SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİR TEDARİKÇİ SEÇİMİ İÇİN BÜTÜNLEŞİK FERMATEAN BULANIK SWARA-WASPAS YÖNTEMLERİ

Abstract

Günümüz iş dünyasında sürdürülebilir tedarikçi seçimi, yalnızca etik sorumluluklar nedeniyle değil, aynı zamanda rekabet avantajını artırmak ve uzun vadeli riskleri yönetmek açısından da stratejik bir önem kazanmıştır. Tüketiciler, yatırımcılar ve düzenleyici kurumlar gibi paydaşlar, şirketlerin tedarik zincirlerinin tamamında sürdürülebilirlik ilkelerini benimsemelerini giderek daha fazla beklemektedir. Bu nedenle, geleneksel ekonomik göstergelere ek olarak çevresel, sosyal ve yönetişim (ÇSY) kriterlerinin entegre edilmesi artık bir gereklilik hâline gelmiştir. Bu çalışma, büyük ölçekli bir perakende kuruluşunun tedarikçi değerlendirme sürecine odaklanmakta ve sürdürülebilirlik odaklı karar verme kriterlerini içermektedir. Kapsamlı bir literatür taramasına dayanarak mevcut değerlendirme kriterleri gözden geçirilmiş ve ÇSY boyutlarını içerecek şekilde genişletilerek ekonomik, çevresel, sosyal ve yönetişim olmak üzere dört ana kategori altında 18 alt kriterden oluşan bütüncül bir çerçeve oluşturulmuştur. Bu kriterlerin önem düzeylerini belirlemek için Fermatean Bulanık SWARA yöntemi uygulanmış, tedarikçi alternatifleri ise Fermatean Bulanık WASPAS tekniğiyle önceliklendirilmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular, sürdürülebilir tedarik uygulamalarını geliştirmek isteyen uygulayıcılara yönelik uygulanabilir öngörüler sunmaktadır.

Keywords

• Sürdürülebilir Tedarikçi Seçimi
• Fermatean Bulanık Kümeler
• SWARA
• WASPAS.

INTEGRATED FERMATEAN FUZZY SWARA-WASPAS METHODS FOR SUSTAINABLE SUPPLIER SELECTION

Abstract

In today's business landscape, sustainable supplier selection has gained strategic significance, not only due to ethical responsibilities but also as a key factor in enhancing competitive advantage and managing long-term risks. Stakeholders such as consumers, investors, and regulatory agencies increasingly expect companies to adopt sustainability principles throughout their supply chains. Consequently, integrating environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria alongside traditional economic indicators has become essential. This study focuses on a large-scale retail organization’s supplier evaluation process by incorporating sustainability-oriented decision-making criteria. Building on a comprehensive literature review, existing evaluation criteria were revised and expanded to include ESG dimensions, forming a holistic framework of 18 sub-criteria across four primary categories: economic, environmental, social, and governance. To determine the importance of these criteria, the Fermatean Fuzzy SWARA method was applied, and supplier alternatives were prioritized using the Fermatean Fuzzy WASPAS technique. The findings provide actionable insights for practitioners seeking to enhance sustainable procurement practices.

Keywords

• Sustainable Supplier Selection
• Fermatean Fuzzy Sets
• SWARA
• WASPAS.

References

1. Atanassov, K.T., 1986. Intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 20 (1), 87-96.
2. Awasthi, A., Chauhan, S. S., & Goyal, S. K. (2010). A fuzzy multicriteria approach for evaluating environmental performance of suppliers. International Journal of Production Economics, 126(2), 370–378.
3. Büyüközkan, G., & Çifçi, G. (2011). A novel fuzzy multi-criteria decision framework for sustainable supplier selection with incomplete information. Computers in Industry, 62(2), 164–174.
4. Camci, A., Ertürk, M.E., Gül, S., (2022). A Novel Fermatean Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process Proposition and Its Usage for Supplier Selection Problem in Industry 4.0 Transition. In: Garg, H. (eds) q-Rung Orthopair Fuzzy Sets. Springer, Singapore.
5. CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity). (2011). Biodiversity and Sustainable Agriculture.
6. Christopher, M. (2016). Logistics & Supply Chain Management. Pearson UK.
7. COSO (Committee of Sponsoring Organizations). (2017). Enterprise Risk Management—Integrating with Strategy and Performance.
8. Cuong, B. C., Kreinovich, V. (2013). Picture fuzzy sets—a new concept for computational intelligence problems, in Proceeding of the 3rd World Congress on Information and Communication Technologies, December 15–18 (Hanoi, Vietnam, 2013), 1–6.

9. Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Capstone Publishing.
10. Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural Diversity at Work: The Effects of Diversity Perspectives on Work Group Processes and Outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 229-273.
11. European Commission. (2020). Sustainable Materials Management.
12. European Environment Agency (EEA). (2019). Circular Economy and Sustainable Materials Management.
13. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). (2016). Standards for Transparency and Reporting.
14. Govindan, K., Rajendran, S., Sarkis, J., & Murugesan, P. (2015). Multi criteria decision making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 98, 66–83.
15. Heizer, J., Render, B., & Munson, C. (2017). Operations Management: Sustainability and Supply Chain Management. Pearson.
16. Higgins, R. C. (2012). Analysis for Financial Management. McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
17. International Labour Organization (ILO). (2019). Decent Work and Working Conditions.
18. ISO (International Organization for Standardization). (2021). ISO 14001 Environmental Management.
19. Kersuliene, V., Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2010). Selection of rational dispute resolution method by applying new step‐wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA). Journal of Business Economics and Management, 11(2), 243–258.
20. Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M., Amiri, M., Hashemi-Tabatabaei, M., Zavadskas, E. K., & Kaklauskas, A. (2020). A new decision-making approach based on Fermatean fuzzy sets and WASPAS for green construction supplier evaluation. Mathematics, 8(12), 2202.
21. Kirişci, M. (2022). Fermatean hesitant fuzzy sets with medical decision making application.
22. Kirişci, M. (2023). New cosine similarity and distance measures for Fermatean fuzzy sets and TOPSIS approach. Knowledge and Information Systems, 65(2), 855-868.
23. Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2015). Marketing Management. Pearson.
24. Kutlu Gündoğdu, F., Kahraman, C. (2019). Spherical fuzzy sets and spherical fuzzy TOPSIS method. Journal of intelligent & fuzzy systems, 36(1), 337-352.
25. Mishra, A. R., Chen, S. M., & Rani, P. (2023). Multicriteria decision making based on novel score function of Fermatean fuzzy numbers, the CRITIC method, and the GLDS method. Information Sciences, 623, 915-931.
26. Narasimhan, R., & Nair, A. (2005). The Role of Payment Terms in Supplier-Buyer Relationships. Journal of Business Logistics, 26(2), 65-88.
27. Nikou, S., & Meier, A. (2021). Sustainable supplier selection using hybrid SWARA and WASPAS methods. Sustainability, 13(12), 6564.
28. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating Shared Value. Harvard Business Review.
29. Rezaei, J., & Ortt, R. (2018). Multi-criteria supplier segmentation using a fuzzy preference relations-based AHP. Expert Systems with Applications, 95, 84–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2017.11.002
30. Senapati, T., & Yager, R. R. (2020). Fermatean fuzzy sets. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 11, 663-674.
31. Simic, V., Ebadi Torkayesh, A., & Ijadi Maghsoodi, A. (2022). Locating a disinfection facility for hazardous healthcare waste in the COVID-19 era: a novel approach based on Fermatean fuzzy ITARA-MARCOS and random forest recursive feature elimination algorithm. Annals of Operations Research.
32. Stevenson, W. J. (2018). Operations Management. McGraw-Hill Education.
33. Transparency International. (2020). Anti-Corruption Principles.
34. Wiedmann, T., & Minx, J. (2008). A Definition of 'Carbon Footprint'. Ecological Economics, 67(1), 115-124.
35. World Resources Institute (WRI). (2019). Corporate Resource Efficiency Practices.
36. Yager, R. R. (2014). Pythagorean membership grades in multicriteria decision making. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 22(4), 958-965.
37. Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Kildienė, S. (2014). State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM/MADM methods. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 20(1), 165–179.
38. Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., Antucheviciene, J., & Zakarevicius, A. (2012). Optimization of weighted aggregated sum product assessment. Elektronika ir elektrotechnika, 122(6), 3-6.