The rapid growth of e-commerce has created substantial environmental impacts, driving the need for advanced optimization models to enhance supply chain sustainability. As consumer preferences shift toward environmental responsibility, organizations must adopt robust quantitative methods to reduce ecological footprints while ensuring operational efficiency. This study develops a novel hybrid multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) model to evaluate and prioritize green suppliers under uncertainty, integrating the rough-Dombi best–worst method (BWM) and an improved Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS). The proposed model addresses two key challenges: (1) inconsistency in expert judgments through rough set theory and Dombi aggregation operators and (2) ranking instability via an enhanced TOPSIS formulation that mitigates rank reversal. Mathematically, the rough-Dombi BWM leverages interval-valued rough numbers to model subjective expert preferences, while the Dombi operator ensures flexible and precise weight aggregation. The modified TOPSIS incorporates a dynamic distance metric to strengthen ranking robustness. A case study of five e-commerce suppliers validates the model’s effectiveness, with results identifying cost, green competitiveness, and external environmental management as the dominant evaluation dimensions. Key indicators—such as product price, pollution control, and green design—are rigorously prioritized using the proposed framework. Theoretical contributions include (1) a new rough-Dombi fusion for criteria weighting under uncertainty and (2) a stabilized TOPSIS variant with reduced sensitivity to data perturbations. Practically, the model provides e-commerce enterprises with a computationally efficient tool for sustainable supplier selection, enhancing resource allocation and green innovation. This study advances the intersection of uncertainty modeling, operational research, and sustainability analytics, offering scalable methodologies for mathematical decision-making in supply chain contexts.
Shao et al. (Sat,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: