Determination of The Most Appropriate Mortgage Credit Provider with MABAC Method Through Environmental, Social and Economic Aspects

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 39 Sayı: 1, 27 - 36, 02.05.2023

Fatma Şener Fidan

Öz

The banking sector in Turkey is one of the most important industries with its asset size, and loans are the largest item in the sector. Due to global legal regulations and increasing competition, banks have to consider environmental and social factors as well as economic factors in order to maintain their current position. Therefore, in this study, an MCDM problem has been put forward for the evaluation of housing loans provided by banks by considering environmental and social criteria as well as economic aspects. Multi-Attribute Border Convergence Field Comparison (MABAC) method was used in the integrated evaluation of 7 banks located in Turkey with the criteria obtained from the literature. In the ranking obtained, Ziraat Bank took the first place, İşbank took the second place and Vakıfbank took the third place.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Mortgage Loan, Bank, Sustainability, Multi-Criteria Decision Making, MABAC, Mortgage Loan, Bank, Sustainability, Multi-Criteria Decision Making, MABAC,

MABAC Yöntemiyle Çevresel, Sosyal ve Ekonomik Yönlerden En Uygun Mortgage Kredi Sağlayıcısının Belirlenmesi

Öz

Türkiye'de bankacılık sektörü, aktif büyüklüğü ile en önemli sektörlerden biri olup sektörün en büyük aktif kalemi olan kredilerdir. Küresel yasal düzenlemeler ve artan rekabet nedeniyle bankalar mevcut konumlarını koruyabilmek için ekonomik faktörlerin yanı sıra çevresel ve sosyal faktörleri de göz önünde bulundurmak zorundadırlar. Bu nedenle bu çalışmada, bankalar tarafından sağlanan konut kredisinin ekonomik değerlendirmesinin yanı sıra çevresel ve sosyal kriterleri de dikkate alınarak değerlendirilmesi için bir ÇKKV problemi ortaya konulmuştur. Literatürde elde edilen kriterlerle Türkiye'de yerleşik 7 bankanın bütünleşik değerlendirmesinde Çok Nitelikli Sınır Yakınlaştırma Alanı Karşılaştırması (MABAC) metodu kullanılmıştır. Elde edilen sıralama da Ziraat bankası birinci, İş Bankası ikinci ve Vakıfbank üçüncü sırada yer almıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

MABAC, Mortgage Kredisi, Banka, Sürdürülebilirlik, Çok Kriterli Karar Verme, MABAC

Kaynakça

• [1] BDDK, “Türk Bankacılık Sektörünün Konsolide Olmayan Ana Göstergeleri”, 2022. [Çevrimiçi]. Erişim adresi: https://www.bddk.org.tr/BultenAylik/tr/Home/HaberBulteni#:~:text=Bankalar%20taraf%C4%B1ndan%20Kurumumuza%20raporlanan%20verilere,3.483.656%20milyon%20TL%20artm%C4%B1%C5%9Ft%C4%B1r.
• [2] B. Gerekan ve E. BULUT, “SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİR SOSYAL SORUMLULUKTA ÜÇ BOYUTLU RAPORLAMA: TÜRKİYE’DE SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK RAPORU YAYINLAYAN BANKALAR ÜZERİNE BİR ARAŞTIRMA”, Sosyal Bilimler Metinleri, c. 2018, sy 1, ss. 80-88, 2018.
• [3] Dennis B. Alferos, Engr. Jerry S. Cristobal, “Bank Selection Criteria by the Students: Input to the Banking Sector of the Philippines”, International Journal of Management and Commerce Innovations, ISSN 2348-7585 (Online), Research Publish Journals. Erişim: 22 Ekim 2022. [Çevrimiçi]. Erişim adresi: https://www.researchpublish.com/papers/bank-selection-criteria-by-the-students-input-to-the-banking-sector-of-the-philippines
• [4] H. P. Ta ve K. Y. Har, “A study of bank selection decisions in Singapore using the analytical hierarchy process”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, 2000.
• [5] G. M. Dhinaiya, “A study on determinants of preference and selection of bank”, International Journal of Research in Business Management, c. 4, sy 9, 2016. [6] M. Al-Shammari ve M. Mili, “A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process model for customers’ bank selection decision in the Kingdom of Bahrain”, Operational Research, c. 21, sy 3, ss. 1429-1446, 2021.
• [7] AKPINAR, Ayhan, “INVESTIGATION OF THE SELECTION CRITERIA OF CONSUMERS AND THE DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS STRATEGIES OF THE BANKS WITH MULTICRITERIA DECISION-MAKING METHODS”, Master Of Business Administration, KTO Karatay Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, 2019.
• [8] M. Koçak ve A. ÇALIK, “Banka seçim tercihlerinin bulanik kümelere dayali yeni bir karar verme çerçevesi ile değerlendirilmesi”, İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, c. 19, sy Temmuz 2020 (Özel Ek), ss. 73-94, 2020.
• [9] M. A. Islam, J. K. Fatima, ve K. Ahmed, “Corporate sustainability reporting of major commercial banks in line with GRI: Bangladesh evidence”, Social responsibility journal, 2011.
• [10] F. A. Sobhani, A. Amran, ve Y. Zainuddin, “Sustainability disclosure in annual reports and websites: a study of the banking industry in Bangladesh”, Journal of Cleaner Production, c. 23, sy 1, ss. 75-85, 2012.
• [11] L. C. Roca ve C. Searcy, “An analysis of indicators disclosed in corporate sustainability reports”, Journal of cleaner production, c. 20, sy 1, ss. 103-118, 2012.
• [12] R. Kumar, N. Pande, ve S. Afreen, “Developing a GRI-G4-based persuasive communication framework for sustainability reporting (SR): Examining top 10 Indian banks”, International Journal of Emerging Markets, 2018.
• [13] O. Weber, “The sustainability performance of Chinese Banks: institutional impact”, Available at SSRN 2752439, 2016.
• [14] H. Nobanee ve N. Ellili, “Corporate sustainability disclosure in annual reports: Evidence from UAE banks: Islamic versus conventional”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, c. 55, ss. 1336-1341, 2016.
• [15] G. ARAS, N. Tezcan, ve Ö. FURTUNA, “Evaluation of Turkish Banking Industry based on Multi-Dimensional Corporate Sustainability Model: Comparison between State Owned and Private Banking”, EGE ACADEMIC REVIEW, c. 18, sy 1, 2018.
• [16] R. G. Javalgi, R. L. Armacost, ve J. C. Hosseini, “Using the analytic hierarchy process for bank management: Analysis of consumer bank selection decisions”, Journal of Business Research, c. 19, sy 1, ss. 33-49, 1989.
• [17] Hakan Murat ARSLAN, “Determination of the Most Suitable Credit Provider in Banking Services with Multi Criteria Decision Making Methods”, International Journal of Engineering Science Invention (IJESI), vol. 07, no. 03, 2018.
• [18] E. Abdulhamit ve T. B. KAMACI, “BANKALARIN SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK PERFORMANSLARININ EDAS VE ARAS YÖNTEMLERİYLE DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ”, Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, c. 20, sy 4, ss. 807-831, 2020.
• [19] F. Chien, C.-N. Wang, K. Y. Chau, V. T. Nguyen, ve V. T. Nguyen, “Sustainability in the Business Sector: A Fuzzy Multicriteria Decision-Making Model for Financial Leasing Company Selection of the Vietnamese SMEs”, SAGE Open, c. 11, sy 3, s. 21582440211036080, Tem. 2021, doi: 10.1177/21582440211036080.
• [20] F. Özçelik ve B. AVCI ÖZTÜRK, “Evaluation of Banks’ Sustainability Performance in Turkey with Grey Relational Analysis.”, Journal of Accounting & Finance, sy 63, 2014.
• [21] P. Goyal, Z. Rahman, ve A. A. Kazmi, “Identification and prioritization of corporate sustainability practices using analytical hierarchy process”, Journal of Modelling in Management, 2015.
• [22] G. Aras, N. Tezcan, ve Ö. K. Furtuna, “GELENEKSEL BANKACILIK VE KATILIM BANKACILIĞINDA KURUMSAL SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK PERFORMANSININ TOPSIS YÖNTEMİYLE KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI”, Isletme Iktisadi Enstitüsü Yönetim Dergisi, sy 81, 2016.
• [23] V. Ömürbek, E. Aksoy, ve Ö. Akçakanat, “Bankalarin Sürdürülebilirlik Performanslarinin ARAS, MOOSRA ve COPRAS Yöntemleri ile Değerlendirilmesi”, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Vizyoner Dergisi, c. 8, sy 19, ss. 14-32, 2017.
• [24] S. Rebai, M. N. Azaiez, ve D. Saidane, “A multi-attribute utility model for generating a sustainability index in the banking sector”, Journal of Cleaner Production, c. 113, ss. 835-849, 2016.
• [25] Z. Korzeb ve R. Samaniego-Medina, “Sustainability performance. A comparative analysis in the polish banking sector”, Sustainability, c. 11, sy 3, s. 653, 2019.
• [26] F. Ecer, “A multi-criteria approach towards assessing corporate sustainability performances of privately-owned banks: entropy-ARAS integrated model”, Eskiseh. Osman. Univ. IIBF Derg.-Eskiseh. Osman. Univ. J. Econ. Adm. Sci, c. 14, ss. 365-390, 2019.
• [27] D. Pamučar ve G. Ćirović, “The selection of transport and handling resources in logistics centers using Multi-Attributive Border Approximation area Comparison (MABAC)”, Expert systems with applications, c. 42, sy 6, ss. 3016-3028, 2015.
• [28] M. BAKIR, “SWARA ve MABAC yöntemleri ile havayolu işletmelerinde ewom’a dayalı memnuniyet düzeyinin analizi”, İzmir iktisat dergisi, c. 34, sy 1, ss. 51-66, 2019.
• [29] A. Ulutaş, “Entropi ve MABAC yöntemleri ile personel seçimi”, OPUS International Journal of Society Researches, c. 13, sy 19, ss. 1552-1573, 2019.
• [30] Y.-X. Xue, J.-X. You, X.-D. Lai, ve H.-C. Liu, “An interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy MABAC approach for material selection with incomplete weight information”, Applied Soft Computing, c. 38, ss. 703-713, 2016.
• [31] E. AYÇİN, “KURUMSAL KAYNAK PLANLAMA (KKP) SİSTEMLERİNİN SEÇİMİNDE MACBETH VE MABAC YÖNTEMLERİNİN BÜTÜNLEŞİK OLARAK KULLANILMASI”, Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, c. 33, sy 2, ss. 533-552, 2019.
• [32] Y. AYDIN, “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, c. 7, sy 2, ss. 160-176, 2020.
• [33] M. Hemmati, S. Dalghandi, ve H. Nazari, “Measuring relative performance of banking industry using a DEA and TOPSIS”, Management Science Letters, c. 3, sy 2, ss. 499-504, 2013.
• [34] I. Marjanović ve Ž. Popović, “MCDM approach for assessment of financial performance of Serbian banks”, içinde Business Performance and Financial Institutions in Europe, Springer, 2020, ss. 71-90.
• [35] H.-Y. Wu, G.-H. Tzeng, ve Y.-H. Chen, “A fuzzy MCDM approach for evaluating banking performance based on Balanced Scorecard”, Expert systems with applications, c. 36, sy 6, ss. 10135-10147, 2009.