Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A hybrid framework for evaluating corporate sustainability using multi-criteria decision making

  • Published:
Environment, Development and Sustainability Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Firms have to improve sustainable processes and carry out performance measurement in today’s competitive environment as well as optimize their business processes. Corporate sustainability which is the definition of sustainable development on the business scale not only focuses on corporates’ profitability, but also takes into account the environmental and social improvements. In this study, an approach based on a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) method is proposed in order to help firms to evaluate the degree of achieving their economic, environmental, and social goals. Entropy method is used to find out criteria weightings, and then VIKOR (VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje), TOPSIS (the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution), and MAUT (Multi-Attribute Utility Theory) methods are implemented with the help of the weights obtained to define performance ranking of alternative sustainability reports. Lastly, a combined ranking is obtained by utilizing the three rankings of the mentioned methods via the Borda count method, which is a data fusion technique. By performing a real case of sustainability performance evaluation of a furniture company, it is aimed to assist decision-makers in making integrated decisions for their sustainability performance and improving their activities in terms of sustainability. The results show that VIKOR and MAUT have the same ranking list for economic and environmental dimensions, whereas they produce different results in terms of social dimension. According to the combined results with Borda count method, the best and worst performance years for the economic and environmental dimensions are determined as 2018 and 2013, respectively. On the other hand, 2017 is determined as the best performance year for the social dimension with Borda count method, while 2015 is the year of the lowest performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acar, E., Kilic, M., & Güner, M. (2015). Measurement of sustainability performance in textile industry by using a multi-criteria decision making method. Journal of Textile & Apparel, 25(1), 3–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Afful-Dadzie, A., Afful-Dadzie, E., & Turkson, C. (2016). A TOPSIS extension framework for re-conceptualizing sustainability measurement. Kybernetes, 45(1), 70–86. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-04-2015-0106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alp, I., Oztel, A., & Kose, M. S. (2015). Corporate sustainability performance measuring with entropy based maut method: a case study. The International Journal of Economic and Social Research, 11(2), 65–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anand, A., & Wani, M. F. (2010). Product life-cycle modeling and evaluation at the conceptual design stage a digraph and matrix approach. Journal of Mechanical Design, 132(9), 091010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anand, A., Khan, R. A., & Wani, M. F. (2016). Development of a sustainability risk assessment index of a mechanical system at conceptual design stage. Journal of Cleaner Production, 139, 258–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ananda, J., & Herath, G. (2005). Evaluating public risk preferences in forest land-use choices using multi-attribute utility theory. Ecological Economics, 55(3), 408–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aras, G., Tezcan, N., & Kutlu Furtuna, O. (2016). Comparison of Corporate Sustainability Performance of Conventional and Participation Banking with TOPSIS Method. Istanbul Management Journal, (81).

  • Aras, G., Tezcan, N., & Kutlu Furtuna, O. (2018). Multidimensional comprehensive corporate sustainability performance evaluation model: Evidence from an emerging market banking sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 185, 600–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, G., Hett, T., & Newcombe, J. (2000). Measuring 'Corporate Sustainability'. CSERGE Working Paper GEC 99–01.

  • Aydın, Y. (2020). A hybrid multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) model consisting of SD and COPRAS methods in performance evaluation of foreign deposit banks. Equinox Journal of Economics Business and Political Studies, 7(2), 160–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P. (2005). Evolving sustainably: a longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic Management Journal, 26(3), 197–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhole, G. P., & Deshmukh, T. (2018). Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods and its applications. International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET), 6(5), 899–915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biró, K., & Csete, M. S. (2020). Corporate social responsibility in agribusiness: climate-related empirical findings from Hungary (pp. 1–21). Environment.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohlen, C., & Lewis, L. Y. (2009). Examining the economic impacts of hydropower dams on property values using GIS. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, S258–S269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bostancı, S. H., & Ocakcı, M. (2009). Evaluating of city skylines from their design quality standpoint by the entropy approach. İtüdergisi Serie A, 8(2), 27–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bulut, S. (2017). A Sustainability Analysis of Turkish Banks Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Unpublished Master Thesis, Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Institute of Social Sciences.

  • Carnero, M. (2015). Assessment of environmental sustainability in health care organizations. Sustainability, 7(7), 8270–8291. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7078270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caterino, N., Iervolino, I., Manfredi, G., & Cosenza, E. (2009). Comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision-making methods for seismic structural retrofitting. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 24(6), 432–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatterjee, P., & Chakraborty, S. (2016). A comparative analysis of VIKOR method and its variants. Decision Science Letters, 5(4), 469–486. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.dsl.2016.5.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, L. Y., & Wang, T. C. (2009). Optimizing partners’ choice in is/it outsourcing projects: the strategic decision of fuzzy VIKOR. International Journal of Production Economics, 120(1), 233–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2008.07.022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cinelli, M., Coles, S. R., & Kirwan, K. (2014). Analysis of the potentials of multi criteria decision analysis methods to conduct sustainability assessment. Ecological indicators, 46, 138–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coban, A., Ertis, I. F., & Cavdaroglu, N. A. (2018). Municipal solid waste management via multi-criteria decision making methods: A case study in Istanbul, Turkey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 180, 159–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dehdasht, G., Ferwati, M. S., Zin, R. M., & Abidin, N. Z. (2020). A hybrid approach using entropy and TOPSIS to select key drivers for a successful and sustainable lean construction implementation. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228746

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diaz-Balteiro, L., Voces González, R., & Romero, C. (2011). Making Sustainability Rankings Using Compromise Programming. An Application to European Paper Industry. Silva Fennica, 45(4), 761–773.

  • Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business strategy and the environment, 11(2), 130–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erguden, E., & Catlioglu, E. (2016). Sustainability reporting practices in energy companies with TOPSIS method. The Journal of Accounting and Finance, 71, 201–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erol, I., & Ozmen, A. (2008). Measuring environmental sustainability performance: An application in retailing industry. Iktisat Işletme ve Finans, 23(266), 70–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ersoy, N. (2018). Entropy based hybrid MCDM approach for measuring the corporate sustainability performance. Ege Academic Review, 18(3), 367–385. https://doi.org/10.21121/eab.2018339487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eş, A. (2008). Sustainability and Measuring Sustainability Performances of Companies. Unpublished Master Thesis, Bolu: Abant Izzet Baysal University Institute of Social Sciences.

  • Fei, L., Deng, Y., & Hu, Y. (2019). DS-VIKOR: A new multi-criteria decision-making method for supplier selection. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 21(1), 157–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garg, C. P., & Sharma, A. (2020). Sustainable outsourcing partner selection and evaluation using an integrated BWM–VIKOR framework. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22(2), 1529–1557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gök-Kısa, A. C., & Percin, S. (2018). Performance measurement with integrated entropy-VIKOR methods in information technology sector. The International Journal of Economic and Social Research, 14(1), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Govindan, K., Kannan, D., & Shankar, K. (2014). Evaluating the drivers of corporate social responsibility in the mining industry with multi-criteria approach: A multi-stakeholder perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 84, 214–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Govindan, K., Khodaverdi, R., & Jafarian, A. (2012). A fuzzy multi criteria approach for measuring sustainability performance of a supplier based on triple bottom line approach. Journal of Cleaner Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.04.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GRI Standards: https://www.globalreporting.org/standards Date of access: 13/04/2019.

  • GRIG4: https://surdurulebilirlik.garantibbva.com.tr/media/1184/grig4-part1-reporting-principles-and-standard-disclosures.pdf Date of Access: 29/10/2020

  • Gürül, B. (2016). Corporate Sustainability Approach – An Example. The International Conference on Eurasian Economies, 29–31 August, Kaposvar, Hungary.

  • Hendiani, S., Sharifi, E., Bagherpour, M., & Ghannadpour, S. F. (2020). A multi-criteria sustainability assessment approach for energy systems using sustainability triple bottom line attributes and linguistic preferences. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22, 7771–7805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho, T. K., Hull, J. J., & Srihari, S. N. (1994). Decision combination in multiple classifier systems. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 16(1), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-018-0543-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, M. (2019). Building impact assessment—A combined life cycle assessment and multi-criteria decision analysis framework. Resource, Conservation and Recycling. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kannan, D., Khodaverdi, R., Olfat, L., Jafarian, A., & Diabat, A. (2013). Integrated fuzzy multi criteria decision making method and multi-objective programming approach for supplier selection and order allocation in a green supply chain. Journal of Cleaner Production, 47, 355–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaur, A., & Sharma, P. C. (2018). Social sustainability in supply chain decisions: Indian manufacturers. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 20(4), 1707–1721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaya, T., & Kahraman, C. (2011). Multicriteria decision making in energy planning using a modified fuzzy TOPSIS methodology. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(6), 6577–6585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khedrigharibvand, H., Azadi, H., Teklemariam, D., Houshyar, E., De Maeyer, P., & Witlox, F. (2019). Livelihood alternatives model for sustainable rangeland management: a review of multi-criteria decision-making techniques. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 21, 11–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, S. K., & Song, O. (2009). A MAUT approach for selecting a distmantling scnerio for the thermal column in KRR-1. Annals of Nuclear Energy, 36(2), 145–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2008.11.034

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Küçükbay, F., & Sürücü, E. (2019). Corporate sustainability performance measurement based on a new multicriteria sorting method. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(3), 664–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamata, M. T., Liern, V., & Pérez-Gladish, B. (2018). Doing good by doing well: A MCDM framework for evaluating corporate social responsibility attractiveness. Annals of Operations Research, 267(1–2), 249–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-016-2271-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K. H., & Saen, R. F. (2012). Measuring corporate sustainability management: A data envelopment analysis approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 140(1), 219–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.08.024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lélé, S. M. (1991). Sustainable development: a critical review. World development, 19(6), 607–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, S. H., Wang, D., Huang, X., Zhao, X., Hsieh, J. C., Tzeng, G. H., Li, J. H., & Chen, J. T. (2021). A multi-attribute decision-making model for improving inefficient industrial parks. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23, 887–921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Løken, E. (2007). Use of multicriteria decision analysis methods for energy planning problems. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 11(7), 1584–1595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majumder, P., Majumder, M., Saha, A. K., & Nath, S. (2020). Selection of features for analysis of reliability of performance in hydropower plants: A multi-criteria decision-making approach. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22, 3239–3265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mao, N., Song, M., & Deng, S. (2016). Application of TOPSIS method in evaluating the effects of supply vane angle of a task/ambient air conditioning system on energy utilization and thermal comfort. Applied Energy, 180, 536–545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.08.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martín-Gamboa, M., Iribarren, D., García-Gusano, D., & Dufour, J. (2017). A review of life-cycle approaches coupled with data envelopment analysis within multi-criteria decision analysis for sustainability assessment of energy systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 150, 164–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medel-González, F., García-Ávila, L. F., Salomon, V. A. P., Marx-Gómez, J., & Hernández, C. T. (2016). Sustainability performance measurement with analytic network process and balanced scorecard: cuban practical case. Production, 26(3), 527–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mousavi-Nasab, S. H., & Sotoudeh-Anvari, A. (2017). A comprehensive MCDM-based approach using TOPSIS, COPRAS and DEA as an auxiliary tool for material selection problems. Materials & Design, 121, 237–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulliner, E., Malys, N., & Maliene, V. (2016). Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability. Omega, 59, 146–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nayak, S. C., & Tripathy, C. (2018). Deadline based task scheduling using multi-criteria decision-making in cloud environment. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 9(4), 3315–3324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nayak, S. C., Parida, S., Tripathy, C., Pati, B., & Panigrahi, C. R. (2019). Multicriteria decision-making techniques for avoiding similar task scheduling conflict in cloud computing. International Journal of Communication Systems, 33, e4126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nayak, S. C., & Tripathy, C. (2019). An improved task scheduling mechanism using multi-criteria decision making in cloud computing. International Journal of Information Technology and Web Engineering. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJITWE.2019040106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicolăescu, E., Alpopi, C., & Zaharia, C. (2015). Measuring corporate sustainability performance. Sustainability, 7(1), 851–865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nuray, R., & Can, F. (2006). Automatic ranking of information retrieval systems using data fusion. Information processing & management, 42(3), 595–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ocampo, L. A. (2019). Applying fuzzy AHP–TOPSIS technique in identifying the content strategy of sustainable manufacturing for food production. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 21, 2225–2251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, D. L. (1996). Decision Aids for Selection Problems. Springer Science & Business Media.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ömürbek, N., Karaatlı, M., & Balcı, H. F. (2016). Analyzing the Performances of automotive companies using entropy based MAUT and SAW methods. Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences Journal, 31(1), 227–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ömürbek, V., Aksoy, E., & Akçakanat, Ö. (2017). Evaluation of banks’ sustainability performances by ARAS, MOOSRA and COPRAS methods. Suleyman Demirel University Visionary Journal, 8(19), 14–32. https://doi.org/10.21076/vizyoner.329346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G. H. (2004). Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research, 156(2), 445–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00020-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G. H. (2007). Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 178(2), 514–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2006.01.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Özçelik, F., & Öztürk, B. A. (2014). Evaluation of Banks’ sustainability performance in Turkey with grey relational analysis. The Journal of Accounting and Finance, 63, 189–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Özer, O. (2010). Measuring Corporate Sustainability: Sectoral Comparative Analyze of Europe and USA Companies. Unpublished Master Thesis, Istanbul: Yıldız Technical University Graduate School of Social Sciences.

  • Öztel, A., Aydın, B., & Köse, M. S. (2018). Measurement of corporate sustainability performance in energy sector by entropy based TOPSIS Method: Akenerji case. Gümüşhane University Electronic Journal of The Institute of Social Sciences, 9(24), 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Öztel, A., Köse, M. S., & Aytekin, I. (2012). A multi-criteria framework for measuring corporate sustainability performance: The Henkel case. Journal of History Culture and Art Research, 1(4), 32–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piwowarski, M., Miłaszewicz, D., Łatuszynska, M., Borawski, M., & Nermend, K. (2018). TOPSIS and VIKOR methods in study of sustainable development in the EU countries. Procedia Computer Science, 126, 1683–1692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramadiani, H., & H.R., Novita, N., & Azainil, . (2018). Comparison of two methods between TOPSIS and MAUT in determining BIDIKMISI scholarship. Third International Conference on Informatics and Computing (ICIC), 2018, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/IAC.2018.8780455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raut, R., Cheikhrouhou, N., & Kharat, M. (2017). Sustainability in the banking industry: A strategic multi-criterion analysis. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(4), 550–568. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1946

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roszkowska, E. (2011). Multi-criteria decision making models by applying the TOPSIS method to crisp and interval data. Multiple Criteria Decision Making, 6, 200–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roszkowska, E., & Filipowicz-Chomko, M. (2016). An analysis of the institutional development of Polish provinces between 2010 and 2014 in the context of implementing the concept of sustainable development. Economics and Environment, 3(58), 122–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roszkowska, E., & Filipowicz-Chomko, M. (2020). Measuring sustainable development in the education area using multi-criteria methods: a case study. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 1–23.

  • Rudnik, K. (2017). Decision-Making in a Manufacturing System Based on MADM Methods. Scientific Proceedings XIV International Congress "Machines. Technologies. Materials”, 1(6), 472–475.

  • Sari, F. (2020). Forest fire susceptibility mapping via multi-criteria decision analysis techniques for Mugla, Turkey: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Forest Ecology and Management, 480, 118644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sayadi, M. K., Heydari, M., & Shahanaghi, K. (2009). Extension of VIKOR method for decision making problem with interval numbers. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 33(5), 2257–2262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2008.06.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Şeker, M. (2018). Measurement of Corporate Sustainability Performance by PROMETHEE Method: Tüpraş Sample. Unpublished Master Thesis, Bartın: Bartın University Institute of Social Sciences.

  • Shanmugam, K., Lakshmi, P., & Visalakshmi, S. (2015). Employing multi-criteria decision making in examining CSR initiatives. International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, 9(1), 115–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shannon, C. E. (1951). Prediction and entropy of printed english. Bell System Technical Journal, 30(1), 50–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shemshadi, A., Shirazi, H., Toreihi, M., & Tarokh, M. J. (2011). A fuzzy VIKOR method for supplier selection based on entropy measure for objective weighting. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(10), 12160–12167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shen, L., Olfat, L., Govindan, K., Khodaverdi, R., & Diabat, A. (2013). A fuzzy multi criteria approach for evaluating green supplier’s performance in green supply chain with linguistic preferences. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 74, 170–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shih, H.-S., Shyur, H.-J., & Lee, E. S. (2007). An extension of TOPSIS for group decision making. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 45, 801–813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2006.03.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, M. P., Chakraborty, A., Roy, M., & Tripathi, A. (2021). Developing SME sustainability disclosure index for Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) listed manufacturing SMEs in India. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23, 399–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinha, A. K., & Anand, A. (2018). Development of sustainable supplier selection index for new product development using multi criteria decision making. Journal of cleaner production, 197, 1587–1596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sofyalıoğlu, C., & Sürücü, E. (2018). Corporate sustainability performance measurement: an application on home appliance firm. Dokuz Eylul University Journal of Graduate School of Social Sciences, 20(3), 461–484.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suárez Silgado, S. S., Valdiviezo, L. C., Domingo, S. G., & Roca, X. (2018). Multi-criteria decision analysis to assess the environmental and economic performance of using recycled gypsum cement and recycled aggregate to produce concrete: the case of Catalonia (Spain). Resource, Conservation and Recycling, 133, 120–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.11.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sürücü, E. (2015). Sustainability Performance Measurement in Logistics Sector Using AHP and TOPSIS: An Application on Logistics Firms. Unpublished Master Thesis, Manisa: Celal Bayar University Institute of Social Sciences.

  • Tanç, A., & Gümrah, A. (2015). Sustainability reporting and environmental performance: A Case study in istanbul stock exchange. Journal of Business Research-Turk, 7(2), 258–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tavana, M., Yazdani, M., & Di Caprio, D. (2017). An application of an integrated ANP–QFD framework for sustainable supplier selection. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 20(3), 254–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, W. H., Lin, S. J., Lee, Y. F., Chang, Y. C., & Hsu, J. L. (2013). Construction method selection for green building projects to improve environmental sustainability by using an MCDM approach. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 56(10), 1487–1510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ture, H., Doğan, S., & Koçak, D. (2019). Assessing Euro 2020 strategy using multi-criteria decision making methods: VIKOR and TOPSIS. Social Indicators Research, 142, 645–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tzeng, G. H., & Huang, J. J. (2011). Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. Chapman and Hall/CRC.

  • UNCC:https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement Date of access: 22/07/2019.

  • UNGC:https://d306pr3pise04h.cloudfront.net/docs/publications%2FUN_Global_Compact_Guide_to_Corporate_Sustainability.pdf Date of access: 02/11/2020

  • Velasquez, M., & Hester, P. T. (2013). An Analysis of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods. International Journal of Operations Research, 10(2), 56–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, P., Zhu, Z., & Wang, Y. (2016). A novel hybrid MCDM model combining the SAW, TOPSIS and GRA methods based on experimental design. Information Sciences, 345, 27–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Q., Wu, C., & Sun, Y. (2015). Evaluating corporate social responsibility of airlines using entropy weight and grey relation analysis. Journal of Air Transport Management, 42, 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2014.08.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wicher, P., Zapletal, F., & Lenort, R. (2019). Sustainability performance assessment of industrial corporation using fuzzy analytic network process. Journal of Cleaner Production., 241, 118132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilderer, P. A. (2007). Sustainable water resource management: The science behind the scene. Sustainability Science, 2, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-007-0022-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, D., Yang, Z., Wang, N., Li, C., & Yang, Y. (2018). An integrated multi-criteria decision making model and ahp weighting uncertainty analysis for sustainability assessment of coal-fired power units. Sustainability, 10(6), 1–27.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, Z., Sun, J., Zhang, Y., & Wang, Y. (2020). Synergy between green supply chain management and green information systems on corporate sustainability: An informal alignment perspective. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22, 1165–1186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yazdani, M., Chatterjee, P., Zavadskas, E. K., & Zolfani, S. H. (2017). Integrated QFD-MCDM framework for green supplier selection. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 3728–3740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeh, C. H., & Xu, Y. (2012). Evaluating recycling sustainability performance of E-waste products. Journal of CENTRUM Cathedra: The Business and Economics Research Journal, 5(2), 207–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yıldızbaşı, A., Öztürk, C., Efendioğlu, D., & Bulkan, S. (2020). Assessing the social sustainable supply chain indicators using an integrated fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making methods: a case study of Turkey. Environment Development and Sustainability.

  • Yu, C., Zhao, W., & Li, M. (2019). An integrated sustainable supplier selection approach using compensatory and non-compensatory decision methods. Kybernetes, 48(8), 1782–1805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zavadskas, E., Cavallaro, F., Podvezko, V., Ubarte, I., & Kaklauskas, A. (2017). MCDM assessment of a healthy and safe built environment according to sustainable development principles: A practical neighborhood approach in vilnius. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9050702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, X., & Xu, Z. (2018). An integrated sustainable supplier selection approach based on hybrid information aggregation. Sustainability, 10(7), 2543. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhuang, Y., Lee, Y., Chang, X., & Kim, R. B. (2019). Entrepreneurial orientation and corporate social responsibility performance: An empirical study of state-controlled and privately controlled firms in China. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1872

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zietsman, J., Rilett, L. R., & Kim, S. J. (2006). Transportation corridor decision-making with multi-attribute utility theory. International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 7(2–3), 254–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zinatizadeh, S., Azmi, A., Monavari, S. M., & Sobhanardakani, S. (2017). Multi-criteria decision making for sustainability evaluation in urban areas: A case study for Kermanshah City. Iran. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, 15(4), 1083–1100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We express our gratitude to the Bellona Corporate for sharing and allowing data to be used in the study. We also thank Mr. Mustafa Konuk working as a system development manager for the firm for his kindly guidance and support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of International Trade and Logistics, Kayseri University, Kayseri, Turkey

    N. Aktaş & N. Demirel

Authors
  1. N. Aktaş
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. N. Demirel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to N. Demirel.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they do not have any conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aktaş, N., Demirel, N. A hybrid framework for evaluating corporate sustainability using multi-criteria decision making. Environ Dev Sustain 23, 15591–15618 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01311-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01311-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation