Double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic information based framework for personalized ranking of sustainable suppliers

With the growing appetite for reducing carbon footprint, organizations are tirelessly working towards green practices and one such crucial practice is purchasing raw materials from sustainable suppliers (SSs). Inspired by the drift in purchase habits, several sustainable suppliers emerged in the market and a rational selection of a suitable sustainable supplier is a complex decision problem. There are many criteria associated with the evaluation of sustainable suppliers, and double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic (DHHFL) structure is a popular preference style that accepts complex linguistic expressions in the natural language form. Earlier studies on sustainable supplier selection infer that (i) complex linguistic expressions are not properly modeled, (ii) interrelationship among criteria must be considered during importance assessment, (iii) direct assignment of attitudinal values of experts causes bias and subjectivity, and (iv) nature of criteria play a crucial role in ranking SSs. To overcome these limitations, a novel MCMD framework is proposed in this study in which the attitudinal characteristic values of experts are calculated by using a variance approach. Besides, importance of diverse sustainable criteria is calculated by proposing novel attitude-CRITIC approach that supports proper capturing of interrelationship among criteria along with experts’ attitude values. Later, weighted distance approximation algorithm is presented to DHHFL setting for personalized and cumulative ranking of SSs by properly considering nature of criteria. These methods are integrated to form a framework under DHHFL setting, and its usefulness is exemplified by using a case study of SS selection in an automotive firm. A comprehensive sensitivity analysis as well performed to test the validity of the proposed model approves the applicability, validity, and robustness of the model. Lastly, comparison is done with other methods to understand the merits and shortcomings of the proposal.