4.7 Article

Sustainable supply chain network design problem: Using the integrated BWM, TOPSIS, possibilistic programming, and ε-constrained methods

期刊

EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS
卷 168, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2020.114373

关键词

Possibilistic programming; epsilon-Constraint method; Green image; Social sustainability; Best-Worst method

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper introduces a two-stage multi-objective supply chain network design model that optimizes economic, environmental, and social sustainability goals by incorporating green image factors of suppliers. The model utilizes a combined possibilistic programming and epsilon constraint method to generate various Pareto-optimal solutions, aiding decision-making in uncertain environments.
This paper proposes a two-stage multi-objective possibilistic integer linear programming sustainable supply chain network design model, minimizing the economic, environmental goals and maximizing the social sustainability goals. The proposed model determines the openings of facilities and the amount of flow of goods across the supply chain. It introduces supplier green image factors in the design of the supply chain network. The model has considered epistemic uncertainty to model the unknown capacity, cost, and demand. The proposed study has been carried out in two stages. In the first stage, BWM (Best-Worst method) and TOPSIS are applied to evaluate the green image weights of suppliers. Further, these green weights are being used in the second phase for the supply chain network design. The study has adopted combined possibilistic programming and Epsilon (epsilon) constraint method, which was reported infrequently in the literature. Epsilon (epsilon) constraint method generates distinct Pareto-optimal solutions, which provided a large combination of the trade-off between the cost, emission, and social sustainability. The results facilitate decision-makers to take the decision in an uncertain environment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据