustainable supplier selection through MCDM
is not only a practical tool for immediate gains but a strategic imperative for long-term
success in a world where sustainability and responsible sourcing are integral components
of a resilient and thriving business ecosystem [31].
Therefore, it is essential to determine the appropriate selection criteria for suppliers
in the food industry. However, there is an extremely limited number of studies focusing
on the selection of suppliers [32,33]. A review of existing studies has shown a dominant
focus on quality, price/cost, delivery, and service criteria in parallel with major trends. The
number of studies employing environmental safety criteria, social responsibility, and new
labor rights as well as legal considerations in the selection of new suppliers has recently
increasingly attracted the attention of researchers using multi-criteria decision making
(MCDM) techniques [34–36]. This article presents a significant contribution to the evolving
landscape of supply chain management by focusing on the sustainable selection of suppliers
using multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) techniques. Through a comprehensive
analysis of Scopus database data and the application of bibliometric methods, this research
offers a two-fold revelation. Firstly, it uncovered a notable surge in research pertaining
to sustainable supplier selection through MCDM between 2019 and 2022, signifying a
growing interest in this critical domain. Secondly, the predominant dissemination of
research outcomes through articles underscores the pivotal role of scholarly publications
in advancing knowledge in this area. Additionally, this study identified key research
themes and keywords, highlighting decision making as the central objective in sustainable
supplier selection through MCDM. Thus, the main objective of this article was to integrate
 research themes and keywords, highlighting decision making as the central objective in
sustainable supplier selection through MCDM. Thus, the main objective of this article was
to integrate halal criteria in terms of the continuous selection of suppliers carried out using
MCDM techniques. This technique was used due to its unique superiority over other tech-
Logistics 2023, 7, 96 niques. 3 of 21

2. Methods
halal criteria in terms of the continuous selection of suppliers carried out using MCDM
The method employed in this study focused on the content and analysis of biblio-
techniques. This technique was used due to its unique superiority over other techniques.
metric trends [32]. To restrain the publication of eyewear assessment trends in Indonesia,
data from Scopus (www.scopus.com, accessed on 29 June 2023) were used as a general
2. Methods
database Thelink. Bibliometric
method employed andin thisscientometric
study focused studies are the
on the content andmost commonly
analysis employed
of bibliometric
analyses
trends in scientific
[32]. studies
To restrain [37]. Data in
the publication ofScopus
eyewearuniquely combines
assessment trends in a comprehensive
Indonesia, data and
curated database
from Scopus of abstracts and
(www.scopus.com, communities
accessed with
on 29 June enriched
2023) were useddata
as aand linksdatabase
general to scholarly
link. Bibliometric
content and scientometric
with 90+ million records fromstudies
27,000are the most
journals, commonly
149,000 employed289,000
conferences, analysesbooks,
in scientific studies [37]. Data in Scopus uniquely combines a comprehensive
and 1.56 million preprints from more than 7000 publishers worldwide involving 105 coun- and curated
database of abstracts and communities with enriched data and links to scholarly content
tries (www.elsevier.com/scopus, accessed on 29 June 2023). This study implemented 5
with 90+ million records from 27,000 journals, 149,000 conferences, 289,000 books, and
stages of bibliometric analysis work with the following stages [38]. Figure 1 show steps of
1.56 million preprints from more than 7000 publishers worldwide involving 105 countries
bibliometric analysis.
(www.elsevier.com/scopus, accessed on 29 June 2023). This study implemented 5 stages
of bibliometric analysis work with the following stages [38]. Figure 1 show steps of
bibliometric analysis.

study data data data

interpretation
design collection analysis visualisation

Figure 1. Bibliometric analysis work steps.

Figure 1.TheBibliometric
first stage analysis workconducted
of the search steps. in this study was focused on the study design,
which involved the publication of a Scopus-indexed bibliometric analysis of sustainable se-
The first
lection stagespanning
suppliers of the search conducted
the period from 2013 in to
this study
2022. Thiswas focused analysis
bibliometric on the study
aimed design,
to
identify
which and examine
involved the relevantof
the publication literature pertaining to the
a Scopus-indexed themes, methods,
bibliometric analysis andofresearch
sustainable
selection suppliers spanning the period from 2013 to 2022. This bibliometriclitera-
theories concerning sustainable selection suppliers. By conducting a comprehensive analysis
ture to
aimed review
identifyand analysis,
and examinevaluablethedata were obtained,
relevant literatureproviding
pertaining insights
to theinto the various
themes, methods,
aspects of sustainable selection suppliers. Moving on to the second stage of this study, data
and research theories concerning sustainable selection suppliers. By conducting a com-
collection played a crucial role. In this stage, data were gathered from the Scopus database,
prehensive
which servedliterature review and analysis,
as a comprehensive and reliable valuable
sourcedata were obtained,
of scholarly providing
publications. The data insights
intocollected
the various
from aspects
the Scopusof database
sustainablewereselection suppliers.
then prepared Moving
for further on toTo
analysis. the second
ensure thestage
of this
collection of relevant data, a string search technique derived from the Scopus database from
study, data collection played a crucial role. In this stage, data were gathered
thealgorithm
Scopus database,
was employed.whichThis served as a comprehensive
technique involved conducting andkeyword
reliable searches
source of scholarly
within
the title citations,
publications. abstracts,
The data and keywords
collected from theofScopus the publications,
database with werea then
specific time frame
prepared forset
further
from 2013 to 2022. This study selected 121 data points from the Scopus
analysis. To ensure the collection of relevant data, a string search technique derived from database, a trusted
thesource
Scopus of scholarly
databasepublications.
algorithm was Theyemployed.
prepared theThis datatechnique
for analysisinvolved
and employed a string key-
conducting
search technique based on the Scopus algorithm, involving keyword searches (MCDM and
word searches within the title citations, abstracts, and keywords of the publications, with
sustainable supplier selection) in titles, abstracts, and keywords, focusing on publications
a specific
from 2013 time to frame
2022 toset fromrelevance.
ensure 2013 to 2022. This study
By employing thisselected
method,121 the data pointswere
researchers from the
Scopus
able todatabase, a trusted results
retrieve published sourcethatof scholarly
were closely publications.
aligned with They preparedobjective,
the research the data for
analysis and employed a string search technique based on the
providing a solid foundation for the subsequent analysis and evaluation of the financing Scopus algorithm, involv-
ingaspects
keyword searches
related (MCDMselection
to sustainable and sustainable
supplierssupplier
[39]. Query selection) in titles,
string data abstracts,
via the Scopus and
database focusing
keywords, were as follows:
on publications from 2013 to 2022 to ensure relevance. By employing
(TITLE-ABS-KEY(supplier
this method, the researchers were ANDable sustainable
to retrieveANDpublished
selection) ANDresultsTITLE-ABS-KEY
that were closely
(MCDM)) AND PUBYEAR > 2013 AND PUBYEAR < 2022
aligned with the research objective, providing a solid foundation for the subsequent anal-
In the field of sustainable selection suppliers, various frequencies are used to iden-
ysis and evaluation of the financing aspects related to sustainable selection suppliers [39].
tify trend characteristics in publications and quotations. These frequencies include the
Query stringofdata
frequency via the Scopus
publication order and database werewhich
citation data, as follows:
play a crucial role in determining
the(TITLE-ABS-KEY(supplier
most prolific authors, institutions, ANDcountries,
sustainable AND selection)
and journals AND TITLE-ABS-
within the domain [40]. To
KEY(MCDM)) AND PUBYEAR
conduct a comprehensive analysis,> researchers
2013 ANDoften PUBYEAR
employ RIS < 2022
format data to summarize
In the field
information of sustainable
under various stages.selection
These datasuppliers,
are thenvarious
processed frequencies are used
using specialized to identify
software
trend characteristics in publications and quotations. These frequencies include the
such as VOS viewer version 1.6.19 [41]. VOS viewer is a powerful tool that facilitates the fre-
visualization
quency of bibliometric
of publication order and maps, allowing
citation data,researchers
which play to identify
a crucialand interpret
role patterns, the
in determining
relationships, and clusters within the scholarly literature. It provides a visual represen-
tation of the network of publications, authors, and keywords, aiding in the exploration
Logistics 2023, 7, 96 4 of 21

and understanding of the research landscape [42]. The availability of VOS viewer as a free
download from its official website (www.vosviewer.com, accessed on 29 June 2023) makes
it accessible to researchers worldwide, contributing to the dissemination and advancement
of bibliometric analyses in various fields. By leveraging this software, researchers can gain
valuable insights into the distribution of knowledge, collaborations, and emerging trends
within the sustainable selection suppliers’ domain, enabling informed decision making and
further research in the pursuit of sustainable practices.

3. Results and Discussion

A search was conducted using Scopus on 29 June 2023 to explore the existing literature
on sustainable supplier selection through the MCDM (multi-criteria decision making)
approach. The results of this search revealed a total of 121 documents published between
2013 and 2022. Among these documents, there were ninety-eight articles, seventeen
conference papers, three book chapters, two reviews, and one conference review, indicating
a substantial body of research dedicated to this topic.
The abundance of articles and other document types indicates the growing interest
in sustainable supplier selection and the utilization of the MCDM approach in this field.
This approach enables decision makers to assess and evaluate potential suppliers based
on multiple criteria, such as environmental impact, social responsibility, and economic
considerations. By employing a systematic and structured decision-making process, or-
ganizations can make more informed choices when selecting suppliers, considering their
sustainability performance alongside other important factors.
The significant number of publications on sustainable supplier selection using the
MCDM approach underscores the importance of sustainable supply chain management in
contemporary business practices. These findings provide valuable insights for researchers,
practitioners, and policymakers seeking to enhance their understanding of sustainable sup-
plier selection and implement effective strategies to promote sustainable and responsible
supply chain practices.
The research findings clearly indicate a notable rise in the trend of sustainable supplier
selection using the MCDM (multi-criteria decision making) approach since 2019. This
upward trajectory is supported by the growing number of recent publications in reputable
journals and proceedings, highlighting the recognition this research has garnered as a
significant and groundbreaking topic. As depicted in Figure 2, which showcases the
publication trends of sustainable supplier selection through the MCDM approach from
2013 to 2022, the number of articles exhibited a gradual rise over the years. However, it was
in 2019 that a remarkable surge occurred, with the count reaching 22 articles. Subsequently,
in 2020, there was a slight dip to 21 articles, but the following years, 2021 and 2022,
witnessed resurgence, with the number climbing to 36 articles.
This surge in publications signifies the increasing interest and attention researchers
and scholars have devoted to exploring the topic of sustainable supplier selection through
the MCDM approach. The steady growth observed prior to 2019 suggested that the concept
had already gained some traction, but the substantial spike in publications during that
year indicated a turning point, where the research gained significant momentum and
captured the attention of the academic community. The subsequent years’ increase further
solidifies the notion that this approach has become an area of active investigation and that
its importance is recognized by scholars across various disciplines. The upward trend
in publications showcases the commitment of researchers to delve deeper into this field,
fostering a growing body of knowledge and paving the way for further advancements
in sustainable supplier selection practices. One of the most studied topics in the supply
chain literature is the supplier evaluation and selection problem. This is because suppliers
play such an important part in the chain’s long-term viability and profitability. In today’s
competitive business world, it is important for companies to have a structured way to
find and choose the best seller based on their own criteria. This is what organizations
 Logistics 2023, 7, 96 5 of 21

Logistics 2023, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 22

need multi-criteria decision-making methods to carry out, as choosing the right provider is
basically a multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) problem [43–46].

Figure 2. Distribution of supplier publications on sustainable selection through the MCDM approach
Figure 2. Distribution of supplier publications on sustainable selection through the MCDM ap-
from 2013
proach fromto 2013
2022.to 2022.

The leading author in terms of productivity is Wang, C.N [46], whose contributions
This surge in
are remarkable withpublications
a total of 10signifies
articles the increasing
dedicated interest
to this andarea.
research attention
Wang’s researchers
work
and scholars have devoted to exploring the topic of sustainable
reflects a deep commitment to exploring and advancing sustainable selection methods supplier selection through
in
the
the context of suppliers. Through the extensive body of research authored by Wang,the
MCDM approach. The steady growth observed prior to 2019 suggested that it iscon-
cept hadthat
evident already gained
they have some
made traction,strides
significant but theinsubstantial
understanding spike andinimplementing
publications during
the
that
MCDM yearapproach
indicatedfor a turning
sustainablepoint, whereselection
supplier the research gained Wang
[5,18,46–52]. significant momentum
et al. promoted theand
captured the attention
use of a thorough fuzzyof multi-criteria
the academic decision
community. making The(MCDM)
subsequent years’that
method increase further
considers
solidifies the notion that
both environmental this approach
and economic factorshas become
while an area
choosing and ofevaluating
active investigation and that
green suppliers.
The
its suggested method
importance employs
is recognized by ascholars
fuzzy analytic
acrosshierarchy process (AHP)
various disciplines. Thetoupward
calculate the in
trend
significant weights
publications showcasesof criteria in an ambiguous
the commitment setting. Their
of researchers comprehensive
to delve deeper intoexploration
this field, fos-
of thisatopic
tering highlights
growing body their expertise and
of knowledge and demonstrates
paving the way theirfor
dedication to advancing in
further advancements
this field. By focusing on sustainable selection through the MCDM
sustainable supplier selection practices. One of the most studied topics in the supply approach for exam-chain
ple [53–55], Wang’s works not only provide valuable insights into effective
literature is the supplier evaluation and selection problem. This is because suppliers play decision-making
processes but also serve as a foundation for future studies and practical applications in
such an important part in the chain’s long-term viability and profitability. In today’s com-
supplier research. Moreover, Chatterjee was identified as the second productive author
petitive business world, it is important for companies to have a structured way to find and
within the supplier research scope of sustainable selection, employing the MCDM (multi-
choose
criteriathe best seller
decision making) based on their
approach. Hisown criteria.
works, such This is what organizations
as [11,43,56,57], need multi-
have been recognized
criteria decision-making methods to carry
significantly by other authors in the relevant fields. out, as choosing the right provider is basically
a multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) problem [43–46].
Additionally, the third-most contributing authors within the supplier research scope
The leading
of sustainable authoremploying
selection, in terms of theproductivity
MCDM approach, is Wang, are C.N
Dang[46],
et al.whose contributions
Their monumen-
are remarkable
tal works such aswith a total
[58,59], of 10
which articles
were dedicated
published in 2021 to and
this 2022
research area. Wang’s
by MDPI, have been work
reflects
significantly recognized by other authors in the same field. The authors of these studies sug- in
a deep commitment to exploring and advancing sustainable selection methods
gested
the a multi-criteria
context of suppliers. decision
Throughmakingthe (MCDM)
extensivemodelbodyfor of improving the way the
research authored by clothing
Wang, it is
businessthat
evident evaluates and chooses
they have suppliers while
made significant stridestaking sustainability into
in understanding andaccount [5,18,49].the
implementing
MCDM Theapproach
fourth- and forfifth-most
sustainableproductive
supplierauthors
selectionwithin the supplier
[5,18,46–52]. research
Wang et al.considering
promoted the
sustainable multi-criteria decision making are Nguyen
use of a thorough fuzzy multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) method et al. and Pamucar et al, respectively.
that considers
Several
both MCDM studies
environmental andby Nguyen factors
economic et al. focused on renewable
while choosing and energy
evaluating location
green selection
suppliers.
such as solar plant location selection [60], which was published by MDPI. Another study
The suggested method employs a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to calculate the
of theirs discussed sustainable energy source selection for industrial complexes using
significant weights of criteria in an ambiguous setting. Their comprehensive exploration
Fuzzy [61]. Meanwhile, Pamucar et al. proposed several approaches in solving sustainable
of this topic highlights their expertise and demonstrates their dedication to advancing this
field. By focusing on sustainable selection through the MCDM approach for example [53–
55], Wang’s works not only provide valuable insights into effective decision-making pro-
cesses but also serve as a foundation for future studies and practical applications in sup-
plier research. Moreover, Chatterjee was identified as the second productive author within
 Logistics 2023, 7, 96 6 of 21

MCDM problems. For example, the full consistency method (FUCOM) and fuzzy best
worst method (FBWM) were developed in the scope of sustainable location selection [62,63].
In addition, Stevic, Z et. al and Nguyen, N. A. T et al. have made substantial contribu-
tions to the field of supplier selection in the context of sustainable multi-criteria decision
making (MCDM). Their research and publications, such as [64,65], have shed light on the
complex decision-making processes involved in choosing suppliers that align with sustain-
ability goals. Their work not only emphasizes the importance of environmental and social
criteria in supplier selection but also provides valuable methodologies and frameworks
to help organizations make informed choices that not only benefit their bottom line but
also contribute to a more sustainable and responsible business environment. These authors
have played a pivotal role in advancing the understanding of sustainable supplier selection,
making their work an essential reference for professionals and researchers in this field.
Finally, the last three authors of the top ten contributive authors to the field of sustain-
able MCDM are Nguyen, V.T, Puska, A, and Antucheviciene, J. These three authors have
made significant contributions to the field of sustainable multi-criteria decision making
(MCDM) through their innovative research and practical applications. Nguyen, V.T, has
Logistics 2023, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 22
been recognized for developing novel decision support systems that integrate sustainability
criteria into the decision-making process, enabling organizations to make more informed
and environmentally responsible choices [66]. Puska, A, has focused on the application of
MCDM techniques
occupying the top to address on
positions complex sustainability
this list challengesain
have demonstrated various sectors,
consistent ranging
focus on sustain-
from renewable energy to supply chain management [67]. Antucheviciene,
able supplier selection and have played a significant role in shaping the discourse J, has con-sur-
tributed toMCDM
rounding the development
techniquesofindecision models that emphasize stakeholder engagement
this domain.
and the ethical considerations in sustainable
Figure 3 plays a crucial role in shedding decision-making
light on theprocesses [68]. Together
most influential with in
affiliations
the other top authors in this field, their works have paved the way for more sustainable
the context of sustainable supplier selection using multi-criteria decision making (MCDM)
and responsible decision-making practices across different domains.
techniques. By providing a snapshot of these affiliations, it aids researchers in recognizing
Figure 3 presents a comprehensive list of the top 10 active affiliations that have
the primary institutions that have contributed significantly to this particular domain. This
prominently featured articles on sustainable supplier selection using multi-criteria decision
information
making (MCDM) is immensely
methods.valuable,
This figure as serves
it allows
as aresearchers to navigate
valuable resource through the
for researchers andvast
literature
scholars inandthe focus on the keykey
field, providing sources
insightsthat have
into shaped
the most this field.
influential Moreover,inFigure
publications this 3
serves as a testament to the persistent scholarly endeavors aimed at
area. The ranking of these affiliations are determined by the number of papers theytackling sustainability
challenges within
have published, the realm
signifying of supply
their chain and
contribution management.
dedication to advancing knowledge on
sustainable supplier selection through MCDM.

Figure 3.
Figure Journal publications
3. Journal publicationson
onthe
themost
mostactive
activesustainable selection
sustainable through
selection MCDM
through suppliers.
MCDM suppliers.

By examining Figure 3, researchers can gain a deeper understanding of the prominent

The inclusion of this figure demonstrates the continuous dedication of researchers
platforms for disseminating research on this topic. The inclusion of various affiliations’
and academics towards addressing sustainability concerns in supply chain management.
related information allows readers to assess the relevance and impact of each publication.
It highlights the significant attention that the topic of sustainable supplier selection has
garnered within the academic community. By showcasing the influential organization in
this area, Figure 3 underscores the collective efforts to explore and develop effective strat-
egies for integrating sustainability into supplier selection processes. This representation
not only facilitates the dissemination of knowledge but also fosters the collaboration and
Logistics 2023, 7, 96 7 of 21

The ranking system based on the number of papers published serves as a quantitative
measure of an affiliation’s productivity and involvement in the field. Affiliations occupying
the top positions on this list have demonstrated a consistent focus on sustainable supplier
selection and have played a significant role in shaping the discourse surrounding MCDM
techniques in this domain.
Figure 3 plays a crucial role in shedding light on the most influential affiliations in
the context of sustainable supplier selection using multi-criteria decision making (MCDM)
techniques. By providing a snapshot of these affiliations, it aids researchers in recognizing
the primary institutions that have contributed significantly to this particular domain. This
information is immensely valuable, as it allows researchers to navigate through the vast
literature and focus on the key sources that have shaped this field. Moreover, Figure 3
serves as a testament to the persistent scholarly endeavors aimed at tackling sustainability
challenges within the realm of supply chain management.
The inclusion of this figure demonstrates the continuous dedication of researchers
and academics towards addressing sustainability concerns in supply chain management.
It highlights the significant attention that the topic of sustainable supplier selection has
garnered within the academic community. By showcasing the influential organization
in this area, Figure 3 underscores the collective efforts to explore and develop effective
strategies for integrating sustainability into supplier selection processes. This representation
not only facilitates the dissemination of knowledge but also fosters the collaboration and
exchange of ideas among researchers working on similar topics. Ultimately, the presence
of Figure 3 in this research study enhances its credibility and provides a comprehensive
overview of the scholarly landscape related to sustainable supplier selection through
MCDM [69].
Figure 3 also provides an insightful overview of the distribution of affiliation pub-
lications related to sustainable selection suppliers through multi-criteria decision mak-
ing (MCDM). The analysis reveals that a substantial number of research outcomes were
published in journals affiliated with the National Kaohsiung University of Science and
Technology, with a total of 12 publications. This demonstrates the institution’s significant
contribution to advancing the field of sustainable supplier selection. Additionally, Van
Lang University emerges as another prominent contributor, with six publications, further
enriching the existing body of knowledge. The University of East Sarajevo also merits
recognition for their contributions, having published five journal articles in this domain.
However, despite these noteworthy efforts, the figure highlights that there is still a rela-
tively limited number of publications in Scopus-indexed international journals, suggesting
a potential area for further exploration and dissemination of research findings in a broader
academic community.
Figure 4 illustrates the distribution of the top five documents sourced from the most
relevant outlets in the domain of sustainable supplier selection through MCDM. Among
the ten publications spanning from 2014 to 2022 present in the Scopus database, the
Sustainability journal from Switzerland ranks highest. Additionally, the Sustainability journal
consistently published the most articles in this field each year during the research period
compared to other journals. The second most prominent journal outlet for publishing on
sustainable supplier selection through MCDM is the Processes journal, with six documents.
It is noteworthy that both of the top two journals, Sustainability and Processes, are affiliated
with the same publisher, MDPI. Furthermore, the Computers and Industrial Engineering
journal and the Journal of Cleaner Production each contributed five published articles in
this particular area of study. In contrast, the journal of Computers, Materials, and Continua
showed comparatively lower author interest in publishing papers related to sustainable
supplier selection using the MCDM approach, with only three documents.
 It is noteworthy that both of the top two journals, Sustainability and Processes, are affiliated
with the same publisher, MDPI. Furthermore, the Computers and Industrial Engineering
journal and the Journal of Cleaner Production each contributed five published articles in this
particular area of study. In contrast, the journal of Computers, Materials, and Continua
Logistics 2023, 7, 96 showed comparatively lower author interest in publishing papers related to sustainable8 of 21
supplier selection using the MCDM approach, with only three documents.

Figure 4.
Figure Comparison of
4. Comparison ofthe
thenumber
numberofofdocuments
documentsperper
year in journals.
year in journals.
Figure 5 show results of MCDM approaches in sustainable supplier selection. Re-
Figure
searchers 5 showprefer
primarily results
theofTOPSIS
MCDM approaches
(techniques in sustainable
for Order Preferencesupplier selection.
by Similarity to an Re-
searchers
Ideal Solution) method when it comes to choosing sustainable suppliers, with 33 articles em- to
primarily prefer the TOPSIS (techniques for Order Preference by Similarity
an Idealthis
ploying Solution) method
approach. when
Notably, it comes
studies to choosing
like those by Chensustainable suppliers,
et al. [70] and Memari et with 33 arti-
al. [71]
cles employing
applied the TOPSISthisapproach
approach. forNotably,
selectingstudies like those
sustainable by Chen
suppliers in the et al. [70] andsector.
construction Memari
et al. [71] applied
Following TOPSIS, thethe
TOPSIS approach
next most for selecting
commonly utilizedsustainable
methods insuppliers
the MCDM in the construc-
field for
tion sector. supplier
sustainable Following TOPSIS,
selection werethethenext
AHP most commonly
(analytical utilized
hierarchy methods
process), within 17the MCDM
articles,
and SCOR
field (supply chain
for sustainable operation)
supplier metrics,
selection were with 14 articles.
the AHP Several
(analytical papers,process),
hierarchy includingwith
Wang’s
17 work
articles, andin SCOR
2018 [51], utilized
(supply these
chain two methods
operation) for choosing
metrics, oil suppliers
with 14 articles. andpapers,
Several de-
termining Wang’s
including the foodwork
processing
in 2018industry. Moreover,
[51], utilized thesethe GRA
two (grey relational
methods analysis)
for choosing and
oil suppliers
OPAdetermining
and (ordinal priority
the approach) approaches
food processing were uncovered
industry. Moreover,tothe be GRA
the next tworelational
(grey approachesanal-
that have been most widely applied in the field of selecting sustainable
ysis) and OPA (ordinal priority approach) approaches were uncovered to be the suppliers through
next two
MCDM, which were ten and nine papers, respectively. Research that uses these two ap-
approaches that have been most widely applied in the field of selecting sustainable9sup-
Logistics 2023, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW of 22
proaches mostly discusses supplier selection in the automotive [72] and the metal and steel
pliers through MCDM, which were ten and nine papers, respectively. Research that uses
industries [73].
these two approaches mostly discusses supplier selection in the automotive [72] and the
metal and steel industries [73].

Figure5.5.MCDM
Figure MCDMapproaches
approachesinin sustainable
sustainable supplier
supplier selection.
selection.

Figure 6 provides an insightful correlation analysis of keywords in sustainable sup-

plier selection through multi-criteria decision making (MCDM). The examination of key-
word relationships serves to unravel the underlying knowledge components and struc-
tural aspects within the realm of scientific domains by establishing connections among
Logistics 2023, 7, 96 Figure 5. MCDM approaches in sustainable supplier selection. 9 of 21

Figure 6 provides an insightful correlation analysis of keywords in sustainable sup-

plierFigure
selection through
6 provides anmulti-criteria decision
insightful correlation making
analysis (MCDM).inThe
of keywords examination
sustainable of key-
supplier
word relationships
selection serves to unravel
through multi-criteria decisionthe underlying
making (MCDM). knowledge components
The examination and struc-
of keyword
tural aspects serves
relationships withintothe realm the
unravel of scientific
underlying domains by establishing
knowledge componentsconnections among
and structural
aspects within
keywords the in
found realm of scientific
related articlesdomains
[74]. Thebymost
establishing connections
frequently among
encountered keywords
keyword in this
found in related articles [74]. The most frequently encountered keyword in
analysis was “decision making,” which appeared a remarkable 65 times. Following closely this analysis
was
was “decision
the keyword making”, which appeared
“sustainable a remarkable
development,” which65 times. Following
surfaced closelynotable
52 times. Other was thekey-
keyword
words “sustainable
that exhibiteddevelopment”,
co-occurrencewhich surfaced
patterns 52 times.
include Otherselection,”
“supplier notable keywords
“supplythat
chain
exhibited co-occurrence patterns include “supplier selection”, “supply chain
management,” and “multi-criteria decision making.” The visualization offered in Figure management”,
6and “multi-criteria decision making”. The visualization offered in Figure 6 highlights circles
highlights circles that are relatively smaller in size and located farther away from the
that are relatively smaller in size and located farther away from the largest circles, indicating
largest circles, indicating potential avenues for in-depth research regarding the scope of
potential avenues for in-depth research regarding the scope of sustainable supplier selection
sustainable supplier selection through MCDM.
through MCDM.

Figure
Figure 6.6. Visualization
Visualization of co-occurrence relationswith
co-occurrence relations withsupplier
supplierkeywords
keywordsrelated
relatedtotosustainable
sustainable se-
lection
selectionthrough
throughMCDM.
MCDM.

The prominence of the “decision making” keyword underscores its critical role in the
context of sustainable supplier selection. This suggests that decision-making processes
are of significant concern in the evaluation and choice of sustainable suppliers. The
frequency of the keyword “sustainable development” reflects the growing emphasis on
integrating sustainability principles into supplier selection practices. The co-occurring
keywords, such as “supplier selection”, “supply chain management”, and “multi-criteria
decision making”, further emphasize the interconnectedness of these concepts within this
field. The presence of smaller circles, positioned distantly from the larger circles in the
visualization, indicates potential research gaps and unexplored areas. These areas represent
opportunities for researchers to delve deeper into understanding and expanding the scope
of sustainable supplier selection through MCDM, thereby enriching the existing knowledge
in the field and driving future advancements. The variables that are calculated include
the chosen suppliers, the amount of inventory and shortage, the ordered number, and
more. Sensitivity research also shows what happens when there are disruption risks and
discounts for large orders. The results show that the proposed method works well [2,3,75].
In these visualizations, colors typically represent different clusters or groups of keyword
items that are related to each other more closely than to those in other clusters. Each cluster
may correspond to a particular theme or topic within the research landscape. For example,
in a keyword co-occurrence analysis: Blue cluster represent keywords related to a specific
 Logistics 2023, 7, 96 10 of 21

aspect of decision making, such as ‘multi-criteria decision-making’ or ‘supplier selection’.

Purple cluster represent keywords related to a certain methodological approach, like ‘fuzzy
theory’ or ‘analytic hierarchy process’. Yellow cluster indicate a focus on application
areas or industries, such as the ‘automotive industry’ or ‘garment industry’. The red
cluster is focusing on the application of decision-making processes and criteria within
the context of supply chain management, with a particular emphasis on environmental
aspects and supplier selection. The green color cluster includes terms that are related
to a different thematic focus. These terms are associated with multi-criteria decision-
making methods, specifically referencing the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), which is a
structured technique for organizing and analyzing complex decisions.
Figure 7 shows the cluster network analysis and keywords. The first cluster focuses
on sustainable supplier selection, sustainable supply chain management, multi-criteria
decision making, and frameworks. Sustainable supply chain management research by the
authors of [76] discussed interesting findings with social implications: improved supply
chain quality management (SCQM) aligned with digital supplier selection (DSS) will
offer sustainable quality products and provide social and economic benefits for society.
Furthermore, research on sustainable supplier selection by the authors of [77] discussed
the fact that the selection of sustainable suppliers is a complicated multi-criteria decision-
making problem, including several criteria from economic, environmental, and social
perspectives. Moreover, the proposed model can not only be used for selecting sustainable
suppliers but also for other decision problems that have multiple criteria and alternatives.
Currently, proficient practice is required to stimulate along various supply chain (SC)
boundaries to exploit manufacturing resources economically, effectively, and gracefully to
maintain operational excellence. The research findings explain “Internal communication
Logistics 2023, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW agility”, “Exchange to personnel resources”, “Manufacturing flexibility”, “online solution
11 of 22
level”, “Speed of resource upgrading”, “Ability to manage demand and supply changes”,
and “Overstocking”.

Figure 7. Cluster and keyword network analysis.

Figure 7. Cluster and keyword network analysis.
The second cluster focuses on environmental aspects, best suppliers, and countries.
The secondaspects
Environmental clusterwere
focuses on environmental
investigated aspects,
by the authors best
of [78], suppliers,
with andshowing
their results countries.
Environmental aspects
that the proposed modelwere
can investigated
not only findby
thethe authors
most of [78],
suitable with their
sustainable results
suppliers showing
but also
that
thatthe proposedcan
companies model
assistcan notsuppliers
their only findinthe most suitable
increasing sustainable
sustainability usingsuppliers but also
the proposed
that companies
method and cancan assistsocial–environmental
improve their suppliers in increasing
performancesustainability using
in enterprises, whichtheis proposed
the key
method and can
to achieving improvedevelopment.
sustainable social–environmental performance
Furthermore, in enterprises,
the best supplier selectionwhich is the
practices
key to achieving sustainable development. Furthermore, the best supplier selection prac-
tices have been developed by several researchers by considering case studies or data col-
lection in an industry. For example, in a study by [79], empirical data for this research
proposed the use of a sorting method, AHPSort II, under a fuzzy environment with inter-
Logistics 2023, 7, 96 11 of 21

have been developed by several researchers by considering case studies or data collection
in an industry. For example, in a study by [79], empirical data for this research proposed
the use of a sorting method, AHPSort II, under a fuzzy environment with interval type-2
fuzzy sets (IT2FSs) and a new way of selecting representative points to conclude supplier
priorities that will improve the management of classes that are not clear [80,81].
Lastly, the third cluster focuses on supplier evaluation by [82–84], which found that
effective supplier management is critical to company success since supplier procurement
accounts for around 70% to 80% of total production costs. First, a variable precision-
dominance-based rough set approach (VC-DRSA) was applied to extract the core criteria to
defactor noise and to generate decision rules for reference of decision makers. Second, the
criteria of importance through the correlation approach between criteria (CRITIC) were
adopted to obtain the dependency weight of the core criteria and their ranking.
Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) approaches are highly valuable instruments
for facilitating decision-making processes across several domains. Moreover, the process of
identifying a viable solution in light of several considerations is undeniably a challenging
and arduous undertaking [33,57,79,85,86]. The matter of sustainability within the supply
chain has emerged as a prominent concern that is currently garnering substantial atten-
tion. Within the medical sector, there exists a notable disparity in the emphasis placed on
sustainability between public and private medical organizations. Public medical organi-
zations tend to prioritize sustainability efforts, while private medical organizations tend
to prioritize revenue generation. This study aimed to illustrate the process by which a
private medical organization employs multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methodolo-
gies to effectively and sustainably pick suppliers [87,88]. Research, in the future, should
center on perfecting methods and structures for carrying out specific corporate sustainable
projects [1,89].
Through a bibliometric analysis, this paper provides a comprehensive overview of
multi-criteria methods, allowing academics to better understand the existing landscape and
expected growth trends of multi-criteria decision-making methods. Indicative of future
performance, by highlighting the need to study the origins and spread of certain methods
and their variants, broaden studies in the selected nations, and explore their scientific
output on the topic under investigation, and use what you learn, topic modeling helps
unearth hidden patterns in the studied database and standardize practice differences and
how they connect to other fields of study [69,70,73,90]. In reality, there is a limited number
of studies that have examined the potential prerequisites for employing specific multi-
criteria decision making (MCDM) methodologies, such as independence [14], the limitation
of qualities, both in terms of quantity and size, and the examination of characteristics, as
well as the transformation of qualitative characteristics [22]. Secondly, a limited number of
scholars in the field of construction have identified two specific difficulties regarding the
application of multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methodologies in the construction
industry [4,71].
One of the fundamental objectives in multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) mod-
eling is the exploration of novel and coherent methodologies for assigning weights to
decision elements, also known as attributes [3,91,92]. Numerous multi-criteria decision
making (MCDM) techniques have been suggested for the purpose of sustainable supplier
selection. However, in certain instances, it proves more advantageous to categorize suppli-
ers into distinct groups that effectively demonstrate their performance [22,91]. Numerous
multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) techniques have been employed in prior research
to facilitate the identification and selection of the most suitable provider [93].

3.1. Theoretical Contributions

The theoretical contributions of this study extend beyond the mere documentation of
trends in sustainable supplier selection through multi-criteria decision making (MCDM).
By meticulously analyzing 121 scientific publications over the period from 2013 to 2022, this
study offers a comprehensive understanding of how this field has evolved and matured
Logistics 2023, 7, 96 12 of 21

over the years. The spotlight on the substantial growth in 2019 highlights a pivotal moment
in the advancement of sustainable supplier selection research. Moreover, the breakdown
of publication types underscores the dissemination strategies employed by researchers,
shedding light on the platforms where knowledge exchange is most active. However, the
true theoretical value of this study lies in its identification of the primary focus of these
publications, namely the decision-making processes underpinning sustainable supplier
selection. The study pinpointing this central theme acts as a compass for future scholars,
guiding them towards the most pressing questions and areas of exploration within this
domain. Consequently, the implications drawn from this research, when combined with
the latest advancements in the field, provide a robust foundation for further theoretical
and empirical inquiry. This study’s contributions ripple through the academic community,
encouraging deeper investigations and fostering the development of innovative approaches
to sustainability supplier selection through MCDM.
This study contributes by providing a historical perspective on the evolution of sustain-
able supplier selection research from 2013 to 2022. This temporal analysis can be valuable
for understanding how trends and priorities in supplier sustainability have shifted over
the years, potentially revealing important contextual factors. By examining the changes
in the research landscape over this decade, we gained insights into the dynamic nature of
sustainable supplier selection, which is crucial for practitioners and policy makers seek-
ing to make informed decisions in the ever-evolving sustainability landscape [2,94,95].
This examination not only allows us to appreciate the shifting paradigms and emerging
trends but also equips us with the knowledge necessary to adapt and make informed
decisions in this rapidly changing arena. The significance of understanding the evolving
research landscape in sustainable supplier selection cannot be overstated. Sustainability
has transcended its status as a buzzword and has become a foundational pillar in the global
business agenda [75,96]. As environmental, social, and ethical concerns continue to take
center stage, organizations are under increasing pressure to select suppliers who align
with these principles. This transition towards more sustainable practices has profound
implications for supply chain management.
Drawing insights from the past decade’s research trends, we uncovered a multifaceted
narrative. We witnessed the maturation of sustainability criteria, as they expand beyond
mere compliance to encompass a broader spectrum of environmental and social dimensions.
Innovations in technology, such as blockchain and AI, have also played a pivotal role in
enhancing supplier selection processes by providing greater transparency and traceabil-
ity [97]. Furthermore, global events like the COVID-19 pandemic have highlighted the
importance of supply chain resilience and the need to integrate sustainability into risk
management strategies [98]. In addition, the historical perspective offered in this study
aligns seamlessly with recent calls from scholars and industry experts for more longitudinal
and context-sensitive research in the field of supply chain management. This alignment
is particularly significant, as it reinforces the need to move beyond static, one-size-fits-all
solutions in sustainable supplier selection [99]. Instead, we should consider the evolving
nature of sustainability challenges across diverse industries and regions, acknowledging
that what works today may not be effective tomorrow [100,101].
The selection of sustainable suppliers is becoming increasingly important for compa-
nies in developing a sustainable and responsible supply chain. From the perspective of
multi-sectoral issues, sustainable supplier selection practice should consider various factors,
such as quality, price, environmental sustainability, compliance with ethical standards, and
customer relationships [102]. Regarding customer relationships, the multi-criteria decision
making (MCDM) approach with customer relationship management (CRM) is one way
that companies can use to make the right decisions in selecting sustainable suppliers [103].
In the context of sustainable supplier selection, CRM also plays an important role [104].
CRM involves managing customer relationships, which include analyzing customer data,
managing customer interactions, and understanding customer needs. In selecting sustain-
able suppliers, CRM can be used to identify customer preferences and needs related to
Logistics 2023, 7, 96 13 of 21

sustainability aspects. This information can then be used in the MCDM process to select
the supplier that best suits customer preferences and needs [20].
The MCDM approach with CRM provides the following benefits in the selection of
sustainable suppliers:
• Data-driven decision making: This approach allows companies to collect data and
information related to the relevant criteria in supplier selection. This helps compa-
nies make decisions that are supported by objective data [52,105]. The data-driven
decision-making approach empowers companies to harness the power of informa-
tion and insights when it comes to selecting their suppliers. By diligently collecting
and analyzing data pertinent to the criteria deemed crucial in supplier evaluation,
organizations can steer their decision-making processes towards more informed and
objective outcomes. Additionally, a data-driven approach enhances risk management
in supplier selection. Companies can use the data to evaluate their financial stability,
compliance with regulations, and geographical diversification of their suppliers. This
information helps in identifying potential risks and developing mitigation strategies
to ensure a more resilient supply chain [106].
• Environmentally and socially sustainable: Taking sustainability criteria into account,
companies can select suppliers that adhere to environmentally and socially responsible
business practices. This helps companies to build a reputation for sustainability and
minimize negative impacts on the environment and society [107]. Incorporating
sustainability criteria into supplier selection processes is a crucial move for companies.
It promotes responsible business practices, encourages an environmentally and socially
conscious global marketplace, and ensures the quality of products and services. By
choosing sustainable suppliers, businesses not only enhance their own reputation
but also align with the growing global concern for ecological and social well-being.
Responsible sourcing minimizes negative impacts on the environment and society,
fulfilling corporate social responsibilities and showing commitment to a sustainable
future [108]. This sets an example for the industry and inspires positive change
throughout the supply chain, ultimately fostering a more harmonious and responsible
global economy.
• Improved customer relationships: The symbiotic relationship between supplier selec-
tion and customer satisfaction becomes increasingly evident as businesses tailor their
procurement processes. In the context of continuous supplier selection, companies
that understand customer preferences can adapt their supplier selection to customer
needs. This helps increase customer satisfaction and build stronger long-term rela-
tionships [109]. In the dynamic landscape of continuous supplier selection, businesses
that possess a keen insight into customer preferences are empowered to finely tune
their supplier selection strategies in direct alignment with the evolving demands
and desires of their clientele. This strategic alignment serves as a powerful catalyst,
propelling organizations towards enhanced customer satisfaction and fostering robust,
enduring relationships.
Several studies have proposed a decision-making approach that combines the fuzzy
analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) with the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to
Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) approach for sustainable supplier selection. The results showed
that this approach can assist companies in selecting suppliers that meet sustainability
requirements [110,111]. Another study integrated the analytic network process (ANP) and
TOPSIS to select sustainable suppliers by considering various sustainability criteria. This
research also considered the relationship with suppliers through the implementation of
CRM to improve supply chain sustainability [111,112]. In addition, there are other studies
on decision-making approaches that integrate fuzzy AHP, fuzzy TOPSIS, and fuzzy VlseKri-
terijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR) to select sustainable suppliers by
considering CRM. The results showed that this approach can assist companies in selecting
sustainable suppliers by considering customer needs and supplier relationships [112–114].
By combining MCDM and CRM approaches, companies can make more informed and
Logistics 2023, 7, 96 14 of 21

sustainable decisions in supplier selection. This approach helps companies consider various
important factors, such as sustainability, quality, price, and customer preferences, thus
improving the overall supply chain performance [15,115].

3.2. Managerial Implication

The findings of a literature review are crucial for informing managerial implications in
several ways. Firstly, they provide a comprehensive understanding of the existing body of
knowledge on a particular subject, enabling managers to make informed decisions based on
the collective wisdom of experts and scholars. Secondly, a well-conducted literature review
can reveal gaps in the current research, helping managers identify areas where further
investigation or innovation is needed to gain a competitive edge. Tranfield, Denyer, and
Smart [116] believed that the findings of their systematic literature review can offer insights
into the best practices, successful strategies, and potential pitfalls, allowing managers to
adopt proven approaches and avoid costly mistakes. To achieve the goal of sustainable
growth, it is important to think about and pick the right supplier. A new multi-criteria
decision making (MCDM) method called spherical fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (SF-
AHP) and the combinative distance-based assessment (CODAS) can be used to solve the
problem of choosing a provider [33,90,114].
The findings of this study have significant managerial implications for organizations
aiming to enhance their sustainability supplier selection processes. Firstly, the awareness
of the substantial growth in sustainable supplier selection research in 2019 serves as a
critical milestone for managers. This indicates that sustainable sourcing practices gained
heightened attention around this time, and that companies should consider re-evaluating
their supplier selection strategies to align with emerging sustainability trends. Zhu and
Sarkis [117] believed that sustainable sourcing practices gained heightened attention in
recent years due to several factors. One key factor is the increasing awareness of environ-
mental and social issues among consumers and stakeholders. Additionally, as consumers
become more conscious of the environmental and social impacts of the products they
purchase, companies are under pressure to adopt sustainable sourcing practices to meet
this demand [118]. Secondly, the insight into the primary focus of the publications, which
is the decision-making processes in sustainable supplier selection, highlights the need for
managers to prioritize decision-making models and frameworks in their supplier selection
procedures. Investing in these approaches can not only improve environmental and so-
cial impacts but also enhance the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the procurement
process. Mahmoudi, Deng [119] and Shah, Chaudhari, and Jani [120] argued that sustain-
able supplier selection can enhance risk management. Business owners or managers can
identify potential vulnerabilities in their supply chains by considering environmental and
social risks during supplier assessments. This proactive approach can help them prevent
disruptions due to factors like regulatory changes or climate-related events, ultimately
increasing procurement efficiency.
From a government perspective, the findings of this study offer valuable insights into
how organizations can improve their sustainability supplier selection processes. Govern-
ment agencies can play a role in encouraging and supporting these improvements. For
example, governments can promote sustainable sourcing practices by creating awareness
campaigns, providing incentives, or even implementing regulations that encourage busi-
nesses to consider sustainability in their supplier selection processes. This could include
tax incentives for environmentally friendly sourcing or certification programs. Incentives
offered by governments play a crucial role in encouraging businesses to consider sustain-
ability in their supplier selection processes. According to a report by a study written by
Khan and Qianli [121], businesses were more likely to adopt sustainable sourcing practices
when offered tax incentives. Another study by Giunipero, Hooker [122] indicated that tax
incentives for environmentally friendly sourcing could be an effective way for governments
to drive sustainable sourcing practices, thereby reducing environmental impact. The find-
ings of this study also indicated that environmental considerations become the main key
Logistics 2023, 7, 96 15 of 21

when applying sustainable supplier selection. Therefore, involved stakeholders, such as

government agencies, can provide assistance and resources to help small business sectors
adopt sustainable supplier selection practices, as they may lack the resources and expertise
of larger organizations. Maheshwari, Samal [123] believed that in the context of sustainable
supplier selection, small businesses often struggle due to resource constraints. Therefore, it
is pertinent to cite research that underscores the vital role played by government agencies
in aiding small businesses with the necessary resources and expertise.
From the perspective of suppliers, the findings of this study lead several manage-
rial recommendations for suppliers in the context of sustainable supplier selection using
multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) techniques. Firstly, suppliers should actively stay
informed about emerging trends in supply chain management, especially in the area of
sustainable supplier selection. This article highlighted a significant increase in research on
this topic from 2019 to 2022. Being aware of these trends can help suppliers adapt their
practices accordingly. Understanding and staying current with these trends can provide
suppliers with a significant advantage. It enables them to adapt their practices in line with
the latest developments, ultimately fostering stronger and more resilient supply chain rela-
tionships. Moreover, by embracing sustainable supplier selection practices, suppliers can
align themselves with the growing environmental and social consciousness of consumers
and stakeholders, which is a critical factor in today’s business landscape [124]. Secondly,
decision making is a central focus in sustainable supplier selection through MCDM. Sup-
pliers should invest in robust decision-making processes that take into account various
criteria, such as environmental impact, cost-effectiveness, and social responsibility. This
will position them as attractive choices for buyers who prioritize sustainability. Decision-
making processes play a pivotal role in the context of sustainable supplier selection through
multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods [124,125]. In this regard, suppliers are
encouraged to allocate resources towards developing robust decision-making frameworks
that encompass a comprehensive range of criteria. These criteria encompass elements like
environmental impact, cost-effectiveness, and social responsibility [126]. By adopting such
an approach, suppliers can position themselves as highly appealing options for environ-
mentally conscious buyers who give precedence to sustainability in their procurement
strategies. Finally, suppliers should make efforts to provide clear and comprehensive
information about their sustainability practices, certifications, and performance metrics.
This transparency can build trust with potential buyers [97,127]. Suppliers should view
transparency regarding sustainability practices, certifications, and performance metrics as a
strategic imperative. Not only does it align with the ethical and environmental concerns of
today’s consumers, but it also establishes trust with potential buyers, ultimately leading to
enhanced competitiveness and sustained business success. Moreover, research has shown
that transparency about sustainability practices positively influences buyer–supplier rela-
tionships. When suppliers openly share information about their sustainability initiatives
and performance metrics, it fosters a sense of trust and reliability among potential buyers.
This trust is invaluable in an era where corporate social responsibility and ethical sourcing
are key considerations for procurement professionals [128–131].

4. Conclusions
This article sheds light on the emerging trends in supply chain management, particu-
larly regarding the sustainable selection of suppliers using multi-criteria decision making
(MCDM) techniques. The authors conducted an extensive analysis of data obtained from
the Scopus database, employing the bibliometric method to derive valuable insights. The
findings of this study are two-fold. Firstly, the research on sustainable supplier selection
through MCDM has experienced a substantial growth trajectory from 2019 to 2022, indicat-
ing a heightened interest in this field. Secondly, the research outcomes have predominantly
been disseminated through articles, signifying the importance of scholarly publications in
advancing knowledge in this domain.
Logistics 2023, 7, 96 16 of 21

This study also revealed the dominant focus and keywords used within the literature.
Decision making emerges as the primary purpose of research in sustainable supplier selec-
tion through MCDM. Furthermore, the most frequently encountered research keywords
encompass sustainable development, supplier selection, supply chain management, and
multi-criteria decision making. The findings of this research underscore the significance
of global collaboration in the domain of sustainable supplier selection through MCDM.
This study demonstrates that a substantial portion of the research output is driven by
international partnerships, reflecting a growing awareness of the global interconnected-
ness of supply chain management and sustainability concerns. It further highlights the
need for cross-border cooperation to address the multifaceted challenges associated with
supplier sustainability.
Finally, there is a growing body of research proposing decision-making approaches
that combine various methodologies, such as fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP),
Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), and analytic net-
work process (ANP), with CRM for sustainable supplier selection. These approaches can
be further refined, and their effectiveness in considering various factors like sustainability,
quality, price, and customer preferences can be explored in greater depth, ultimately lead-
ing to improved overall supply chain performance. Additionally, the results of this study
indicated that it is crucial to acknowledge certain limitations in this investigation. Solely
relying on the Scopus database may result in the exclusion of pertinent articles related
to sustainable supplier selection through MCDM. To enhance the comprehensiveness of
future analyses, the authors recommend incorporating additional sources, such as the
Web of Science or other relevant databases. The outcomes of this research hold practical
implications for research institutions and scholars in Indonesia, assisting them in formu-
lating research plans that align with international standards and contribute to sustainable
selection practices through MCDM in the supplier domain.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, K.K. and I.M.; methodology, K.K.; software, D.P.R.; vali-
dation, F.Z., A.H. and I.M.; formal analysis, K.K.; investigation, I.M.; resources, D.P.R.; data curation,
K.K.; writing—original draft preparation, I.M. and F.Z.; writing—review and editing, K.K. and A.H.;
supervision, I.M. and D.P.R.; project administration, A.H.; funding acquisition, F.Z. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within the article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Çalik, A. A comparative perspective in sustainable supplier selection by integrated mcdm techniques. Sigma J. Eng. Nat. Sci. 2020,
38, 835–852.
2. Dang, T.T.; Nguyen, N.A.T.; Nguyen, V.T.T.; Dang, L.T.H. A Two-Stage Multi-Criteria Supplier Selection Model for Sustainable
Automotive Supply Chain under Uncertainty. Axioms 2022, 11, 228. [CrossRef]
3. Cheraghalipour, A.; Farsad, S. A bi-objective sustainable supplier selection and order allocation considering quantity discounts
under disruption risks: A case study in plastic industry. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2018, 118, 237–250. [CrossRef]
4. Nazari, A.; Vandadian, S.; Abdirad, H. Fuzzy AHP model for prequalification of engineering consultants in the Iranian public
procurement system. J. Manag. Eng. 2017, 33, 04016042. [CrossRef]
5. Wang, C.N.; Nguyen, T.L.; Dang, T.T. Two-Stage Fuzzy MCDM for Green Supplier Selection in Steel Industry. Intell. Autom. Soft
Comput. 2022, 33, 1245–1260. [CrossRef]
6. Jahanbakhsh Javid, N.; Amini, M. Evaluating the effect of supply chain management practice on implementation of halal
agroindustry and competitive advantage for small and medium enterprises. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Inf. Technol. 2023, 15, 8997–9008.
7. Cahyono, Y.; Purwoko, D.; Koho, I.; Setiani, A.; Supendi, S.; Setyoko, P.; Sosiady, M.; Wijoyo, H. The role of supply chain
management practices on competitive advantage and performance of halal agroindustry SMEs. Uncertain Supply Chain Manag.
2023, 11, 153–160. [CrossRef]
Logistics 2023, 7, 96 17 of 21

8. Mahendra, G.S.; Wardoyo, R.; Pasrun, Y.P.; Sudipa, I.G.I.; Putra, I.N.T.A.; Wiguna, I.K.A.G.; Aristamy, I.G.A.A.M.; Kharisma,
L.P.I.; Sutoyo, M.N.; Sarasvananda, I.B.G. Implementasi Sistem Pendukung Keputusan: Teori & Studi Kasus; PT. Sonpedia Publishing
Indonesia: Jambi, Indonesia, 2023.
9. El Mariouli, O.; Abouabdellah, A. A new model of supplier’s selection for sustainable supply chain management. Adv. Sci.
Technol. Eng. Syst. 2019, 4, 251–259. [CrossRef]
10. Purnomo, M.R.A. Pendekatan Komprehensif Berbasis MCDM untuk Evaluasi Kinerja Pemasok. 2020. Available online: https:
//dspace.uii.ac.id/123456789/31155 (accessed on 30 June 2023).
11. Yazdani, M.; Chatterjee, P.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Hashemkhani Zolfani, S. Integrated QFD-MCDM framework for green supplier
selection. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 3728–3740. [CrossRef]
12. Venkatesh, V.; Zhang, A.; Deakins, E.; Luthra, S.; Mangla, S. A fuzzy ahp-topsis approach to supply partner selection in continuous
aid humanitarian supply chains. Ann. Oper. Res. 2019, 283, 1517–1550. [CrossRef]
13. Fauzi, F.Z.-Z. Pemilihan Supplier Daging Sapi Pada Masa Pandemi COVID-19 Menggunakan Metode Analytical Networking
Process (Studi Kasus Rumah Makan Pasti Murah Kota Cirebon). 2021. Available online: https://dspace.uii.ac.id/handle/123456
789/31708 (accessed on 30 June 2023).
14. Zhu, X.; Meng, X.; Zhang, M. Application of multiple criteria decision making methods in construction: A systematic literature
review. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2021, 27, 372–403. [CrossRef]
15. Gegovska, T.; Koker, R.; Cakar, T. Green Supplier Selection Using Fuzzy Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Methods and Artificial
Neural Networks. Comput. Intell. Neurosci. 2020, 2020, 8811834. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Nisa, A.A.K.; Subiyanto, S.; Sukamta, S. Penggunaan Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) Untuk Pemilihan Supplier Bahan Baku.
JSINBIS (J. Sist. Inf. Bisnis) 2019, 9, 86–93. [CrossRef]
17. Zhang, L.; Xie, Y.; Zheng, Y.; Xue, W.; Zheng, X.; Xu, X. The challenges and countermeasures of blockchain in finance and
economics. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 2020, 37, 691–698. [CrossRef]
18. Wang, C.N.; Yang, C.Y.; Cheng, H.C. A fuzzy multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) model for sustainable supplier evaluation
and selection based on triple bottom line approaches in the garment industry. Processes 2019, 7, 400. [CrossRef]
19. Liu, A.; Xiao, Y.; Lu, H.; Tsai, S.B.; Song, W. A fuzzy three-stage multi-attribute decision-making approach based on customer
needs for sustainable supplier selection. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 239, 118043. [CrossRef]
20. Liu, C.; Rani, P.; Pachori, K. Sustainable circular supplier selection and evaluation in the manufacturing sector using Pythagorean
fuzzy EDAS approach. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2022, 35, 1040–1066. [CrossRef]
21. Liu, H.C.; Quan, M.Y.; Li, Z.; Wang, Z.L. A new integrated MCDM model for sustainable supplier selection under interval-valued
intuitionistic uncertain linguistic environment. Inf. Sci. 2019, 486, 254–270. [CrossRef]
22. Ho, W.; Xu, X.; Dey, P.K. Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review. Eur.
J. Oper. Res. 2010, 202, 16–24. [CrossRef]
23. Liu, J.; Yin, Y. An integrated method for sustainable energy storing node optimization selection in China. Energy Convers. Manag.
2019, 199, 112049. [CrossRef]
24. Liu, N.; Ye, Z. Empirical research on the blockchain adoption–based on TAM. Appl. Econ. 2021, 53, 4263–4275. [CrossRef]
25. Zakeri, S.; Yang, Y.; Konstantas, D. A Supplier Selection Model Using Alternative Ranking Process by Alternatives’ Stability
Scores and the Grey Equilibrium Product. Processes 2022, 10, 917. [CrossRef]
26. Wiwoho, F.A. Pemilihan Supplier Menggunakan Metode Analytic Network Process (ANP) DI PT. HARVITA TISI MULIA Semarang;
Udinus: Kota Semarang, Indonesia, 2012.
27. Tayyar, S.H.; Soltani, R. Supplier Selection through a Hybrid MCDM-QFD Method: A Case Study in Mapna Group. In Proceedings
of the 7th international Conference on Logistics and Supply Chain Management (LSCM 2020), Tehran, Iran, 23–24 December
2020; Communications in Computer and Information Science 2021.
28. Viterouli, M.; Belias, D.; Koustelios, A.; Tsigilis, N.; Bakogiannis, D. Fostering Sustainability Through the Integration of Green
Human Resource Management and Change Management: Nurturing Eco-Conscious Organizational Practices. In Managing
Successful and Ethical Organizational Change; Belias, D., Rossidis, I., Papademetriou, C., Masouras, A., Anastasiadou, S., Eds.; IGI
Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2023; pp. 241–278.
29. Agrawal, V.; Mohanty, R.P.; Agarwal, S.; Dixit, J.K.; Agrawal, A.M. Analyzing critical success factors for sustainable green supply
chain management. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2023, 25, 8233–8258. [CrossRef]
30. Cinnirella, V.; Carpitella, S.; Coco, A.; Frangiamore, D.D.M.; de Geronimo, R.P. Sustainable Suppliers Evaluation in the Waste
Management Sector: The Case of a Leading Sicilian Enterprise; Ilieva, S., Ed.; IFAC-PapersOnLine; Elsevier B.V.: Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, 2022; pp. 66–71.
31. Durmić, E.; Stević, Ž.; Chatterjee, P.; Vasiljević, M.; Tomašević, M. Sustainable supplier selection using combined FUCOM—Rough
SAW model. Rep. Mech. Eng. 2020, 1, 34–43. [CrossRef]
32. Banaeian, N.; Mobli, H.; Fahimnia, B.; Nielsen, I.E.; Omid, M. Green supplier selection using fuzzy group decision making
methods: A case study from the agri-food industry. Comput. Oper. Res. 2018, 89, 337–347. [CrossRef]
33. Büyükselçuk, E.Ç.; Tozan, H.; Vayvay, Ö. A multi-criteria decision-making approach for greenovative supplier selection. Int. J.
Ind. Eng. Theory Appl. Pract. 2022, 29, 283–301.
34. Başaran, B.; Çakir, S. Evaluation of food safety and halal criteria in supplier selection: An application in food sector with fuzzy
COPRAS method. Int. Food Res. J. 2021, 28, 576–585. [CrossRef]
Logistics 2023, 7, 96 18 of 21

35. Stević, Ž.; Pamučar, D.; Puška, A.; Chatterjee, P. Sustainable supplier selection in healthcare industries using a new MCDM
method: Measurement of alternatives and ranking according to compromise solution (MARCOS). Comput. Ind. Eng. 2020, 140,
106231. [CrossRef]
36. Tolooie, M.; Alvandi, M.; Arani, M.S. Sustainable supplier evaluation and selection in developing countries: An integrated fuzzy
framework. Int. J. Integr. Supply Manag. 2022, 15, 151–183. [CrossRef]
37. Mongeon, P.; Paul-Hus, A. Liputan jurnal Web of Science dan Scopus: Analisis komparatif. Scientometrics 2016, 106, 213–228.
[CrossRef]
38. Zupic, I.; Čater, T. Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organ. Res. Methods 2015, 18, 429–472. [CrossRef]
39. Ha, C.T.; Thao, T.T.P.; Trung, N.T.; Van Dinh, N.; Trung, T. A bibliometric review of research on STEM education in ASEAN:
Science mapping the literature in Scopus database, 2000 to 2019. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2020, 16, em1889. [CrossRef]
40. Grosseck, G.; T, îru, L.G.; Bran, R.A. Education for sustainable development: Evolution and perspectives: A bibliometric review of
research, 1992–2018. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6136. [CrossRef]
41. Yu, D.; Xu, Z.; Wang, X. Bibliometric analysis of support vector machines research trend: A case study in China. Int. J. Mach.
Learn. Cybern. 2020, 11, 715–728. [CrossRef]
42. Lamers, W.S.; Boyack, K.; Larivière, V.; Sugimoto, C.R.; van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L.; Murray, D. Meta-Research: Investigating
disagreement in the scientific literature. Elife 2021, 10, e72737. [CrossRef]
43. Akcan, S.; Güldeş, M. Integrated Multicriteria Decision-Making Methods to Solve Supplier Selection Problem: A Case Study in a
Hospital. J. Healthc. Eng. 2019, 2019, 5614892. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
44. Zhou, T.; Chen, Z.; Ming, X. A novel hesitant fuzzy linguistic hybrid cloud model and extended best-worst method for multicriteria
decision making. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 2022, 37, 596–624. [CrossRef]
45. Yazdani, M.; Torkayesh, A.E.; Chatterjee, P. An integrated decision-making model for supplier evaluation in public healthcare
system: The case study of a Spanish hospital. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2020, 33, 965–989. [CrossRef]
46. Wang, R.; Li, X.; Li, C. Optimal selection of sustainable battery supplier for battery swapping station based on Triangular fuzzy
entropy—MULTIMOORA method. J. Energy Storage 2021, 34, 102013. [CrossRef]
47. Wang, C.N.; Chou, C.C.; Dang, T.T.; Nguyen, H.P.; Nguyen, N.A.T. Integrating Triple Bottom Line in Sustainable Chemical
Supplier Selection: A Compromise Decision-Making-Based Spherical Fuzzy Approach. Processes 2022, 10, 889. [CrossRef]
48. Wang, C.N.; Fu, H.P.; Hsu, H.P.; Nguyen, V.T.; Nguyen, V.T.; Ahmar, A.S. A model for selecting a biomass furnace supplier based
on qualitative and quantitative factors. Comput. Mater. Contin. 2021, 69, 2339–2353. [CrossRef]
49. Wang, C.N.; Hoang Viet, V.T.; Ho, T.P.; Nguyen, V.T.; Nguyen, V.T. Multi-criteria decision model for the selection of suppliers in
the textile industry. Symmetry 2020, 12, 979. [CrossRef]
50. Wang, C.N.; Nguyen, T.T.T.; Dang, T.T.; Nguyen, N.A.T. A Hybrid OPA and Fuzzy MARCOS Methodology for Sustainable
Supplier Selection with Technology 4.0 Evaluation. Processes 2022, 10, 2351. [CrossRef]
51. Wang, C.N.; Nguyen, V.T.; Thai, H.T.N.; Tran, N.N.; Tran, T.L.A. Sustainable supplier selection process in edible oil production
by a hybrid fuzzy analytical hierarchy process and green data envelopment analysis for the smes food processing industry.
Mathematics 2018, 6, 302. [CrossRef]
52. Wang, C.N.; Pan, C.F.; Nguyen, V.T.; Husain, S.T. Sustainable supplier selection model in supply chains during the COVID-19
pandemic. Comput. Mater. Contin. 2022, 70, 3005–3019. [CrossRef]
53. Wang, C.-N.; Nguyen, V.T.; Chyou, J.-T.; Lin, T.-F.; Nguyen, T.N. Fuzzy Multicriteria Decision-Making Model (MCDM) for Raw
Materials Supplier Selection in Plastics Industry. Mathematics 2019, 7, 981. [CrossRef]
54. Adhikary, P.; Roy, P.K.; Mazumdar, A. Turbine supplier selection for small hydro project: Application of multi-criteria optimization
technique. Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res. 2015, 10, 13109–13122.
55. Wang, P.; Zhu, Z.; Wang, Y. A novel hybrid MCDM model combining the SAW, TOPSIS and GRA methods based on experimental
design. Inf. Sci. 2016, 345, 27–45. [CrossRef]
56. Afrasiabi, A.; Tavana, M.; Di Caprio, D. An extended hybrid fuzzy multi-criteria decision model for sustainable and resilient
supplier selection. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 37291–37314. [CrossRef]
57. Kazimieras Zavadskas, E.; Antucheviciene, J.; Chatterjee, P. Multiple-criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques for business
processes information management. Information 2019, 10, 4. [CrossRef]
58. Wang, C.-N.; Nguyen, N.-A.-T.; Dang, T.-T.; Lu, C.-M. A Compromised Decision-Making Approach to Third-Party Logistics
Selection in Sustainable Supply Chain Using Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy VIKOR Methods. Mathematics 2021, 9, 886. [CrossRef]
59. Dang, R.; Li, X.; Li, C.; Xu, C. A MCDM framework for site selection of island photovoltaic charging station based on new criteria
identification and a hybrid fuzzy approach. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 74, 103230. [CrossRef]
60. Wang, C.-N.; Nguyen, V.T.; Thai, H.T.; Duong, D.H. Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Approaches for Solar Power Plant
Location Selection in Viet Nam. Energies 2018, 11, 1504. [CrossRef]
61. Thanh, N.V. Sustainable Energy Source Selection for Industrial Complex in Vietnam: A Fuzzy MCDM Approach. IEEE Access
2022, 10, 50692–50701. [CrossRef]
62. Pamučar, D.; Stević, Ž.; Sremac, S. A New Model for Determining Weight Coefficients of Criteria in MCDM Models: Full
Consistency Method (FUCOM). Symmetry 2018, 10, 393. [CrossRef]
63. Ecer, F.; Pamucar, D. Sustainable supplier selection: A novel integrated fuzzy best worst method (F-BWM) and fuzzy CoCoSo
with bonferroni (CoCoSo’B) multi-criteria model. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 266, 121981. [CrossRef]
Logistics 2023, 7, 96 19 of 21

64. Matić, B.; Jovanović, S.; Das, D.K.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Stević, Ž.; Sremac, S.; Marinković, M. A New Hybrid MCDM Model:
Sustainable Supplier Selection in a Construction Company. Symmetry 2019, 11, 353. [CrossRef]
65. Wang, C.-N.; Tsai, H.-T.; Ho, T.-P.; Nguyen, V.-T.; Huang, Y.-F. Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Model for Supplier
Evaluation and Selection for Oil Production Projects in Vietnam. Processes 2020, 8, 134. [CrossRef]
66. Van Thanh, N. Optimal Waste-to-Energy Strategy Assisted by Fuzzy MCDM Model for Sustainable Solid Waste Management.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 6565. [CrossRef]
67. Puška, A.; Stević, Ž.; Pamučar, D. Evaluation and selection of healthcare waste incinerators using extended sustainability criteria
and multi-criteria analysis methods. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2022, 24, 11195–11225. [CrossRef]
68. Antucheviciene, J.; Kala, Z.; Marzouk, M.; Vaidogas, E.R. Solving Civil Engineering Problems by Means of Fuzzy and Stochastic
MCDM Methods: Current State and Future Research. Math. Probl. Eng. 2015, 2015, 362579. [CrossRef]
69. Basílio, M.P.; Pereira, V.; Costa, H.G.; Santos, M.; Ghosh, A. A systematic review of the applications of multi-criteria decision aid
methods (1977–2022). Electronics 2022, 11, 1720. [CrossRef]
70. Chen, C.H. A new multi-criteria assessment model combining GRA techniques with intuitionistic fuzzy entropy-based TOPSIS
method for sustainable building materials supplier selection. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2265. [CrossRef]
71. Memari, A.; Dargi, A.; Jokar, M.R.A.; Ahmad, R.; Rahim, A.R.A. Sustainable supplier selection: A multi-criteria intuitionistic
fuzzy TOPSIS method. J. Manuf. Syst. 2019, 50, 9–24. [CrossRef]
72. Sahu, A.K.; Sharma, M.; Raut, R.D.; Sahu, A.K.; Sahu, N.K.; Antony, J.; Tortorella, G.L. Decision-making framework for supplier
selection using an integrated MCDM approach in a lean-agile-resilient-green environment: Evidence from indian automotive
sector. TQM J. 2023, 35, 964–1006. [CrossRef]
73. Chattopadhyay, R.; Chakraborty, S.; Chakraborty, S. An integrated d-marcos method for supplier selection in an iron and steel
industry. Decis. Mak. Appl. Manag. Eng. 2020, 3, 49–69. [CrossRef]
74. Agbo, F.J.; Oyelere, S.S.; Suhonen, J.; Adewumi, S. A systematic review of computational thinking approach for programming
education in higher education institutions. In Proceedings of the 19th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing
Education Research, Koli, Finland, 21–24 November 2019; pp. 1–10.
75. Deniz, N. Cognitive biases in MCDM methods: An embedded filter proposal through sustainable supplier selection problem.
J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2020, 33, 947–963. [CrossRef]
76. Sharma, M.; Joshi, S. Digital supplier selection reinforcing supply chain quality management systems to enhance firm’s perfor-
mance. TQM J. 2023, 35, 102–130. [CrossRef]
77. Ulutaş, A.; Topal, A.; Pamučar, D.; Stević, Ž.; Karabašević, D.; Popović, G. A New Integrated Multi-Criteria Decision-Making
Model for Sustainable Supplier Selection Based on a Novel Grey WISP and Grey BWM Methods. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16921.
[CrossRef]
78. Phochanikorn, P.; Tan, C. A new extension to a multi-criteria decision-making model for sustainable supplier selection under an
intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5413. [CrossRef]
79. Xu, Z.; Qin, J.; Liu, J.; Martínez, L. Sustainable supplier selection based on AHPSort II in interval type-2 fuzzy environment. Inf.
Sci. 2019, 483, 273–293. [CrossRef]
80. Drakaki, M.; Goren, H.G.; Tzionas, P. Supplier selection problem in fuzzy environment considering risk factors. In Proceedings of
the International Conference on Developments in eSystems Engineering (DeSE), Kazan, Russia, 7–10 October 2019; Al-Jumeily,
D., Hind, J., Mustafina, J., Al-Hajj, A., Hussain, A., Magid, E., Tawfik, H., Eds.; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
Inc.: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 784–788.
81. Drakaki, M.; Gören, H.G.; Tzionas, P. A multi-agent based decision framework for sustainable supplier selection, order allocation
and routing problem. In Proceedings of the VEHITS 2019—5th International Conference on Vehicle Technology and Intelligent
Transport Systems, Crete, Greece, 3–5 May 2019; Gusikhin, O., Helfert, M., Eds.; SciTePress: Setúbal, Portugal, 2019; pp. 621–628.
82. Lo, H.-W. A data-driven decision support system for sustainable supplier evaluation in the Industry 5.0 era: A case study for
medical equipment manufacturing. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2023, 56, 101998. [CrossRef]
83. Alazzawi, A.; Zak, J. Mcdm/a Based Design of Sustainable Logistics Corridors Combined with Suppliers Selection. The Case Study of
Freight Movement to Iraq; Codina, E., Soriguera, F., Montero, L., Estrada, M., Linares, M., Eds.; Transportation Research Procedia;
Elsevier B.V.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 577–584.
84. Aslani, B.; Rabiee, M.; Tavana, M. An integrated information fusion and grey multi-criteria decision-making framework for
sustainable supplier selection. Int. J. Syst. Sci. Oper. Logist. 2021, 8, 348–370. [CrossRef]
85. Bendarag, A.; Bakkas, J.; Hanine, M.; Boutkhoum, O. Pyopasolver: A python based tool for ordinal priority approach operations
and normalization. SoftwareX 2022, 20, 101226. [CrossRef]
86. Boz, E.; Çizmecioğlu, S.; Çalık, A. A Novel MDCM Approach for Sustainable Supplier Selection in Healthcare System in the Era
of Logistics 4.0. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13839. [CrossRef]
87. Salimian, S.; Mousavi, S.M.; Antucheviciene, J. An interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy model based on extended VIKOR and
MARCOS for sustainable supplier selection in organ transplantation networks for healthcare devices. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3795.
[CrossRef]
88. Wu, C.M.; Hsieh, C.L.; Chang, K.L. A hybrid multiple criteria decision making model for supplier selection. Math. Probl. Eng.
2013, 2013, 324283. [CrossRef]
Logistics 2023, 7, 96 20 of 21

89. Chowdhury, P.; Paul, S.K. Applications of MCDM methods in research on corporate sustainability: A systematic literature review.
Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2020, 31, 385–405. [CrossRef]
90. Caristi, G.; Boffardi, R.; Ciliberto, C.; Arbolino, R.; Ioppolo, G. Multicriteria Approach for Supplier Selection: Evidence from a
Case Study in the Fashion Industry. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8038. [CrossRef]
91. Bhattacharya, R.K.; Das Chatterjee, N.; Das, K. Multifunctional resilience of river health to human service demand in an alluvial
quarried reach: A comparison amongst fuzzy logic, entropy, and AHP-based MCDM models. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29,
84137–84165. [CrossRef]
92. da Silva, E.M.; Ramos, M.O.; Alexander, A.; Jabbour, C.J.C. A systematic review of empirical and normative decision analysis of
sustainability-related supplier risk management. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 244, 118808. [CrossRef]
93. Zhao, H.; Guo, S. Selecting green supplier of thermal power equipment by using a hybrid MCDM method for sustainability.
Sustainability 2014, 6, 217–235. [CrossRef]
94. Lee, T.H.; Do, B.; Dantzinger, L.; Holmes, J.; Chyba, M.; Hankins, S.; Mersereau, E.; Hara, K.; Fan, V.Y. Mitigation Planning and
Policies Informed by COVID-19 Modeling: A Framework and Case Study of the State of HAWAII. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public
Health 2022, 19, 6119. [CrossRef]
95. de Almeida Santos, D.; Quelhas, O.L.G.; Gomȩs, C.F.S.; Caiado, R.G.G.; da Silva Carvalho Santos, S. Review of decision support
methods in green and sustainable supply chains. In Engineering Education for Sustainability; River Publishers: Gistrup, Denmark,
2019; pp. 35–50.
96. Ogrean, C.; Herciu, M. Business Models Addressing Sustainability Challenges—Towards a New Research Agenda. Sustainability
2020, 12, 3534. [CrossRef]
97. Masudin, I.; Rahmatullah, B.B.; Agung, M.A.; Dewanti, I.A.; Restuputri, D.P. Traceability System in Halal Procurement: A
Bibliometric Review. Logistics 2022, 6, 67. [CrossRef]
98. Zandkarimkhani, S.; Amiri, M.; Mousavi, S.M.H. A hybrid multi-criteria decision making method for sustainable supplier
selection: A case study. Int. J. Manag. Decis. Mak. 2022, 21, 113–128. [CrossRef]
99. Dzikriansyah, M.A.; Masudin, I.; Zulfikarijah, F.; Jihadi, M.; Jatmiko, R.D. The role of green supply chain management practices
on environmental performance: A case of Indonesian small and medium enterprises. Clean. Logist. Supply Chain 2023, 6, 100100.
[CrossRef]
100. Jafarzadeh Ghoushchi, S.; Khazaeili, M.; Amini, A.; Osgooei, E. Multi-criteria sustainable supplier selection using piecewise linear
value function and fuzzy best-worst method. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2019, 37, 2309–2325. [CrossRef]
101. Jain, N.; Singh, A.R.; Upadhyay, R.K. Sustainable supplier selection under attractive criteria through FIS and integrated fuzzy
MCDM techniques. Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 2020, 13, 441–462. [CrossRef]
102. Govindan, K.; Rajendran, S.; Sarkis, J.; Murugesan, P. Multi criteria decision making approaches for green supplier evaluation
and selection: A literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 98, 66–83. [CrossRef]
103. Guo, Z.; Liu, H.; Zhang, D.; Yang, J. Green supplier evaluation and selection in apparel manufacturing using a fuzzy multi-criteria
decision-making approach. Sustainability 2017, 9, 650. [CrossRef]
104. Kaviani, M.A.; Karbassi Yazdi, A.; Ocampo, L.; Kusi-Sarpong, S. An integrated grey-based multi-criteria decision-making
approach for supplier evaluation and selection in the oil and gas industry. Kybernetes 2020, 49, 406–441. [CrossRef]
105. Shah, N.; Chaudhari, U.; Jani, M. Inventory control policies for substitutable deteriorating items under quadratic demand. Oper.
Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2019, 12, 42–48. [CrossRef]
106. Handayani, D.I.; Masudin, I.; Susanty, A.; Anna, I.D. Modeling of halal supplier flexibility criteria in the food supply chain using
hybrid ISM-MICMAC: A dynamic perspective. Cogent Eng. 2023, 10, 2219106. [CrossRef]
107. Chuang, S.-P.; Huang, S.-J. The effect of environmental corporate social responsibility on environmental performance and business
competitiveness: The mediation of green information technology capital. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 150, 991–1009. [CrossRef]
108. Masudin, I.; Umamy, S.Z.; Al-Imron, C.N.; Restuputri, D.P. Green procurement implementation through supplier selection: A
bibliometric review. Cogent Eng. 2022, 9, 2119686. [CrossRef]
109. Guarnieri, P.; Trojan, F. Decision making on supplier selection based on social, ethical, and environmental criteria: A study in the
textile industry. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 141, 347–361. [CrossRef]
110. Abas, M.; Salah, B.; Khalid, Q.S.; Hussain, I.; Babar, A.R.; Nawaz, R.; Khan, R.; Saleem, W. Experimental investigation and
statistical evaluation of optimized cutting process parameters and cutting conditions to minimize cutting forces and shape
deviations in AL6026-T9. Materials 2020, 13, 4327. [CrossRef]
111. Fei, L.; Deng, Y.; Hu, Y. Ds-vikor: A new multi-criteria decision-making method for supplier selection. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 2019, 21,
157–175. [CrossRef]
112. Doğan, A.; Söylemez, İ.; Özcan, U. Green Supplier Selection by Using Fuzzy Topsis Method. In Uncertainty Modelling in Knowledge
Engineering and Decision Making; Lu, J., Koehl, L., Kerre, E.E., Martinez, L., Zeng, X., Eds.; World Scientific Publishing Co., Pte Ltd.:
Singapore, 2016; pp. 638–645.
113. Arab, A. A systematic review of multi-objective optimization applications in reverse logistics. J. Supply Chain Manag. Sci. 2022, 3,
37–64. [CrossRef]
114. Diem My, L.T.; Wang, C.N.; Van Thanh, N. Fuzzy MCDM for Improving the Performance of Agricultural Supply Chain. Comput.
Mater. Contin. 2022, 73, 4003–4015. [CrossRef]
Logistics 2023, 7, 96 21 of 21

115. Ortiz-Barrios, M.; Cabarcas-Reyes, J.; Ishizaka, A.; Barbati, M.; Jaramillo-Rueda, N.; de Jesús Carrascal-Zambrano, G. A hybrid
fuzzy multi-criteria decision making model for selecting a sustainable supplier of forklift filters: A case study from the mining
industry. Ann. Oper. Res. 2021, 307, 443–481. [CrossRef]
116. Tranfield, D.; Denyer, D.; Smart, P. Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by
Means of Systematic Review. Br. J. Manag. 2003, 14, 207–222. [CrossRef]
117. Zhu, Q.; Sarkis, J. An inter-sectoral comparison of green supply chain management in China: Drivers and practices. J. Clean. Prod.
2006, 14, 472–486. [CrossRef]
118. Mitra, S.; Datta, P.P. Adoption of green supply chain management practices and their impact on performance: An exploratory
study of Indian manufacturing firms. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2014, 52, 2085–2107. [CrossRef]
119. Mahmoudi, A.; Deng, X.; Javed, S.A.; Zhang, N. Sustainable supplier selection in megaprojects: Grey ordinal priority approach.
Bus. Strategy Environ. 2021, 30, 318–339. [CrossRef]
120. Shah, N.H.; Chaudhari, U.; Jani, M.Y. Optimal down–stream credit period and replenishment time for deteriorating inventory in
a supply chain. J. Basic Appl. Res. Int. 2016, 14, 101–115.
121. Khan, S.A.R.; Qianli, D. Impact of green supply chain management practices on firms’ performance: An empirical study from the
perspective of Pakistan. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 16829–16844. [CrossRef]
122. Giunipero, L.C.; Hooker, R.E.; Denslow, D. Purchasing and supply management sustainability: Drivers and barriers. J. Purch.
Supply Manag. 2012, 18, 258–269. [CrossRef]
123. Maheshwari, M.; Samal, A.; Bhamoriya, V. Role of employee relations and HRM in driving commitment to sustainability in
MSME firms. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 2020, 69, 1743–1764. [CrossRef]
124. Reuter, C.; Goebel, P.; Foerstl, K. The impact of stakeholder orientation on sustainability and cost prevalence in supplier selection
decisions. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2012, 18, 270–281. [CrossRef]
125. Yang, Y.; Wang, Y. Supplier selection for the adoption of green innovation in sustainable supply chain management practices: A
case of the chinese textile manufacturing industry. Processes 2020, 8, 717. [CrossRef]
126. Sapsanguanboon, W.; Sukhotu, V. Sustainable Retail Supply Chain Management Practices: A Case Study of a Modern Trade
Retailer in an Emerging Market. Sustain. J. Rec. 2015, 8, 313–323. [CrossRef]
127. Osintsev, N.; Tsyganov, A.; Rakhmangulov, A.; Sładkowski, A. Multi-criteria Assessment of Piggyback Systems in Sustain-
able Supply Chains. In Studies in Systems, Decision and Control; Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; Volume 400, pp. 451–559.
128. Roberts, S. Supply chain specific? Understanding the patchy success of ethical sourcing initiatives. J. Bus. Ethics 2003, 44, 159–170.
[CrossRef]
129. Ghosh, S.; Mandal, M.C.; Ray, A. Green supply chain management framework for supplier selection: An integrated multi-criteria
decision-making approach. Int. J. Manag. Sci. Eng. Manag. 2022, 17, 205–219. [CrossRef]
130. Jiang, P.; Hu, Y.C.; Yen, G.F.; Tsao, S.J. Green supplier selection for sustainable development of the automotive industry using
grey decision-making. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 26, 890–903. [CrossRef]
131. Ratna, S.; Kumar, B. Green Supplier Selection for Nickel Coating Industries Using a Hybrid GRAF-VIK Model; Phanden, R.K.,
Mathiyazhagan, K., Kumar, R., Paulo Davim, J., Eds.; Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering; Springer Science and Business
Media Deutschland GmbH: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 455–464.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.