Avaliação da sustentabilidade de fornecedores utilizando a representação linguística fuzzy 2-tuple

Osiro, Lauro; Costa, Rodrigo Antônio de Morais Barros Vieira da; Lima Junior, Francisco Rodrigues

doi:10.1590/1806-9649.2020v28e4933

Processing math: 100%

Brasil

home Sumário navigate_before Anterior Atual Seguinte navigate_next

home Sumário

ORIGINAL ARTICLE • Gest. Prod. 28 (1) • 2021 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9649.2020v28e4933 linkcopiar

Avaliação da sustentabilidade de fornecedores utilizando a representação linguística fuzzy 2-tuple

Autoria SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

resumo:

Nos últimos anos, a participação de fornecedores no desenvolvimento, produção e distribuição de produtos aumentou. Dessa forma, a sustentabilidade de uma organização depende cada vez mais desses parceiros. A avaliação da sustentabilidade dos fornecedores deve basear-se no tripé econômico, ambiental e social, denominado triple bottom line (TBL). Devido à recente adoção de métricas qualitativas relacionadas a questões ambientais e sociais na gestão de negócios, modelos que lidam com avaliações qualitativas baseadas em julgamentos de especialistas tornaram-se relevantes. Este artigo propõe um modelo de avaliação da sustentabilidade de fornecedores baseado na representação linguística fuzzy 2-Tuple, usando os critérios do TBL. Uma aplicação piloto envolvendo a avaliação de 11 fornecedores usando 13 critérios foi realizada em uma empresa que fabrica produtos agrícolas. Os resultados da aplicação indicam que o fornecedor 8 apresenta o melhor desempenho. Os critérios avaliados como os mais relevantes são programação de entrega e qualidade do produto. Devido ao uso da representação fuzzy 2-tuple, o modelo proposto apresenta algumas vantagens em relação aos modelos anteriores, como a capacidade de modelar critérios quantitativos e qualitativos, bem como categorizar o desempenho geral do fornecedor em grupos definidos pelos termos linguísticos.

Palavras-chave:
Avaliação da sustentabilidade de fornecedores; Fuzzy 2-tuple; Triple bottom line; Decisão multicritério

Economic		Environmental		Social
Criterion	Author(s)	Criterion	Author(s)	Criterion	Author(s)
Cost of product	Kuo et al. (2010)	Green materials	Govindan et al. (2015)	Coordenation of social projects	Govindan et al. (2013)
Transaction costs	Kuo et al. (2010)	Remanufature	Buyukozkan & Cifci (2011)	Child/forced labour risk	Feil et al. (2015)
Environmental costs	Ahi & Searcy (2015)	Recycle	Buyukozkan & Cifci (2011)	Training programs for employees	Feil et al. (2015)
Transportation cost	Kuo et al. (2010)	Carbon footprint	Govindan et al. (2015)	Relationship with stakeholders	Govindan et al. (2015)
Lead time	Govindan et al. (2013)	ISO 14001 certification	Chen et al. (2010)	Employee satisfaction	Feil et al. (2015)
Delivery schedule	Kuo & Lin (2012)	Green design of product	Chen et al. (2010)	Customers’ satisfaction	Ahi & Searcy (2015)
Flexibility	Ahi & Searcy (2015)	Reduction of solid wastes	Ahi & Searcy (2015)	Stakeholder empowerment	Govindan et al. (2013)
Quality system	Kuo & Lin (2012)	Reduction of hazard materials	Buyukozkan & Cifci (2011)	Suspension due to accidents	Feil et al. (2015)
Product quality	Govindan et al. (2015)	Sustainable waste management	Govindan et al. (2015)	Frequent and honest communication	Govindan et al. (2015)
Management commitment of quality	Kuo et al. (2010)	Use sustainable packaging	Buyukozkan & Cifci (2011)	Supporting community projects	Feil et al. (2015)
Reject rate	Kuo et al. (2010)	Emission of greenhouse gases	Ahi & Searcy (2015)	Health and safety	Govindan et al. (2013)
Technology capability	Govindan et al. (2015)	Energy efficiency	Ahi & Searcy (2015)	Educational institutions	Govindan et al. (2013)
Research and development	Govindan et al. (2013)	Green purchasing	Chen et al. (2010)	Working conditions	Govindan et al. (2013)
Design capability	Kuo et al. (2010)	Environmental policies	Ahi & Searcy (2015)	Human resource management skill	Wu & Barnes (2010)
Payment policy	Govindan et al. (2015)	Pollution prevention	Ahi & Searcy (2015)	Government relationships	Wu & Barnes (2010)
Financial status	Kuo & Lin (2012)	Validity of clean technique	Govindan et al. (2015)	Reputation	Wu & Barnes (2010)
Return on investment	Ahi & Searcy (2015)	Water consumption	Ahi & Searcy (2015)	Corruption and Fraud	Rahdari & Anvary Rostamy (2015)
Profitability of supplier	Chen et al. (2010)	Reuse ratio	Subramanian & Gunasekaran (2015)	Employee volunteer hours	Searcy et al., (2016)
Financial issues	Govindan et al. (2015)	Renewable energy consumption	Feil et al. (2015)	Serious and fatal accidents	Feil et al. (2015)
After service	Ahi & Searcy (2015)	Non-renewable energy consumption	Feil et al. (2015)	Local community influence	Subramanian & Gunasekaran (2015)

Proposed by	Scope	Decision technique(s)	Decision criteria
Baskaran et al. (2012)	Evaluation and categorization of suppliers’ sustainability in Indian textile industry	Grey approach	Discrimination, abuse of human rights, child labor, long working hours, unfair competition, and pollution.
Govindan et al. (2013)	Measurement of sustainability performance of a supplier based on TBL approach	Fuzzy TOPSIS (Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution)	Cost, delivery, reliability, quality, technology capability, pollution production, resource consumption, eco-design, environmental management system, and employment practices, among others.
Bai and Sarkis (2014)	Definition and application of sustainable supplier performance indicators	Rough set theory and DEA (Data envelopment analysis)	Cost, time, quality, flexibility, and innovation.
Trapp and Sarkis (2016)	Selection and development of sustainable suppliers	Integer programming	Constraints related to risks, quality, delivery time, training budget, minimum capacity, among others.
Zhou et al. (2016)	Selection and evaluation of sustainable suppliers	DEA, fuzzy sets of type-2 and chance constrained programming	Technology capability, financial capability, environmental cost, and cost of work safety and labor health.
Luthra et al. (2017)	An integrated framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains	AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process) and VIKOR (ViseKriterijumska Optimizacija financial capability I Kompromisno Resenje)	Price of product, quality of product, flexibility, environment management systems, green design and purchasing, green management, waste management & pollution prevention, environmental competencies, occupational health & safety systems, the rights of stakeholders, among others.
Torres-Ruiz and Ravindran (2018)	A multiple criteria framework for the sustainability risk assessment of a supplier portfolio	AHP	Reputation, access to capital, supply security, regulation, efficiency and productivity.
Li et al. (2018)	Sustainability evaluation via variable precision rough set approach	Rough set theory and TODIM (an acronym in Portuguese of Interactive and Multicriteria Decision Making)	Quality, flexibility, financial performance, technology and innovation, pollution control, environmental management, resource use efficiency, influence on natural environment, employment, product stewardship, social governance.
Liu et al. (2019)	A fuzzy decision tool to evaluate the sustainable performance of suppliers	Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS	Human toxicity, water depletion, climate change, land occupation, marine ecotoxicity, feed manufacturing cost, total feed system cost, waste, labor cost, work hours, localness, among others.

Dimension	Criterion	Id.
Economic	Cost of product	EC1
	Transportation cost	EC2
	Lead time	EC3
	Delivery schedule	EC4
	Product quality	EC5
	Research and development	EC6
	Payment policy	EC7
	After service	EC8
Environmental	ISO 14001 certification (Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas, 2015)	EN1
Environmental	Environmental policies	EN2
Social	Child/forced labour risk	S1
	Frequent and honest communication	S2
	Health and safety	S3

Criterion	Assessment	â	Weight
EC1	VH	5	0.109
EC2	H	4	0.087
EC3	VH	5	0.109
EC4	P	6	0.130
EC5	P	6	0.130
EC6	L	2	0.043
EC7	L	2	0.043
EC8	H	4	0.087
EN1	VL	1	0.022
EN2	VL	1	0.022
S1	M	3	0.065
S2	H	4	0.087
S3	M	3	0.065

Supplier	Material provided
Sup1	Urea
Sup2	Ammonium nitrate 33%N
Sup3	Containers and covers
Sup4	Liquid Calcium Carbonate
Sup5	Urea
Sup6	Fertilizer 33%N
Sup7	Ammonium nitrate 33%N
Sup8	Zinc oxide
Sup9	Cobalt sulfate 20%C0
Sup10	Manganese carbonate
Sup11	Manganese ore - Manganese dioxide

Criterion	Weight	Suppliers
Criterion	Weight	Sup1	Sup2	Sup3	Sup4	Sup5	Sup6	Sup7	Sup8	Sup9	Sup10	Sup11
EC1	0.109	H	VH	VH	H	VH	M	VH	VH	H	H	VH
EC2	0.087	M	H	VH	M	H	H	H	VH	VH	H	L
EC3	0.109	M	H	P	M	VH	H	H	VH	VH	VH	M
EC4	0.130	M	VH	H	M	VH	H	VH	VH	H	H	M
EC5	0.130	P	L	VH	VH	H	H	M	P	H	VH	VH
EC6	0.043	M	L	VH	VH	L	VH	M	H	M	P	VL
EC7	0.043	VH	M	H	H	VH	H	H	H	H	VH	VH
EC8	0.087	L	M	VH	VH	M	H	M	VH	VH	VH	M
EN1	0.022	VH	L	M	VH	L	VH	VH	VH	VH	H	L
EN2	0.022	H	H	H	VH	L	H	VH	P	H	H	L
S1	0.065	VH	VH	H	VH	H	VH	VH	VH	H	VH	L
S2	0.087	H	M	VH	H	VH	VH	VH	VH	VH	VH	VH
S3	0.065	VH	H	M	VH	M	VH	VH	P	H	VH	L
Aggregation (â)		3.91	3.69	4.67	4.10	4.15	4.17	4.24	5.13	4.35	4.67	3.39

Ranking	Supplier	â	(s_i, á)	Group
1^st	Sup8	5.13	(VH, 0.13)	Very high
2^nd	Sup3	4.67	(VH, -0.33)	Very high
3^rd	Sup10	4.67	(VH, -0.33)	Very high
4^th	Sup9	4.35	(H, 0.35)	High
5^th	Sup7	4.24	(H, 0.24)	High
6^th	Sup6	4.17	(H, 0.17)	High
7^th	Sup5	4.15	(H, 0.15)	High
8^th	Sup4	4.10	(H, 0.10)	High
9^th	Sup1	3.91	(H, -0.09)	High
10^th	Sup2	3.69	(H, -0.31)	High
11^th	Sup11	3.39	(M, 0.39)	Medium

vertical_align_top file_download show_chart

more_horiz close
- image
- translate
- link
- article
- vertical_align_top
- file_download
- show_chart
- image
- translate
- link
- article

location_on

Universidade Federal de São Carlos Departamento de Engenharia de Produção , Caixa Postal 676 , 13.565-905 São Carlos SP Brazil, Tel.: +55 16 3351 8471 - São Carlos - SP - Brazil
E-mail: gp@dep.ufscar.br

rss_feed Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

[1] Source: Proposed by Authors.