A soft computing methodology to analyze sustainable risks in surgical cotton manufacturing companies


A well-organized sustainable risk management in an organization often generates environmental and economic advantages. Addressing “sustainability and risk” simultaneously, an organization is more capable of enduring challenges that produce environmental and operational stability in management. In an industrial organization, these primary areas of concern involve social responsibility and a focus on occupants’ health and well-being; both areas address environmental and climate change, with an end result of increasing competitiveness and profitability. The key challenge lies in exploring sustainable risks associated with the industry so that they are addressed strategically. This research work is one such attempt to find sustainable risks in the manufacturing sector. This research is the outcome of a case study conducted in three leading surgical cotton manufacturing companies in the southern part of India. A hybrid multi criteria decision making based fuzzy decision making trial and evaluation laboratory and analytic network process with preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluations (FDANP with PROMETHEE) methodologies is used to derive the results. The final outcome of this paper presents the identified critical sustainable risks from the case study, and also serves as a model for risk managers in manufacturing sectors. By identifying sustainable risks at an early stage, a company may avert the occurrence of undesirable incidents while, at the same time, may enhance their production capacity.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9


  1. 1

    Govindan K, Shankar K M and Kannan D 2016 Sustainable material selection for construction industry—A hybrid multi criteria decision making approach. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 55: 1274–1288

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Patidar R, Agrawal S and Pratap S 2018 Development of novel strategies for designing sustainable Indian agri-fresh food supply chain. Sādhanā 43(10): 167

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Orji I J and Wei S 2015 An innovative integration of fuzzy-logic and systems dynamics in sustainable supplier selection: A case on manufacturing industry. Comput. Ind. Eng. 88: 1–12

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Mohammadhosseini H and Tahir M M 2018 Production of sustainable fibre-reinforced concrete incorporating waste chopped metallic film fibres and palm oil fuel ash. Sādhanā 43(10): 156

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Bakhiyi B, Labrèche F and Zayed J 2014 The photovoltaic industry on the path to a sustainable future—Environmental and occupational health issues. Environ. Int. 73: 224–234

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Brans J P, Vincke P and Mareschal B 1986 How to select and how to rank projects: The PROMETHEE method. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 24(2): 228–238

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Baland J M, Bardhan P and Bowles S 2018 Inequality, Cooperation, and Environmental Sustainability Princeton University Press

  8. 8

    Hussain N, Rigoni U and Orij R P 2018 Corporate governance and sustainability performance: Analysis of triple bottom line performance. J. Bus. Ethics 149(2): 411–432

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Bennett E M, Cramer W, Begossi A, Cundill G, Díaz S, Egoh B N and Lebel L 2015 Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being: Three challenges for designing research for sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 14: 76–85

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Haresankar J, Galappaththi U I K and Perera R L 2018 Factors Affecting the Sustainability of SME Industries: A Case Study in the Southern Province of Sri Lanka. In: International Conference on Production and Operations Management Society (POMS) 1–5

  11. 11

    Sari E, Shaharoun A M, Ma’aram A and Yazid A M 2015 Sustainable maintenance performance measures: A pilot survey in Malaysian automotive companies. Procedia CIRP 26: 443–448

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Helleno A L, de Moraes A J I and Simon A T 2017 Integrating sustainability indicators and Lean Manufacturing to assess manufacturing processes: Application case studies in Brazilian industry. J. Clean. Prod. 153: 405–416

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Ahmadi H B, Kusi-Sarpong S and Rezaei J 2017 Assessing the social sustainability of supply chains using best worst method. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 126: 99–106

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Missimer M, Robèrt K H and Broman G 2017 A strategic approach to social sustainability–Part 1: Exploring the social system. J. Clean. Prod. 140: 32–41

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Mani V, Gunasekaran A and Delgado C 2018 Supply chain social sustainability: Standard adoption practices in Portuguese manufacturing firms. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 198: 149–164

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Eizenberg E and Jabareen Y 2017 Social sustainability: A new conceptual framework. Sustainability 9(1): 68

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Evans R, Brereton D and Joy J 2007 Risk assessment as a tool to explore sustainable development issues: Lessons from the Australian coal industry. Int. J. Risk Assess. Manag. 7(5): 607–619

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Rigamonti L, Sterpi I and Grosso M 2016 Integrated municipal waste management systems: An indicator to assess their environmental and economic sustainability. Ecol. Indic. 60: 1–7

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Zhong Y and Wu P 2015 Economic sustainability, environmental sustainability and constructability indicators related to concrete-and steel-projects. J. Clean. Prod. 108: 748–756

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Cepolina S E 2012 Textile and clothing industry: An approach towards sustainable life cycle production. Int. J. Trade Econ. Finance 3(1): 7

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Mujkic Z, Qorri A and Kraslawski A 2018 Sustainability and optimization of supply chains: A literature review. Oper. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 11(4): 186–199

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Wong J K W and Zhou J 2015 Enhancing environmental sustainability over building life cycles through green BIM: A review. Autom. Constr. 57: 156–165

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Pereira A M, Silva L J, Meisel L M, Lino C M and Pena A 2015 Environmental impact of pharmaceuticals from Portuguese wastewaters: Geographical and seasonal occurrence, removal and risk assessment. Environ. Res. 136: 108–119

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    Centobelli P, Cerchione R and Esposito E 2017 Developing the WH2 framework for environmental sustainability in logistics service providers: A taxonomy of green initiatives. J. Clean. Prod. 165: 1063–1077

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Veleva V, Hart M, Greiner T and Crumbley C 2003 Indicators for measuring environmental sustainability: A case study of the pharmaceutical industry. Benchmarking An Int. J. 10(2): 107–119

  26. 26

    Saaty T L and Ergu D 2015 When is a decision-making method trustworthy? Criteria for evaluating multi-criteria decision-making methods. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Making 14(06): 1171–1187

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Kumar A, Sah B, Singh A R, Deng Y, He X, Kumar P and Bansal R C 2017 A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 69: 596–609

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    Mehregan M R, Hashemi S H, Karimi A and Merikhi B 2014 Analysis of interactions among sustainability supplier selection criteria using ISM and fuzzy DEMATEL. Int. J. Appl. Decis. Sci. 7(3): 270–294

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29

    Vinodh S and Girubha R J 2012 PROMETHEE based sustainable concept selection. Appl. Math. Modell. 36(11): 5301-5308

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. 30

    Xu P, Chan E H, Visscher H J, Zhang X and Wu Z 2015 Sustainable building energy efficiency retrofit for hotel buildings using EPC mechanism in China: analytic Network Process (ANP) approach. J. Clean. Prod. 107: 378–388

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31

    Valipour A, Sarvari H and Tamošaitiene J 2018 Risk assessment in PPP projects by applying different MCDM methods and comparative results analysis. Adm. Sci. 8(4): 80

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32

    Erdogan S A, Šaparauskas J and Turskis Z 2019 A multi-criteria decision-making model to choose the best option for sustainable construction management. Sustainability 11(8): 2239

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33

    Rostamzadeh R, Ghorabaee M K, Govindan K, Esmaeili A and Nobar H B K 2018 Evaluation of sustainable supply chain risk management using an integrated fuzzy TOPSIS-CRITIC approach. J. Clean. Prod. 175: 651–669

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34

    Arabsheybani A, Paydar M M and Safaei A S 2018 An integrated fuzzy MOORA method and FMEA technique for sustainable supplier selection considering quantity discounts and supplier’s risk. J. Clean. Prod. 190: 577–591

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35

    Asees Awan M and Ali Y 2019 Sustainable modeling in reverse logistics strategies using fuzzy MCDM: Case of China Pakistan Economic Corridor. Manag. Environ. Quality An Int. J.

  36. 36

    Govindan K, Garg K, Gupta S and Jha P C 2016 Effect of product recovery and sustainability enhancing indicators on the location selection of manufacturing facility. Ecol. Ind. 67: 517–532

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37

    Jilcha K and Kitaw D 2017 Industrial occupational safety and health innovation for sustainable development. Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J. 20(1): 372–380

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38

    Boileau P E 2016 Sustainability and prevention in occupational health and safety. Ind. Health 54(4): 293–295

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39

    Dooley K and Kartha S 2018 Land-based negative emissions: risks for climate mitigation and impacts on sustainable development. Int. Environ. Agreem. Politics Law Econ. 18(1): 79–98

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40

    Burke J J, Hoitash R and Hoitash U 2019 The heterogeneity of board-level sustainability committees and corporate social performance. J. Bus. Ethics 154(4): 1161–1186

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41

    Morgan E 2015 ‘Plan A’: analysing business model innovation for sustainable consumption in mass-market clothes retailing. J. Corp. Citizensh. (57): 73–98

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42

    Wright C F 2016 Leveraging reputational risk: Sustainable sourcing campaigns for improving labour standards in production networks. J. Bus. Ethics 137(1): 195–210

    Google Scholar 

  43. 43

    Zhao J, Liu X, Dong R and Shao G 2016 Landsenses ecology and ecological planning toward sustainable development

  44. 44

    Diaz-Sarachaga J M, Jato-Espino D, Alsulami B and Castro-Fresno D 2016 Evaluation of existing sustainable infrastructure rating systems for their application in developing countries. Ecol. Indic. 71: 491–502

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45

    Dwivedi R, Bhowani B and Rao P K 2019 Development of an Integrated TOPSIS-Quality Function Deployment Model for Sustainability Assessment of Indian Banks. In Advanced Multi-Criteria Decision Making for Addressing Complex Sustainability Issues 267–285 IGI Global

  46. 46

    Rodriguez Bolivar M P, Navarro Galera A, Alcaide Munoz L and Lopez Subires M D 2016 Risk factors and drivers of financial sustainability in local government: An empirical study. Local Gov. Stud. 42(1): 29–51

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47

    Pietrzak M B, Balcerzak A P, Gajdos A and Arendt Ł 2017 Entrepreneurial environment at regional level: the case of Polish path towards sustainable socio-economic development

  48. 48

    Nyanga A, Kessler A and Tenge A 2016 Key socio-economic factors influencing sustainable land management investments in the West Usambara Highlands, Tanzania. Land Use Policy 51: 260–266

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49

    Awasthi A, Govindan K and Gold S 2018 Multi-tier sustainable global supplier selection using a fuzzy AHP-VIKOR based approach. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 195: 106–117

    Google Scholar 

  50. 50

    Virgili B B, Dolado J C, Lewis H G, Radtke J, Krag H, Revelin B, … and Metz M 2016 Risk to space sustainability from large constellations of satellites. Acta Astronaut. 126: 154–162

    Google Scholar 

  51. 51

    Pirnay J P, Blasdel B G, Bretaudeau L, Buckling A, Chanishvili N, Clark J R, … and Gabard J 2015 Quality and safety requirements for sustainable phage therapy products. Pharm. Res. 32(7): 2173–2179

    Google Scholar 

  52. 52

    Amui L B L, Jabbour C J C, de Sousa Jabbour A B L and Kannan D 2017 Sustainability as a dynamic organizational capability: a systematic review and a future agenda toward a sustainable transition. J. Clean. Prod. 142: 308–322

    Google Scholar 

  53. 53

    Manes-Rossi F, Tiron-Tudor A, Nicolò G and Zanellato G 2018 Ensuring more sustainable reporting in Europe using non-financial disclosure—De facto and de jure evidence. Sustainability 10(4): 1162

    Google Scholar 

  54. 54

    Kim S and Moon S K 2017 Sustainable platform identification for product family design. J. Clean. Prod. 143: 567–581

    Google Scholar 

  55. 55

    Poff N L, Brown C M, Grantham T E, Matthews J H, Palmer M A, Spence C M, … and Baeza A 2016 Sustainable water management under future uncertainty with eco-engineering decision scaling. Nat. Climate Change 6(1): 25

    Google Scholar 

  56. 56

    Sardar, S., Lee, Y., & Memon, M. (2016). A sustainable outsourcing strategy regarding cost, capacity flexibility, and risk in a textile supply chain. Sustainability, 8(3): 234

    Google Scholar 

  57. 57

    Montabon F, Pagell M and Wu Z 2016 Making sustainability sustainable. J. Supply Chain Manag. 52(2): 11–27

    Google Scholar 

  58. 58

    Vahidi F, Torabi S A and Ramezankhani M J 2018 Sustainable supplier selection and order allocation under operational and disruption risks. J. Clean. Prod. 174: 1351–1365

    Google Scholar 

  59. 59

    Pasmans F, Bogaerts S, Cunningham A A, Braeckman J, Hellebuyck T, Griffiths R A, … and Martel A 2017 Future of keeping pet reptiles and amphibians: towards integrating animal welfare, human health and environmental sustainability. Vet. Record 181(7)

  60. 60

    Clonan A, Wilson P, Swift J A, Leibovici D G and Holdsworth M 2015 Red and processed meat consumption and purchasing behaviours and attitudes: impacts for human health, animal welfare and environmental sustainability. Public Health Nutr. 18(13): 2446–2456

    Google Scholar 

  61. 61

    Owusu P A and Asumadu-Sarkodie S 2016 A review of renewable energy sources, sustainability issues and climate change mitigation. Cogent Eng. 3(1): 1167990

    Google Scholar 

  62. 62

    Ren L and Luo C 2018 Questionnaire survey and DEMATEL method approach for analysis the influent factors of chinese scientific Principal Investigators. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Med. 11(2): 848–855

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  63. 63

    Yue C and Yue Z L 2019 Measuring the satisfaction and loyalty for Chinese smartphone users: A simple symbol-based decision making method. Scientia Iranica 26(1): 589–604

    Google Scholar 

  64. 64

    Saaty T L 1996 Decision making with dependence and feedback. Anal. Netw. Process

  65. 65

    Gardner L and Colwill J 2016 A framework for the resilient use of critical materials in sustainable manufacturing systems. Procedia CIRP 41: 282–288

    Google Scholar 

  66. 66

    Hallikainen P, Kivijärvi H and Tuominen M 2009 Supporting the module sequencing decision in the ERP implementation process—An application of the ANP method. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 119(2): 259–270

    Google Scholar 

  67. 67

    Yang Y P O, Shieh H M, Leu J D and Tzeng G H 2008 A novel hybrid MCDM model combined with DEMATEL and ANP with applications. Int. J. Oper. Res. 5(3): 160–168

    Google Scholar 

  68. 68

    Jassbi J, Mohamadnejad F and Nasrollahzadeh H 2011 A Fuzzy DEMATEL framework for modeling cause and effect relationships of strategy map. Expert Syst. Appl. 38(5): 5967–5973

    Google Scholar 

  69. 69

    Altuntas S, Selim H and Dereli T 2014 A fuzzy DEMATEL-based solution approach for facility layout problem: A case study. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 73(5–8): 749–771

    Google Scholar 

  70. 70

    Patil S K and Kant R 2014 A hybrid approach based on fuzzy DEMATEL and FMCDM to predict success of knowledge management adoption in supply chain. Appl. Soft Comput. 18: 126–135

    Google Scholar 

  71. 71

    Bhalaji R K A, Bathrinath S, Ponnambalam S G and Saravanasankar S 2019 A Fuzzy Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory approach to analyse risk factors related to environmental health and safety aspects in the healthcare industry. Sādhanā 44(3): 55

    Google Scholar 

  72. 72

    Wu C S, Lin C T and Lee C 2010 Optimal marketing strategy: A decision-making with ANP and TOPSIS. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 127(1): 190–196

    Google Scholar 

  73. 73

    Hsu C H, Wang F K and Tzeng G H 2012 The best vendor selection for conducting the recycled material based on a hybrid MCDM model combining DANP with VIKOR. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 66: 95–111

    Google Scholar 

  74. 74

    Govindan K, Kannan D and Shankar M 2015 Evaluation of green manufacturing practices using a hybrid MCDM model combining DANP with PROMETHEE. Int. J. Prod. Res. 53(21): 6344–6371

    Google Scholar 

  75. 75

    Albadvi A, Chaharsooghi S K and Esfahanipour A 2007 Decision making in stock trading: An application of PROMETHEE. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 177(2): 673–683

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  76. 76

    Zhang X, Shen L, Tam V W and Lee W W Y 2012 Barriers to implement extensive green roof systems: a Hong Kong study. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16(1): 314–319

    Google Scholar 

  77. 77

    Rusinko C 2007 Green manufacturing: an evaluation of environmentally sustainable manufacturing practices and their impact on competitive outcomes. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 54(3): 445–454

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to S Bathrinath.


Appendix A

See Tables 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13.

Appendix B: Questionnaire

A questionnaire for the survey is provided to the industrial domain specialists to evaluate sustainable risk factors in the three surgical cotton manufacturing companies. The gathered data will be used for research purposes only. The replies from you will be kept confidential; it will not be shared on social media or with any third party. Your input is very much important and will assist in bringing about an optimistic outcome in this research. My heartfelt thanks to you for your time and effort on giving the rating.

Please tick [ ] any one rating that you feel suitable for each item. (Refer to Table 14)

Risk Factors F1 F2 F3
Social Factors (F1)    
Economical Factors (F2)    
Environmental Factors (F3)    
Table 14 Fuzzy semantic scale used in this research.

Please tick [ ] any one rating that you feel suitable for each item. (Refer to Table 14)

Sub-Factors SF1 SF2 SF3 SF4 SF5 SF6 SF7 SF8 SF9 SF10 SF11 SF12 SF13 SF14 SF15 SF16 SF17 SF18 SF19 SF20 SF21

Profile of the expert:

  1. 1.

    Name: ……………………………………..

  2. 2.

    Experience in surgical cotton manufacturing company (in years): ………..

  3. 3.

    Name of organization: ………………………..

  4. 4.

    Current position in organization:

  5. 5.

    Mobile no & Email: …………………………..

Thank you very much for your time and effort in filling this questionnaire.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bhalaji, R.K.A., Bathrinath, S., Ponnambalam, S.G. et al. A soft computing methodology to analyze sustainable risks in surgical cotton manufacturing companies. Sādhanā 45, 68 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12046-020-1306-7

Download citation


  • Sustainability
  • risk factors
  • ANP