IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i16p10152-d889385.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Hesitant Fuzzy Method for Evaluating Risky Cold Chain Suppliers Based on an Improved TODIM

Author

Listed:
  • Yongzheng Zhang

    (Business School, University of Shanghai for Science of Technology, Shanghai 200093, China)

  • Chunming Ye

    (Business School, University of Shanghai for Science of Technology, Shanghai 200093, China)

  • Xiuli Geng

    (Business School, University of Shanghai for Science of Technology, Shanghai 200093, China)

Abstract

Enterprises need sustainable development in order to reduce costs and increase income. The cold chain logistics industry needs to promote sustainable supply chains more. As the beginning of the supply chain, the choice of suppliers is particularly important. Considering the risky attitude of decision-makers, an improved hesitant fuzzy TODIM approach is adopted to select suppliers. In order to calculate a more objective indicator weight, the generalized Shapley function of the hesitant fuzzy measure is adopted by analyzing the relationships among indicators. The uncertain supplier evaluation information given by decision-makers is obtained by using hesitant fuzzy information. The improved Interactive and Multi-criteria Decision-Making (TODIM) method based on hesitant fuzzy numbers is used to analyze the psychological behavior of decision-makers under different market prospects and comprehensively rank the candidate suppliers. Finally, a case study of selecting cold chain logistics suppliers is provided to verify the effectiveness and feasibility of the method in this paper.

Suggested Citation

  • Yongzheng Zhang & Chunming Ye & Xiuli Geng, 2022. "A Hesitant Fuzzy Method for Evaluating Risky Cold Chain Suppliers Based on an Improved TODIM," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-23, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:16:p:10152-:d:889385
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/16/10152/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/16/10152/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yanjuan Hu & Lizhe Wu & Chao Shi & Yilin Wang & Feifan Zhu, 2020. "Research on optimal decision-making of cloud manufacturing service provider based on grey correlation analysis and TOPSIS," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(3), pages 748-757, February.
    2. Bian, Tian & Hu, Jiantao & Deng, Yong, 2017. "Identifying influential nodes in complex networks based on AHP," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 479(C), pages 422-436.
    3. Michel Grabisch & Christophe Labreuche, 2010. "A decade of application of the Choquet and Sugeno integrals in multi-criteria decision aid," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 247-286, March.
    4. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. Huiru Zhao & Sen Guo, 2014. "Selecting Green Supplier of Thermal Power Equipment by Using a Hybrid MCDM Method for Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-19, January.
    6. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    7. Yazhou Xiong & Jie Zhao & Jie Lan, 2019. "Performance Evaluation of Food Cold Chain Logistics Enterprise Based on the AHP and Entropy," International Journal of Information Systems and Supply Chain Management (IJISSCM), IGI Global, vol. 12(2), pages 57-67, April.
    8. Hang Liu & Shilin Nie, 2019. "Low Carbon Scheduling Optimization of Flexible Integrated Energy System Considering CVaR and Energy Efficiency," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-27, September.
    9. Hédi Essid & Janet Ganouati & Stephane Vigeant, 2018. "A mean-maverick game cross-efficiency approach to portfolio selection: An application to Paris stock exchange," Post-Print hal-01916529, HAL.
    10. Xiaoli Tian & Meiling Niu & Jiangshui Ma & Zeshui Xu, 2020. "A Novel TODIM with Probabilistic Hesitant Fuzzy Information and Its Application in Green Supplier Selection," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2020, pages 1-26, December.
    11. Aida Rezaei & Amir Aghsami & Masoud Rabbani, 2021. "Supplier selection and order allocation model with disruption and environmental risks in centralized supply chain," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 12(6), pages 1036-1072, December.
    12. Ngoc Bao Tu Nguyen & Gu-Hong Lin & Thanh-Tuan Dang, 2021. "A Two Phase Integrated Fuzzy Decision-Making Framework for Green Supplier Selection in the Coffee Bean Supply Chain," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(16), pages 1-22, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Amit Kothiyal & Vitalie Spinu & Peter Wakker, 2014. "An experimental test of prospect theory for predicting choice under ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 1-17, February.
    2. Luiz Gomes & Maria Machado & Luis Rangel, 2013. "Behavioral multi-criteria decision analysis: the TODIM method with criteria interactions," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 211(1), pages 531-548, December.
    3. Lei Chen & Ying-Ming Wang & Yan Huang, 2020. "Cross-efficiency aggregation method based on prospect consensus process," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 288(1), pages 115-135, May.
    4. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. & Botzen, W.J.W., 2015. "Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO2 emissions: A critical survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 33-46.
    5. Shoji, Isao & Kanehiro, Sumei, 2016. "Disposition effect as a behavioral trading activity elicited by investors' different risk preferences," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 104-112.
    6. Jonathan Meng & Feng Fu, 2020. "Understanding Gambling Behavior and Risk Attitudes Using Cryptocurrency-based Casino Blockchain Data," Papers 2008.05653, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2020.
    7. Daniel Fonseca Costa & Francisval Carvalho & Bruno César Moreira & José Willer Prado, 2017. "Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1775-1799, June.
    8. Boone, Jan & Sadrieh, Abdolkarim & van Ours, Jan C., 2009. "Experiments on unemployment benefit sanctions and job search behavior," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(8), pages 937-951, November.
    9. Castro, Luciano de & Galvao, Antonio F. & Kim, Jeong Yeol & Montes-Rojas, Gabriel & Olmo, Jose, 2022. "Experiments on portfolio selection: A comparison between quantile preferences and expected utility decision models," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    10. Jos'e Cl'audio do Nascimento, 2019. "Behavioral Biases and Nonadditive Dynamics in Risk Taking: An Experimental Investigation," Papers 1908.01709, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    11. Francesco GUALA, 2017. "Preferences: Neither Behavioural nor Mental," Departmental Working Papers 2017-05, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    12. Bin Zou, 2017. "Optimal Investment In Hedge Funds Under Loss Aversion," International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance (IJTAF), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(03), pages 1-32, May.
    13. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2019. "What are axiomatizations good for?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 339-359, May.
    14. Wiafe, Osei K. & Basu, Anup K. & Chen, En Te, 2020. "Portfolio choice after retirement: Should self-annuitisation strategies hold more equities?," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 241-255.
    15. Liu, Hui-hui & Song, Yao-yao & Liu, Xiao-xiao & Yang, Guo-liang, 2020. "Aggregating the DEA prospect cross-efficiency with an application to state key laboratories in China," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    16. Nicholas Barberis, 2012. "A Model of Casino Gambling," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 35-51, January.
    17. Lovric, M. & Kaymak, U. & Spronk, J., 2008. "A Conceptual Model of Investor Behavior," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2008-030-F&A, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    18. Goytom Abraha Kahsay & Daniel Osberghaus, 2018. "Storm Damage and Risk Preferences: Panel Evidence from Germany," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 301-318, September.
    19. Carolin Bock & Maximilian Schmidt, 2015. "Should I stay, or should I go? – How fund dynamics influence venture capital exit decisions," Review of Financial Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 68-82, November.
    20. Hooi Hooi Lean & Michael McAleer & Wing-Keung Wong, 2013. "Risk-averse and Risk-seeking Investor Preferences for Oil Spot and Futures," Documentos de Trabajo del ICAE 2013-31, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Instituto Complutense de Análisis Económico, revised Aug 2013.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:16:p:10152-:d:889385. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.