The development of sustainable energy sources is one of the most significant issues facing policymakers who need to strike a balance between energy demand, environmental sustainability and economic development. In this respect, much uncertainty, fuzziness, and inaccurate data often come into play in decision-making and thus standardized evaluation methods are less practical in the evaluation of complex energy options. Thus, this paper suggests a multi-criteria decision-making model that is integrated with q-rung orthopair fuzzy set (q-ROFS) to rank the sustainable sources of energy in Haryana, India. The proposed framework includes a novel q-ROFS scoring facility to be used to analyze energy options in uncertain and unclear situations. Moreover, the CRITIC (Criteria Importance Through Inter-Criteria Correlation) is used to identify the objective weights of the evaluation criteria, which is based on the intensity of contrast and discord between the criteria. These objective weights are then added to the subjective expert preferences to reach the final parameters of decision. Hybrid Yager-Power-Weighted Compromise Solution (CoCoSo) approach is then used to undertake the multi-criteria decision-making process and prioritize the energy options that are sustainable. The suggested method has the following benefits: It improves computational stability, maintains the nonlinear weighting effect, it does not have a zero-product problem, and combines both objective and subjective information to provide more credible decision results. The results show that the proposed framework has a solid and useful instrument in helping policymakers to plan sustainably energy and make strategic decisions.

1.         Zadeh LA. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control. 1965; 8(3): 338–353. doi: 10.1049/pbpo091e_ch2

2.         Atanassov KT. Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems. 1986; 20(1): 87–96. doi: 10.1016/s0165-0114(86)80034-3

3.         Atanassov K, Gargov G. Interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems. 1989; 31(3): 343–349. doi: 10.1016/s0165-0114(86)80034-3

4.         Yager RR. Pythagorean membership grades in multicriteria decision making. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems. 2014; 22(4): 958–965. doi: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2013.2278989

5.         Yager RR. Generalized orthopair fuzzy sets. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems. 2017; 25(5): 1222–1230. doi: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2016.2604005

6.         Zaheb H, Obaidi O, Mukhtar S, et al. Comprehensive analysis and prioritization of sustainable energy resources using analytical hierarchy process. Sustainability. 2024; 16(11): 4873. doi: 10.3390/su16114873

7.         Abdul D, Wenqi J, Tanveer A. Prioritization of renewable energy source for electricity generation through AHP-VIKOR integrated methodology. Renewable Energy. 2022; 184: 1018–1032. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2021.10.082

8.         Assadi MR, Ataebi M, Ataebi ES, Hasani A. Prioritization of renewable energy resources based on sustainable management approach using simultaneous evaluation of criteria and alternatives. Renewable Energy. 2022; 181: 820–832. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2021.09.065

9.         Pathak SK, Sharma V, Chougule SS, Goel V. Prioritization of barriers to renewable energy technologies in India using integrated modified Delphi and AHP method. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments. 2022; 50: 101818. doi: 10.1016/j.seta.2021.101818

10.      Irfan M, Elavarasan RM, Ahmad M, et al. Prioritizing and overcoming biomass energy barriers: Application of AHP and G-TOPSIS approaches. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2022; 177: 121524. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121524

11.      Ayyildiz E. Fermatean fuzzy SWARA and its application to prioritizing indicators to achieve sustainable development goal-7. Renewable Energy. 2022; 193: 136–148. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2022.05.021

12.      Tang C, Xu D, Chen N. Sustainability prioritization of sewage sludge to energy scenarios with hybrid-data consideration: A fuzzy decision-making framework based on full consistency method and fusion ranking model. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2021; 28(5): 5548–5565. doi: 10.1007/s11356-020-10544-2

13.      Krishankumar R, Nimmagadda SS, Rani P, et al. Solving renewable energy source selection problems using a q-rung orthopair fuzzy-based integrated decision-making approach. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2021; 279: 123329. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123329

14.      Peng X, Huang H. Fuzzy decision-making method based on CoCoSo with CRITIC for financial risk evaluation. Technological and Economic Development of Economy. 2020; 26(4): 695–724. doi: 10.3846/tede.2020.11920

15.      Chen SM, Tan JM. Handling multicriteria fuzzy decision-making problems based on vague set theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems. 1994; 67(2): 163–172. doi: 10.1016/0165-0114(94)90084-1

16.      Xu Z. Methods for aggregating interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy information and their application to decision making. Control and Decision. 2007; 22(2): 215–219.

17.      Malik M, Gupta SK. On basic arithmetic operations for interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets using the Hamming distance with their application in decision making. Expert Systems with Applications. 2024; 239: 122429 doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2023.122429

18.      Ye J. Multicriteria fuzzy decision-making method based on a novel accuracy function under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications. 2009; 36(3): 6899–6902. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2008.08.042

19.      Sahin R. Fuzzy multicriteria decision making method based on improved accuracy function for interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Soft Computing. 2016; 20(7): 2557–2563. doi: 10.1007/s00500-015-1657-x

20.      Bai ZY. Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method based on improved score function. Scientific World Journal. 2013; 2013: 879089. doi: 10.1155/2013/879089

21.      Garg H. A new generalized improved score function of interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets and applications in expert systems. Applied Soft Computing. 2016; 38: 988–999. doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2015.10.040

22.      Zhang F, Wang S, Sun J, et al. Novel parameterized score functions on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. IEEE Access. 2018; 7: 8172–8180. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2885794

23.      Nguyen H. A generalized p-norm knowledge-based score function for interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy set in decision making. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems. 2020; 28(3): 409–423. doi: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2019.2907068

24.      Peng X, Dai J, Garg H. Exponential operation and aggregation operator for q-rung orthopair fuzzy set. International Journal of Intelligent Systems. 2018; 33(11): 2255–2282. doi: 10.1002/int.22028

25.      Liu P, Li Y, Wang P. Consistency threshold- and score function-based multi-attribute decision-making with q-rung orthopair fuzzy preference relations. Information Sciences. 2022; 618: 356–378. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2022.10.122

26.      Khan MJ, Ali MI, Kumam P. A new ranking technique for q-rung orthopair fuzzy values. International Journal of Intelligent Systems. 2021; 36(1): 558–592. doi: 10.1002/int.22311

27.      Albahri AS, Albahri OS, Zaidan AA, et al. Integration of fuzzy-weighted zero-inconsistency decision methods under a q-rung orthopair environment. Computer Standards & Interfaces. 2022; 80: 103572. doi: 10.1016/j.csi.2021.103572

28.      Ali J. A q-rung orthopair fuzzy MARCOS method using novel score function and its application to solid waste management. Applied Intelligence. 2022; 52(8): 8770–8792. doi: 10.1007/s10489-021-02921-2

29.      Xiao L, Huang G, Pedrycz W, et al. q-rung orthopair fuzzy decision-making model with best-worst method. Information Sciences. 2022; 608: 153–177. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2022.06.061

30.      Zhang D, Wang G. q-rung orthopair fuzzy decision-making method based on compression mapping and inverse score function. Expert Systems with Applications. 2024; 242: 122574. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2023.122574

31.      Gillan SL, Koch A, Starks LT. Firms and social responsibility: A review of ESG and CSR research in corporate finance. Journal of Corporate Finance. 2021; 66: 101889. doi: 10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2021.101889

32.      Yap CK, Leow CS, Ismail AP. Environmental finance under ESG: A literature review and synthesis. Sustainable Social Development. 2024; 2(2): 2481. doi: 10.55927/ajabm.v3i4.12442 

33.      Seikh MR, Mandal U. q-rung orthopair fuzzy Frank aggregation operators and its application in multiple attribute decision-making with unknown attribute weights. Granular Computing. 2022; 7: 709–730. doi: 10.1007/s41066-021-00290-2

34.      Kumar K, Chen SM. Multiattribute decision making based on q-rung orthopair fuzzy Yager prioritized weighted arithmetic aggregation operator of q-rung orthopair fuzzy numbers. Information Sciences. 2024; 657: 119984. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2023.119984

35.      Liu P, Wang P. Some q-rung orthopair fuzzy aggregation operators and their applications to multiple attribute decision making. International Journal of Intelligent Systems. 2018; 33(2): 259–280. doi: 10.1002/int.21927

36.      Akram M, Shahzadi G. Hybrid decision-making model under q-rung orthopair fuzzy Yager aggregation operators. Granular Computing. 2021; 6(4): 763–777. doi: 10.1007/s41066-020-00229-z

37.      Diakoulaki D, Mavrotas G, Papayannakis L. Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The CRITIC method. Computers & Operations Research. 1995; 22(7): 763–770. doi: 10.1016/0305-0548(94)00059-H

38.      Yazdani M, Zarate P, Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z. A combined compromise solution (CoCoSo) method for multi-criteria decision-making problems. Management Decision. 2019; 57(9): 2501–2519. doi: 10.1108/MD-05-2017-0458

39.      Peng X, Krishankumar R, Ravichandran KS. Generalized orthopair fuzzy weighted distance-based approximation (WDBA) algorithm in emergency decision-making. International Journal of Intelligent Systems. 2019; 34(10): 2364-2402. doi: 10.1002/int.22140

40.      Hussain Z, Rahman SU, Hussain R, Ahmed M. Application of q-rung orthopair fuzzy entropy measures to multicriteria decision making and medical diagnosis. Journal of Xi’an Shiyou University. 2023: 127–148.

41.      Tyutyunnik VM, Alguzo MM. Decision-making models under conditions of uncertainty of formation, description and intellectual analysis of complex data files. Mathematics and Systems Science. 2025; 3 (2): 3053. doi: 10.54517/mss3053.

42.      Goswami SS, Tapankumar T, Naik NC, Gowrishankar J, Bhosle N, Singh A, Raju GS, Nagesh D, Santhosh AJ. Multi-model MCDM framework for sustainable renewable energy selection in India: integrating CRITIC-EDAS-CODAS-CoCoSo. Discover Sustainability. 2025; 6(1): 500. doi: 10.1007/s43621-025-01069-0

43.      Husain AM, Hasan MM, Khan ZA, Asjad M. A robust decision-making approach for the selection of an optimal renewable energy source in India. Energy Conversion and Management. 2024; 301: 117989. doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2023.117989.

44.      Dash S, Chakravarty S, Giri NC, Ghugar U, Fotis G. Performance assessment of different sustainable energy systems using multiple-criteria decision-making model and self-organizing maps. Technologies. 2024; 12(3): 42. doi: 10.3390/technologies12030042

45.      Luhaniwal J, Agarwal S, Mathur T. An integrated DEA-fuzzy AHP method for prioritization of renewable energy sources in India. Scientific Reports. 2025; 15(1): 838. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-84891-2