An integrated MCDM approach for B2C e-marketplace selection in the healthy food sector

i

This article has been updated. A Correction to this article was published on .

i

The Original Article was published on

i

The Original Article was published on

i

This article has been updated

i

This article was retracted on

i

This article has been updated

Abstract

Stochastic modeling and data analysis, which address uncertainty and complexity in business and industry, are important tools for optimizing decision-making processes. When it comes to providing access to healthy food, the importance of decision-making becomes even more prominent. In this work, the aim was to determine the criteria that healthy food businesses consider when choosing business-to-consumer (B2C) e-marketplaces and to evaluate the performance of alternative platforms. Nine main criteria were determined through a literature review and interviews with ten decision-makers (DMs), as sellers. To overcome the limitations of traditional fuzzy sets in handling uncertainty and inconsistent information, a hybrid decision-making method integrating interval-valued neutrosophic sets (IVNSs) with the stepwise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA) and evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS) methods was applied. Unlike existing approaches, this methodology better addresses expert uncertainty and inconsistency by simultaneously handling membership in truthiness, uncertainty, and falsity within an interval. Interval-valued neutrosophic (IVN)-SWARA was used to weight the selection criteria for e-marketplace platforms, and these weights were used to rank the platforms using IVN-EDAS. The findings show that integration capacity, site traffic density, and cost-effectiveness are the most important criteria in e-marketplace selection, while ease of membership and platform design usability were the least important. Theoretically, this research fills a gap in the literature by addressing B2C e-marketplace selection from the seller's perspective and better handles inconsistencies compared to standard fuzzy sets using IVN fuzzy sets. In addition, the proposed approach offers special solutions for healthy food businesses and sheds light on advanced research for other sectors and regions.

Keywords

B2C / e-marketplace / healthy food / MCDM / IVN-SWARA / IVN-EDAS

CHANGE HISTORY

A Correction to this paper has been published:
https://doi.org

The Retraction Note was updated to reflect reception of statements of disagreement from all authors.

This article has been retracted.Please see the Retraction Notice for more detail:
https://doi.org

References

[1] Gelder K (2025) E-commerce worldwide - statistics & facts. Statista. Available from: https://www.statista.com/topics/871/online-shopping

[2] Statista (2025) Distribution of online purchases worldwide as of April 2024, by channel. Available from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/861336/

[3] Kahraman C, Onar SÇ, Öztayşi B (2018) B2C marketplace prioritization using hesitant fuzzy linguistic AHP. Int J Fuzzy Syst 20: 2202-2215 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-017-0429-4

[4] Bingöl M, Karaarslan MH (2024) İşletmelerin pazaryeri seçimini etkileyen faktörlerin önem derecelerinin AHS yöntemi ile belirlenmesi. Çağ Univ Sos Bilim Derg 21: 70-90.

[5] Dominici A, Boncinelli F, Gerini F, Marone E (2021) Determinants of online food purchasing: the impact of socio-demographic and situational factors. J Retail Consum Serv 60: 102473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102473

[6] Ling S, Zheng C, Cho D (2023) How brand knowledge affects purchase intentions in fresh food e-commerce platforms. Behav Sci 13: 672. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13080672

[7] Liu M, Jia W, Yan W, He J (2023) Factors influencing consumers’ repurchase behavior on fresh food e-commerce platforms. Adv Eng Inform 56: 101936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2023.101936

[8] Osaili TM, Al-Nabulsi AA, Taybeh AO, et al. (2023) Healthy food and determinants of food choice on online food delivery applications. PLoS One 18: e0293004. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293004

[9] Sigurdsson V, Menon RGV, Fagerstrøm A (2017) Online healthy food experiments: capturing complexity using choice-based conjoint analysis. Behav Anal 40: 373-391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-017-0114-9

[10] Ghosh D, Roy S (2010) A decision-making framework for process plant maintenance. Eur J Ind Eng 4: 78-98. https://doi.org/10.1504/EJIE.2010.029571

[11] Smarandache F (2005) Neutrosophic set-A generalization of the intuitionistic fuzzy set. Int J Pure Appl Math 24: 287-299.

[12] Yazdani M, Pamučar D, Chatterjee P, Torkayesh AE (2021) A multi-tier sustainable food supplier selection model under uncertainty. Oper Manag Res 15: 116-145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-021-00186-z

[13] Koska A, Erdem MB (2023) Performance analysis of manufacturing waste using SWARA and VIKOR methods: evaluation of Turkey within the scope of the circular economy. Sustainability 15: 12110. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612110

[14] Demircan ML, Özcan B (2021) A proposed method to evaluate warehouse location for 3PL cold chain suppliers in Gulf countries using neutrosophic fuzzy EDAS. Int J Comput Intell Syst 14: 202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44196-021-00041-w

[15] Cakmak E, Guney E (2023) Spare parts inventory classification using neutrosophic fuzzy EDAS method in the aviation industry. Expert Syst Appl 224: 120008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.120008

[16] Naujoks T (2020) Marketing functions and B2C e-marketplaces: an exploratory analysis. J Mark Channels 26: 250-262. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046669X.2020.1828687

[17] Stockdale R, Standing C (2002) A framework for the selection of electronic marketplaces. Internet Res 12: 221-234. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240210430900

[18] Arif M, Suseno JE, Isnanto RR (2020) Multi-criteria decision-making with the VIKOR and SMARTER methods for optimal seller selection from several e-marketplaces. E3S Web Conf 202: 14002. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202020214002

[19] Kumar A, Sikdar P, Saha R (2021) Seller experience assessment in online marketplace: a scale development study. Benchmarking 28: 2315-2342. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-06-2020-0305

[20] Akman G, Boyacı Aİ, Kurnaz S (2022) Selecting the suitable e-commerce marketplace with neutrosophic fuzzy AHP and EDAS methods from seller’s perspective in the context of Covid-19. Int J Anal Hierarchy Process 14. https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v14i3.994

[21] Çağlar S (2022) Markaların sanal pazaryeri seçiminde etkili olan faktörlerin belirlenmesi. Master’s thesis. İstanbul: Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi.

[22] Putri AS, Setiono M (2023) Comparative analysis of seller’s preferences in selling online in marketplaces. J Sist Tek Ind 25: 112-125. https://doi.org/10.32734/jsti.v25i1.11209

[23] Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8: 338-353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X

[24] Büyüközkan G (2004) Multi-criteria decision-making for e-marketplace selection. Internet Res 14: 139-154. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240410530853

[25] Ömürbek N, Şimşek A (2014) Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci ve Analitik Ağ Süreci yöntemleri ile online alışveriş site seçimi. J Manag Econ Res 22: 306-327. https://doi.org/10.11611/JMER214

[26] Çakır E, Akel G, Doğaner M (2018) Türkiye’de faaliyet gösteren özel alışveriş sitelerinin bütünleşik SWARA-WASPAS yöntemi ile değerlendirilmesi. Ulus İktisadi İdari İncelemeler Derg 599-616. https://doi.org/10.18092/ulikidince.347658

[27] Ülger YT, Toksarı M (2020) E-ticaret sitelerinin kullanılabilirliği ve başarısını etkileyen faktörlerin belirlenmesi. Giresun Univ İİBF Derg 6: 116-128. https://doi.org/10.46849/guiibd.823445

[28] Bulak ME, Kozanoğlu O, Aydoğduoğlu ŞN, Göçer F, Algül R (2021) E-ticaret sitelerinin kullanılabilirliğinin AHP ve TOPSİS yöntemleriyle karşılaştırılması. Avrupa Bilim Teknol Derg 26: 493-509. https://doi.org/10.31590/ejosat.963658

[29] Maruf M (2021) Türkiye’de e-ticaret sitelerinin SWARA ve WASPAS yöntemleri ile web sitesi performansına göre sıralanması. TroyAcad 6: 411-421. https://doi.org/10.31454/troyacademy.897589

[30] Erdas Y, Ecer F (2022) Covid-19 salgınında sanal alışveriş platformlarının performanslarının ölçülmesi: AHP-MAIRCA modeli. SDÜ Vizyoner Derg 13: 619-641. https://doi.org/10.21076/vizyoner.949281

[31] Jiang H, Lin Y, Luo X, Shao T (2022) Understanding the selection of cross-border import e-commerce platforms through the DANP and TOPSIS techniques. J Glob Inf Technol Manag 25: 26-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/1097198X.2021.2022397

[32] Özbek A, Sırakaya Ö (2022) Türkiye’de kullanılan e-ticaret platformlarının performanslarının karşılaştırılması. Kırıkkale Univ Sos Bilim Derg 12: 469-492.

[33] Thanh VD, Van LH, Tuyet NTA, Tuan HM (2022) Using a multi-criteria decision-making model to evaluate and select an e-commerce platform. Int J Manag Entrep Res 4: 26-35. https://doi.org/10.51594/ijmer.v4i1.285

[34] Gürbüz A, Aksu M (2023) Hangisine tıklasak acaba? Tüketici perspektifinden e-ticaret platformları: Türkiye üzerine bir araştırma. J Soc Sci Res 135: 135-145. https://doi.org/10.48145/gopsbad.1253469

[35] Turksen IB (1986) Measurement of membership functions. In: Adv Hum Factors Ergon, Vol 6. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 55-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-42723-6.50009-X

[36] Atanassov KT (1986) Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 20: 87-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(86)80034-3

[37] Torra V (2010) Hesitant fuzzy sets. Int J Intell Syst 25: 529-539. https://doi.org/10.1002/int.20418

[38] Das S, Roy BK, Kar MB, et al. (2020) Neutrosophic fuzzy set and its application in decision-making. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput 11: 5017-5029. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-020-01828-2

[39] Karaşan A, Kahraman C (2018) A novel interval-valued neutrosophic EDAS method: prioritization of the United Nations national sustainable development goals. Soft Comput 22: 4891-4906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-018-3088-y

[40] Zhang HY, Wang JQ, Chen XH (2014) Interval neutrosophic sets and their application in multicriteria decision making problems. Sci World J 2014: 645953. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/645953

[41] Keršulienė V, Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z (2010) Selection of rational dispute resolution method by applying new step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA). J Bus Econ Manag 11: 243-258. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2010.12

[42] Mardani A, Nilashi M, Zakuan N, et al. (2017) A systematic review and meta-analysis of SWARA and WASPAS methods. Appl Soft Comput 57: 265-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2017.03.045

[43] Ghorabaee MK, Zavadskas EK, Amiri M, Turskis Z (2016) Extended EDAS method for fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making: an application to supplier selection. Int J Comput Commun Control 11: 358-371. https://doi.org/10.15837/ijccc.2016.3.2557

[44] Wang P, Wang JJ, Wei G (2019) EDAS method for multiple criteria group decision-making under 2-tuple linguistic neutrosophic environment. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 37: 1597-1608. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-17922

[45] Cakmak E (2023) Supplier selection for a power generator sustainable supplier park: interval-valued neutrosophic SWARA and EDAS application. Sustainability 15: 13973. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813973