Post-pandemic strategic evaluation of food supply chains using hybrid decision models

Abstract

The increasing complexity and disruptions in global food supply chains (FSCs), particularly after COVID-19, have emphasized the need for resilient and adaptive strategies. This study conducts a comparative analysis of various FSC structures, such as Centralized, Decentralized, Digitalized, Localized, and Hybrid models. The comparison was carried out by applying two integrated multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods: Entropy-based MOORA and Entropy-based MARCOS. Objective weights for the eight criteria (cost, flexibility, resilience, lead time, sustainability, service level, innovation capability, and risk management) were assigned through the Entropy method that was used to reduce the subjective bias. In general, both methods identified the Digitalized and Hybrid supply chain models as the two highest-ranked alternatives, while the Centralized model ranked last. To make the findings even more robust, we carried out a sensitivity analysis where we changed the criterion weights in different scenarios. Moreover, an Entropy-based COPRAS method was employed for the robustness analysis, and the findings supported the stability and consistency of the rankings across different methodological approaches. By comparing two MCDM methods in a post-pandemic context, the study contributes to the literature while offering practical guidance for stakeholders on investing in digital infrastructure, adopting hybrid supply chain models, and integrating sustainability objectives into supply chain planning. The findings provide practical guidance for policymakers and executives seeking to enhance the resilience and environmental sustainability of FSCs amid global uncertainty.

Keywords

• Food supply chain
• Entropy
• MOORA
• MARCOS
• COPRAS
• Strategy selection
• Hybrid supply chain
• MCDM

Hibrit karar modelleri kullanılarak pandemi sonrası gıda tedarik zincirlerinin stratejik değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Küresel gıda tedarik zincirlerindeki (GTZ) artan karmaşıklık ve kesintiler, özellikle COVID-19 sonrasında, dayanıklı ve uyum sağlayabilen stratejilere olan ihtiyacı vurgulamıştır. Bu çalışma, Merkeziyetçi, Merkeziyetsiz, Dijitalleşmiş, Yerelleştirilmiş ve Hibrit olmak üzere beş alternatif GTZ yapılandırmasını değerlendirmektedir. Değerlendirme sürecinde, iki bütünleşik çok kriterli karar verme (ÇKKV) yöntemi olan Entropi tabanlı MOORA ve Entropi tabanlı MARCOS yaklaşımları kullanılmıştır. Sekiz kritere (maliyet, esneklik, dayanıklılık, teslim süresi, sürdürülebilirlik, hizmet seviyesi, yenilik kapasitesi ve risk yönetimi) nesnel ağırlıklar atamak amacıyla Entropi yöntemi uygulanmış, böylece öznel önyargılar en aza indirilmiştir. Her iki yöntem de tutarlı sonuçlar vermiş; dijitalleşmiş ve hibrit modeller en etkili stratejiler olarak öne çıkarken, merkeziyetçi sistemler en düşük performansı göstermiştir. Bulguların güvenilirliğini değerlendirmek amacıyla, kriter ağırlıkları farklı senaryolar altında değiştirilerek duyarlılık analizi yapılmıştır. Ayrıca sonuçların sağlamlığını doğrulamak için Entropi tabanlı COPRAS yöntemi uygulanmış ve sıralamaların farklı yöntemler altında da değişmediği görülmüştür. Çalışma, pandemi sonrası bağlamda iki farklı ÇKKV yöntemini karşılaştırarak literatüre katkı sunmakta; dijital altyapıya yatırım yapılması, hibrit modellerin benimsenmesi ve sürdürülebilirlik hedeflerinin tedarik zinciri planlamalarına entegre edilmesi yönünde uygulamaya dönük öneriler sunmaktadır. Elde edilen bulgular, küresel belirsizlik ortamında GTZ’nin dayanıklılığının ve çevresel sürdürülebilirliğinin artırılmasına yönelik olarak politika yapıcılara ve yöneticilere pratik yol gösterici bilgiler sunmaktadır.

Keywords

• Gıda tedarik zinciri
• Entropi
• MOORA
• MARCOS
• COPRAS
• Strateji seçimi
• Hibrit tedarik zinciri
• ÇKKV

References

1. [1] Christopher M. Logistics & Supply Chain Management. 5ᵗʰ ed. Harlow, UK: Pearson, 2016.
2. [2] Ivanov D, Dolgui A. “A digital supply chain twin for managing the disruption risks and resilience in the era of industry 4.0”. Production Planning & Control, 32(9), 775–788, 2021.
3. [3] Hobbs JE. “Food supply chains during the COVID-19 pandemic”. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 68(2), 171–176, 2020.
4. [4] Bakkal S, Kabadayi N. “Evaluation of barriers to circular supply chain implementations with the spherical fuzzy ahp method: a case study of battery industry”. Pamukkale University Journal of Engineering Sciences, 31(1), 17–36, 2025.
5. [5] Akçay B, Küçükoğlu C, Bilgen B. “Multi-objective mixed integer programming model for agriculture food supply chain network design problem”. Pamukkale University Journal of Engineering Sciences, 31(2), 199–211, 2025.
6. [6] Shou Y, Li Y, Park Y, Kang M. “Supply chain integration and operational performance: The contingency effects of production systems”. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 24(4), 352–360, 2018.
7. [7] Ivanov D. “Predicting the impacts of epidemic outbreaks on global supply chains: A simulation-based analysis on the coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2) Case”. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 136, 101922, 2020.
8. [8] Türkeș MC, Aurelia FS, Roxana-Cristina M. “Modeling the impact of resilience factors and relational practice on performance of the supply chain”. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 9(3), 100533, 2024.

9. [9] Bø E, Hovi IB, Pinchasik DR. “COVID-19 disruptions and norwegian food and pharmaceutical supply chains: insights into supply chain risk management, resilience, and reliability”. Sustainable Futures, 5(100102), 2023.
10. [10] Zhao K, Kumar A, Harrison TP, Yen J. “Analyzing the resilience of complex supply network topologies against random and targeted disruptions”. IEEE Systems Journal, 5(1), 28–39, 2011.
11. [11] Teece DJ. Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management: Organizing for Innovation and Growth. 1st ed. Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press, 2009.
12. [12] Said Z, Vigneshwaran P, Shaik S, Rauf A, Ahmad Z. “Climate and carbon policy pathways for sustainable food systems”. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 27(100730), 2025.
13. [13] Ghorabaee MK, Zavadskas EK, Olfat L, Turskis Z. “Multi-criteria inventory classification using a new method of evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS)”. Informatica, 26(3), 435–451, 2015.
14. [14] Shannon CE. “A mathematical theory of communication”. Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 379-423, 1948.
15. [15] Vaidya OS, Kumar S. “Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of applications”. European Journal of Operational Research, 169(1), 1–29, 2006.
16. [16] Rejeb A, Rejeb K, Appolloni A, Iranmanesh M, Treiblmaier H, Jagtap S. “Exploring food supply chain trends in the COVID-19 era: A bibliometric review”. Sustainability, 14(19), 12437, 2022.
17. [17] Momena AF, Gazi KH, Rahaman M, Sobczak A, Salahshour S, Mondal SP, Ghosh A. “Ranking and challenges of supply chain companies using MCDM methodology”. Logistics, 8(3), 87, 2024.
18. [18] Haider M, Jha AK, Raut R, Kumar M, Ghoshal S. “Redesigning short and perishable food supply chains getting insight from the causal analysis of challenges to sustainable development”. British Food Journal, 127(5), 1620–1647, 2025.
19. [19] Yazdani M, Pamucar D, Chatterjee P, Torkayesh AE. “A multi-tier sustainable food supplier selection model under uncertainty”. Operations Management Research, 15(1), 116–145, 2022.
20. [20] Rojas-Reyes J, Leonardo RC, Diego PO. “Disruptions in the food supply chain: A literature review”. Heliyon, 10(14), e34730, 2024.
21. [21] Michel-Villarreal R, Vilalta-Perdomo EL, Canavari M, Hingley M. “Resilience and digitalization in short food supply chains: a case study approach”. Sustainability, 13(11), 5913, 2021.
22. [22] Primadasa R, Kusrini E, Mansur A, Masudi I. “Enhancing SME supply chain sustainability through organizational ambidexterity and supply chain agility using the MOORA-ISM-MICMAC framework”. Sustainable Futures, 10, 101373, 2025.
23. [23] Pettit TJ, Fiksel J, Croxton KL. “Ensuring supply chain resilience: development and implementation of an assessment tool”. Journal of Business Logistics, 34(1), 46–76, 2013.
24. [24] Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z, Kildienė S. “State of the art surveys of overviews on MCDM/MADM methods”. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 20(1), 165–179, 2014.
25. [25] Sarıoğlan M, Arslan K. “Yiyecek içecek işletmelerinde moora yöntemi ile tedarikçi seçiminin uygulanabilirliği”. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 19(73), 254–270, 2020.
26. [26] Demirel E. “COVID-19 salgını sonrası gıda içecek endeksi (XGIDA) işletmelerinin MOORA yöntemi ile finansal performans analizi”. International Journal of Social and Humanities Sciences Research (JSHSR), 12(121), 1453–1461, 2025.
27. [27] Wang Y, Wang W, Wang Z, Deveci M, Roy SK, Kadry S. “Selection of sustainable food suppliers using the pythagorean fuzzy CRITIC-MARCOS method”. Information Sciences, 664, 120326, 2024.
28. [28] Saaty TL. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. 2nd ed. New York, USA, McGraw-Hill, 1980.
29. [29] Mikhailov L. “Deriving priorities from fuzzy pairwise comparison judgments”. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 134(3), 365–385, 2003.
30. [30] Hwang CL, Yoon K. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications: A State-of-the-Art Survey Berlin, Germany, Springer-Verlag, 1981.
31. [31] Alan B, Polat Ö, Polat O. “Comparison of selection criteria of suppliers at different levels in fresh fruit and vegetables industry”. Pamukkale University Journal of Engineering Sciences, 29(8), 885–896, 2023.
32. [32] Rezaei J. “Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method”. Omega, 53, 49–57, 2015.
33. [33] Coyle JJ, Bardi EJ, Langley CJ. The Management of Business Logistics: A Supply Chain Perspective. 7th ed. Mason, OH, USA: South-Western College Publishing; 2002.
34. [34] Christopher M. Logistics & Supply Chain Management. 6ᵗʰ ed. Harlow, UK, Pearson, 2023.
35. [35] Heizer J, Render B, Munson C. Operations Management: Sustainability and Supply Chain Management. 13ᵗʰ ed. Harlow, UK, Pearson, 2020.
36. [36] Baryannis G, Dani S, Antoniou G. “Predicting supply chain risks using machine learning: The trade-off between performance and interpretability”. Future Generation Computer Systems, 101, 993–1004, 2019.
37. [37] Hofmann E, Rüsch M. “Industry 4.0 and the current status as well as future prospects on logistics”. Computers in Industry, 89, 23–34, 2017.
38. [38] Chopra S, Meindl P. Supply Chain Management: Strategy, Planning, and Operation. 6ᵗʰ ed. Harlow, UK, Pearson, 2016.