MCDM Approaches for Supplier Selection in Sustainable Supply Chain Management

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The abstract should have a clear logical flow from the background of the study to the research question to the research methodology, main findings and conclusions. The current abstract is somewhat lengthy and the language could be further streamlined.

2. The introduction should follow the logic of writing from largest to smallest scope gradually narrowing down the scope of the study, and problem focus. Therefore, it should also provide a brief overview of the current state of sustainable supply chain management practices in the global automotive industry.

3. The literature review lacks structure and depth, and it is suggested that subheadings can be added to develop the literature review in several aspects. A more comprehensive review of existing studies should be added, thus pointing out what improvements and additions this study has made to the existing research deficiencies.

4. In lines 367 and 369, the symbols in front of equations (6) and (7) are missing, and attention should be paid to the alignment format.

5. The chapter headings should be consistent, and the English case of “RESULTS” in line 389 should be harmonized with the previous one.

6. Tables 1-6 should be deleted before the serial number in the header.

7. The “Conclusion” section should clearly and briefly list what important conclusions have been drawn from this study.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear reviewer
Thank you for your valuable comments.

1. The abstract should have a clear logical flow from the background of the study to the research question to the research methodology, main findings and conclusions. The current abstract is somewhat lengthy and the language could be further streamlined.

Answer : The abstract has been revised to improve logical flow, starting with the study background, followed by a clear research question, a concise description of the methodology, key findings, and the main conclusions. The language has been streamlined to reduce length and enhance clarity, ensuring the content is presented more effectively.

2. The introduction should follow the logic of writing from largest to smallest scope gradually narrowing down the scope of the study, and problem focus. Therefore, it should also provide a brief overview of the current state of sustainable supply chain management practices in the global automotive industry.

Answer: The introduction has been restructured to follow a logical flow from the general overview of sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) to the specific focus of the study. A brief overview of the global state of SSCM practices in the automotive industry has been added to provide context and better frame the research problem. This revision helps narrow down the scope in a structured manner.

3. The literature review lacks structure and depth, and it is suggested that subheadings can be added to develop the literature review in several aspects. A more comprehensive review of existing studies should be added, thus pointing out what improvements and additions this study has made to the existing research deficiencies.

Answer: The literature review has been reorganized by introducing subheadings to improve structure and thematic clarity. Additional studies have been incorporated to provide a more comprehensive overview, highlighting how this research addresses existing gaps and advances the field. The improvements focus on SSCM practices in various industries and regions to emphasize the unique contributions of the current study.

4. In lines 367 and 369, the symbols in front of equations (6) and (7) are missing, and attention should be paid to the alignment format.

Answer: The symbols for equations (6) and (7) have been inserted, and the alignment format has been adjusted for consistency and clarity. This ensures that the mathematical expressions are presented correctly and are easy to follow.

5. The chapter headings should be consistent, and the English case of “RESULTS” in line 389 should be harmonized with the previous one.

Answer: The chapter headings have been reviewed for consistency across the document. The heading for "RESULTS" in line 389 has been adjusted to match the format used throughout the paper, ensuring uniformity in presentation.

6. Tables 1-6 should be deleted before the serial number in the header.

Answer: The formatting of Tables 1-6 has been corrected by removing the numbering from the header, ensuring that the presentation of the tables aligns with standard formatting practices. This adjustment improves the document's overall readability and professionalism.

7. The “Conclusion” section should clearly and briefly list what important conclusions have been drawn from this study.

Answer: The "Conclusion" section has been revised to provide a concise summary of the main findings and their implications. Key conclusions are listed clearly to emphasize the significance of the results and how they contribute to the field of SSCM in the automotive industry. Suggestions for future research are also expanded to guide further studies in this area.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.      MCDM is not defined in the article.

2.      In several parts of the article, the author refers to the study objectives, which change without any support. In this way, the article does not present a logical and argumentative sequence

3.      Research does not have questions and hypotheses. In addition, context of research is not included.

4.      Authors refer that “the evaluation process considers twelve significant factors”, which are poorly supported in the literature review; in other words, it is not justified why these factors must be included and not others, and how the adopted factors are related to SSCM. In addition, many of the arguments included in the literature review do not contribute to the argument, so it is a long and unstructured section.

5.      The authors refer to the twelve study factors in Table 1. In this regard, the authors do not previously establish what is meant by factors and how SSCM literature support theses as factors.

6.      Regarding the methodology, it is not indicated when the research was carried out, if data is part of previous research, what type of questions were included to measure the factor performance and range of values ​​for the factors.

7.      Regarding the “TOPSIS” method, authors refer it as “the most famous Multi Criteria Decision Making method”; however, they do not include a reference or references. In addition, when describing the procedure, the authors do not indicate what they refer to as alternatives and criteria. In addition, why 0.0833 is the weight for each criterion is not justified. The justification of this last issue is important since it will significantly influence possible results.

8.      Results are very poor. The discussion is only carried out for some companies providing simple arguments without entering into a deeper discussion. The above is consequence of an inadequate literature review, as well as the non-inclusion of references related to the research

9.      On page 6 some of the paragraphs are repeated

10.  Table 7 includes the same column twice

Author Response

Dear reviewer 

Thank you for your valuable comments.

1. MCDM is not defined in the article. Line 99 done

Answer: The term "Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM)" has been defined in the article at the first instance to ensure that readers unfamiliar with the term understand its meaning and relevance to the study.

2. In several parts of the article, the author refers to the study objectives, which change without any support. In this way, the article does not present a logical and argumentative sequence

Answer: The study objectives have been clarified and unified throughout the paper to maintain a consistent narrative. The logical flow of arguments has been improved to ensure that each objective is supported by the corresponding discussion in the literature review and methodology sections. This revision provides a coherent progression from the problem statement to the research questions and objectives.

3. Research does not have questions and hypotheses. In addition, context of research is not included.

Answer: The research questions and hypotheses have been added to provide a clear framework for the study. Additionally, the context of the research has been elaborated upon in the introduction to explain why this study is necessary and how it fits into the broader field of SSCM research, particularly in the automotive sector.

4. Authors refer that “the evaluation process considers twelve significant factors”, which are poorly supported in the literature review; in other words, it is not justified why these factors must be included and not others, and how the adopted factors are related to SSCM. In addition, many of the arguments included in the literature review do not contribute to the argument, so it is a long and unstructured section.

Answer: Justifications for the selection of the twelve significant factors have been added to the literature review. The discussion now includes references to relevant SSCM literature that supports these factors as important considerations for supplier selection. The literature review has also been condensed and reorganized to focus on the most relevant studies, enhancing the section's overall structure and coherence.

5. The authors refer to the twelve study factors in Table 1. In this regard, the authors do not previously establish what is meant by factors and how SSCM literature support theses as factors.

Answer: An explanation of what constitutes a "factor" in the context of SSCM and the study has been added. The relevance of the twelve factors is supported by citations from existing literature to demonstrate how they contribute to the evaluation of SSCM practices, ensuring a clearer understanding of their significance in the study.

6. Regarding the methodology, it is not indicated when the research was carried out, if data is part of previous research, what type of questions were included to measure the factor performance and range of values for the factors.

Answer: The methodology section has been updated to include the timing of the research, clarify whether data was derived from previous research or collected anew, and provide details about the types of questions used to measure factor performance. The range of values for each factor has also been specified to ensure the methodology is transparent and reproducible.

7. Regarding the “TOPSIS” method, authors refer it as “the most famous Multi Criteria Decision Making method”; however, they do not include a reference or references. In addition, when describing the procedure, the authors do not indicate what they refer to as alternatives and criteria. In addition, why 0.0833 is the weight for each criterion is not justified. The justification of this last issue is important since it will significantly influence possible results.

Answer: The section describing the TOPSIS method has been expanded to include references supporting its reputation as a widely used MCDM method. The definitions of alternatives and criteria have been clarified, and the choice of 0.0833 as the weight for each criterion is now justified by explaining the rationale behind the equal weighting approach. This revision provides a more robust and transparent explanation of the methodology.

8. Results are very poor. The discussion is only carried out for some companies providing simple arguments without entering into a deeper discussion. The above is consequence of an inadequate literature review, as well as the non-inclusion of references related to the research

Answer: The discussion section has been enriched with a deeper analysis of the results, including more comprehensive arguments that consider the broader implications for SSCM in the automotive industry. References have been added where appropriate to link the findings to existing research, providing a stronger foundation for the discussion and addressing the shortcomings in the original literature review.

9. On page 6 some of the paragraphs are repeated

Answer: The repeated paragraphs on page 6 have been removed to ensure a concise and clear presentation of the content. This revision improves the overall quality and readability of the manuscript.

10. Table 7 includes the same column twice done

Answer: The duplicate column in Table 7 has been corrected. The table now presents unique information in each column, providing a clearer and more accurate representation of the data.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript provides a comprehensive exploration of Sustainable Supply Chain Management (SSCM) within the Iranian automotive industry, using the TOPSIS method for supplier selection. The structure is clear, and the selection of factors such as green initiatives, quality, and waste reduction is both relevant and well-justified for the context of sustainability. The methodology, especially the use of expert evaluations and the detailed step-by-step explanation of the TOPSIS approach, enhances the credibility and replicability of the study.

However, there are areas for improvement. First, the literature review could benefit from a broader discussion of SSCM practices in other industries or regions, providing a more global perspective to compare the Iranian automotive sector's practices. Additionally, the discussion section could delve deeper into the implications of the findings, particularly regarding how the rankings of the suppliers influence long-term sustainability goals and competitiveness within the industry. Although the conclusion touches on future research directions, these could be expanded to include specific emerging technologies and their potential impact on SSCM practices.

In summary, the manuscript offers a valuable contribution to the field of SSCM in the automotive industry, but enhancing the comparative and forward-looking aspects could further strengthen the work.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you for your valuable comments.

The manuscript provides a comprehensive exploration of Sustainable Supply Chain Management (SSCM) within the Iranian automotive industry, using the TOPSIS method for supplier selection. The structure is clear, and the selection of factors such as green initiatives, quality, and waste reduction is both relevant and well-justified for the context of sustainability. The methodology, especially the use of expert evaluations and the detailed step-by-step explanation of the TOPSIS approach, enhances the credibility and replicability of the study.

However, there are areas for improvement. First, the literature review could benefit from a broader discussion of SSCM practices in other industries or regions, providing a more global perspective to compare the Iranian automotive sector's practices. Additionally, the discussion section could delve deeper into the implications of the findings, particularly regarding how the rankings of the suppliers influence long-term sustainability goals and competitiveness within the industry. Although the conclusion touches on future research directions, these could be expanded to include specific emerging technologies and their potential impact on SSCM practices.

In summary, the manuscript offers a valuable contribution to the field of SSCM in the automotive industry, but enhancing the comparative and forward-looking aspects could further strengthen the work.

Answer: Thank you for the comments. We have expanded the literature review to include global SSCM practices, added deeper analysis in the discussion section regarding supplier rankings and their impact on sustainability, and updated the conclusion to suggest future research on emerging technologies.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am glad that the authors responded to and carefully revised each of the previous review comments. The quality of the article has been greatly improved compared with the previous version, but I found that there are still some details to be improved, such as the serial numbers in front of Tables 2 to 7 are still not deleted. I would like to ask the authors to correct the formatting more carefully.

Author Response

Thank you for your response, the serial number front of tables 2-7 deleted and format of the tables are corrected based on journal requirements.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Once again, twelve important factors are not sufficiently supported in the literature review. It is not justified how these factors impact economic, social and environmental issues. 

The three hypotheses present weak arguments based on the literature review

Again, the results are very poor. The discussion is only carried out for some suppliers, providing simple arguments without entering into a deeper discussion. The above is a consequence of an inadequate literature review, as well as the non-inclusion of references related to the research. The author points out some factors as relevant to explain why the supplier has high performance, but it is never argued why these factors are relevant compared to the other factors used in the research.  

The author argues that it is correct to assume the same value for each weighting; however, he does not provide arguments in this regard. In addition, he does not consider the context of the automotive sector in Iran to justify his position.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your valuable comments.

Reviewer Comment: "Once again, twelve important factors are not sufficiently supported in the literature review. It is not justified how these factors impact economic, social, and environmental issues."
Answer to the comment:

Thank you for this valuable feedback. In response, I have expanded the literature review to provide a stronger theoretical foundation for each of the twelve factors, citing recent studies that illustrate their specific impacts on economic, social, and environmental dimensions. Additionally, I have incorporated a study from the Indian automobile industry that utilizes fifteen similar indicators to assess sustainability, demonstrating that prior research supports the use of a focused set of indicators in this context. This precedent justifies the choice of twelve indicators in my study, while the enhanced literature review clarifies each factor's relevance to sustainability outcomes. I highlighted them in lines 225-264.

 

Reviewer Comment: "The three hypotheses present weak arguments based on the literature review."

Response: I appreciate the reviewer's input regarding the hypotheses. However, the three hypotheses are specifically designed to align with the core objectives of this study and reflect the unique aspects of my research question. They are central to the investigation and therefore remain unchanged. To address the reviewer's concerns, I have reinforced the literature review to highlight relevant studies that underpin the hypotheses, clarifying the theoretical basis and supporting the hypotheses' connection to my research objectives.

 

 

Reviewer Comment: "Again, the results are very poor. The discussion is only carried out for some suppliers, providing simple arguments without entering into a deeper discussion. The above is a consequence of an inadequate literature review, as well as the non-inclusion of references related to the research. The author points out some factors as relevant to explain why the supplier has high performance, but it is never argued why these factors are relevant compared to the other factors used in the research."

Response: Thank you for this constructive feedback. I have revisited the discussion section and expanded it to cover all suppliers, providing a more comprehensive analysis. To address the highlighted gaps, I incorporated references from recent studies that validate the relevance of these factors, specifically within the context of supplier performance. Additionally, I have discussed why certain factors are more influential compared to others, based on empirical evidence and theoretical insights. This revision adds depth to the analysis and provides clearer explanations for the observed variations in supplier performance.

 

 

Reviewer Comment: "The author argues that it is correct to assume the same value for each weighting; however, he does not provide arguments in this regard. In addition, he does not consider the context of the automotive sector in Iran to justify his position."

Response: I apologize for the oversight and appreciate the reviewer's attention to this detail. I have now included a detailed justification for the equal weighting assumption, referencing studies that support this approach, especially in exploratory research where individual factor weights are initially unknown. Additionally, I have incorporated contextual insights specific to the Iranian automotive sector, addressing how sanctions and resource constraints influence the prioritization of factors. This context aims to substantiate the chosen approach and provide a rationale that aligns with sector-specific conditions.

 

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author should have analyzed the model used in such a way that he could be clear about the impact of each factor on the final result, and in this way, be able to support it with references

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your valuable comment. I revised the discussion based on your comment and I highlighted it in the discussion part.

Comment: "The author should have analyzed the model used in such a way that he could be clear about the impact of each factor on the final result, and in this way, be able to support it with references."

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. In response, I have expanded the discussion to explicitly analyze the role of each of the 12 sustainability factors incorporated in the TOPSIS model. A detailed explanation has been provided to highlight how these factors green initiatives, quality, waste reduction, eco-design, reverse logistics, green investments, financial costs, top management commitment, strategic supplier capabilities, customer satisfaction, innovation, and trust individually and collectively influence the final rankings of suppliers. Specifically, the revised discussion outlines the relevance of each criterion within the context of sustainable supply chain management and substantiates their importance with references to existing literature (e.g., Pinto, 2020; Yadegaridehkordi et al., 2023; Bhatia & Jakhar, 2021). This addition ensures greater clarity regarding the model's structure and reinforces the robustness of the findings by grounding them in established research.