IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v9y2017i8p1302-d105956.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Hybrid MCDM Approach for Strategic Project Portfolio Selection of Agro By-Products

Author

Listed:
  • Animesh Debnath

    (Vivekananda Mahavidyalaya, Sripally, Burdwan 713103, India)

  • Jagannath Roy

    (Department of Mathematics, National Institute of Technology, Durgapur 713209, India)

  • Samarjit Kar

    (Department of Mathematics, National Institute of Technology, Durgapur 713209, India)

  • Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas

    (Department of Construction Technology and Management, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Saulėtekio al. 11, Vilnius LT-10223, Lithuania)

  • Jurgita Antucheviciene

    (Department of Construction Technology and Management, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Saulėtekio al. 11, Vilnius LT-10223, Lithuania)

Abstract

Due to the increasing size of the population, society faces several challenges for sustainable and adequate agricultural production, quality, distribution, and food safety in the strategic project portfolio selection (SPPS). The initial adaptation of strategic portfolio management of genetically modified (GM) Agro by-products (Ab-Ps) is a huge challenge in terms of processing the agro food product supply-chain practices in an environmentally nonthreatening way. As a solution to the challenges, the socio-economic characteristics for SPPS of GM food purchasing scenarios are studied. Evaluation and selection of the GM agro portfolio management are the dynamic issues due to physical and immaterial criteria involving a hybrid multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) approach, combining modified grey Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL), Multi-Attributive Border Approximation area Comparison (MABAC) and sensitivity analysis. Evaluation criteria are grouped into social, differential and beneficial clusters, and the modified DEMATEL procedure is used to derive the criteria weights. The MABAC method is applied to rank the strategic project portfolios according to the aggregated preferences of decision makers (DMs). The usefulness of the proposed research framework is validated with a case study. The GM by-products are found to be the best portfolio. Moreover, this framework can unify the policies of agro technological improvement, corporate social responsibility (CSR) and agro export promotion.

Suggested Citation

  • Animesh Debnath & Jagannath Roy & Samarjit Kar & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Jurgita Antucheviciene, 2017. "A Hybrid MCDM Approach for Strategic Project Portfolio Selection of Agro By-Products," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-33, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:8:p:1302-:d:105956
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/8/1302/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/8/1302/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Büyüközkan, Gülçin & Karabulut, Yağmur, 2017. "Energy project performance evaluation with sustainability perspective," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 549-560.
    2. Carroll, Archie B., 1991. "The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 39-48.
    3. Abbas Mardani & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Kannan Govindan & Aslan Amat Senin & Ahmad Jusoh, 2016. "VIKOR Technique: A Systematic Review of the State of the Art Literature on Methodologies and Applications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-38, January.
    4. Lim, Sungmook & Oh, Kwang Wuk & Zhu, Joe, 2014. "Use of DEA cross-efficiency evaluation in portfolio selection: An application to Korean stock market," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 236(1), pages 361-368.
    5. Aragonés-Beltrán, Pablo & Chaparro-González, Fidel & Pastor-Ferrando, Juan-Pascual & Pla-Rubio, Andrea, 2014. "An AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process)/ANP (Analytic Network Process)-based multi-criteria decision approach for the selection of solar-thermal power plant investment projects," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 222-238.
    6. Ljubomir Gigović & Dragan Pamučar & Zoran Bajić & Milić Milićević, 2016. "The Combination of Expert Judgment and GIS-MAIRCA Analysis for the Selection of Sites for Ammunition Depots," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-30, April.
    7. Joe Zhu, 2014. "DEA Cross Efficiency," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Quantitative Models for Performance Evaluation and Benchmarking, edition 3, chapter 4, pages 61-92, Springer.
    8. Jeng, Don Jyh-Fu & Huang, Kuo-Hsin, 2015. "Strategic project portfolio selection for national research institutes," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2305-2311.
    9. Abbas Mardani & Ahmad Jusoh & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Fausto Cavallaro & Zainab Khalifah, 2015. "Sustainable and Renewable Energy: An Overview of the Application of Multiple Criteria Decision Making Techniques and Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-38, October.
    10. Çelikbilek, Yakup & Tüysüz, Fatih, 2016. "An integrated grey based multi-criteria decision making approach for the evaluation of renewable energy sources," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 115(P1), pages 1246-1258.
    11. Jerome S. Legge Jr. & Robert F. Durant, 2010. "Public Opinion, Risk Assessment, and Biotechnology: Lessons from Attitudes toward Genetically Modified Foods in the European Union," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 27(1), pages 59-76, January.
    12. Bai, Chunguang & Sarkis, Joseph, 2013. "A grey-based DEMATEL model for evaluating business process management critical success factors," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(1), pages 281-292.
    13. Audrius Čereška & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Fausto Cavallaro & Valentinas Podvezko & Ina Tetsman & Irina Grinbergienė, 2016. "Sustainable Assessment of Aerosol Pollution Decrease Applying Multiple Attribute Decision-Making Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-12, June.
    14. Chiou, Hua-Kai & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung & Cheng, Ding-Chou, 2005. "Evaluating sustainable fishing development strategies using fuzzy MCDM approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 223-234, June.
    15. Magdalena Öberseder & Bodo Schlegelmilch & Patrick Murphy & Verena Gruber, 2014. "Consumers’ Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility: Scale Development and Validation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 124(1), pages 101-115, September.
    16. Andrea Pérez & Ignacio Rodríguez del Bosque, 2013. "Measuring CSR Image: Three Studies to Develop and to Validate a Reliable Measurement Tool," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 118(2), pages 265-286, December.
    17. Fu Hsiang Chen & Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng & Chih Chieh Chang, 2015. "Evaluating the Enhancement of Corporate Social Responsibility Websites Quality Based on a New Hybrid MADM Model," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(03), pages 697-724.
    18. Andrea Stanaland & May Lwin & Patrick Murphy, 2011. "Consumer Perceptions of the Antecedents and Consequences of Corporate Social Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(1), pages 47-55, August.
    19. Chris MacDonald & Melissa Whellams, 2007. "Corporate Decisions about Labelling Genetically Modified Foods," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 75(2), pages 181-189, October.
    20. James J.H. Liou & Jolanta Tamošaitienė & Edmundas K. Zavadskas & Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng, 2016. "New hybrid COPRAS-G MADM Model for improving and selecting suppliers in green supply chain management," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(1), pages 114-134, January.
    21. Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Abbas Mardani & Zenonas Turskis & Ahmad Jusoh & Khalil MD Nor, 2016. "Development of TOPSIS Method to Solve Complicated Decision-Making Problems — An Overview on Developments from 2000 to 2015," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(03), pages 645-682, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kao-Yi Shen & Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng, 2018. "Advances in Multiple Criteria Decision Making for Sustainability: Modeling and Applications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-7, May.
    2. Mirian Bortoluzzi & Marcelo Furlan & Simone Geitenes Colombo & Tatiele Martins Amaral & Celso Correia de Souza & José Francisco dos Reis Neto & Josimar Fernandes de França, 2021. "Combining Value-Focused Thinking and PROMETHEE Techniques for Selecting a Portfolio of Distributed Energy Generation Projects in the Brazilian Electricity Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-19, October.
    3. Jagannath Roy & Dragan Pamučar & Samarjit Kar, 2020. "Evaluation and selection of third party logistics provider under sustainability perspectives: an interval valued fuzzy-rough approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 293(2), pages 669-714, October.
    4. Jamile Eleutério Delesposte & Luís Alberto Duncan Rangel & Marcelo Jasmim Meiriño & Ramon Baptista Narcizo & André Armando Mendonça de Alencar Junior, 2021. "Use of multicriteria decision aid methods in the context of sustainable innovations: bibliometrics, applications and trends," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 501-522, December.
    5. Santonab Chakraborty & Baneswar Sarkar & Shankar Chakraborty, 2023. "A FUCOM-MABAC-based integrated approach for performance evaluation of the Indian National Parks," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 60(1), pages 125-154, March.
    6. Chia-Nan Wang & Chao-Fen Pan & Hoang-Phu Nguyen & Pei-Chun Fang, 2023. "Integrating Fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS Methods to Evaluate Operation Efficiency of Daycare Centers," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-16, April.
    7. Upreti, Naveen & Sunder, Raju Ganesh & Dalei, Narendra N. & Garg, Sandeep, 2018. "Challenges of India's power transmission system," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 129-141.
    8. Weizhang Liang & Guoyan Zhao & Suizhi Luo, 2021. "Sustainability evaluation for phosphorus mines using a hybrid multi-criteria decision making method," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(8), pages 12411-12433, August.
    9. Dolores Gallardo-Vázquez & Flavio Hourneaux Junior & Marcelo Luiz Dias da Silva Gabriel & Luis Enrique Valdez-Juárez, 2021. "On Earth as It Is in Heaven: Proxy Measurements to Assess Sustainable Development Goals at the Company Level through CSR Indicators," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-20, January.
    10. Maciej Nowak & Tadeusz Trzaskalik, 2022. "A trade-off multiobjective dynamic programming procedure and its application to project portfolio selection," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 311(2), pages 1155-1181, April.
    11. Haiyang Shang & Fang Su & Serhat Yüksel & Hasan Dinçer, 2021. "Identifying the Strategic Priorities of the Technical Factors for the Sustainable Low Carbon Industry Based on Macroeconomic Conditions," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(2), pages 21582440211, May.
    12. Fahime Lotfian Delouyi & Seyed Hassan Ghodsypour & Maryam Ashrafi, 2021. "Dynamic Portfolio Selection in Gas Transmission Projects Considering Sustainable Strategic Alignment and Project Interdependencies through Value Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-25, May.
    13. Tien-Chin Wang & Su-Yuan Tsai, 2018. "Solar Panel Supplier Selection for the Photovoltaic System Design by Using Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Approaches," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-22, July.
    14. Rosa Puertas & Luisa Marti & Jose-Maria Garcia-Alvarez-Coque, 2020. "Food Supply without Risk: Multicriteria Analysis of Institutional Conditions of Exporters," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-20, May.
    15. Santonab Chakraborty & Sayantan Ghosh & Subham Agarwal & Shankar Chakraborty, 2021. "An integrated performance evaluation approach for the Indian smart cities," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 58(4), pages 906-941, December.
    16. R. Krishankumar & K. S. Ravichandran & J. Premaladha & Samarjit Kar & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Jurgita Antucheviciene, 2018. "A Decision Framework under a Linguistic Hesitant Fuzzy Set for Solving Multi-Criteria Group Decision Making Problems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-21, July.
    17. Animesh Debnath & Jagannath Roy & Kajal Chatterjee & Samarjit Kar, 2018. "Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility Based on Fuzzy Analytic Networking Process-Based Balance Scorecard Model," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(04), pages 1203-1235, July.
    18. Nuraini Rahim & Lazim Abdullah & Binyamin Yusoff, 2020. "A Border Approximation Area Approach Considering Bipolar Neutrosophic Linguistic Variable for Sustainable Energy Selection," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-21, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Audrius Čereška & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Fausto Cavallaro & Valentinas Podvezko & Ina Tetsman & Irina Grinbergienė, 2016. "Sustainable Assessment of Aerosol Pollution Decrease Applying Multiple Attribute Decision-Making Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-12, June.
    2. Sellak, Hamza & Ouhbi, Brahim & Frikh, Bouchra & Palomares, Iván, 2017. "Towards next-generation energy planning decision-making: An expert-based framework for intelligent decision support," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 1544-1577.
    3. Masoud Rahiminezhad Galankashi & Farimah Mokhatab Rafiei & Maryam Ghezelbash, 2020. "Portfolio selection: a fuzzy-ANP approach," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 6(1), pages 1-34, December.
    4. Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Jurgita Antucheviciene & Tatjana Vilutiene & Hojjat Adeli, 2017. "Sustainable Decision-Making in Civil Engineering, Construction and Building Technology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-21, December.
    5. Abbas Mardani & Dalia Streimikiene & Tomas Balezentis & Muhamad Zameri Mat Saman & Khalil Md Nor & Seyed Meysam Khoshnava, 2018. "Data Envelopment Analysis in Energy and Environmental Economics: An Overview of the State-of-the-Art and Recent Development Trends," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-21, August.
    6. Amy H. I. Lee & He-Yau Kang & You-Jyun Liou, 2017. "A Hybrid Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Approach for Photovoltaic Solar Plant Location Selection," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-21, January.
    7. Somayeh Soheilirad & Kannan Govindan & Abbas Mardani & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Mehrbakhsh Nilashi & Norhayati Zakuan, 2018. "Application of data envelopment analysis models in supply chain management: a systematic review and meta-analysis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 271(2), pages 915-969, December.
    8. Paula Donaduzzi Rigo & Graciele Rediske & Carmen Brum Rosa & Natália Gava Gastaldo & Leandro Michels & Alvaro Luiz Neuenfeldt Júnior & Julio Cezar Mairesse Siluk, 2020. "Renewable Energy Problems: Exploring the Methods to Support the Decision-Making Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-27, December.
    9. Khawaja Fawad Latif & Aymen Sajjad, 2018. "Measuring corporate social responsibility: A critical review of survey instruments," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(6), pages 1174-1197, November.
    10. Lin, Sheng-Hau & Zhao, Xiaofeng & Wu, Jiuxing & Liang, Fachao & Li, Jia-Hsuan & Lai, Ren-Ji & Hsieh, Jing-Chzi & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2021. "An evaluation framework for developing green infrastructure by using a new hybrid multiple attribute decision-making model for promoting environmental sustainability," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    11. Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Fausto Cavallaro & Valentinas Podvezko & Ieva Ubarte & Arturas Kaklauskas, 2017. "MCDM Assessment of a Healthy and Safe Built Environment According to Sustainable Development Principles: A Practical Neighborhood Approach in Vilnius," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-30, April.
    12. Kuang-Hua Hu & Wei Jianguo & Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng, 2017. "Risk Factor Assessment Improvement for China’s Cloud Computing Auditing Using a New Hybrid MADM Model," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(03), pages 737-777, May.
    13. Yangxue Ning & Yan Zhang & Guoqiang Wang, 2023. "An Improved DEA Prospect Cross-Efficiency Evaluation Method and Its Application in Fund Performance Analysis," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-15, January.
    14. Meng, Fanyong & Xiong, Beibei, 2021. "Logical efficiency decomposition for general two-stage systems in view of cross efficiency," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 294(2), pages 622-632.
    15. Ovidiu-Ioan Moisescu, 2015. "Adopting and Implementing CSR Policies in Travel Agency Business: The Case of Romania," Tržište/Market, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb, vol. 27(2), pages 203-220.
    16. Mousavi, Mohammad M. & Ouenniche, Jamal & Xu, Bing, 2015. "Performance evaluation of bankruptcy prediction models: An orientation-free super-efficiency DEA-based framework," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 64-75.
    17. Pedro Jose Gudiel Pineda & Chao-Che Hsu & James J. H. Liou & Huai-Wei Lo, 2018. "A Hybrid Model for Aircraft Type Determination Following Flight Cancellation," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(04), pages 1147-1172, July.
    18. Pei-Hsuan Tsai & Chin-Tsai Lin, 2018. "How Should National Museums Create Competitive Advantage Following Changes in the Global Economic Environment?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-20, October.
    19. H. Örkcü & Mehmet Ünsal & Hasan Bal, 2015. "A modification of a mixed integer linear programming (MILP) model to avoid the computational complexity," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 235(1), pages 599-623, December.
    20. Feng Li & Han Wu & Qingyuan Zhu & Liang Liang & Gang Kou, 2021. "Data envelopment analysis cross efficiency evaluation with reciprocal behaviors," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 302(1), pages 173-210, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:8:p:1302-:d:105956. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.