COVID-19 ve Sonrası Dönemde Türk Bankalarında Kurumsal Sürdürülebilirliğin Değerlendirilmesi: WASPAS ve ARAS Yaklaşımları

Abstract

Sürdürülebilirlik, özellikle gelişmekte olan piyasalarda gittikçe yapısal bir zorunluluğa dönüşürken bankacılık sektörünün sürdürülebilir kalkınmadaki rolü giderek daha kritik hale gelmektedir. Bu çalışmada, Türkiye’de aktif büyüklüğü açısından en yüksek yedi banka kullanılarak COVID-19 krizi yılı (2020) ve takip eden toparlanma dönemi (2022) için bankaların sürdürülebilirlik performansı yenilikçi bir yöntemle değerlendirilmiştir. Uluslararası standartlarla (GRI, UNGC, UNEP FI) uyumlu 75 kriter ve 7 boyutu içeren veriler bankaların sürdürülebilirlik raporlarından içerik analizi yoluyla elde edilmiştir. Elde edilen veriler üç objektif ağırlıklandırma yöntemi (MEREC, CILOS, CCSD) ile birlikte iki ÇKKV tekniği (WASPAS ve ARAS) kullanarak analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular, ticari bankaların kamu bankalarına kıyasla daha yüksek performans gösterdiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Ticari bankaların güçlü yönetişim yapıları, daha yüksek şeffaflık düzeyi ve ticari bankalarda yatırımcı baskısının daha fazla olması bunun başlıca nedenleri olarak gösterilebilir. Pandemi döneminde bankaların çalışan sağlığı ve KOBİ desteği gibi kısa vadeli direnç önlemlerine öncelik verdiğini, toparlanma sürecinde ise yeşil finansman, dijital dönüşüm ve inovasyon gibi uzun vadeli stratejilere odaklandığı söylenebilir. Kamu bankalarının her iki dönemde de görece düşük performans sergilemesi, bu konuda belli başlı politika müdahaleleri gerekliliğini ortaya koymaktadır. Bu çalışma, gelişmekte olan piyasalardaki sürdürülebilirlik çalışmalarındaki önemli bir boşluğu doldurmakta olup politika yapıcılar, yatırımcılar ile finansal kurumlar için sistemik bozulmalar ve uzun vadeli stratejik dönüşüm süreci açısından pratik bir kıyaslama aracı sunmaktadır.

Keywords

• Kurumsal Sürdürülebilirlik
• Bankacılık Sektörü
• WASPAS
• ARAS

Assessing Corporate Sustainability in Turkish Banks: WASPAS and ARAS Approaches in the Covid-19 and the Post-Covid-19 Era

Abstract

As sustainability becomes an ever-larger structural imperative, particularly in emerging markets, banking's contribution to sustainable development is becoming more important. Sustainability performance of banks during the COVID-19 pandemic year (2020) and recovery period (2022) is analyzed by an innovative approach based on seven large-sized Turkish banks. Data based on 75 criteria and 7 dimensions consistent with international standards (GRI, UNGC, UNEP FI) were collected from banks' sustainability reports through content analysis. The data are analyzed by applying three goal-programming objective methods (MEREC, CILOS, CCSD) and two CRM (Compromise Ranking Methods) methods (WASPAS and ARAS). The outcome shows that commercial banks perform better than state-owned banks. The primary explanations for this are commercial banks' effective governance frameworks, improved transparency, and investor pressures. Banks gave priority to measures such as SME support and employee health for resilience in the pandemic period, and to measures such as green finance, transformation, and innovation for the recovery period. The poor performance of state-owned banks during these periods indicates that policy-specific interventions are urgently needed. This article fills an important gap in sustainability literature for emerging markets and offers a handy benchmark for policymakers, investors, and banking institutions regarding systemic distortions and long-term strategic overhaul.

Keywords

• Corporate Sustainability
• Banking Sector
• WASPAS
• ARAS

References

1. Aouam, T., Chang, S.I. and Lee, E. (2003). Fuzzy MADM: An outranking method. European Journal of Operational Research, 145(2), 317-328. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00537-4
2. Aras, G. and Mutlu Y.F. (2022). Development of capitals in integrated reporting and weighting representative indicators with entropy approach. Social Responsibility Journal, 18(3), 551-572. http://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-11-2020-0447
3. Aras, G., Tezcan, N. and Furtuna, Ö.K. (2016). Comparison of corporate sustainability performance of conventional and participation banking with TOPSIS method. Istanbul Management Journal, 27(81), 58-81. Retrieved from https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/
4. Aras, G., Tezcan, N. and Furtuna, Ö.K. (2018). Evaluation of Turkish banking industry based on multi-dimensional corporate sustainability model: Comparison between state-owned and private banking. Ege Academic Review, 18(1), 47-62. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/eab/
5. Beck, T., Levine, R. and Loayza, N. (2000). Finance and the sources of growth. Journal of Financial Economics, 58(1–2), 261–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-405X(00)00072-6
6. Brundtland, G.H. (1987). Our common future: The World commission on environment and development. USA: Oxford University Press.
7. Čereška, A., Zavadskas, E.K., Cavallaro, F., Podvezko, V., Tetsman, I. and Grinbergienė, I. (2016). Sustainable assessment of aerosol pollution decrease applying multiple attribute decision-making methods. Sustainability, 8(7), 586. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8070586
8. Davis, G. and Searcy, C. (2010). A review of Canadian corporate sustainable development reports. Journal of Global Responsibility, 1(2), 316-329. https://doi.org/10.1108/20412561011079425

9. Decker, O. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and structural change in financial services. Managerial Auditing Journal, 19(6), 712-728. https://doi.org/10.1108/02686900410543840
10. Decker, S. (2004). The impact of corporate social responsibility on shareholder wealth. Journal of Finance, 59(4), 1401-1436. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/
11. Demir, G., Chatterjee, P. and Pamucar D. (2024). Sensitivity analysis in multi-criteria decision making: A state-of-the-art research perspective using bibliometric analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, 237, 121660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.121660
12. Dyllick, T. and Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(2), 130-141. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.323
13. Eccles, R.G., Lee, L.E. and Stroehle, J.C. (2020). The social origins of ESG: An analysis of Innovest and KLD. Organization & Environment, 33(4), 575-596. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026619888994
14. Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Oxford: Capstone Publishing.
15. Figueira, J., Greco, S. and Ehrgott, M. (2005). Multiple criteria decision analysis: State of the art surveys. New York: Springer Science, Business Media, Inc.
16. Goswami, S.S. and Mohanty, S.K. and Behera, D.K. (2022). Selection of a green renewable energy source in India with the help of MEREC integrated PIV-MCDM tool. Materials Today: Proceedings, 52(3), 1153-1160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.11.019
17. Hussain, N., Rigoni, U. and Orij, R.P. (2018). Corporate governance and sustainability performance: Analysis of triple bottom line performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 149, 411-432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3099-5
18. Jan, A., Rahman, H.U., Zahid, M., Salameh, A.A., Khan, P.A., Al-Faryan, M.A.S., ... and Ali, H.E. (2023). Islamic corporate sustainability practices index aligned with SDGs towards better financial performance: Evidence from the Malaysian and Indonesian Islamic banking industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 405, 136860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136860
19. Karki, U., Kumar, A. and Sharma, D. (2025). Banking in sustainability: an integrated MCDM framework for evaluating the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) sustainable banking performance. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication, Advane online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-04-2024-0241
20. Kashi, A. and Shah, M.E. (2023). Bibliometric review on sustainable finance. Sustainability, 15(9), 7119. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097119
21. Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M. (2021). Assessment of distribution center locations using a multi-expert subjective–objective decision-making approach. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 19461. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-98698-y
22. Korzeb, Z. and Samaniego-Medina, R. (2019). Sustainability performance: A comparative analysis in the Polish banking sector. Sustainability, 11(3), 653. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030653
23. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. CA: Sage Publications.
24. Mirkin, B.G. (1974). The problem of group choice. Moscow: Science.
25. Rebai, S., Azaiez, M.N. and Saidane, D. (2016). A multi-attribute utility model for generating a sustainability index in the banking sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 113, 835-849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.129
26. SIPRI. (2022). SIPRI yearbook 2022. Retrieved from https://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2022
27. Stanujkic, D., Karabasevic, D. and Zavadskas, E.K. (2015). A framework for the selection of a packaging design based on the SWARA method. Inzinerine Ekonomika - Engineering Economics, 26(2), 181–187. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.26.2.8820
28. Úbeda, F., Forcadell, F.J. and Suárez, N. (2022). Do formal and informal institutions shape the influence of sustainable banking on financial development? Finance Research Letters, 46, 102391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2021.102391
29. Ünlü, U., Yalçın, N. and Avşarlıgil, N. (2022). Analysis of efficiency and productivity of commercial banks in Turkey pre- and during COVID-19 with an integrated MCDM approach. Mathematics, 10, 2300. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10132300
30. Wang, Y.M. and Luo, Y. (2010). Integration of correlations with standard deviations for determining attribute weights in multiple attribute decision making. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 51(1-2), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2009.07.016
31. Weber, O. (2017). Corporate sustainability and financial performance of Chinese banks. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 8(3), 358-385. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-09-2016-0066
32. Yip, W.-Y. and O'Connor, K.P. (2021). Sustainable business model archetypes for the banking industry. Sustainability, 13(1), 102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.190
33. Yu, K., Wu, Q., Chen, X., Wang, W., Mardani, A. (2024). An integrated MCDM framework for evaluating the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) sustainable business performance. Annals of Operations Research, 342(1), 987-1018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-023-05616-8
34. Zavadskas, E. and Podvezko, V. (2016). Integrated determination of objective criteria weights in MCDM. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 15(2), 267-283. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622016500036
35. Zavadskas, E.K. and Turskis, Z. (2010). A new additive ratio assessment (ARAS) method in multicriteria decision-making. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 16(2), 159-172. https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2010.10
36. Zavadskas, E.K., Turskis, Z., Antucheviciene, J. and Zakarevicius, A. (2012). Optimization of weighted aggregated sum product assessment. Elektronika ir Elektrotechnika, 122(6), 3–6. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.eee.122.6.1810