Article

A Decision Framework for Solar PV Panels Supply Chain in

Context of Sustainable Supplier Selection and Order
Allocation
Raja Awais Liaqait 1, Salman Sagheer Warsi 1, Taiba Zahid 2, Usman Ghafoor 3,*, Muhammad Shakeel Ahmad 4 and
Jeyraj Selvaraj 4

1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Capital University of Science and Technology, Islamabad 44000,
Pakistan; [email protected] (R.A.L.); [email protected] (S.S.W.)
2
NUST Business School, National University of Science & Technology, Islamabad, 44000, Pakistan ;
[email protected]
3
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Institute of Space Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan
4
Higher Institution Centre of Excellence (HICoE), UM Power Energy Dedicated Advanced Centre
(UMPEDAC), Level 4, Wisma R&D, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia;
[email protected] (M.S.A.); [email protected] (J.S.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Sustainable supplier selection and order allocation (SSSOA) is paramount to sustainable supply chain management. It is a
complex multi-dimensional decision-making process augmented with the triple bottom line of sustainability. This research
presents a multi-phase decision framework to address a SSSOA problem for the multi-echelon renewable energy equipment (Solar
PV Panels) supply chain. The framework comprises of fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision-Making
Citation: Liaqait, R.A.; Warsi, techniques augmented with fuzzy multi-objective mixed-integer non-linear programming
S.S.; Zahid, T.; Ghafoor, U.;
mathematical model. The various economic, environmental, and social objectives were optimized for
Ahmad, M.S.; Selvaraj, J. A
a multi-period, multi-modal transportation network of the supply chain. The results show that
Decision Framework for Solar PV
among the various sustainable criteria selected in this study, product cost, environmental
Panels Supply Chain in Context
management system, and health and safety rights of employees are the most important for decision-
of Sustainable Supplier Selection
and Order Allocation.
makers. The results of the mathematical model highlighted the impact of multimodal transportation
Sustainability 2021, 13, x. on overall cost, time, and environmental impact for all periods. An analysis of results revealed that
https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx transfer cost and customer clearance cost contribute significantly towards overall cost. Furthermore,
defect rate was also observed to play a critical role in supplier selection and order allocation.
Academic Editor(s): Mitali
Sarkar; Biswajit Sarkar Keywords: renewable energy supply chain; sustainable supplier selection; multi-objective
optimization; order allocation; fuzzy multi-criteria decision making
Received: 01 October 2021
Accepted: 22 November 2021
Published: date

1. Introduction
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays
neutral with regard to Supply Chain Management (SCM) comprises of operations related to the flow of
jurisdictional claims in published merchandise from supplier to the end customer [1]. It helps in the overall planning,
maps and institutional controlling, and implementation of the organization’s activities [2]. Over the years,
affiliations. organizations have shifted from conventional SCM to sustainable supply chain
management (SSCM) to achieve high operational performance and business
competitiveness [3]. Sustainability in SCM refers to a set of scales between economic benefits,
environmental protection, and social improvements [4]. Its goal is to obtain an optimal
Copyright: © 2021 by the
compromise amongst the three diverging pillars (economic, environmental and social)
authors. Submitted for possible
by managing the resources, data, assets, and merchandise amongst the entities of the
open access publication under
supply chain [5]. The concerns over ozone depletion, exhaustion of natural resources,
the terms and conditions of the
and employees’ social rights, etc. pried the enterprises to address the concerns of
Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license
environmental pollution and social structure in their supply chains [6].
(http://creativecommons.org/lice
nses/by/4.0/).

Sustainability 2021, 13, x. https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 36

There has been a growing trend among organization to adopt sustainable supply
chain practices [7]. An important aspect of sustainable supply chains is devising of
purchasing strategies [8]. This poses a challenge for supply chain managers in the form
of sustainable purchasing and vendor selection. This also motivates them to improve
their supply chain activities for sustainable development of organization. Therefore, a
concept of sustainable supplier selection and order allocation (SSSOA) has been
introduced. It is an important aspect of SSCM [9]. SSSOA is a complex multi-criteria
decision-making (MCDM) process augmented with order allocation techniques and
various tangible and intangible criteria to assess the suppliers for optimal order
allocation [10].
Fundamentally, SSSOA problems consist of two phases: (1) sustainable supplier
selection, (2) optimal order allocation. Sustainable supplier selection can be further
divided into two parts: (1) single souring, where one supplier can fulfill the total
demand of the customer, and (2) multiple sourcing, where multiple suppliers need to be
selected to fulfill the customer’s demand. Generally, enterprises prefer multiple sourcing
for more diverse, timely, and flexible order delivery [11–13]. However, due to several
uncontrollable and unpredictable factors, it is challenging for decision-makers to select
appropriate suppliers [14]. After the selection of the best suppliers under the triple
bottom line of sustainability, another important question arises about “what amount to
order?” The order allocation comprises a mathematical model consisting of single or
multiple objectives that need to be optimized while ordering from suppliers and
meeting customer’s demands [15]. Researchers integrated the order allocation problem
with supplier selection to reduce the cost and other parameters to enhance the
performance of the supply chain, see for instance ([16–21]).
The quest of sustainability has also motivated the energy sector over the globe to
adopt sustainable practices in production and delivery [22]. Therefore, global energy
outlook is rapidly shifting towards renewable energy sources [23]. Of various types of
renewable energy sources, Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Panels dominate the energy
production both at domestic and commercial level [24]. Different reports suggest that
China, Canada, USA, Japan, and Germany dominate the global production of Solar PV
Panels [25]. According to the international trade data, these countries are also the major
exporters of Solar PV Panels to the world. Although Solar PV Panels present a
sustainable mean of energy production, their supply chain is still an unexplored area for
application of sustainable practices. Therefore, implementation of SSSOA problem on
the supply chains of solar PV Panel would intensify the deployment of overall
sustainable objectives [26].
Despite several research studies conducted to address the aspect of sustainability in
the SSSOA problem for various industries, the emphasis on sustainability concerns in
the solar PV panels supply chains is still at an early stage. To the best of the authors’
knowledge, no study has been conducted so far that evaluates the supply chain in the
context of SSSOA of the Solar PV Panels industry. Therefore, the objective of this
research is to develop a comprehensive fuzzified decision framework for solving the
SSSOA problem in renewable energy supply chain networks (with emphasis on the
Solar PV Panels industry). The originality of the study is to presents the novel fuzzified
decision framework implemented on the solar PV panels supply chain. A numerical case
study with real time data was used to examine the efficacy of the developed decision
framework. The developed framework provides an insight to supply chain managers,
particularly in the Solar PV Panels industry.
The remaining of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents an overview
of the existing literature on the SSSOA problem. Section 3 briefly describes the problem
that is addressed in this study. Section 4 presents the decision framework, the
development of the Fuzzy Multi-Objective Mixed Integer Non-Linear Programming
(FMOMINLP) optimization model, and the solution approach used to solve
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 36

FMOMINLP. Section 5 presents an application of the developed integrated approach to

a case study. Section 6 presents conclusions and recommends avenues for future studies.

2. Relevant Literature
Over the years, extensive research has been carried out by the research community
to address the augmentation of sustainability in supply chains. For instance,
Cheraghalipour and Farsad [20] provided a decision-making tool of purchasing and
ordering for the plastic industry while considering three pillars of sustainability. Zimon
and Domingues [27] highlighted the potential factors that would influence the
sustainable management of textile supply chains. Tseng et al. [28] developed a
comprehensive mathematical model to feature the role of Big Data for minimizing
uncertainties and achieving sustainable development in supply chains. With growing
concerns about the sustainability in supply chains, researchers have analyzed supply
chains in the context of supplier selection and order allocation (individually and
integrally). MCDM techniques have been used along with multi-objective optimization
to assess SSSOA problems [29–32]. The literature related to the SSSOA problem can be
broadly divided into two categories, namely: Sustainable Supplier Selection (SSS) and
Order Allocation (OA). The following section briefly presents an overview of some of
the key studies in these two categories.

2.1. Sustainable Supplier Selection

Sustainable purchasing has a strategic relevance in SSCM [33]. It is a complex multi-
variate decision-making problem that simultaneously evaluates the conflicting criteria
and objectives along with uncertainties in human decision-making [34,35]. Traditionally,
suppliers were assessed conflicting criteria like total cost, product quality, service level,
and delivery time [36]. However, with growing awareness about sustainability,
government regulations, and responsible purchasing practices, sustainable criteria are
used for supplier selection [37]. For instance, Buyukzkan and Cifci [38] used five
sustainable criteria for evaluating the sustainable performance of suppliers. Luthra et al.
[39] argued that environmental costs and competencies, quality, and product price,
occupational health, and safety systems are the main factors that influence sustainable
purchasing decisions. Memari et al. [40] used 30 sustainable criteria for supplier
evaluation of automotive spare parts manufacturers. Zhang et al. [41] used 15
sustainable criteria that can effectively improve enterprise supply chain performance.
Once the sustainable criteria for supplier selection have been identified, the next step is
evaluating the suppliers based on these criteria. Traditionally, MCDM techniques were
developed to determine the optimal alternative among multiple, conflicting, and
interactive criteria. However, due to the uncertain nature of human decision-making,
researchers have integrated Fuzzy Set Theory (FST) with traditional MCDM techniques.
FST is used along with MCDM techniques to transform crisp numeric values for more
precise judgment of real-world systems [42]. A wealth of literature elucidates the
importance of fuzzy logic in MCDM problems [33,40,43–46]. Table 1 presents some
recent studies conducted on SSS with the help of fuzzy MCDM techniques.

Table 1. Relevant Studies of Criteria and Solving Techniques used for Sustainable Supplier
Selection.

Study Criteria Used Fuzzy MCDM Technique

Alavi et al. Costs Fuzzy Best Worst Method
[47] Quality
Responsiveness
Delivery
Risk
Technology Capability
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 36

Waste Management
Environmental Management System
Human Rights
Product Responsibility
Health and Safety Management
Ethical Issues
Information disclosure
Product price/cost
Financial capability
Quality
Environmental competence
Green product design
Regular environmental audits
Presence of training facilities
Orji and Ojadi Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy
Work safety procedures
[48] Process (FAHP)
Compliance with regulations
Information disclosure
Social responsibility
Use of personal protective equipment
Presence of information technologies
Adherence to policy changes
Economic recovery programs
Cost
Quality
Capacity
Flexibility
Technological Capability
Wang and FAHP
Environmental/Economic Management System
Tsai [32] Data Envelopment Analysis
Social responsibility
Delay
Reputation
Customer Complaints
Defect Rate
Transportation Cost
Product Price
Financial Ability
Pollutant Discharge
Wang et al. VIKOR
Resource Consumption
[49] FAHP
Recycle System
Flexibility
Rights of Stakeholders
Employee right and welfare Information Disclosure
Ecer and Pa- Delivery (lead) time Fuzzy Best Worst Method
mucar [50] Transportation cost Bonferroni Combined Com-
Service promise Solution
Price of product
Quality of product
Pollution control
EMS
Environmental competencies
Green management
Environmental cost
Staff training
Health and safety
Information Disclosure
The rights of stakeholders
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 36

The interests and rights of the employee

VIKOR: VIseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje.

2.2. Sustainable Order Allocation

Notably, optimal order allocation is paramount to SSSOA problems [51]. Extensive
research has been done to allocate an order to potential customers while considering the
three pillars of sustainability. Order allocation is a multi-objective process considering
conflicting objectives that need to be simultaneously optimized for sustainable
purchasing from potential suppliers [52–54]. A mathematical model containing
conflicting objectives needs to be developed for optimum allocation of orders.
Mohammed [55] developed a mixed-integer non-linear programming (MINLP) model
containing cost, time, environmental and social impact as objectives to allocate orders to
selected suppliers. The authors used a technique for multi-objective optimization of the
mathematical model. Goren [56] developed the MILP model consisting of cost and value
of purchasing as objectives for sustainable distribution of orders to the suppliers.
Furthermore, to incorporate the aspect of uncertainty in input parameters, researchers
shifted from conventional MILP/MINLP to fuzzified MILP/MINLP, see for instance,
[37,57–60]. Various solution approaches have been used to solve the mathematical
models developed for order allocation. Table 2 presents an overview of studies
containing the type of mathematical model, objectives, and solution approaches to solve
the mathematical modal.

Table 2. Classification of Studies w.r.t Mathematical Model, Objectives, and Solving Techniques
for Order Allocation.

Type of
Study Objectives Solution Approach
Mathematical Model
Total Cost Augmented Epsilon-Con-
Bektur [51] FMILP
Value of Purchasing straint
Carbon emission
Energy use per product
Waste generated per product
Kumar et al. % Profit to social and community Weighted Additive
FMILP
[57] welfare Method
Order cost
% Rejection on quality issues
% Late delivery of items
Total Cost
Total Time
Mohammed Epsilon-Constraint
FMILP Environmental Impact
et al. [61] LP Metric
Social Impact
Total Value of Purchasing
Total Cost
Beiki [62] FMINLP Total Emissions Genetic Algorithm
Total purchase value
Total costs
Environmental effects
Nasr et al. Employment Fuzzy Goal Programming
FMINLP
[63] Lost sales Approach
Procurement value from sustain-
able suppliers

2.3. Decision Framework for SSSOA Problems

In recent years, researchers have developed a decision framework to address the
SSSOA problem. Such frameworks comprise MCDM techniques with multi-objective
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 36

programming models. For instance, Liaqait et al. [9] developed a decision support
framework for the air condition industry. In their study, the multi-modal MINLP model
integrated with noise pollution and demand uncertainty was developed. Mohammed et
al. [61] proposed a decision framework for a two-stage SSSOA problem for the food
industry. In their
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 36

Table 3. Literature Review of Established Decision Framework for SSSOA problem.

Sustainable Supplier Selection

Decision Information Time Period Product Type
Criteria Order
Frame- Solving
Study Alloca- Case Study
work for Techniques
Environ- Eco- tion
SSSOA Social Certain Uncertain Single Multiple Single Multiple
mental nomic

Khoshfetrat Automotive Indus-

        AHP, Linear Solver
et al. [64] try

Bektu [51] FAHP,

FPROMETHEE Medical Equip-
       
AUGMECON, LP- ment Industry
metrics

Goren [56] DEMATEL, Taguchi Construction In-

       
loss functions dustry

Tayyab & Weighted F-Goal

        Textile Industry
Sarkar [65] programming

Liaqait et FAHP,
al. [9] FTOPSIS, CRITIC Air Conditioning
       
Augmented ɛ-con- Industry
straint 2

Vahidi et SWOT-QFD,
N/A Benchmark
al. [66]         weighted Aug-
Solutions
mented ɛ-constraint

Jia et al.         Goal Programming Steel Industry

Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 36

[67]

Nasr et al.
        Goal Programming Textile Industry
[63]

Cher-
Best Worst Method,
aghalipour
        Multi-Choice Goal Plastics Industry
& Farsad
Programming
[20]

Tirkolaee et
FANP, FDEMATEL,
al. [68] Electronics Indus-
        FTOPSIS, Goal pro-
try
gramming

Mo- FAHP,
hammed et         FTOPSIS, ɛ-con- Meat Industry
al. [61] straint, LP Metric

Mo- FAHP,
hammed et         FTOPSIS, ɛ-con- Meat Industry
al. [69] straint, LP Metric

Mo- FAHP,
hammed et         FTOPSIS, ɛ-con- Metal Industry
al. [70] straint, LP Metric

FAHP,
FTOPSIS, Aug- Solar PV Panels In-
This Study        
mented ɛ-constraint dustry
2, Delphi Technique
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 36

FPROMETHEE: Fuzzy Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation. AUGMECON: Augmented Epsilon Constraint. FDEMATEL: Fuzzy Decision-Making
Trial and Evaluation Laboratory. FTOPSIS: Fuzzy Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution. CRITIC: Criteria Importance Through Intercriteria Correlation.
SWOT-QFD: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats—Quality Function Deployment. FANP: Fuzzy Analytic Network Process.
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 36

study, the FMILP model was developed to cope with the dynamic nature of the input
parameters. Sodenkamp [71] presented a multi-level group decision framework
augmented with a mathematical model for dynamic monitoring of strategic and tactical
purchasing decisions on different organizational layers. Vahidi et al. [66] proposed a
novel bi-objective two-stage mixed possibilistic-stochastic programming decision
framework to address the SSSOA problem under operational and disruption risks.
Omair et al. [72] proposed a decision support framework for the selection of sustainable
suppliers of gloves manufacturing firm using Fuzzy Inference System (FIS) and AHP.
Table 3 presents the decision framework developed by the researchers to address the
SSSOA problem. It also provides deep insight into used criteria, mathematical models,
case studies, and solving techniques. Furthermore, it highlights the novel establishment
of decision framework and its application on solar PV panels industry.
To summarize, the literature, the SSSOA problem is a multi-dimensional
comparative analysis process. Supplier evaluation criteria are the most important factor
in supplier selection problems. Therefore, researchers have conducted extensive and
wide-ranged surveys with managers and decision-makers for the selection of
appropriate criteria. Furthermore, various stand-alone and hybrid MCDM techniques
have been used for sustainable supplier selection. Amongst these techniques, AHP
augmented with TOPSIS has been reported to be most useful. Furthermore, various bi
and multi-objective mathematical models have been developed for optimum order
allocation. The integration of FST in MCDM techniques and mathematical models has
often been used to address the vagueness and uncertainty of the decision-making
process. Although several decision frameworks have been developed to solve the
SSSOA problem for various industries, no study exists in the literature that has aimed to
solve the SSSOA problem for the Solar PV Panels industry. Therefore, a real time case of
Solar PV Panels is presented to solve the SSSOA problem.

3. Problem Description
Figure 1 illustrates the multi-modal, multi-echelon supply chain network of Solar
Panels examined in this study. The network consists of suppliers “i”, seaport “j”,
warehouse “k”, and customer “m”. Supplier “i” ship the quantity Xijnt through port “j” to
the warehouse “k” which is then transported to the customer “m” using various
transportation modes “n” at time period “t”. The supply chain network is evaluated
under the demand and capacity uncertainties of suppliers and warehouses. Moreover, a
fuzzified MINLP mathematical model is developed to obtain an optimum quantity from
the potential suppliers that are selected based on sustainable criteria to meet the
customers’ demands for each time period.
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 36

Figure 1. A Multi-Echelon Supply Chain Network Under Study.

4. Sustainability Assessment Framework for The Solar PV Panels Supply Chain

A three-phase decision framework is proposed for sustainable performance
evaluation of the solar panel supply chain network as shown in Figure 2. In the first
phase, MCDM techniques were used to evaluate the suppliers in the context of
sustainable criteria. In the second phase, FMOMINLP mathematical model was
developed for sustainable order allocation and is solved using Augmented Epsilon
Constraint 2 (AUGMECON2) for the optimized solutions. In the third phase, MCDM
techniques were used to analyze the results of the mathematical model to obtain the
final solution. A brief overview of the steps involved in each phase is presented below:

4.1. Sustainable Supplier Selection

FEAHP is applied to evaluate the relative weights of each sustainable supplier
selection criterion using the methodology described by Wang et al. [73]. The sub-criteria
for each major sustainable criterion are presented in Table 4. The weights of each
sustainable criterion and sub-criterion are incorporated in FTOPSIS to rank the supplier
using the methodology described by Mohammed et al. [61]. The linguistic variables used
to estimate the criteria weights and ranking of the suppliers are presented in Table 5. In
the end, the best suppliers were selected based on a defined threshold of Closeness
Coefficient (CC) having a value greater than 0.5 (i.e., CC ≥ 0.50).

4.2. Sustainable Order Allocation

Firstly, FMOMINLP mathematical model is developed using fuzzified demand,
supply, capacity, and resource constraints. The objective functions of models are Total
Cost (TC), Total Travel Time (TTT), Environmental Impact (EI), Defect Rate (DR), and
Total Value of Sustainable Purchasing (TVSP). Secondly, the exact solution for each
objective is estimated using a non-linear mixed-integer programming solver. Thirdly,
the AUGMECON2 algorithm is used to simultaneously minimize TC, TTT, EI, and DR
while maximizing TVSP.

4.3. Selection of Best Solution

Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 36

After the estimation of min/max values of objective functions, the values were
divided into 10 segments corresponding to - levels for time “t ”. Once the Pareto
solutions were extracted for time t , TOPSIS augmented with weights assigned to each
objective function using the Delphi technique was applied. 10 best optimal solutions
were obtained using AUGMECON2 corresponding to - levels. TOPSIS was again
applied to the selected Pareto solution to select the best optimal solution for t 1 – t 4 .

4.4. Development of Fuzzified Mathematical Model for Sustainable Order Allocation

This section presents the development of FMINLP mathematical model for Solar PV
Panels supply chain. Several parameters are subject to uncertainty in the real world.
Therefore, to cope with the dynamic nature of the input data in costs, capacity levels,
demands, and defect rates, FST is applied in the mathematical model for more realistic
scenarios. The multi-objective optimization model is presented below.
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 36

Figure 2. Generic Framework of Proposed Methodology.

Table 4. Criteria and Sub-criteria for sustainable supplier ranking.

Sustainable Criteria Sub-Criteria

Cost (C1)
Volume Flexibility (C2)
Payment Terms (C3)
Use of Technology (C4)
Economic
Delivery Reliability (C5)
Vendors Market reputation (C6)
Defect Rate (C7)
Quality (C8)
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 36

Environment Management System (C1)

Environmental Resource Consumption (C2)
Pollution Production (C3)
Information Disclosure (C1)
Social Rights and Health of Employees (C2)
Staff Personal and Technical Development (C3)

Table 5. Linguistic variables used of FTOPSIS and FEAHP.

Performance Ranking of Alternatives Importance of Criteria

Linguistic Variable Fuzzy Number Linguistic Variable Fuzzy Number
Very low (VL) (1, 1, 3) Weakly Important (WI) (0.1, 0.1, 0.3)
Low (L) (1, 3, 5) Moderately Important (MI) (0.1, 0.3, 0.5)
Medium (M) (3, 5, 7) Important (I) (0.3, 0.5, 0.7)
High (H) (5, 7, 9) Strongly Important (SI) (0.5, 0.7, 0.9)
Very high (VH) (7, 9, 9) Extremely Important (WI) (0.7, 0.9, 0.9)

Assumptions
The assumptions of the mathematical model are as follows:
 The model is a multi-period model.
 The shipments are considered as less than a container load (LCL) shipment.
 The transfer cost and transfer time can only be applied at the nodes.
 The custom clearance cost and time can only be applied while moving through the
port.
Sets

Parameters
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 36

Integer Variables
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 36

Binary Variables

Objective Function 1: Total Cost (TC)

This objective function aims to minimize the sum of purchasing cost, ordering cost,
inventory holding cost, transportation cost, transfer cost, and customs clearance cost.
The equation below presents the minimization of total costs that occurred throughout
the supply chain network.

Objective Function 2: Total Travel Time (TTT)

This objective function tends to minimize the total travel time from supplier to
customer. It includes transportation time, transfer time, and customs clearance time. The
minimization of total travel time is expressed as follows.
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 36

Objective Function 3: Environmental Impact (EI)

This objective function aims to minimize the total CO2 emissions throughout the
transportation process. The equation below presents the minimization of the CO 2
emissions for all the three transportation modes (i.e., ship, rail, and road).

Objective Function 4: Defect Rate (DR)

This objective function aims to minimize the average defect rate of the selected
suppliers.

Objective Function 5: Total Value of Sustainable Purchasing (TVSP)

This objective function aims to maximize the total value of purchased goods by
maximizing the economic, social, and environmental criteria weights. The criteria
weights obtained from fuzzy E-AHP are multiplied by supplier’s weights obtained from
fuzzy TOPSIS and the quantity ordered from the supplier. The equation below presents
the maximization of the total value of sustainable purchasing as follows.

Constraints
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 36

Based on fuzzy formulation, the constraints of the FMINLP model should be

satisfied with a confidence value that is denoted as and is determined by decision-
makers. Furthermore, mos, pes, and opt are the three prominent points (the most likely,
most pessimistic, and most optimistic values), respectively. Each objective function
corresponds to an equivalent linear membership function, which can be determined
using Equation (16). Figure 3 further illustrates the membership functions for each
objective.

Where Z b represents the value of the b objective function and Ma x b and Mi nb represent the maximum and
th

minimum values of b th objective function, respectively.

Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 36

Figure 3. Membership Function for TC, TTT, EI, DR, TVSP.

The maximum and minimum values of each objective function are obtained using
the above equations for the evaluation of membership degree.

4.5. Solving Algorithm: Augmented Epsilon Constraint 2 (AUGMECON2)

AUGMECON2 is an improved model of the AUGMECON generation method
developed by Mavrotas and Florios [74]. It considers the complexities of discrete
variables and non-convex problems by introducing the slack variable at each iteration.
This technique transforms the multi-objective optimization problem into a mono
objective by considering one of the objectives as the main objective function and shifting
other objectives as a constraint subject to some ε values. The stepwise approach of the
algorithm is presented in Figure 4 and the model is presented as follows:

Where , ,…, are the RHS values for each objective function, , ,…, are the slack variables, , ,…,

are the ranges of objective functions and .

The modification in the model helps to perform the lexicographic optimization (i.e.,
sequentially optimizing f 2 , f 3 , … , f n) to generate the exact Pareto sets. For Pareto
solutions, the mathematical model is transformed as presented in Equation (17). In this
study, the minimization of TC is considered as the main objective function and other
objective functions are considered as constraints.
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 36
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 36
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 36

Figure 4. Steps of AUGMECON2.

4.6. Selection of Best Pareto Solution

TOPSIS incorporated with the weights obtained by the decision-makers to select the
top 10 Pareto solutions of AUGMECON2. Later on, the four best solutions for each φ-
level were selected. TOPSIS along with weights obtained by the Delphi technique for
each objective function is applied to get the best Pareto optimal solution for each time
period.

5. Application and Evaluation: Case Study

This section evaluates the developed methodology using a real-time solar panel
supply chain network in Pakistan as a case study. Pakistan is adversely affected by
global climate change and is in desperate need of sustainable development [75]. One
such avenue for sustainable development is the energy production through renewable
energy sources. Past researches and surveys suggest that Pakistan has tremendous
potential for solar energy [76]. According to a World Bank report [77], Pakistan’s current
electricity demand can be met by utilizing just 0.071% of the country’s area for solar
photovoltaic (solar PV). Furthermore, by 2025, Pakistan plans to increase its renewable
resources to 8–9 gigawatts [78]. Therefore, supply chain of solar PV Panels in Pakistan
presents an interesting area for application of SSSOA problem.
The parameters related to the number of suppliers, number of warehouses, the
capacity of suppliers and warehouses, types of transportation modes, and quarterly
demand were provided by a leading solar energy solution providing organizations in
Pakistan and is presented in supplementary data S1. The supply chain of the
organization comprises of five potential suppliers, three warehouses, three
transportation modes, and two customers. The MCDM techniques were implemented
using the Microsoft Excel (2016) software. The FMOMINLP model is solved using
Python 3.7 software on a personal computer of Intel Core i5 2.5 GHz processor with 8
GB RAM. To solve the SSSOA problem for the solar panel supply chain under study, the
developed fuzzy multi-objective optimization approach was applied as illustrated in the
following two sub-sections.

5.1. Sustainable Criteria Weighting

Weights of criteria and sub-criteria were evaluated using FEAHP based on the
preferences set by decision-makers while simultaneously assess the consistency ratio
(CR) of the decision-making process. The final weights of each criterion are presented in
Table 6.

Table 6. FEAHP Weights for Sustainable Criteria and Sub-Criteria.

Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 23 of 36

Local
Criteria Global Weights Sub-Criteria Ranking
Weights
Cost 0.18 1
Volume Flexibility 0.02 5
Payment Terms 0.01 6
Use of Technology 0.04 4
Economic 0.37
Delivery Reliability 0.04 4
Vendors Market reputation 0.02 5
Defect Rate 0.08 2
Quality 0.06 3
Environment Management System 0.14 1
Environmental 0.34 Resource Consumption 0.04 3
Pollution Production 0.09 2
Information Disclosure 0.03 3
Rights and Health of Employees 0.16 1
Social 0.29
Staff Personal and Technical De-
0.09 2
velopment

The ranking for the sustainable criteria is presented as economic > environmental >
social for decision-makers assessing the suppliers. According to decision-makers,
economic criteria ranked highest followed by environmental and social criteria. “Cost” is
the most significant sub-criteria amongst eight sets of economic sub-criteria. Similarly,
for environmental and social criteria, decision-makers considered “Environment
Management System” and “Rights and Health of Employees” as significant sub-criterion
for the sustainable supplier selection. These results provide clear insight for the decision-
makers to take necessary actions to provide better product quality while minimizing cost
and incorporating the environmental management system and rights and health of
employees for sustainable performance.

5.2. Sustainable Supplier Ranking

After evaluating the weights for sustainable criteria through FEAHP, the next step
was to rate the potential suppliers based on these criteria. FTOPSIS was used to
determine the weights of each supplier for sustainable criteria. Three decision-makers
were involved in this process to rate the potential suppliers based on specified criteria.
Firstly, the relative closeness matrix for each supplier for sustainable criteria is evaluated
using FTOPSIS and is presented in Table 7. The threshold of the closeness coefficient
defined for the selection of the best supplier is 0.50. Therefore, supplier 1, supplier 2, and
supplier 5 were selected for the allocation of optimum order.

Table 7. Suppliers ranking using FTOPSIS.

Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 24 of 36

Economic Crite- Environmental Social Crite- Overall Close-

Supplier Ranking
ria Criteria ria ness Coefficient
Supplier 1 0.59 0.36 0.52 0.86 1
Supplier 2 0.42 0.29 0.47 0.38 3
Supplier 3 0.28 0.66 0.58 0.25 4
Supplier 4 0.34 0.64 0.42 0.22 5
Supplier 5 0.54 0.78 0.31 0.48 2

5.3. Sustainable Order Allocation

The proposed fuzzy mathematical model was initially solved by considering each
objective separately. A on-linear solver is used to estimate the ideal solution for each
objective function and is presented in Table 8.

Table 8. Ideal Solutions of OFs for Time Period “t” using Non-Linear Solver.

Time Period Objective Function Ideal Solution

TC $ 86,010,537.27
TTT 1969.20 h.
t1 EI 2,301,287.01 g
DR 209,713,055.23
TVSP 106,890.00
TC $ 84,570,031.00
TTT 1947.06 h.
t2 EI 2,266,699.06 g
DR 179,724,063.56
TVSP 104,624.00
TC $ 88,714,382.25
TTT 2063.38 h.
t3 EI 2,387,750.89 g
DR 223,618,022.12
TVSP 109,202.00
TC $ 86,549,371.88
TTT 2011.55 h.
t4 EI 2,330,471.34 g
DR 214,302,000.10
TVSP 106,720.00

In the second phase, AUGMECON2 was used to simultaneously solve the

objectives. Pareto solutions were generated for each time period to find the optimal
order quantity from the potential suppliers under fuzzified input parameters. TOPSIS
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 25 of 36

augmented with CRITIC weight method was used to further evaluate the Pareto
solution for the final solution.

5.4. Optimal Order Using AUGMECON2

For solving FMINLP mathematical model presented in Section 4.1, a payoff for
objective functions was created for time period t . The min/max values of each objective
function were evaluated using Equation (1)–(15) and presented in Table 9.

Table 9. Payoff Table using AUGMECON2 for Time Period “t ”.

Time Pe-
Objective Function TC TTT EI DR TVSP
riod
TC 86120647 2415 4457128 220569451 105916
TTT 86328159 1994 2306374 232145513 105552
t1 EI 86328158 1994 2306373 232145513 105552
DR 86328169 1994 2306405 232145513 105552
TVSP 86206133 1994 2306523 209790035 106032
TC 84570424 2407 4543832 232005750 103943
TTT 84945807 1958 2270702 232005750 103382
t2 EI 84948076 1964 2277245 232005750 103382
DR 84884556 1964 2277302 232005750 103504
TVSP 84662709 1964 2277337 179734575 104504
TC 88801958 2760 5655112 228278750 109050
TTT 88908452 2088 2402851 228278750 109000
t3 EI 88908452 2088 2402851 228278750 109000
DR 88908452 2088 2402851 228278750 109000
TVSP 88883017 2088 2402855 223620000 109100
TC 86702906 2472 4643109 216530314 106626
TTT 86814342 2018 2331549 218961250 106550
t4 EI 86810794 2018 2330471 218961250 106550
DR 86810748 2019 2330815 218961250 106550
TVSP 86785145 2019 2330824 214302500 106650
The {(max, min)} values of each objective function from t 1 to t 4 are presented in Table 10.

Table 10. Minimum and Maximum Value of Objective functions for t 1−t 4

t1 t2 t3 t4
OFs
Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min
TC 86328169 86120647 84948075 84570424 88908452 88801957 86814342 86702905
TTT 2414 1994 2406 1958 2760 2087 2472 2018
EI 4457128 2306373 4543832 2270701 5655112 2402850 4643109 2330471
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 26 of 36

DR 232145512 209790034 232005750 179734575 228278750 223620000 218961250 214302500

TVSP 106032 105552 104504 103382 109100 109000 106650 106550

Once the min/max values of OFs were evaluated, the next step is the division of
values into 10 segments between the minimum and maximum values. The 10 segments
were assigned individually to ϵ 2 , ϵ 3 , ϵ 4 and ϵ 5 with the step interval of 2 using Equation
(17). The combinations of ϵ -values are presented in Table 11.

Table 11. ɛ—values of TTT, EI, DR, and TVSP.

-values
Time Period

t1 1994 2306373 209790035 105552

t2 1958 3407267 179734575 104504
1
t3 2088 2402851 223620000 109000
t4 2018 4643109 214302500 106550
t1 1994 3381751 220967774 105552
t2 2182 3407267 205870162 103943
2
t3 2088 2402851 223620000 109050
t4 2018 4643109 214302500 106600
t1 2415 2306373 209790035 105792
t2 1958 4543832 179734575 104504
3
t3 2088 2402851 223620000 109100
t4 2018 2330471 214302500 106650
t1 2415 3381751 209790035 105792
t2 2407 4543832 179734575 104504
4
t3 2088 5655112 223620000 109100
t4 2245 2330471 214302500 106650
t1 1994 2306373 220967774 105792
t2 1958 3407267 205870162 103943
5
t3 2088 4028981 223620000 109100
t4 2018 3486790 214302500 106650
6 t1 1994 2306373 209790035 106032
t2 1958 4543832 179734575 103943
t3 2424 4028981 223620000 109100
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 27 of 36

t4 2245 3486790 214302500 106650

t1 2206 2306373 209790035 106032
t2 2407 4543832 232005750 104504
7
t3 2088 5655112 223620000 109100
t4 2018 3486790 214302500 106650
t1 1994 3381751 209790035 106032
t2 1958 3407267 179734575 104504
8
t3 2088 4028981 223620000 109100
t4 2245 3486790 214302500 106650
t1 1994 3381751 209790035 106032
t2 1958 4543832 232005750 104504
9
t3 2424 4028981 223620000 109100
t4 2018 3486790 214302500 106650
t1 1994 3381751 209790035 106032
t2 2407 4543832 179734575 104504
10
t3 2088 5655112 223620000 109100
t4 2245 3486790 214302500 106650

Tables 12 shows the values for the five objectives for each -level based on ε-
iteration obtained in Table 11 for each time period. For instance, Solution 3 in Table 12
for t 4 shows TC of $ 86703205, TTT of 2472 h. EI of 4643103 g, a DR of 214302500, and
TVSP of 106650. The ε values corresponding to this solution are as follows:
ε 1=2245 , ε 2=3486790 , ε 3 =214302500∧ε 4=106650 . The iteration runs for each
combination of -values corresponding to each -level to extract the Pareto optimal
solution. The maximum number of iterations was set as 65,000.

Table 12. Values of TC, TTT, EI, DR, and TVSP using AUGMECON2 at φ-levels.

Time Pe- Min Run Time

-level Min TC Min EI Min DR Max TVSP
riod TTT (min)
0.25 86120635 2311 3976972 220684988 105915 0.50
0.50 86120712 2416 4458428 220684056 105915 0.75
t1
0.75 86121592 2415 4457128 213537533 105992 0.78
1.0 86117429 2419 4466736 209790035 106031 0.67
t2 0.25 84577452 2406 4543712 179734575 104504 0.34
0.50 84577449 2406 4543668 179734575 104504 0.52
0.75 84579934 2406 4544632 179734575 104504 0.67
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 28 of 36

1.0 84577470 2407 4546570 179734575 104504 0.55

0.25 88802287 2300 3537737 225937262 109075 0.38
0.50 88802298 2300 3537920 225937262 109075 0.41
t3
0.75 88802598 2300 3537732 223620000 109100 0.34
1.0 88802584 2760 5655121 223620000 109100 0.66
0.25 86702931 2473 4643708 216619762 106625 0.82
0.50 86702931 2473 4643708 216619762 106625 0.37
t4
0.75 86703205 2472 4643104 214302500 106650 0.71
1.0 86703205 2472 4643104 214302500 106650 0.64

It is worth mentioning that four φ-levels (0.25, 0.50, 0.75, and 1) with an incremental
step of 0.25 were assigned by the decision makers for each solution. Finally, Equation
(16) was used to determine the respective membership degrees ( µb) based on the
objective values obtained through the AUGMECON2 as shown in Table 13.

Table 13. Membership Degree Values of OFs using AUGMECON2.

t1 t2 t3 t4
(TC) 0.86 0.54 0.97 0.49 0.51 0.41 0.74 0.44 0.93 0.12 0.74 0.17 0.63 0.35 0.61 0.19
(TTT) 0.74 0.67 0.45 0.37 0.88 0.68 0.25 0.86 0.42 0.16 0.71 0.64 0.18 0.33 0.54 0.17
(EI) 0.36 0.18 0.33 0.84 0.64 0.94 0.38 0.17 0.37 0.17 0.54 0.27 0.18 0.57 0.17 0.54
(DR) 0.57 0.08 0.28 0.51 0.09 0.46 0.94 0.94 0.81 0.84 0.69 0.49 0.24 0.48 0.88 0.78
(TVSP) 0.41 0.74 0.22 0.76 0.54 0.49 0.18 0.04 0.14 0.46 0.81 0.37 0.74 0.54 0.84 0.37

5.5. Selection of Best Solution

To obtain the best result from the above Pareto solutions of AUGMECON2, TOPSIS
augmented with OFs weights was applied. The weights of the functions were assigned
by the DM’s using Delphi’s technique and are presented in Table 14. DMs should select
one solution to allocate the order for each time period. The selection of the final solution
following DM’s preferences is a challenge due to the little difference found among the
values of the five objectives revealed. Therefore, after extracting the top 10 Pareto
optimal solutions at 4—levels for t 1−t 4, TOPSIS is applied to calculate the closeness
coefficient (CC) matrix is presented in Table 15.

Table 14. DM’s Assigned weights for each OF.

Objective Functions TC TTT EI DR TVSP

Weights 0.24 0.19 0.16 0.21 0.20
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 29 of 36

Table 15. Relative Closeness Coefficient (CC) Matrix for Pareto solutions of AUGMECON2 for t1 -
t4.

Time Period
.
t1 t2 t3 t4
1 0.991 0.214 0.583 0.475
2 0.374 0.134 0.797 0.436
CC
3 0.286 0.982 0.614 0.256
4 0.369 0.074 0.579 0.841
Table 16 presents the finalized results for each objective function depending upon the results
obtained from Table 15.

Table 16. Best optimal solution of each objective for t 1−t 4.

CC TC TTT EI DR TVSP
t1 0.991 $86120635 2310 3976971 220684987 105915
t2 0.982 $84577448 2406 4543668 179734575 104504
t3 0.797 $88802598 2300 3537732 223620000 109100
t4 0.841 $86703205 2472 4643103 214302500 106650

Figure 5 presents the optimal order allocation to suppliers to meet the demand for
time period t 1 to time period t 4 . Considering the aspect of sustainability in the SSSOA
problem, the results obtained from AUGMECON2 yield a higher transportation cost for
the enterprise. However, showed a reasonable performance by revealing Pareto
solutions that were close enough to the ideal solutions. Moreover, the computational
complexity of the FMOOM is linked with the time (e.g., CPUs) required to solve a
problem within resources (e.g., computer specifications). Table 8 presents the run time
required to reveal the solutions for the AUGMECON2 algorithm. Due to the complex
and large-scale network problem, its runtime is considerably low, which shows the
developed FMOOM is a tractable time-wise model.
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 30 of 36

Figure 5. Best Optimal Solution for t 1 , t 2 , t 3 , and t 4 .

6. Managerial Insight
The implications of the above-demonstrated results from the managerial
perspective are as follows:
1. The comprehensive sustainability-based analysis has been presented using the
proposed multi-phase holistic framework for solving the SSSOA problem.
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 31 of 36

2. The sustainability-based analysis of the solar panels’ supply chain has been
conducted for the first time to provide an insight for the managers.
3. The comprehensive fuzzified model along with a multi-modal transportation
network is developed to address the uncertainties encountered in demand,
capacity, cost, and defect rate. Thus, making the decision framework more flexible
for the managers.

7. Conclusions and Future Recommendations

Supplier selection and order allocation are the two main decisions in supply chain
management.
In recent years, the complexity of these decisions has increased with the
augmentation of sustainability in the processes. It is a multi-criteria decision-making
approach that helps enterprises lead towards sustainable performance. Its core concept
is to select the suppliers that meet the sustainable criteria (i.e., economic, environmental,
and social) and allocate orders to enhance the overall sustainable performance of an
enterprise. This study aims to explore the supply chain of Solar PV Panels in context of
SSSOA problem. It is worth mentioning here that no study in literature has attempted to
solve SSSOA for Solar PV Panels. Accordingly, this study presents a comprehensive
three-phase decision framework for the Solar PV Panels supply chain. In the first step,
criteria and sub-criteria were identified for supplier selection and solved using FEAHP
and FTOPSIS. In the second phase, a fuzzy multi-objective mixed-integer non-linear
programming mathematical model was developed that incorporated the uncertainties of
demand, suppliers and warehouses capacity levels, and input parameters (e.g.,
purchasing cost, transportation cost, defect rate, etc.). The following main conclusions
can be drawn from this work:
1. The result revealed that amongst the sustainable criteria, cost, environmental
management system, and rights and health of employees ranked highest.
2. Out of five potential suppliers of solar panels located in various parts of the world,
three of them met the decision makers’ criteria.
3. Transfer cost and custom clearance cost contributed 54% towards the overall cost of
the supply chain network.
4. Transfer time and custom clearance time contributed 13% to the overall travel time
of the supply chain network.
5. Of the three modes of transportation (i.e., sea, rail, road), the shipment from rail
dominated the overall transportation process with a share of 53%.
6. The defect rate of the suppliers played a critical role in the selection and allocation
of orders.
The integration of FST with various real-time parameters (multi-modal, multi-
period, customer clearance cost/time, and transfer cost/time) exemplifies the superiority
of this study over similar SSSOA methodologies. Future studies can implement the
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 32 of 36

proposed framework to various industries and supply chains. The decision framework
can be improved by integrating multi-product, suppliers’ resilience, and robustness by
incorporating the effects of disruptions due to geographic proximity. The inclusion of
more environmental and social aspects in the order allocation can further strengthen the
decision framework.

Supplementary Materials:
Author Contributions: R.A.L.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation,
Writing—Original Draft. S.S.W.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing—Original Draft,
Supervision. T.Z.: Conceptualization, Resources. U.G.: Writing—Review & Editing. M.S.A.:
Writing—Review & Editing, funding acquisition. J.S.: Project administration, reviewing, funding
acquisition. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement:
Informed Consent Statement:
Data Availability Statement:
Conflicts of Interest: “The authors declare no conflict of interest.”

Abbreviations
AUGMECON2 Augmented Epsilon Constraint 2
CRITIC Criteria Importance Through Intercriteria Correlation
CC Closeness Coefficient
EI Environmental Impact
FMILP Fuzzy Mixed-Integer Linear Programming
FEAHP Fuzzy Extended Analytical Hierarchy Process
FMINLP Fuzzy Mixed-Integer Non-Linear Programming
FMOMINLP Fuzzy Multi-Objective Mixed-Integer Non-Linear Programming
FST Fuzzy Set Theory
FTOPSIS Fuzzy Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution
MCDM Multi Criteria Decision Making
MINLP Mixed Integer Non-Linear Programming
MINLP Mixed Integer Linear Programming
PV Photovoltaic
SCM Supply Chain Management
SSCM Sustainable Supply Chain Management
SSS Sustainable Supplier Selection
SSSOA Sustainable Supplier Selection and Order Allocation
TC Total Cost
TTT Total travel Time
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 33 of 36

References
1. Florescu, M.S.; Ceptureanu, E.G.; Cruceru, A.F.; Ceptureanu, S.I. Sustainable supply chain management strategy influence on
supply chain management functions in the oil and gas distribution industry. Energies 2019, 12, 1632.
2. Grzybowska, K. Identification and classification of global theoretical trends and supply chain development directions. Ener-
gies 2021,14, 4414.
3. Tsai, F.M.; Bui, T.D.; Tseng, M.L.; Ali, M.H.; Lim, M.K.; Chiu, A.S. Sustainable supply chain management trends in world re-
gions: A data-driven analysis. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 167, 105421.
4. Shi, X.; Zhang, X.; Dong, C.; Wen, S. Economic performance and emission reduction of supply chains in different power struc-
tures perspective of sustainable investment. Energies 2018, 11, 983.
5. Chkanikova, O.; Sroufe, R. Third-party sustainability certifications in food retailing: Certification design from a sustainable
supply chain management perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 282, 124344.
6. Dai, J.; Xie, L.; Chu, Z. Developing sustainable supply chain management: The interplay of institutional pressures and sustain-
ability capabilities. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 28, 254–268.
7. Khan, S.A.R.; Yu, Z.; Golpira, H.; Sharif, A.; Mardani, A. A state-of-the-art review and meta-analysis on sustainable supply
chain management: Future research directions. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 278, 123357.
8. Cui, L.; Wu, H.; Dai, J. Modelling flexible decisions about sustainable supplier selection in multitier sustainable supply chain
management. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2021,18, 1–22.
9. Liaqait, R.A.; Warsi, S.S.; Agha, M.H.; Zahid, T.; Becker, T. A multi-criteria decision framework for sustainable supplier selec-
tion and order allocation using multi-objective optimization and fuzzy approach. Eng. Optim. 2021, 31, 1-22.
10. Mattiussi, A.; Rosano, M.; Simeoni, P. A decision support system for sustainable energy supply combining multi-objective and
multi-attribute analysis: An Australian case study. Decis. Support Syst. 2014, 57, 150–159.
11. Chen, C.T.; Lin, C.T.; Huang, S.F. A fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and selection in supply chain management. Int. J.
Prod. Econ. 2006, 102, 289–301.
12. Ferreira, L.; Borenstein, D. A fuzzy-Bayesian model for supplier selection Expert Syst. Appl. 2012, 39, 7834–7844.
13. Jolai, F.; Yazdian, S.A.; Shahanaghi, K.; Khojasteh, M.A. Integrating fuzzy TOPSIS and multi-period goal programming for
purchasing multiple products from multiple suppliers. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2011, 17, 42–53.
14. Faez, F.; Ghodsypour, S.H.; O’Brien, C. Vendor selection and order allocation using an integrated fuzzy case-based reasoning
and mathematical programming model. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2009, 121, 395–408.
15. Aouadni, S.; Aouadni, I.; Rebaï, A. A systematic review on supplier selection and order allocation problems. J. Ind. Eng. Int.
2019, 15, 267–289.
16. Demirtas, E.A.; Üstün, Ö. An integrated multiobjective decision making process for supplier selection and order allocation.
Omega 2008, 36, 76–90.
17. Hassanzadeh, S.; Razmi, J.; Zhang, G. Supplier selection and order allocation based on fuzzy SWOT analysis and fuzzy linear
programming. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 334–342.
18. Hamdan, S.; Cheaitou, A. Green supplier selection and order allocation using an integrated fuzzy TOPSIS, AHP and IP ap-
proach. In Proceedings of the IEOM 2015—5th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Manage-
ment, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 3–5 March 2015; pp. 1390–1399.
19. Fan, Z.; Li, S.; Gao, Z. Multiobjective Sustainable Order Allocation Problem Optimization with Improved Genetic Algorithm
Using Priority Encoding. Math. Probl. Eng. 2019, 2019, 8218709.
20. Cheraghalipour, A.; Farsad, S. A bi-objective sustainable supplier selection and order allocation considering quantity dis-
counts under disruption risks: A case study in plastic industry. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2018, 118, 237–250.
21. Li, F.; Wu, C.H.; Zhou, L.; Xu, G.; Liu, Y.; Tsai, S.B. A model integrating environmental concerns and supply risks for dynamic
sustainable supplier selection and order allocation. Soft Comput. 2021, 25, 535–549.
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 34 of 36

22. Su, W.; Zhang, D.; Zhang, C.; Streimikiene, D. Sustainability assessment of energy sector development in China and European
Union. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 28, 1063–1076.
23. Li, D.; Heimeriks, G.; Alkemade, F. Knowledge flows in global renewable energy innovation systems: The role of technolo-
gical and geographical distance. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2021, 23, 1–15.
24. Sun, H.; Awan, R.U.; Nawaz, M.A.; Mohsin, M.; Rasheed, A.K.; Iqbal, N. Assessing the socio-economic viability of solar com-
mercialization and electrification in south Asian countries. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 9875–9897.
25. World Bank. Solar. 2017. Available online: https://www.worldbank.org/en/results/2017/11/29/solar (accessed on 29 September
2021).
26. Mastrocinque, E.; Ramírez, F.J.; Honrubia-Escribano, A.; Pham, D.T. An AHP-based multi-criteria model for sustainable sup-
ply chain development in the renewable energy sector. Expert Syst. Appl. 2020, 150, 113321.
27. Zimon, D.; Domingues, P. Proposal of a concept for improving the sustainable management of supply chains in the textile in-
dustry. Fibres Text. East. Eur. 2018, 26, 8–12.
28. Tseng, M.L.; Wu, K.J.; Lim, M.K.; Wong, W.P. Data-driven sustainable supply chain management performance: A hierarchical
structure assessment under uncertainties. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 227, 760–771.
29. Vijayvargiya, A.; Dey, A.K. An analytical approach for selection of a logistics provider. Manag. Decis. 2010, 48, 403–418.
30. Ayhan, M.B.; Kilic, H.S. A two stage approach for supplier selection problem in multi-item/multi-supplier environment with
quantity discounts. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2015, 85, 1–12.
31. Abdollahzadeh, H.; Atashgar, K. Optimal design of a multi-state system with uncertainty in supplier selection. Comput. Ind.
Eng. 2017, 105, 411–424.
32. Wang, T.C.; Tsai, S.Y. Solar panel supplier selection for the photovoltaic system design by using fuzzy multi-criteria decision
making (MCDM) approaches. Energies 2018, 11, 1989.
33. Awasthi, A.; Govindan, K.; Gold, S. Multi-tier sustainable global supplier selection using a fuzzy AHP-VIKOR based ap-
proach. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2018, 195, 106–117.
34. Bland, A.R.; Schaefer, A. Different varieties of uncertainty in human decision-making. Front. Neurosci. 2012, 6, 85.
35. Jahan, A.; Edwards, K.L.; Bahraminasab, M. Multi-criteria Decision Analysis for Supporting the Selection of Engineering Materials
in Product Design; Elsevier, 2016..
36. 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.
37. Govindan, K.; Paam, P.; Abtahi, A.R. A fuzzy multi-objective optimization model for sustainable reverse logistics network
design. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 67, 753–768.
38. Büyüközkan, G.; Çifçi, G. A novel fuzzy multi-criteria decision framework for sustainable supplier selection with incomplete
information. Comput. Ind. 2011, 62, 164–174.
39. Luthra, S.; Govindan, K.; Kannan, D.; Mangla, S.K.; Garg, C.P. An integrated framework for sustainable supplier selection and
evaluation in supply chains. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 1686–1698.
40. 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.
41. Zhang, J.; Yang, D.; Li, Q.; Lev, B.; Ma, Y. Research on sustainable supplier selection based on the rough dematel and fvikor
methods. Sustainability 2021, 13, 88.
42. Zadeh, L.A. Fuzzy Sets. J. Inf. Control 1965, 8, 338–353.
43. Gupta, H.; Barua, M.K. A novel hybrid multi-criteria method for supplier selection among SMEs on the basis of innovation
ability. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2018, 21, 201–223.
44. Gupta, P.; Govindan, K.; Mehlawat, M.K.; Kumar, S. A weighted possibilistic programming approach for sustainable vendor
selection and order allocation in fuzzy environment. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2016, 86, 1785–1804.
45. Kahraman, C.; Onar, S.C.; Oztaysi, B. Fuzzy Multicriteria Decision-Making: A Literature Review. Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst.
2015, 8, 637–666.
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 35 of 36

46. Bhuniya, S.; Pareek, S.; Sarkar, B.; Sett, B.K. A smart production process for the optimum energy consumption with mainten-
ance policy under a supply chain management. Processes 2021, 9, 19.
47. Alavi, B.; Tavana, M.; Mina, H. A Dynamic Decision Support System for Sustainable Supplier Selection in Circular Economy.
Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 905–920.
48. Orji, I.J.; Ojadi, F. Investigating the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on sustainable supplier selection in the Nigerian Manufac-
turing Sector. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2021, 160, 107588.
49. 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.
50. 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.
51. Bektur, G. An integrated methodology for the selection of sustainable suppliers and order allocation problem with quantity
discounts, lost sales and varying supplier availabilities. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2020, 23, 111–127.
52. Ghorbani, M.; Bahrami, M.; Arabzad, S.M. An Integrated Model For Supplier Selection and Order Allocation ; Using Shannon
Entropy, SWOT and Linear Programming. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Leadership, Technology and In-
novation Management. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 41, 521–527.
53. Rabieh, M.; Rafsanjani, A.F.; Babaei, L.; Esmaeili, M. Sustainable supplier selection and order allocation: An integrated delphi
method, fuzzy topsis, and multi-objective programming model. Sci. Iran. 2019, 26, 2524–2540.
54. Sadeghi, A.S.; Sadati, A.; Rabbani, M. ustainable design of a municipal solid waste management system in an integrated
closed-loop supply chain network using a fuzzy approach: A case study. J. Ind. Prod. Eng. 2021, 38, 1–18.
55. Mohammed, A. Towards a sustainable assessment of suppliers: An integrated fuzzy TOPSIS-possibilistic multi-objective ap-
proach. Ann. Oper. Res. 2020, 293, 639–668.
56. Goren, H.G. A Decision Framework for Sustainable Supplier Selection and Order Allocation with Lost Sales. J. Clean. Prod.
2018, 183, 1156–1169.
57. Kumar, D.; Rahman, Z.; Chan, F.T.S. A fuzzy AHP and fuzzy multi-objective linear programming model for order allocation
in a sustainable supply chain: A case study. Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 2017, 30, 535–551.
58. Ghorabaee, M.K.; Amiri, M.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Turskis, Z.; Antucheviciene, J. A new multi-criteria model based on interval
type-2 fuzzy sets and EDAS method for supplier evaluation and order allocation with environmental considerations. Comput.
Ind. Eng. 2017, 112, 156–174.
59. Firouzi, F.; Jadidi, O. Multi-objective model for supplier selection and order allocation problem with fuzzy parameters. Expert
Syst. Appl. 2021, 180, 115129.
60. Nazari-shirkouhi, S.; Shakouri, H.; Javadi, B.; Keramati, A. Supplier selection and order allocation problem using a two-phase
fuzzy multi-objective linear programming. Appl. Math. Model. 2013, 37, 9308–9323.
61. Mohammed, X.L.A.; Setchi, R.; Filip, M.; Harris, I. An integrated methodology for a sustainable two-stage supplier selection
and order allocation problem. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 192, 99–114.
62. Beiki, H.; Seyedhosseini, S.M.; Ponkratov, V.V.; Zekiy, A.O.; Ivanov, S.A. Addressing a sustainable supplier selection and or-
der allocation problem by an integrated approach: A case of automobile manufacturing. J. Ind. Prod. Eng. 2021, 38, 239–253.
63. Nasr, A.K.; Tavana, M.; Alavi, B.; Mina, H. A novel fuzzy multi-objective circular supplier selection and order allocation
model for sustainable closed-loop supply chains. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 287, 124994.
64. Khoshfetrat, S.; Galankashi, M.R.; Almasi, M. Sustainable supplier selection and order allocation: A fuzzy approach. Eng. Op-
tim. 2020, 52, 1494–1507.
65. Tayyab, M.; Sarkar, B. An interactive fuzzy programming approach for a sustainable supplier selection under textile supply
chain management. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2021, 155, 107164.
66. Vahidi, F.; Torabi, S.A.; Ramezankhani, M.J. Sustainable supplier selection and order allocation under operational and disrup-
tion risks. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 174, 1351–1365.
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 36 of 36

67. Jia, R.; Liu, Y.; Bai, X. Sustainable supplier selection and order allocation: Distributionally robust goal programming model
and tractable approximation. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2020, 140, 106267.
68. Tirkolaee, E.B.; Mardani, A.; Dashtian, Z.; Soltani, M.; Weber, G.W. A novel hybrid method using fuzzy decision making and
multi-objective programming for sustainable-reliable supplier selection in two-echelon supply chain design. J. Clean. Prod.
2020, 250, 119517.
69. Mohammed, A.; Harris, I.; Soroka, A.; Nujoom, R. A hybrid MCDM-fuzzy multi-objective programming approach for a G-re-
silient supply chain network design. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2019, 127, 297–312.
70. Mohammed, A.; Harris, I.; Govindan, K. A hybrid MCDM-FMOO approach for sustainable supplier selection and order alloc-
ation. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2019, 217, 171–184.
71. Sodenkamp, M.A. A Multicriteria Multilevel Group Decision Method for Supplier Selection and Order Allocation. Int. J.
Strateg. Decis. Sci. 2015, 3, 81–105.
72. Omair, M.; Noor, S.; Tayyab, M.; Maqsood, S.; Ahmed, W.; Sarkar, B.; Habib, M.S. The Selection of the Sustainable Suppliers
by the Development of a Decision Support Framework Based on Analytical Hierarchical Process and Fuzzy Inference System.
Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 2021, 23, 1986–2003.
73. Wang, Y.M.; Luo, Y.; Hua, Z. On the extent analysis method for fuzzy AHP and its applications. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2008, 186,
735–747.
74. Mavrotas, G.; Florios, K. An improved version of the augmented s-constraint method (AUGMECON2) for finding the exact
pareto set in multi-objective integer programming problems. Appl. Math. Comput. 2013, 219, 9652–9669.
75. Ali, S.; Poulova, P.; Akbar, A.; Javed, H.M.U.; Danish, M. Determining the Influencing Factors in the Adoption of Solar Photo-
voltaic Technology in Pakistan : Model Approach sector is worldwide. Economies 2020, 8, 108.
76. Sheikh, M.A. Renewable energy resource potential in Pakistan. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2009, 13, 2696–2702.
77. World Bank. Expanding Renewable Energy in Pakistan’s Electricity Mix. 2020. Available online: https://
www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2020/11/09/a-renewable-energy-future-for-pakistans-power-system (accessed on 24
September 2021).
78. Jazeera, A. Pakistan Plans Renewables for a Fifth of Energy Supplies by 2025. 2019. Available online: https://www.aljazeera.-
com/economy/2019/7/23/pakistan-plans-renewables-for-a-fifth-of-energy-supplies-by-2025 (accessed on 24 September 2021).