Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A New Extended VIKOR Approach Using q-Rung Orthopair Fuzzy Sets for Sustainable Enterprise Risk Management Assessment in Manufacturing Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises

  • Published:
International Journal of Fuzzy Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 28 October 2021

This article has been updated

Abstract

In recent years, the important role of sustainable development is highlighted in the literature; therefore, a company to make a sustainable business success needs to be well focused on social, environmental, economic, and technological characteristics of the business to address risks and capture value properly. The process of Sustainability Enterprise Risk Management (SERM) is typically implemented to integrate all social, economic, environmental, and technological aspects in a systematic way to properly manage emerging risks and other non-quantifiable risks for company survival. Therefore, in this study, an attempt has been carried out to develop a comprehensive framework to implement the ERM framework under the sustainability platform by considering 29 sub-criteria based on four main aspects, including social, environmental, technological, and economic. In addition, a new fuzzy decision-making approach using the VIKOR (VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija Kompromisno Resenje) approach under q-rung orthopair fuzzy set (q-ROFSs) called VIKOR-q-ROFSs approach is introduced to identify, rank, and evaluate the main criteria of SERM in the universal appeal for all industries such as Chinese manufacturing Small And Mid-Size Enterprises (SMEs) based on expert opinions and literature review. To determine the weights of SERM criteria by the decision experts, this study has introduced q-ROFNs. Moreover, to facilitate the q-ROFNs, a novel q-rung orthopair fuzzy weighted averaging operator (q-ROFWAO) is proposed. Furthermore, VIKOR is applied to rank and evaluate the manufacturing SMEs as the alternatives for this study. The results of this paper showed that technological suitability was the important risk factor followed by technological advance, occupational safety and health, product and services responsibility, (benefit) anti-corruption labor practices, and technological practicability. In addition, the findings of the analysis show that the proposed method was efficient and effective in evaluating risk assessment of SERM in the SMEs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

References

  1. Liu, Y., Sun, Q.: The evaluation and forecasting of investment risk of high-tech sme based on fuzzy comprehensive evaluation. In: 2008 Fifth International Conference on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery, 18–20 Oct. 2008 2008, pp. 654–658

  2. Tingfa, Z.: Research on the performance of industrial innovation of small and medium-sized listed companies in China. In, 2016/06 2016. 7th International Conference on Education, Management, Information and Computer Science (ICEMC 2017), pp. 579–583. Atlantis Press

  3. Yang, Y.: Research on the influence of China Nets Union Clearing Corporation on third-party non-interest payment business. In: 2019/02 2019. 2019 4th International Conference on Financial Innovation and Economic Development (ICFIED 2019), pp. 151–163. Atlantis Press

  4. Yang, X.: Development Research on Internet Cultural Industry in Hebei Province under the Network Technology. In: 2016/05 2016. 2016 6th International Conference on Applied Science, Engineering and Technology, pp. 345-349. Atlantis Press

  5. Ferreira de Araújo Lima, P., Crema, M., Verbano, C.: Risk management in SMEs: a systematic literature review and future directions. Eur. Manage. J. 38(1), 78–94 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.06.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Truong, C., Trück, S., Mathew, S.: Managing risks from climate impacted hazards – The value of investment flexibility under uncertainty. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 269(1), 132–145 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.07.012

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Mahama, H., Elbashir, M., Sutton, S., Arnold, V.: New development: enabling enterprise risk management maturity in public sector organizations. Public Money Manage. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2020.1769314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Pérez-Cornejo, C., de Quevedo-Puente, E., Delgado-García, J.B.: How to manage corporate reputation? The effect of enterprise risk management systems and audit committees on corporate reputation. Eur. Manage. J. 37(4), 505–515 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.01.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Saeidi, P., Saeidi, S.P., Sofian, S., Saeidi, S.P., Nilashi, M., Mardani, A.: The impact of enterprise risk management on competitive advantage by moderating role of information technology. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 63, 67–82 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2018.11.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bohnert, A., Gatzert, N., Hoyt, R.E., Lechner, P.: The relationship between enterprise risk management, value and firm characteristics based on the literature. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Versicherungswissenschaft 106(3), 311–324 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12297-017-0382-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. COSO: Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) Internal Control—Integrated Framework. (2017)

  12. Rostamzadeh, R., Ghorabaee, M.K., Govindan, K., Esmaeili, A., Nobar, H.B.K.: Evaluation of sustainable supply chain risk management using an integrated fuzzy TOPSIS- CRITIC approach. J. Cleaner Prod. 175, 651–669 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.071

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Shad, M.K., Lai, F.-W., Fatt, C.L., Klemeš, J.J., Bokhari, A.: Integrating sustainability reporting into enterprise risk management and its relationship with business performance: a conceptual framework. J. Cleaner Prod. 208, 415–425 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lin, B., Agyeman, S.D.: Assessing Ghana’s carbon dioxide emissions through energy consumption structure towards a sustainable development path. J. Cleaner Prod. 238, 117941 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117941

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hasan, M.A., Abubakar, I.R., Rahman, S.M., Aina, Y.A., Islam Chowdhury, M.M., Khondaker, A.N.: The synergy between climate change policies and national development goals: implications for sustainability. J. Cleaner Prod. 249, 119369 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Aziz, N.A.A., Manab, N.A.: Meeting the stakeholder needs and sustaining business through sustainability risk management practices: a case study of malaysian environmentally sensitive companies. In: Omran, A., Schwarz-Herion, O. (eds.) Sustaining our Environment for Better Future: Challenges and Opportunities, pp. 195–208. Springer Singapore, Singapore (2020)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Olson, D.L., Wu, D.D.: Sustainability and enterprise risk management. In: Enterprise Risk Management Models. pp. 193–204. Springer Berlin (2017)

  18. Mohammed, H.K., Knapkova, A.: The impact of total risk management on company’s performance. Procedia 220, 271–277 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Chiappetta Jabbour, C.J., Seuring, S., Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, A.B., De Camargo Fiorini, P., Latan, H., Izeppi, W.C.: Stakeholders, innovative business models for the circular economy and sustainable performance of firms in an emerging economy facing institutional voids. J. Environ. Manage. 264, 110416 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cort, T., Gudernatch, S.: Are Enterprise Risk Management Frameworks Effective for Prioritizing Sustainability Risks in the Oil and Gas Sector? Paper presented at the SPE International Conference on Health, Safety, and Environment, Long Beach, California, USA, 17/03/2014

  21. Zu, L.: Sustainability Risk Management. In: Idowu, S.O., Capaldi, N., Zu, L., Gupta, A.D. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Corporate Social Responsibility, pp. 2395–2407. Springer, Berlin (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Gayen, M.J.: Implementing Enterprise Risk Management-From Methods to Applications. Wiley, Hoboken (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Manab, N.A., Aziz, N.A.A., Othman, S.N.: The effect of corporate governance compliance and sustainability risk management (SRM) success factors on firm survival. Int. J. Dev. Sustain. 6(11), 1559–1575 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Rezaee, Z.: Business Sustainability: Performance, Compliance, Accountability and Integrated Reporting. Routledge, London (2017)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  25. Saardchom, N.J.J.O.B.: Economics: enterprise risk management under sustainability platform. J. Bus. Econ. 4(1), 32–41 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Liu, X.: The role of enterprise risk management in sustainable decision-making: a cross-cultural comparison. Sustainability 11(10), 2939 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Alikhani, R., Torabi, S.A., Altay, N.: Strategic supplier selection under sustainability and risk criteria. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 208, 69–82 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.11.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hallikas, J., Lintukangas, K., Kähkönen, A.-K.: The effects of sustainability practices on the performance of risk management and purchasing. J. Cleaner Prod. 263, 121579 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Yager, R.R.: Generalized Orthopair Fuzzy Sets. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 25(5), 1222–1230 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2016.2604005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Rani, P., Mishra, A.R.: Multi-criteria weighted aggregated sum product assessment framework for fuel technology selection using q-rung orthopair fuzzy sets. Sustain. Product. Consump. 24, 90–104 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.06.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Krishankumar, R., Supraja Nimmagadda, S., Rani, P., Mishra, A.R., Ravichandran, K.S., Gandomi, A.H.: Solving renewable energy source selection problems using a q-rung orthopair fuzzy-based integrated decision-making approach. J. Cleaner Product. 279, 123329 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Du, W.S.: Research on arithmetic operations over generalized orthopair fuzzy sets. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 34(5), 709–732 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22073

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Pinar, A., Boran, F.E.: A q-rung orthopair fuzzy multi-criteria group decision making method for supplier selection based on a novel distance measure. Int. J. Mach. Learn. Cybern. 11, 1749–1780 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-020-01070-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Opricovic, S.: Multicriteria optimization of civil engineering systems. Faculty Civil Eng. Belgrade 2(1), 5–21 (1998)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  35. Mishra, A.R., Rani, P.: Shapley divergence measures with VIKOR method for multi-attribute decision-making problems. Neural Comput. Appl. 31(2), 1299–1316 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-017-3101-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Chen, T.-Y.: A novel VIKOR method with an application to multiple criteria decision analysis for hospital-based post-acute care within a highly complex uncertain environment. Neural Comput. Appl. 31, 3969–3999 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-017-3326-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Rani, P., Jain, D., Hooda, D.S.: Shapley function based interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy VIKOR technique for correlative multi-criteria decision making problems. Iran. J. Fuzzy Syst. 15(1), 25–54 (2018). https://doi.org/10.22111/ijfs.2018.3577

  38. Rani, P., Mishra, A.R.: Single-valued neutrosophic SWARA-VIKOR framework for performance assessment of eco-industrial thermal power plants. ICSES Trans. Neural Fuzzy Comput. 3(1), 1–9 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Gao, Z., Liang, R.Y., Xuan, T.: VIKOR method for ranking concrete bridge repair projects with target-based criteria. Results Eng. 3, 100018 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2019.100018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Wei, G., Wang, J., Lu, J., Wu, J., Wei, C., Alsaadi, F.E., Hayat, T.: VIKOR method for multiple criteria group decision making under 2-tuple linguistic neutrosophic environment. Econ. Res. 33(1), 3185–3208 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2019.1691036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Rafi-Ul-Shan Piyya, M., Grant David, B., Perry, P., Ahmed, S.: Relationship between sustainability and risk management in fashion supply chains: a systematic literature review. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manage. 46(5), 466–486 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-04-2017-0092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Ahn, N.: Corporate sustainability and enterprise risk management: Implementation effects on performance. https://www2.aaahq.org/AM/display.cfm?Filename=SubID_800.pdf&MIMEType=application/pdf, (2015)

  43. PricewaterhouseCoopers, L.: Global State of Information Security® Survey 2013. In. (2013)

  44. Fink, C., Whelan, T.J.R.-t.f.h.p.s.o.a.c.c.e.d.d.b.b.d.p.: The Sustainability Business Case for the 21st Century Corporation. (2016)

  45. Reuvid, J.: Managing Business Risk: A Practical Guide to Protecting Your Business. Kogan Page Publishers, London (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  46. Slack, K.: Mission impossible?: adopting a CSR-based business model for extractive industries in developing countries. Resour. Policy 37(2), 179–184 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2011.02.003

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  47. Shaheen, R., Ağa, M., Rjoub, H., Abualrub, A.: Investigation of the pillars of sustainability risk management as an extension of enterprise risk management on palestinian insurance firms’ profitability. Sustainability 12(11), 4709 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Aziz, N.A.A., Manab, N.A., Othman, S.N.: Critical success factors of sustainability risk management (SRM) Practices in Malaysian environmentally sensitive industries. Procedia 219, 4–11 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.04.025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Beasley, M.S., Scott Showalter, D.: Ermand sustainability: together on the road ahead. Strateg. Finance 96(9), 32 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  50. Ortiz-de-Mandojana, N., Bansal, P.: The long-term benefits of organizational resilience through sustainable business practices. Strategic Manage J. 37(8), 1615–1631 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Das, ABJEJoB: Management: ethical consequences: treatment of stakeholders in capitalistic approach and cooperative approach to business. Eur. J. Bus. Manage. 6(23), 64–66 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  52. Kytle, B., Ruggie, J.G.: Corporate social responsibility as risk management: A model for multinationals. Corporate social responsibility as risk management: A model for multinationals, Working Paper 10. Cambridge MA, John F Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, (2005)

  53. Taleb, N.N., Goldstein, D.G., Spitznagel, M.W.J.H.B.R.: The six mistakes executives make in risk management. 87(10), 78–81 (2009)

  54. Jacob, C.K.J.J.M., Sustainability: The impact of financial crisis on corporate social responsibility and its implications for reputation risk management. 2, 259 (2012)

  55. Benn, S., Dunphy, D., Martin, A.: Governance of environmental risk: new approaches to managing stakeholder involvement. J. Environ. Manage. 90(4), 1567–1575 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.05.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Shrivastava, P., Addas, A.: The impact of corporate governance on sustainability performance. J. Sustain. Finance Invest. 4(1), 21–37 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2014.887346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Rahardjo, H., Idrus, M., Hadiwidjojo, D., Aisjah, S.J.J.o.M.R.: Factors that determines the success of corporate sustainability management. 5(2), 1 (2013)

  58. Renn, O.J.J.o.R.A., Response, C.: Emerging risks: methodology, classification and policy implications. 4(3), 114–132 (2014)

  59. Lam, J.: Implementing Enterprise Risk Management: From Methods to Applications. Wiley, Hoboken (2017)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  60. Olawumi, T.O., Chan, D.W.M.: A scientometric review of global research on sustainability and sustainable development. J. Cleaner Product. 183, 231–250 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Munasinghe, M., Jayasinghe, P., Deraniyagala, Y., Matlaba, V.J., Santos, J.F.d., Maneschy, M.C., Mota, J.A.: Value–Supply Chain Analysis (VSCA) of crude palm oil production in Brazil, focusing on economic, environmental and social sustainability. Sustain. Product. Consum. 17, 161–175 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2018.10.001

  62. Kumar, A., Anbanandam, R.: Development of social sustainability index for freight transportation system. J. Cleaner Product. 210, 77–92 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Malak-Rawlikowska, A., Majewski, E., Wąs, A., Borgen, S.O., Csillag, P., Donati, M., Freeman, R., Hoàng, V., Lecoeur, J.-L., Mancini, M.C., Nguyen, A., Saïdi, M., Tocco, B., Török, Á., Veneziani, M., Vittersø, G., Wavresky, P.: Measuring the economic. Environ. Soc. Sustain. Short Food Supply Chains 11(15), 4004 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  64. Chang Weng, F., Amran, A., Iranmanesh, M., Foroughi, B.: Drivers of sustainability reporting quality: financial institution perspective. Int. J. Ethics Syst. 35(4), 632–650 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOES-01-2019-0006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Carter Craig, R., Rogers Dale, S.: A framework of sustainable supply chain management: moving toward new theory. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manage. 38(5), 360–387 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030810882816

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Maletič, M., Maletič, D., Gomišček, B.: The role of contingency factors on the relationship between sustainability practices and organizational performance. J. Cleaner Product. 171, 423–433 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Gopalakrishnan, K., Yusuf, Y.Y., Musa, A., Abubakar, T., Ambursa, H.M.: Sustainable supply chain management: a case study of British Aerospace (BAe) Systems. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 140(1), 193–203 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.01.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Dinçer, H., Yüksel, S., Şenel, S.: Analyzing the global risks for the financial crisis after the great depression using comparative hybrid hesitant fuzzy decision-making models: policy recommendations for sustainable economic growth. Sustainability 10(9), 3126 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Tirkolaee, E.B., Mardani, A., Dashtian, Z., Soltani, M., Weber, G.-W.: A novel hybrid method using fuzzy decision making and multi-objective programming for sustainable-reliable supplier selection in two-echelon supply chain design. J. Cleaner Product. 250, 119517 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Zhao, X., Chen, L., Pan, W., Lu, Q.: AHP-ANP-fuzzy integral integrated network for evaluating performance of innovative business models for sustainable building. J. Construct. Eng. Manage. (2017). https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Cavallaro, F., Zavadskas, E.K., Streimikiene, D., Mardani, A.: Assessment of concentrated solar power (CSP) technologies based on a modified intuitionistic fuzzy topsis and trigonometric entropy weights. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 140, 258–270 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.12.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Dinçer, H., Yüksel, S., Martínez, L.: Balanced scorecard-based analysis about European energy investment policies: a hybrid hesitant fuzzy decision-making approach with Quality Function Deployment. Expert Syst. Appl. 115, 152–171 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2018.07.072

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Sayyadi Tooranloo, H., Azadi, M.H., Sayyahpoor, A.: Analyzing factors affecting implementation success of sustainable human resource management (SHRM) using a hybrid approach of FAHP and Type-2 fuzzy DEMATEL. J. Cleaner Product. 162, 1252–1265 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Motaghifard, A., Omidvari, M., Kaazemi, A.: Introducing a conceptual model for evaluating health safety environmental performance of residential buildings using the fuzzy decision-making approach. Environ. Monit. Assess. 192(1), 19 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-019-8004-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Ocampo, L.: A probabilistic fuzzy analytic network process approach (PROFUZANP) in formulating sustainable manufacturing strategy infrastructural decisions under firm size influence. Int. J. Manage. Sci. Eng. Manage. 13(3), 158–174 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/17509653.2017.1345334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Nilashi, M., Rupani, P.F., Rupani, M.M., Kamyab, H., Shao, W., Ahmadi, H., Rashid, T.A., Aljojo, N.: Measuring sustainability through ecological sustainability and human sustainability: a machine learning approach. J. Cleaner Product. 240, 118162 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Liang, H., Ren, J., Lin, R., Liu, Y.: Alternative-fuel based vehicles for sustainable transportation: a fuzzy group decision supporting framework for sustainability prioritization. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 140, 33–43 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.12.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Abdullah, L., Zulkifli, N., Liao, H., Herrera-Viedma, E., Al-Barakati, A.: An interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy DEMATEL method combined with Choquet integral for sustainable solid waste management. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 82, 207–215 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2019.04.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Geetha, S., Narayanamoorthy, S., Kang, D., Kureethara, J.V.: a novel assessment of healthcare waste disposal methods: intuitionistic hesitant fuzzy MULTIMOORA decision making approach. IEEE Access 7, 130283–130299 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2940540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Wang, J., Wei, G., Wei, C., Wei, Y.: MABAC method for multiple attribute group decision making under q-rung orthopair fuzzy environment. Defence Technol. 16(1), 208–216 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Garg, H., Chen, S.M.: Multiattribute group decision making based on neutrality aggregation operators of q-rung orthopair fuzzy sets. Inf. Sci. 517, 427–447 (2020)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  82. Tang, G., Chiclana, F., Liu, P.: A decision-theoretic rough set model with q-rung orthopair fuzzy information and its application in stock investment evaluation. Appl. Soft Comput. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Darko, A.P., Liang, D.: Some q-rung orthopair fuzzy Hamacher aggregation operators and their application to multiple attribute group decision making with modified EDAS method. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2019.103259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Liu, P., Liu, Q.: Multiple-attribute group decision-making based on power Bonferroni operators of linguistic q-rung orthopair fuzzy numbers. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 34, 652–689 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Liu, P., Wang, P.: Some q-Rung orthopair fuzzy aggregation operators and their applications to multiple-attribute decision making. 33(2), 259–280 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1002/int.21927

  86. Peng, X., Liu, L.: Information measures for q-rung orthopair fuzzy sets. 34(8), 1795–1834 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22115

  87. Liu, D., Peng, D., Liu, Z.: The distance measures between q-rung orthopair hesitant fuzzy sets and their application in multiple criteria decision making. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 34(9), 2104–2121 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Rani, P., Jain, D.: Intuitionistic Fuzzy PROMETHEE Technique for Multi-criteria Decision Making Problems Based on Entropy Measure. In: Singh, M., Gupta, P.K., Tyagi, V., Sharma, A., Oren, T., Grosky, W. (eds.) Advances in Computing and Data Sciences, Icacds 2016, vol. 721. Communications in Computer and Information Science, pp. 290–301. (2017)

  89. Mishra, A.R.: Intuitionistic fuzzy information with application in rating of township development. Iran. J. Fuzzy Syst. 13(3), 49–70 (2016)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  90. Wang, K.: The research of the development of the Hubei manufacturing enterprises in SME board. Econ. World 6(2), 96–109 (2019). https://doi.org/10.17265/2328-7144/2019.02.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Schenyatskaya, M., Krutilova, M., Sharapova, A., Markova, A.: Enhanced technology of quantitative assessment for technological suitability of real estate for technical improvements. In: IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 2019, vol. 7, p. 077050. IOP Publishing

  92. Mishra, A.R., Rani, P., Pandey, K., Mardani, A., Streimikis, J., Streimikiene, D., Alrasheedi, M.: Novel multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy SWARA–COPRAS approach for sustainability evaluation of the bioenergy production process. 12(10), 4155 (2020)

  93. Mishra, A.R., Rani, P., Pardasani, K.R., Mardani, A.: A novel hesitant fuzzy WASPAS method for assessment of green supplier problem based on exponential information measures. J. Cleaner Product. 238, 117901 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117901

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Hafezalkotob, A., Hafezalkotob, A., Liao, H., Herrera, F.: Interval MULTIMOORA method integrating interval borda rule and interval best–worst-method-based weighting model: case study on hybrid vehicle engine selection. IEEE Trans. Cybern. 50(3), 1157–1169 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/TCYB.2018.2889730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Mishra, A.R., Mardani, A., Rani, P., Zavadskas, E.K.: A novel EDAS approach on intuitionistic fuzzy set for assessment of health-care waste disposal technology using new parametric divergence measures. J. Cleaner Product. 272, 122807 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122807

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Seker, S., Aydin, N.: Sustainable public transportation system evaluation: a novel two-stage hybrid method based on IVIF-AHP and CODAS. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 22(1), 257–272 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-019-00785-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Liao, H., Wu, X.: DNMA: a double normalization-based multiple aggregation method for multi-expert multi-criteria decision making. Omega 94, 102058 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2019.04.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Wu, X., Liao, H.: A consensus-based probabilistic linguistic gained and lost dominance score method. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 272(3), 1017–1027 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2018.07.044

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  99. Mi, X., Tang, M., Liao, H., Shen, W., Lev, B.: The state-of-the-art survey on integrations and applications of the best worst method in decision making: why, what, what for and what’s next? Omega 87, 205–225 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2019.01.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Mishra, A.R., Chandel, A., Motwani, D.: Extended MABAC method based on divergence measures for multi-criteria assessment of programming language with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Granul. Comput. 5(1), 97–117 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41066-018-0130-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Luo, S.-z., Xing, L.-n.: A hybrid decision making framework for personnel selection using BWM, MABAC and PROMETHEE. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 21(8), 2421–2434 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-019-00745-4

  102. Ozturkoglu, Y., Kazancoglu, Y., Ozkan-Ozen, Y.D.: A sustainable and preventative risk management model for ship recycling industry. J. Cleaner Product. 238, 117907 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117907

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Huang, J., Liu, J., Zhang, H., Guo, Y.: Sustainable risk analysis of China’s overseas investment in iron ore. Resour. Policy 68, 101771 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101771

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Shankar, R., Choudhary, D., Jharkharia, S.: An integrated risk assessment model: a case of sustainable freight transportation systems. Transport. Res. D 63, 662–676 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.07.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Li, P., Wu, J.: Sustainable living with risks: meeting the challenges. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 25(1–2), 1–10 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2019.1584030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Torres-Ruiz, A., Ravindran, A.R.: Multiple criteria framework for the sustainability risk assessment of a supplier portfolio. J. Cleaner Product. 172, 4478–4493 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Kumar Dadsena, K., Sarmah, S.P., Naikan, V.N.A.: Risk evaluation and mitigation of sustainable road freight transport operation: a case of trucking industry. Int. J. Product. Res. 57(19), 6223–6245 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1578429

  108. Agrawal, R.J.I.R.: ‘Enterprise risk management’ essential for survival and sustainable development of micro, small and medium enterprises. (1-2), 117–124 (2016)

  109. Chen, Z., Khumpaisal, S.: An analytic network process for risks assessment in commercial real estate development. J. Prop. Invest. Finance 27(3), 238–258 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1108/14635780910951957

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Wang, S.-T., Li, M.-H., Lien, C.-C.: An analysis of grey multiattribute decision-making optimization concerning gender and sustainable environment. Sustainability 11(9), 2708 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Byun, J., Sung, T.-E., Park, H.-W.: Technological innovation strategy: how do technology life cycles change by technological area. Technol. Anal. Strat. Manage. 30(1), 98–112 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2017.1297397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Bonaccorsi, G., Garamella, G., Cavallo, G., Lorini, C.: A systematic review of risk assessment associated with jellyfish consumption as a potential novel food. Foods 9(7), 935 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The paper is financed by The Government Management and Public Policy Research Center of Hebei University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management, Hebei University, Baoding, 071002, Hebei Province, China

    Sun Cheng & Sun Jianfu

  2. Facultad de Ciencias Adminsitrativas y Económicas, Universidad Tecnológica Indoamérica, Quito, Ecuador

    Melfi Alrasheedi

  3. Department of Quantitative Methods, School of Business, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia

    Parvaneh Saeidi

  4. Department of Mathematics, Govt. College Jaitwara, Satna, MP, India

    Arunodaya Raj Mishra

  5. Department of Mathematics, National Institute of Technology, Warangal, 506004, India

    Pratibha Rani

Authors
  1. Sun Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sun Jianfu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Melfi Alrasheedi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Parvaneh Saeidi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Arunodaya Raj Mishra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Pratibha Rani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sun Jianfu.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cheng, S., Jianfu, S., Alrasheedi, M. et al. A New Extended VIKOR Approach Using q-Rung Orthopair Fuzzy Sets for Sustainable Enterprise Risk Management Assessment in Manufacturing Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 23, 1347–1369 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-020-01024-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-020-01024-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation