EU industrial development and innovation performance assessment under SDG 9: A LOPCOW based CoCoSo application

Year 2025, Issue: 71, 91 - 98, 30.08.2025

Eda Çınaroğlu

https://doi.org/10.18070/erciyesiibd.1678417

Abstract

Sustainable development in today’s world offers an opportunity to foster economic growth, technological advancement, and social progress without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development outlines 17 goals and 169 tasks to guide this progress. The implementation of SDG 9 is critically significant in this context, and this paper aims to investigate it. This study assesses the performance of EU countries in developing robust infrastructure, promoting sustainable industry, and fostering innovation—key aspects of SDG 9. MultiCriteria Decision-Making (MCDM) methods are employed in this assessment. The analysis is based on 11 indicators. The LOPCOW technique is used to determine the relative importance of these indicators, while the CoCoSo method is applied to rank the EU countries’ performance on SDG9. According to the LOPCOW results, the most important criteria for assessing EU countries’ SDG 9 performance are rural population access to allseason roads (%) and the income gap in internet access (percentage points). The CoCoSo method reveals Denmark has the best SDG 9 performance among EU countries. Sweden and Finland are ranked second and third, respectively. In contrast, Hungary, the Slovak Republic, and Lithuania exhibit the lowest SDG 9 performance scores.

Keywords

Innovation performance assessment , Sustainable development , SDG 9 , LOPCOW , CoCoSo.

SDG 9 kapsamında AB endüstriyel kalkınma ve yenilikçilik performansı değerlendirmesi: LOPCOW tabanlı CoCoSo uygulaması

Abstract

Günümüz modern dünyasında sürdürülebilir kalkınma, gelecek nesillerin yeteneklerini sınırlamadan ekonomide büyümeyi, teknolojik ilerlemeyi ve sosyal gelişmeyi sürdürme fırsatıdır. Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma için 2030 Gündemi, bu ilerlemeyi yönlendirecek 169 görev ile 17 temel hedefe sahiptir. Gündem 2030’un 9. hedefinin ülkelerde uygulanma düzeyi bu bağlamda kritik öneme sahiptir ve bu makalede sunulan çalışma bunu araştırmayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu araştırma, AB ülkelerinin sağlam altyapı geliştirme, sürdürülebilir endüstriyi destekleme ve inovasyonu teşvik etme konusundaki performansını değerlendirmeyi içerir; bunların hepsi SDG9’un temel yönleridir. Bu değerlendirmede ÇKKV yöntemleri kullanılmıştır. Analiz 11 göstergeye dayanmaktadır. Bu göstergelerin göreceli önem düzeylerini belirlemek için LOPCOW tekniği kullanmış ve AB ülkelerinin SDG 9 performans sıralaması CoCoSo yöntemi kullanılarak elde edilmiştir. LOPCOW sonuçlarına göre, AB ülkelerinin SDG 9 performansını değerlendirmede en önemli kriterler kırsal nüfusun tüm mevsimlerde yollara erişilebilirliği (%) ve internet erişimindeki gelir farkıdır (yüzde puan). CoCoSo bulgularına göre Danimarka AB ülkeleri arasında en iyi SDG 9 performansına sahip ülke olarak tespit edilmiştir. İsveç ve Finlandiya sırasıyla ikinci ve üçüncü sırada yer almaktadır. Macaristan, Slovak Cumhuriyeti ve Litvanya en düşük SDG 9 performans puanlarına sahip ülkeler olarak belirlenmiştir.

Keywords

İnovasyon performansı değerlendirmesi , Sürdürülebilir kalkınma , SDG 9 , LOPCOW , CoCoSo.

References

• Alkan, G., & Merdivenci, F. (2021). Sürdürülebilir kalkınma açısından lojistik performans endeksine göre seçilen ülkelerin Entropi temeline dayalı EDAS yöntemi ile değerlendirmesi. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 12(2), 627-641.
• Allen, C., Reid, M., Thwaites, J., Glover, R., & Kestin, T. (2020). Assessing national progress and priorities for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Experience from Australia. Sustainability Science, 15, 521-538.
• Armstrong, C. (2020). Ocean justice: SDG 14 and beyond. Journal of Global Ethics, 16(2), 239-255.
• Aytekin, A., Ecer, F., Korucuk, S., & Karamaşa, Ç. (2022). Global innovation efficiency assessment of EU member and candidate countries via DEA-EATWIOS multi-criteria methodology. Technology in Society, 68, 101896.
• Bağcı, S. A., & Türkoğlu, S. P. (2023). Kamu Harcamalarının Eğitim Göstergelerindeki Rolü: SD ve CoCoSo Yöntemleri ile Üst-Orta Gelir Grubu Ülkelerinin Analizi. Alanya Akademik Bakış, 7(3), 1267-1283.
• Berisha, E., Caprioli, C., & Cotella, G. (2022). Unpacking SDG target 11. a: What is it about and how to measure its progress?. City and Environment Interactions, 14, 100080.
• Bieszk-Stolorz, B., & Dmytrów, K. (2023). Decent Work and Economic Growth in EU Countries—Static and Dynamic Analyses of Sustainable Development Goal 8. Sustainability, 15(18), 13327.
• Biswas, S., Pamucar, D., Dawn, S., & Simic, V. (2024). Evaluation based on relative utility and nonlinear standardization (ERUNS) method for comparing firm performance in energy sector. Decision Making Advances, 2(1), 1-21.
• Brodny, J., & Tutak, M. (2023). The level of implementing sustainable development goal” Industry, innovation and infrastructure” of Agenda 2030 in the European Union countries: Application of MCDM methods. Oeconomia Copernicana, 14(1), 47-102.
• Burhan, H. A. (2024). Sustainability in Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure: A MCDM Based Performance Evaluation of European Union and Türkiye for Sustainable Development Goal 9 (SDG 9). Verimlilik Dergisi, 21-38.
• Cabanillas-Carbonell, M., Perez-Martinez, J., & Zapata-Paulini, J. (2023). Contributions of the 5G Network with Respect to Poverty (SDG1), Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability, 15(14), 11301.
• Chen, S., Kharrazi, A., Liang, S., Fath, B. D., Lenzen, M., & Yan, J. (2020). Advanced approaches and applications of energy footprints toward the promotion of global sustainability. Applied energy, 261, 114415.
• Cooper, N., & French, D. (2018). SDG 17: partnerships for the Goals–cooperation within the context of a voluntarist framework. In Sustainable Development Goals (pp. 271- 304). Edward Elgar Publishing.
• Dwivedi, P. P., & Sharma, D. K. (2025). Performance measures of sustainable development goals using SWI MCDM methods: a case of the Indian states. International Transactions in Operational Research.
• Ecer, F., Ögel, İ. Y., Krishankumar, R., & Tirkolaee, E. B. (2023). The q-rung fuzzy LOPCOW-VIKOR model to assess the role of unmanned aerial vehicles for precision agriculture realization in the Agri-Food 4.0 era. Artificial intelligence review, 56(11), 13373-13406.
• Ecer, F., & Pamucar, D. (2022). A novel LOPCOW‐DOBI multi‐criteria sustainability performance assessment methodology: An application in developing country banking sector. Omega, 112, 102690.
• Estevão, J., & Lopes, J. D. (2024). SDG7 and renewable energy consumption: The influence of energy sources. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 198, 123004.
• Fanzo, J. (2019). Healthy and sustainable diets and food systems: the key to achieving Sustainable Development Goal 2?. Food Ethics, 4(2), 159-174.
• Fernández-Amador, O., Francois, J. F., Oberdabernig, D. A., & Tomberger, P. (2017). Carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth: an assessment based on production and consumption emission inventories. Ecological economics, 135, 269-279.
• Goker, N., Karsak, E. E., & Dursun, M. (2022). An integrated QFD and common weight DEA-based fuzzy MCDM framework for performance ranking of countries. Social Indicators Research, 1-22.
• Hák, T., Janoušková, S., & Moldan, B. (2016). Sustainable Development Goals: A need for relevant indicators. Ecological indicators, 60, 565-573.
• Hirsu, L., Hashemi, L., & Quezada-Reyes, Z. (2019). SDG 5: Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls. Jean Monnet Sustainable Development Goals. Policy Brief Series. RMIT University. Available online: https://www. rmit. edu. au/ content/dam/rmit/rmit-images/college-of-dsc-images/eu-centre/sdg-5-policy-brief. pdf (accessed on 15 December 2023).
• Küfeoğlu, S. (2022). SDG-9: industry, innovation and infrastructure. In Emerging Technologies: Value Creation for Sustainable Development (pp. 349-369). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
• Kynčlová, P., Upadhyaya, S., & Nice, T. (2020). Composite index as a measure on achieving Sustainable Development Goal 9 (SDG-9) industry-related targets: The SDG-9 index. Applied Energy, 265, 114755.
• Mantlana, K. B., & Maoela, M. A. (2020). Mapping the interlinkages between sustainable development goal 9 and other sustainable development goals: A preliminary exploration. Business Strategy & Development, 3(3), 344-355.
• Mavuri, S., Chavali, K., & Kumar, A. (2019, November). A study on imperative innovation eco system linkages to map Sustainable Development Goal 9. In 2019 International Conference on Digitization (ICD) (pp. 142-147). IEEE.
• Mead, L. (2017). How can progress on infrastructure, industry and innovation contribute to achieving the SDGs?. IISD SDGs Knowledge Hub, available at: https://SDGs. iisd. org/commentary/policy-briefs/how-can-progress-on-infrastructure-industry-and-innovation-contribute-to-achieving-the-SDGs.
• Okayama, T., Watanabe, K., & Yamakawa, H. (2021). Sorting analysis of household food waste—development of a methodology compatible with the aims of sdg12. 3. Sustainability, 13(15), 8576.
• Özkaya, G., Timor, M., & Erdin, C. (2021). Science, technology and innovation policy indicators and comparisons of countries through a hybrid model of data mining and operation research methods. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(2).
• Rajapakse, J., Otoo, M., & Danso, G. (2023). Progress in delivering SDG6: Safe water and sanitation. Cambridge Prisms: Water, 1, e6.
• Razafindrakoto, M., & Roubaud, F. (2018). Responding to the SDG16 measurement challenge: the governance, peace and security survey modules in Africa. Global Policy, 9(3), 336-351.
• Resce, G., & Schiltz, F. (2021). Sustainable development in Europe: A multicriteria decision analysis. Review of Income and Wealth, 67(2), 509-529.
• Ricciolini, E., Rocchi, L., Cardinali, M., Paolotti, L., Ruiz, F., Cabello, J. M., & Boggia, A. (2022). Assessing progress towards SDGs implementation using multiple reference point based multicriteria methods: The case study of the European countries. Social Indicators Research, 162(3), 1233-1260.
• Qiyas, M., Naeem, M., Khan, S., Abdullah, S., Botmart, T., & Shah, T. (2022). Decision support system based on CoCoSo method with the picture fuzzy information. Journal of Mathematics, 2022(1), 1476233.
• Saieed, A., Luken, R., & Zheng, X. (2021). Tracking progress in meeting sustainable development goal 9 industry-related targets: An index for policy prioritization. Applied Energy, 286, 116490.
• Sayer, J., Sheil, D., Galloway, G., Riggs, R. A., Mewett, G., MacDicken, K. G., ... & Edwards, D. P. (2019). SDG 15 Life on land–the central role of forests in sustainable development. In Sustainable development goals: their impacts on forest and people (pp. 482-509). Cambridge University Press.
• Sena, M. B., Costa, L., Leitão, A., & Silva, M. C. (2024). The United Nations SDG13 and the EU27 countries performance: A comparative analysis. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1-24.
• Stanujkic, D., Popovic, G., Zavadskas, E. K., Karabasevic, D., & Binkyte-Veliene, A. (2020). Assessment of progress towards achieving Sustainable Development Goals of the “Agenda 2030” by using the CoCoSo and the Shannon Entropy methods: The case of the EU Countries. Sustainability, 12(14), 5717.
• Stoenoiu, C. E. (2022). Sustainable development—A path to a better future. Sustainability, 14(15), 9192.
• Sundewall, J., & Forsberg, B. C. (2020). Understanding health spending for SDG 3. The Lancet, 396(10252), 650-651.
• Sustainable development goals (2025, January 17). Retrieved from https://sdgs.un.org/ goals.
• Torkayesh, A. E., & Torkayesh, S. E. (2021). Evaluation of information and communication technology development in G7 countries: An integrated MCDM approach. Technology in Society, 66, 101670.
• Uche, E., Ngepah, N., Onwe, J. C., Zaman, U., & Odhiambo, N. M. (2024). A question for sustainable development goal 10: How relevant is innovation patenting receipts to income distributions?. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 206, 123506.
• Unterhalter, E. (2019). The many meanings of quality education: Politics of targets and indicators in SDG 4. Global Policy, 10, 39-51.
• Yavuz, S., & Esen, Ş. B. (2024). A re-evaluation of how well each country is doing in terms of achieving the SDGs: An objective approach based on multi-criteria-decision-analysis. Ege Academic Review, 24(2), 179-198.
• Yazdani, M., Zarate, P., Kazimieras Zavadskas, E., & Turskis, Z. (2019). A combined compromise solution (CoCoSo) method for multi-criteria decision-making problems. Management decision, 57(9), 2501-2519.
• Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2011). Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods in economics: an overview. Technological and economic development of economy, 17(2), 397-427.
• Zhu, Y., Zeng, S., Lin, Z., & Ullah, K. (2023). Comprehensive evaluation and spatial-temporal differences analysis of China’s inter-provincial doing business environment based on Entropy-CoCoSo method. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10, 1088064.