Comparative Analysis of MCDM Methods for the Assessment of Corporate Sustainability Performance in Energy Sector

被引:2
|
作者
Ersoy, Nazli [1 ]
Taslak, Soner [2 ]
机构
[1] Osmaniye Korkut Ata Univ, Fac Business & Adm Sci, Dept Business Adm, Osmaniye, Turkiye
[2] Mugla Sitki Kocman Univ, Fac Business & Adm Sci, Dept Business Adm, Mugla, Turkiye
关键词
Corporate Sustainability Performance; Energy Sector; PIV; ROV; GRA; MARCOS; MULTICRITERIA DECISION-MAKING; SELECTION;
D O I
10.21121/eab.986122
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Energy is a significant input for production, growth, and development. A sustainable energy sector, where energy production and consumption balance are ensured, constitutes a key point for nature and humanity. In this study, a multidimensional framework is presented to measure corporate sustainability in the energy sector. Based on this framework, the sustainability performance of energy companies operating in the Asia and Europe regions is measured by hybrid multiple-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods, considering the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainability. The Entropy method is preferred to specify the criteria weights, the Proximity Indexed Value (PIV) -Range of Value (ROV) -Grey relational analysis (GRA) -Measurement Alternatives and Ranking according to Compromise Solution (MARCOS) methods are used to rank the alternatives. Sensitivity analysis was applied to test the robustness of the model and it was determined that the criterion weights obtained by different methods had different effects on the rankings. The Copeland method is used to obtain a single rational ranking from different rankings. According to Copeland's results, EN13, EN3, EN10 companies took the first place in economic, environmental and social dimensions, respectively. It is concluded that energy companies in the Asian region are more sustainable than in the European region. Moreover, Thailand is the most sustainable country in the Asian region. The proposed framework can be contributed to the development of the energy sector.
引用
收藏
页码:341 / 362
页数:22
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Assessment of social sustainability: A comparative analysis
    Abed A.R.
    Abed, Amal R. (a_abed@asu.edu.jo), 1600, ICE Publishing (170): : 72 - 82
  • [42] Sustainability Strategic Framing in Corporate Communication: Contextual Semantics of Twitter in the Energy Sector
    Paliwoda-Matiolanska, Adriana
    Nakayama, Atsuho
    PROFESIONAL DE LA INFORMACION, 2024, 33 (03):
  • [43] Sustainability assessment of energy sector development in China and European Union
    Su, Weihua
    Zhang, Dongcai
    Zhang, Chonghui
    Streimikiene, Dalia
    SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, 2020, 28 (05) : 1063 - 1076
  • [44] Indian electricity sector, energy security and sustainability: An empirical assessment
    Sarangi, Gopal K.
    Mishra, Arabinda
    Chang, Youngho
    Taghizadeh-Hesary, Farhad
    ENERGY POLICY, 2019, 135
  • [45] Sustainability, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Corporate Reputation in the Wine Sector: A Key Performance Indicator Framework Model
    Iannone, Barbara
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS, 2018, 7 (02) : 47 - 68
  • [46] Sustainability performance of corporations: comparison of assessment methods
    Baumgartner, R. J.
    ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS AND INVESTMENT ASSESSMENT, 2006, 98 : 307 - 316
  • [47] Comparative environmental sustainability assessment of biohydrogen production methods
    Goren, A. Yagmur
    Dincer, Ibrahim
    Khalvati, Ali
    SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, 2023, 904
  • [48] Exploring the asymmetric impact of sustainability reporting on financial performance in the utilities sector: A longitudinal comparative analysis
    Remo-Diez, Nieves
    Mendana-Cuervo, Cristina
    Arenas-Parra, Mar
    UTILITIES POLICY, 2023, 84
  • [49] Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for Product Aspect Ranking: TOPSIS and VIKOR
    Alrababah, Saif A. Ahmad
    Gan, Keng Hoon
    Tan, Tien-Ping
    2017 8TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS (ICICS), 2017, : 76 - 81
  • [50] Comparative Analysis of Energy and Exergy Performance of Hydrogen Production Methods
    Martinez-Rodriguez, Angel
    Abanades, Alberto
    ENTROPY, 2020, 22 (11) : 1 - 17