The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Social sustainable supplier evaluation and selection: a group decision-support approach
Abstract
Organisational and managerial decisions are influenced by corporate sustainability pressures. Organisations need to consider economic, environmental and social sustainability dimensions in their decisions to become sustainable. Supply chain decisions play a distinct and critical role in organisational good and service outputs sustainability. Sustainable supplier selection influences the supply chain sustainability allowing many organisations to build competitive advantage. Within this context, the social sustainability dimension has received relatively minor investigation; with emphasis typically on economic and environmental sustainability. Neglecting social sustainability can have serious repercussions for organisational supply chains. This study proposes a social sustainability attribute decision framework to evaluate and select socially sustainable suppliers. A grey-based multi-criteria decision-support tool composed of the ‘best-worst method’ (BWM) and TODIM (TOmada de Decisão Interativa e Multicritério – in Portuguese ‘Interactive and Multicriteria Decision Making’) is introduced. A grey-BWM approach is used to determine social sustainability attribute weights, and a grey-TODIM method is utilised to rank suppliers. This process is completed in a group decision setting. A case study of an Iranian manufacturing company is used to exemplify the applicability and suitability of the proposed social sustainability decision framework. Managerial implications, limitations, and future research directions are introduced after the application of the model.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Blockchain technology and its relationships to sustainable supply chain management
Saberi, S., Kouhizadeh, M., Sarkis, J., & Shen, L. (2019) · International Journal of Production Research · doi:10.1080/00207543.2018.1533261 · Cited by 4,118
Self-citationThe resource-based view of the firm: Ten years after 1991
Barney, J., Wright, M., & Ketchen, D. J. (2001) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920630102700601 · Cited by 3,451
Mani, V., Gunasekaran, A., & Delgado, C. (2018) · International Journal of Production Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.10.025 · Cited by 408
Gualandris, J., Klassen, R. D., Vachon, S., & Kalchschmidt, M. (2015) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2015.06.002 · Cited by 365
Cited by
Sustainable Supplier Evaluation: From Current Criteria to Reconstruction Based on ESG Requirements
Lou, S., You, X., & Xu, T. (2024) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su16020757 · Cited by 26
Majeed, M., Tijani, A., Ofori, K. S., Abubakari, A., & Ampong, G. O. A. (2025) · Cogent Social Sciences · doi:10.1080/23311886.2025.2457230 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Bai, C., Kusi-Sarpong, S., Badri Ahmadi, H., & Sarkis, J.
- Venue
- International Journal of Production Research
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2019-02-07
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 22
- Pages
- 7046-7067
- ISSN
- 0020-7543 (ISSN-L)
- 1366-588X
- OpenAlex
- W2911760269
- Cited by
- 292
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 30.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Social sustainable supplier evaluation and selection: a group decision-support approach. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/00207543.2019.1574042
- The paper
- Bai, C., Kusi-Sarpong, S., Badri Ahmadi, H., & Sarkis, J. (2019). Social sustainable supplier evaluation and selection: a group decision-support approach. International Journal of Production Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1574042
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.