This analysis examines the evaluation of alternatives using the AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) and FAHP (Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process) methodologies in five scenarios (SC1 to SC5), with the aim of comparing the effectiveness of both approaches in incorporating environmental and technical criteria. The findings reveal that, in the SC1 scenario, AHP assigns weights of 14.35 % to A1 and 16.22 % to A2, while FAHP shows a greater dispersion and highlights A6 with 35.22 %. In SC2, AHP favors A1 with 14.16 % and FAHP increases the weight of the environmental criterion to 21.18 %. In SC3, A1 remains the preferred option in both methodologies, although AHP and FAHP exhibit a close weight of 34.00 % and 32.98 %, respectively. In SC4, AHP and FAHP maintain a similar trend, with A1 standing out with 11.12 % and A4 with 34.87 %. Finally, in SC5, the findings show that AHP allocates 8.52 % to A1, while FAHP indicates 10.73 %. The observations suggest that FAHP allows a greater sensitivity to variations in the sub-criteria, thus facilitating a more accurate assessment aligned with sustainability objectives. The relevance of environmental and social criteria across the different scenarios highlights the need to integrate more sustainable approaches into decision-making. It is deduced that, although AHP provides consistent outcomes, FAHP might be more suitable for evaluating alternatives in contexts where complexity and uncertainty are significant. It is recommended to perform sensitivity analysis to delve into the influence of variations in the weights of the criteria on final decisions.