Enhancing Resilience and Sustainability in Humanitarian Procurement: A Supplier Evaluation Framework Using the Best-Worst Method

Abstract

With the growing complexity and frequency of humanitarian crises globally, incorporating resilience and sustainability criteria into the supply chains of humanitarian organizations has become essential. This study aimed to enhance the resilience and sustainability of the humanitarian supply chain by integrating economic, resilience, environmental, and social aspects. The Delphi method was employed as the research method, and the best-worst method (BWM) was applied to compute the context-specific supplier evaluation criterion weights. As an outcome of this research, the current and desirable supplier evaluation criteria were identified, and a holistic supplier evaluation framework was developed for humanitarian organizations (HOs). The study revealed that the integration of environmental criteria in supplier evaluation is still in its emerging stage. Moreover, increasing stakeholder engagement and securing donor support are critical for achieving resilience and sustainability in humanitarian procurement. This study provides an easy step-by-step supplier evaluation process that can be applied by HOs to enhance sustainable and resilient humanitarian procurement.

Keywords

Best-worst method / Decision support systems / Humanitarian procurement / MCDM / Supplier evaluation criteria / Supply chain resilience and sustainability

References

[1] Abrahams D. The barriers to environmental sustainability in post-disaster settings: A case study of transitional shelter implementation in Haiti. Disasters, 2014, 38(S1): S25-S49

[2] Adobor H, McMullen RS. Supply chain resilience: A dynamic and multidimensional approach. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 2018, 29(4): 1451-1471

[3] Afrasiabi A, Tavana M, Di Caprio D. An extended hybrid fuzzy multi-criteria decision model for sustainable and resilient supplier selection. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2022, 29(25): 37291-37314

[4] Agarwal, S., R. Kant, and R. Shankar. 2020. Evaluating solutions to overcome humanitarian supply chain management barriers: A hybrid fuzzy SWARA-Fuzzy WASPAS approach. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 51: Article 101838.

[5] Ahmadi HB, Kusi-Sarpong S, Rezaei J. Assessing the social sustainability of supply chains using Best Worst Method. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2017, 126: 99-106

[6] Amindoust A. A resilient-sustainable based supplier selection model using a hybrid intelligent method. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 2018, 126: 122-135

[7] Anjomshoae, A., R. Banomyong, F. Mohammed, and N. Kunz. 2022. A systematic review of humanitarian supply chains performance measurement literature from 2007 to 2021. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 72: Article 102852.

[8] Bai C, Sarkis J. Integrating sustainability into supplier selection with grey system and rough set methodologies. International Journal of Production Economics, 2010, 124(1): 252-264

[9] Bai C, Kusi-Sarpong S, Badri Ahmadi H, Sarkis J. Social sustainable supplier evaluation and selection: A group decision-support approach. International Journal of Production Research, 2019, 57(22): 7046-7067

[10] Balcik B, Ak D. Supplier selection for framework agreements in humanitarian relief. Production and Operations Management, 2014, 23(6): 1028-1041

[11] Beinabadi, H.Z., V. Baradaran, and A.R. Komijan. 2024. Sustainable supply chain decision-making in the automotive industry: A data-driven approach. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 95: Article 101908.

[12] Bhusiri N, Banomyong R, Julagasigorn P, Varadejsatitwong P, Dhami N. A purchasing portfolio model for humanitarian supply chain resilience: Perspectives from a development aid context. Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management, 2021, 11(4): 639-660

[13] Bollettino, V., R. Isely, G. Nyarko, C. Rudnicki, K. Rehmani, H. Stoddard, and P. Vinck. 2024. Challenges in humanitarian response implementation: A large‐scale review of aid worker perspectives. Disasters 48(2): Article e12607.

[14] Cooper, M. 2024. Building resilient supply chains: Perspectives on procurement risk management. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382138570_Building_Resilient_Supply_Chains_Perspectives_on_Procurement_Risk_Management. Accessed 12 Jun 2025.

[15] Dalkey N, Helmer O. An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Management Science, 1963, 9(3): 458-467

[16] Duan Y, Khokhar M, Raza A, Sharma A, Islam T. The role of digital technology and environmental sustainability in circular supply chains based on the fuzzy TOPSIS model. Environment Development and Sustainability, 2025

[17] Duran S, Gutierrez MA, Keskinocak P. Pre-positioning of emergency items for CARE international. Interfaces, 2011, 41(3): 223-237

[18] Erden C, Ateş Ç, Esen S. Distribution center location selection in humanitarian logistics using hybrid BWM-ARAS: A case study in Türkiye. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 2024, 21(3): 383-415

[19] Evcioğlu HE, Kabak M. Supplier selection in supply chain network using MCDM methods. Sigma Journal of Engineering and Natural Sciences, 2023

[20] Falasca M, Zobel CW. A two-stage procurement model for humanitarian relief supply chains. Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management, 2011, 1(2): 151-169

[21] Fallahpour A, Nayeri S, Sheikhalishahi M, Wong KY, Tian G, Fathollahi-Fard AM. A hyper-hybrid fuzzy decision-making framework for the sustainable-resilient supplier selection problem: A case study of Malaysian palm oil industry. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2021

[22] Fathollahi-Fard, A.M., A. Ahmadi, and S.M. Al-e-Hashem. 2020. Sustainable closed-loop supply chain network for an integrated water supply and wastewater collection system under uncertainty. Journal of Environmental Management 275: Article 111277.

[23] Garcia RC, Ferreira FAF, Kannan D, Ferreira NCMQF. “Why do we need them?”: Digital technologies and small and medium-sized enterprises’ performance. Annals of Operations Research, 2026, 358(3): 1219-1244

[24] Ghaebi Panah M, Khanchehzarrin S, Boyer O, Mahdavi-Amiri N. A resilient model for humanitarian relief logistics: Integrating relief time, health services, and hygiene items for sustainable development goals. Annals of Operations Research, 2025, 351(3): 2191-2232

[25] Goldschmidt KH, Kumar S. Reducing the cost of humanitarian operations through disaster preparation and preparedness. Annals of Operations Research, 2019, 283(1): 1139-1152

[26] Gordon, R. 2023. Ethical issues in supply chain management and procurement. American Public University, Charles Town, WV, USA. https://www.apu.apus.edu/area-of-study/business-and-management/resources/ethical-issues-in-supply-chain-management-and-procurement/. Accessed 16 May 2025.

[27] Govindan K, Rajendran S, Sarkis J, Murugesan P. Multi criteria decision making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2015, 98: 66-83

[28] Gralla E, Goentzel J, Fine C. Assessing trade-offs among multiple objectives for humanitarian aid delivery using expert preferences. Production and Operations Management, 2014, 23(6): 978-989

[29] Gutjahr WJ, Nolz PC. Multicriteria optimization in humanitarian aid. European Journal of Operational Research, 2016, 252(2): 351-366

[30] Haavisto I, Kovács G. Perspectives on sustainability in humanitarian supply chains. Disaster Prevention and Management, 2014, 23(5): 610-631

[31] Hailiang Z, Khokhar M, Islam T, Sharma A. A model for green-resilient supplier selection: Fuzzy best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method and its applications. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2023, 30(18): 54035-54058

[32] Heaslip G, Vaillancourt A, Tatham P, Kovács G, Blackman D, Henry MC. Supply chain and logistics competencies in humanitarian aid. Disasters, 2019, 43(3): 686-708

[33] Hendiani, S., A. Mahmoudi, and H. Liao. 2020. A multi-stage multi-criteria hierarchical decision-making approach for sustainable supplier selection. Applied Soft Computing 94: Article 106456.

[34] Heng S, Phutthanawong K, Boonmee C. Optimizing localized humanitarian logistics: A stochastic programming approach for facility location, inventory and evacuation strategies. Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management, 2025, 16(3): 225-250

[35] Hohenstein N-O, Feisel E, Hartmann E, Giunipero L. Research on the phenomenon of supply chain resilience: A systematic review and paths for further investigation. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 2015, 45(1/2): 90-117

[36] Hou, H., K. Zhang, and X. Zhang. 2024. Multi-scenario flexible contract coordination for determining the quantity of emergency medical suppliers in public health events. Frontiers in Public Health 12: Article 1334583.

[37] Hu, S., Z.S. Dong, and B. Lev. 2022. Supplier selection in disaster operations management: Review and research gap identification. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 82: Article 101302.

[38] Iakovou E, Vlachos D, Keramydas C, Partsch D. Dual sourcing for mitigating humanitarian supply chain disruptions. Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management, 2014, 4(2): 245-264

[39] Kannan, D., H. Mina, S. Nosrati-Abarghooee, and G. Khosrojerdi. 2020. Sustainable circular supplier selection: A novel hybrid approach. Science of the Total Environment 722: Article 137936.

[40] Kern M. Sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in a preparedness humanitarian supply chain, 2021, Helsinki, Finland, Hanken School of Economics

[41] Khokhar M, Hou Y, Rafique MA, Iqbal W. Evaluating the social sustainability criteria of supply chain management in manufacturing industries: A role of BWM in MCDM. Problemy Ekorozwoju, 2020, 15(2): 185-194

[42] Khokhar, M., W. Iqbal, Y. Hou, M. Abbas, and A. Fatima. 2020. Assessing supply chain performance from the perspective of Pakistan’s manufacturing industry through social sustainability. Processes 8(9): Article 1064.

[43] Khokhar, M., F. Ejaz, A. Raza, Z. Fodor, and M. Hossain. 2024. Potential barriers and drivers in the growth of blue economy: Perspectives of nautical tourism. Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development 8(9): Article 3173.

[44] Kim S, Ramkumar M, Subramanian N. Logistics service provider selection for disaster preparation: A socio-technical systems perspective. Annals of Operations Research, 2019, 283(1–2): 1259-1282

[45] Koç S, Erden C, Ateş Ç, Ceviz E. Evaluation of potential logistics village alternatives using Bayesian best-worst method. Optimality, 2024, 1(1): 100-120

[46] Kovács G, Falagara Sigala I. Lessons learned from humanitarian logistics to manage supply chain disruptions. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 2021, 57(1): 41-49

[47] Kovács G, Spens K. Identifying challenges in humanitarian logistics. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 2009, 39(6): 506-528

[48] Kusi-Sarpong S, Gupta H, Sarkis J. A supply chain sustainability innovation framework and evaluation methodology. International Journal of Production Research, 2019, 57(7): 1990-2008

[49] Lamenza AADS, Fontainha TC, Leiras A. Purchasing strategies for relief items in humanitarian operations. Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management, 2019, 9(2): 151-171

[50] Liao M, Khokhar M, Patra I. Ecological supply chain: Tools for evaluating e-waste – World perspective. Problemy Ekorozwoju, 2023, 18(2): 167-182

[51] Liu X, Tian G, Fathollahi-Fard AM, Mojtahedi M. Evaluation of ship’s green degree using a novel hybrid approach combining group fuzzy entropy and cloud technique for the order of preference by similarity to the ideal solution theory. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 2020, 22: 493-512

[52] Lo H-W, Liou JJH. A novel multiple-criteria decision-making-based FMEA model for risk assessment. Applied Soft Computing, 2018, 73: 684-696

[53] Luthra S, Govindan K, Kannan D, Mangla SK, Garg CP. An integrated framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2017, 140: 1686-1698

[54] Masoomi, B., H. Aghajani, A. Jafarnejad, and M.M. Movahedi. 2023. Expert oriented hybrid approach for modeling coordination motivators in humanitarian supply chain: Managerial implications to actors’ coordination enhancement. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 97: Article 104013.

[55] Mediouni A, Zufferey N, Subramanian N, Cheikhrouhou N. Fit between humanitarian professionals and project requirements: Hybrid group decision procedure to reduce uncertainty in decision-making. Annals of Operations Research, 2019, 283(1): 471-496

[56] Memari A, Dargi A, Jokar MRA, Ahmad R, Rahim ARA. Sustainable supplier selection: A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 2019, 50: 9-24

[57] Merminod N, Nollet J, Pache G. Streamlining humanitarian and peacekeeping supply chains: Anticipation capability for higher responsiveness. Society and Business Review, 2014, 9(1): 4-22

[58] Moshtari, M., A. Nezih, H. Jussi, and G. Paulo. 2021. Procurement in humanitarian organizations: Body of knowledge and practitioner’s challenges. International Journal of Production Economics 233: Article 108017.

[59] Munim ZH, Saha R, Schøyen H, Ng AK, Notteboom TE. Autonomous ships for container shipping in the Arctic routes. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 2022, 27(1): 320-334

[60] Nel JD. The role of supply chain risk mitigation strategies to manage supply chain disruptions. Journal of Transport and Supply Chain Management, 2024

[61] Noci G. Designing “green” vendor rating systems for the assessment of a supplier’s environmental performance. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 1997, 3(2): 103-114

[62] Odulaja BA, Oke TT, Eleogu T, Abdul AA, Daraojimba HO. Resilience in the face of uncertainty: A review on the impact of supply chain volatility amid ongoing geopolitical disruptions. International Journal of Applied Research in Social Sciences, 2023, 5(10): 463-486

[63] Ozceylan A, Tanyas M. A maturity assessment model for sustainable humanitarian logistics operations: A comparative practice in humanitarian organizations. Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization, 2025, 21(9): 5738-5771

[64] Pamučar, D., F. Ecer, G. Cirovic, and M.A. Arlasheedi. 2020. Application of improved Best Worst Method (BWM) in real-world problems. Mathematics 8(8): Article 1342.

[65] Ponis ST, Koronis E. Supply chain resilience? Definition of concept and its formative elements. The Journal of Applied Business Research, 2012, 28(5): 921-935

[66] Prasad S, Woldt J, Tata J, Altay N. Application of project management to disaster resilience. Annals of Operations Research, 2019, 283(1): 561-590

[67] Raza A, Khokhar M, Ejaz S, Ejaz F, Kosztyi D, Júlia FZ, Hossain MB. Sustainable development goals and energy poverty reduction: Empirical evidence from N11 countries. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 2024, 14(2): 701-710

[68] Rezaei J. Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega, 2015, 53: 49-57

[69] Rezaei J. Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model. Omega, 2016, 64: 126-130

[70] Rezaei JSarkis J. Sustainable supplier selection: A process view. Handbook on the sustainable supply chain, 2019, Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar Publishing, 136-147

[71] Rodríguez-Espíndola, O., H. Ahmadi, D. Gastélum-Chavira, O. Ahumada-Valenzuela, S. Chowdhury, P.K. Dey, and P. Albores. 2023. Humanitarian logistics optimization models: An investigation of decision-maker involvement and directions to promote implementation. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 89: Article 101669.

[72] Rosário MS, Ferreira FA, Çipi A, Pérez-Bustamante Ilander GO, Banaitiene N. “Should I stay or should I go?”: A multiple-criteria group decision-making approach to SME internationalization. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 2021, 27(4): 876-899

[73] Sadjadi S, Karimi M. Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: A robust approach. Decision Science Letters, 2018, 7(4): 323-340

[74] Sahabuddin M, Tan Q, Khokhar M, Hossain M, Alam M, Khan W. Assessing the impact of blockchain technology on the overall performance of sustainable supply chains: An analytical perspective. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2023, 30: 1-29

[75] Sarkar P, Ismail MWM, Tkachev T. Bridging the supply chain resilience research and practice gaps: Pre and post COVID-19 perspectives. Journal of Global Operations and Strategic Sourcing, 2022, 15(4): 599-627

[76] Sarkis, J., G. Nehman, and J. Priest. 1996. A systemic evaluation model for environmentally conscious business practices and strategy. In Proceedings of the 1996 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, 6–8 May 1996, Dallas, TX, USA.

[77] Sawyerr E. Resilience in humanitarian supply chains: A focus on the procurement decisions, 2021, London, UK, University of Westminster

[78] Shang, Z., X. Yang, D. Barnes, and C. Wu. 2022. Supplier selection in sustainable supply chains: Using the integrated BWM, fuzzy Shannon entropy, and fuzzy MULTIMOORA methods. Expert Systems with Applications 195: Article 116567.

[79] Singh RK, Gupta A, Gunasekaran A. Analysing the interaction of factors for resilient humanitarian supply chain. International Journal of Production Research, 2018, 56(21): 6809-6827

[80] Stewart GT, Kolluru R, Smith M. Leveraging public-private partnerships to improve community resilience in times of disaster. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 2009, 39(5): 343-364

[81] Tay, H.L., and C.D. Foo. 2026. From response-to-routine: Embedding humanitarian supply evaluation in Singapore’s health and community care systems. Frontiers in Health Services 6: Article 1761596.

[82] Tay, H.L., H.S. Loh, and H.S. Chen. 2025a. Exploring humanitarian procurement: A systematic review. Cogent Business & Management 12(1): Article 2445182.

[83] Tay HL, Loh HS, Chen H, Gasper NL. Enhancing resilience through strategic supplier selection and engagement for humanitarian organisations. Continuity & Resilience Review, 2025

[84] Tay HL, Chen HS, Kay Khine EM, Loh HS. Development of supplier evaluation framework for resilient and sustainable humanitarian supply chains. Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management, 2026, 16(2): 159-174

[85] The Logistics Institute. 2019. Developing humanitarian logistics strategy: An intersectionist view. https://www.tliap.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/12-Nov-SCI06Developing-Humanitarian-Logistics-Strategy.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2025.

[86] Venkatesh VG, Zhang A, Deakins E, Luthra S, Mangla S. A fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS approach to supply partner selection in continuous aid humanitarian supply chains. Annals of Operations Research, 2019, 283(1): 1517-1550

[87] Victor Ibukun A, Patience Okpeke P, Nsisong Louis E-U. Sustainable procurement practices: Balancing compliance, ethics, and cost-effectiveness. GSC Advanced Research and Reviews, 2024, 20(1): 98-107

[88] Wang, S., J. Wu, F. Chiclana, F. Ji, and H. Fujita. 2024. Global feedback mechanism by explicit and implicit power for group consensus in social network. Information Fusion 104: Article 102205.

[89] Wolniak R. The design thinking method and its stages. Systemy Wspomagania W Inynierii Produkcji, 2017, 6(6): 247-255

[90] Ye, F., B. Chen, Y. Ji, and S. Qu. 2025. A two-stage robust casualty evacuation optimization model for sustainable humanitarian logistics networks under interruption risks. Sustainability 17(24): Article 11262.

Rights & permissions

The Author(s)