A Financial Performance Evaluation via Hybrid MCDM methods: A case of Amazon.com Inc.

Abstract

This study aims to make inferences about company performance by analyzing the financial performance of Amazon. com, Inc. over a period of fifteen years (2005-2019) using selected evaluation criteria in accordance with Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) methods. For this purpose, CRiteria Importance Through Intercriteria Correlation (CRITIC) was used for weighting the evaluation criteria, and COmplex PRoportional ASsessment (COPRAS), Additive Ratio ASsessment (ARAS), Simple Additive Weighting (SAW), and BORDA Count and Copeland methods were used to rank financial performance by years. From the results obtained through the CRITIC method, it was found that the most crucial evaluation criterion was the debt-to-equity (DER) ratio, and the least important was the return-on-assets (ROA) ratio. The BORDA Count and Copeland methods were used to obtain an integrative and single ranking series due to varying results of the COPRAS, ARAS, SAW methods by years. According to the scores obtained using BORDA and Copeland methods 2005 was the best year and 2014 was the least successful year in terms of financial performance. During these years, developments experienced in the company were discussed, and an attempt was made to examine the reasons behind the financial performance.

Keywords

• MCDM methods
• Financial Performance
• CRITIC
• COPRAS
• ARAS

References

1. Abdel-Basset, M., Ding, W., Mohamed, R., & Metawa, N. (2020). An integrated plithogenic MCDM approach for financial performance evaluation of manufacturing industries. Risk Management, 22(3), 192-218. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41283-020-00061-4. google scholar
2. About Amazon. (2020). Annual reports, proxies and shareholder letters. https://ir.aboutamazon.com/annual-reports-proxies-and-shareholder-letters/default.aspx. Accessed September 15, 2020. google scholar
3. Agrawal, V., Seth, N., & Dixit, J. K. (2020). A combined AHP-TOPSIS-DEMATEL approach for evaluating success factors of e-service quality: an experience from Indian banking industry. Electronic Commerce Research, 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-020-09430-3. google scholar
4. Akbulut, O. Y. (2020a). Finansal Performans ile Pay Senedi Getirisi Arasındaki İlişkinin Bütünleşik CRITIC ve MABAC ÇKKV Teknikleriyle Ölçülmesi: Borsa İstanbul Çimento Sektörü Firmaları Üzerine Ampirik Bir Uygulama. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (40), 471-488. https://doi. org/10.30794/pausbed.683330. google scholar
5. Akbulut, O. Y. (2020b). Gri Entropi Temelli PSI ve ARAS ÇKKV Yöntemleriyle Türk Mevduat Bankalarının Performans Analizi. Finans Ekonomi ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 5(2), 171-187. https://doi. org/10.29106/fesa.690432. google scholar
6. Akyüz, G. & Aka, S. (2017). Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Teknikleriyle Tedarikçi Performansı Değerlendirmede Toplamsal Bir Yaklaşim. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 15(2), 28-46. https://doi.org/10.11611/yead.277893. google scholar
7. Amoozad Mahdiraji, H., Arzaghi, S., Stauskis, G., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2018). A hybrid fuzzy BWM-COPRAS method for analyzing key factors of sustainable architecture. Sustainability, 10(5), 1626. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051626. google scholar
8. Ayçin, E., & Çakin, E. (2019). KOBİ’lerin Finansal Performansinin MACBETH-COPRAS Bütünleşik Yak-laşimiyla Değerlendirilmesi. Journal of Yasar University, 14(55), 251-265. https://doi.org/10.19168/jya-sar.483594. google scholar

9. Ayçin, E., & Güçlü, P. (2020). BIST Ticaret Endeksinde Yer Alan İşletmelerin Finansal Performanslarinin Entropi ve MAIRCA Yöntemleri ile Değerlendirilmesi. Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi, (85), 287-312. https://doi.org/10.25095/mufad.673739. google scholar
10. Aytaç Adali, E., & Tuş Işik, A. (2017). Critic and Maut methods for the contract manufacturer selection problem. European Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 5(1), 93-101. https://doi.org/10.26417/ejms. v5i1.p93-101. google scholar
11. Aytekin, A. (2019). Evaluation of the Financial Performance of Tourism Companies Traded in BIST via a Hybrid MCDM Model. International Journal of Applied Research in Management and Economics, 2(4), 20-32. https://doi.org/10.33422/ijarme.v2i4.274. google scholar
12. Bączkiewicz, A., Kizielewicz, B., Shekhovtsov, A., Wştröbski, J., & Salabun, W. (2021). Methodical Aspects of MCDM Based E-Commerce Recommender System. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 16(6), 2192-2229. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer16060122. google scholar
13. Balezentis, A., Balezentis, T., & Misiunas, A. (2012). An integrated assessment of Lithuanian economic sectors based on financial ratios and fuzzy MCDM methods. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 18(1), 34-53. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2012.656151. google scholar
14. Beheshti, M., Mahdiraji, H. A., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2016). STRATEGY PORTFOLIO OPTIMISATION: A COPRAS G-MODM HYBRID APPROACH. Transformations in Business & Economics, 15(3), 500-519. google scholar
15. Beheshtinia, M. A., & Omidi, S. (2017). A hybrid MCDM approach for performance evaluation in the banking industry. Kybernetes, 46(8), 1386-1407. https://doi.org/10.1108/k-03-2017-0105. google scholar
16. Bilbao-Terol, A., Arenas-Parra, M., Alvarez-Otero, S., & Canal-Fernandez, V. (2018). Integrating corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Management Decision. 57(2), 324-348. https://doi. org/10.1108/MD-03-2018-0290. google scholar
17. Chan, B., & Al-Hawamdeh, S. (2002). The development of e-commerce in Singapore. Business Process Management Journal, 8(3), 278-288. https://doi.org/10.1108/14637150210428970. google scholar
18. Chatterjee, P., Athawale, V. M., & Chakraborty, S. (2011). Materials selection using complex proportional assessment and evaluation of mixed data methods. Materials & Design, 32(2), 851-860. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.matdes.2010.07.010. google scholar
19. Chen, F.-H., Hsu, T.-S., & Tzeng, G.-H. (2011). A balanced scorecard approach to establish a performance evaluation and relationship model for hot spring hotels based on a hybrid MCDM model combining DEMATEL and ANP. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(4), 908-932. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.02.001. google scholar
20. Chiu, Y. C., Shyu, J. Z., & Tzeng, G. H. (2004). Fuzzy MCDM for evaluating the e-commerce strategy. International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology, 19(1), 12-22. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJ-CAT.2004.003656. google scholar
21. Churchman, C. W., & Ackoff, R. L. (1954). An approximate measure of value. Journal of the Operations Research Society of America, 2(2), 172-187. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.2.2.172. google scholar
22. Costa, H. (2017). AHP-De Borda: a hybrid multicriteria ranking method. Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production Management, 14(3), 281-287. https://doi.org/10.14488/BJOPM.2017.v14.n3.a1. google scholar
23. Delen, D., Kuzey, C., & Uyar, A. (2013). Measuring firm performance using financial ratios: A decision tree approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(10), 3970-3983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. eswa.2013.01.012. google scholar
24. Deng, H., Yeh, C.-H., & Willis, R. J. (2000). Inter-company comparison using modified TOPSIS with objective weights. Computers & Operations Research, 27(10), 963-973. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0548(99)00069-6. google scholar
25. Dhir, S., & Dhir, S. (2018). Role of ambidexterity and learning capability in firm performance. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 48(4), 517-536. https://doi.org/10.1108/ VJIKMS-10-2017-0073. google scholar
26. Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G., & Papayannakis, L. (1995). Determining Objective Weights in Multiple Criteria Problems: The CRITIC Method. Computers & Operations Research, 22(7), 763-770. https://doi. org/10.1016/0305-0548(94)00059-H. google scholar
27. Dinçer, H. & Görener, A. (2011). Analitik hiyerarşi süreci ve VIKOR tekniği ile dinamik performans analizi: Bankacilik sektöründe bir uygulama. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10(19), 109-127. google scholar
28. Dong, J. Y., Chen, Y., & Wan, S. P. (2018). A cosine similarity based QUALIFLEX approach with hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets for financial performance evaluation. Applied Soft Computing, 69, 316-329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2018.04.053. google scholar
29. Dortaj, A., Maghsoudy, S., Ardejani, F. D., & Eskandari, Z. (2020). A hybrid multi-criteria decision making method for site selection of subsurface dams in semi-arid region of Iran. Groundwater for Sustainable Development, 10, 100284. https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.gsd.2019.100284. google scholar
30. Doumpos, M., Zopounidis, C., & Fragiadakis, P. (2016). Assessing the financial performance of European banks under stress testing scenarios: a multicriteria approach. Operational Research, 16(2), 197-209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12351-015-0192-y. google scholar
31. Ecer, F. (2021). A consolidated MCDM framework for performance assessment of battery electric vehicles based on ranking strategies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 143, 110916. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.110916. google scholar
32. Ellis-Petersen, H. (2014, November 13). Amazon and publisher Hachette end dispute over online book sales. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/nov/13/amazon-hachette-end-dispute-ebooks. Accessed November 26, 2020. google scholar
33. Erdoğan, N. K., ALTINIRMAK, S., Şahin, C., & Karamaşa, Ç. (2020). Analyzing the financial performance of football clubs listed in BIST using entropy based copras methodology. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (63), 39-53. google scholar
34. Ertuğrul, İ., & Karakaşoğlu, N. (2009). Performance evaluation of Turkish cement firms with fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and TOPSIS methods. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(1), 702-715. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.eswa.2007.10.014. google scholar
35. Esbouei, S. K., Ghadikolaei, A. S., & Antucheviciene, J. (2014). Using FANP and Fuzzy VIKOR for Ranking Manufacturing Companies Based on Their Financial Performance. Economic Computation & Economic Cybernetics Studies & Research, 48(3), 141-162. google scholar
36. Euromonitor. (2020). AMAZON.COM, INC IN RETAILING (WORLD). https://www.euromonitor.com/ amazoncom-inc-in-retailing/report. Accessed November 21, 2020. google scholar
37. Farrokh, M., Heydari, H., & Janani, H. (2016). Two comparative MCDM approaches for evaluating the financial performance of Iranian basic metals companies. Iranian Journal of Management Studies, 9(2), 359-382. google scholar
38. Gorsevski, P. V, Cathcart, S. C., Mirzaei, G., Jamali, M. M., Ye, X., & Gomezdelcampo, E. (2013). A group-based spatial decision support system for wind farm site selection in Northwest Ohio. Energy Policy, 55, 374-385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.12.013. google scholar
39. Görçün, Ö. F. (2020). Efficiency analysis of Black sea container seaports: application of an integrated MCDM approach. Maritime Policy & Management, 48(5), 672-699. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839 .2020.1783467. google scholar
40. Gudiel Pineda, P. J., Liou, J. J. H., Hsu, C.-C., & Chuang, Y.-C. (2018). An integrated MCDM model for improving airline operational and financial performance. Journal of Air Transport Management, 68, 103117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2017.06.003. google scholar
41. Gupta, S., Mathew, M., Gupta, S., & Dawar, V. (2020). Benchmarking the private sector banks in India using MCDM approach. Journal of Public Affairs, e2409. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2409. google scholar
42. Heidary Dahooie, J., Zavadskas, E. K., Vanaki, A. S., Firoozfar, H. R., Lari, M., & Turskis, Z. (2019). A new evaluation model for corporate financial performance using integrated CCSD and FCM-ARAS approach. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja, 32(1), 1088-1113. https://doi.org/10.1080/133167 7X.2019.1613250. google scholar
43. Huang, J., Jiang, X., & Tang, Q. (2009). An e-commerce performance assessment model: Its development and an initial test on e-commerce applications in the retail sector of China. Information & Management, 46(2), 100-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2008.12.003. google scholar
44. Ignatius, J., Behzadian, M., Malekan, H. S., & Lalitha, D. (2012, June). Financial performance of Iran’s Automotive sector based on PROMETHEE II. 2012 IEEE International Conference on Management of Innovation & Technology (ICMIT), 35-38. https://doi.org/10.1109/icmit.2012.6225775. google scholar
45. Inani, S. K., & Gupta, R. (2017). Evaluating financial performance of Indian IT firms: an application of a multi-criteria decision-making technique. International Journal of Behavioural Accounting and Finance, 6(2), 126-139. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBAF.2017.086425. google scholar
46. Isik, O. (2019). Türk Mevduat Bankaciliği Sektörünün Finansal Performanslarinin Entropi Tabanli Aras Yöntemi Kullanilarak Değerlendirilmesi. Finans Ekonomi ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi (FESA), 4(1), 90-99. https://doi.org/10.29106/fesa.533997. google scholar
47. Jaberidoost M., Olfat L., Hosseini A., Kebriaeezadeh A., Abdollahi M., Alaeddini M. & Dinarvand R. (2015). Pharmaceutical Supply Chain Risk Assessment in Iran Using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) And Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) Methods. Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice, 8(9), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40545-015-0029-3. google scholar
48. Juliâ-Igual, J. F., Cervellö-Royo, R., & Berne-Lafuente, I. (2016). Market value analysis of a Chinese e-commerce holding group: a multicriteria approach. Service Business, 11(3), 475-490. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11628-016-0316-3. google scholar
49. Kaklauskas, A., Zavadskas, E. K., & Trinkunas, V. (2007). A multiple criteria decision support on-line system for construction. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 20(2), 163-175. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.engappai.2006.06.009. google scholar
50. Kantar Brandz. (2021). What are the most valuable global brands in 2021?. https://www.kantar.com/inspira-tion/brands/what-are-the-most-valuable-global-brands-in-2021. Accessed 4 August, 2021. google scholar
51. Karimi, A., & Barati, M. (2018). Financial performance evaluation of companies listed on Tehran Stock Exchange. International Journal of Law and Management, 60(3), 885-900. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJL-MA-12-2016-0145. google scholar
52. Kaushik, V, Kumar, A., Gupta, H., & Dixit, G. (2020). Modelling and prioritizing the factors for online apparel return using BWM approach. Electronic Commerce Research, 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10660-020-09406-3. google scholar
53. Kazan, H., & Ozdemir, O. (2014). Financial Performance Assessment Of Large Scale Conglomerates Via TOPSIS and CRITIC Methods. International Journal of Management and Sustainability, 3(4), 203-224. google scholar
54. Keyes, D. (2020, February 3). Amazon has surpassed 150 million Prime subscribers globally. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-surpasses-150-million-prime-subscribers-2020-2?international=true&r=US&IR=T. Accessed November 6, 2020. google scholar
55. Kokalitcheva, K. (2015, September 10). Amazon is killing off the Fire Phone. Fortune. https://fortune. com/2015/09/09/amazon-killing-fire-phone/. Accessed November 26, 2020. google scholar
56. Kung, C. Y, & Wen, K. L. (2007). Applying grey relational analysis and grey decision-making to evaluate the relationship between company attributes and its financial performance—a case study of venture capital enterprises in Taiwan. Decision support systems, 43(3), 842-852. https://doi.org/10.1016/). dss.2006.12.012. google scholar
57. Lansdowne Z.F. & Woodward B.S. (1996). Applying the Borda Ranking Method. Air Force. Journal of Logistics, 20(2), 27-29. google scholar
58. Laudon, K. C., & Traver, C. G. (2017). E-commerce: Business, Technology, Society. New York: Pearson. google scholar
59. Ledhem, M. A., & Mekidiche, M. (2020). Economic growth and financial performance of Islamic banks: a CAMELS approach. Islamic Economic Studies, 28(1), 47-62. https://doi.org/10.1108/IES-05-2020-0016. google scholar
60. Lee, P. T. W., Lin, C. W., & Shin, S. H. (2012). A Comparative Study on Financial Positions of Shipping Companies In Taiwan And Korea Using Entropy and Grey Relation Analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(5), 5649-5657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.11.052. google scholar
61. Lin, S. W., & Fu, H. P. (2012). Uncovering critical success factors for business-to-customer electronic commerce in travel agencies. Journal of travel & tourism marketing, 29(6), 566-584. https://doi.org/10.1080 /10548408.2012.703034. google scholar Ludwin W. G. (1978). Strategic Voting and The Borda Method. Public Choice, 33(1), 85-90. https://doi. org/10.1007/BF00123946. google scholar
62. Lumini, A., & Nanni, L. (2006). Detector of image orientation based on Borda Count. Pattern Recognition Letters, 27(3), 180-186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2005.08.023. google scholar
63. Mac, R. (2014, October 23). Caught in "Investment Mode," Amazon Reports Big Earnings Miss. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2014/10/23/amazon-third-quarter-2014-earnings/. Accessed November 26, 2020. google scholar
64. Macrotrends. (2020). Amazon Financial Statements 2005-2020 | AMZN. https://www.macrotrends.net/ stocks/charts/AMZN/amazon/financial-statements. Accessed November 2, 2020. google scholar
65. Mahadevan, B. (2000). Business Models for Internet-Based E-Commerce: An Anatomy. California Management Review, 42(4), 55-69. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166053. google scholar
66. Malagueño, R., Lopez-Valeiras, E., & Gomez-Conde, J. (2018). Balanced scorecard in SMEs: effects on innovation and financial performance. Small Business Economics, 51(1), 221-244. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11187-017-9921-3. google scholar
67. Marjanovic, I., & Popovic, Z. (2020). MCDM Approach for Assessment of Financial Performance of Serbian Banks. In A. Horobet, P. Polychronidou & A. Karasavvoglou (Eds.), Business Performance and Financial Institutions in Europe (pp. 71-90). Cham: Springer. google scholar
68. Mishra, A. K., Jain, S., & Manogna, R. L. (2021). Does corporate governance characteristics influence firm performance in India? Empirical evidence using dynamic panel data analysis. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 18(1), 71-82. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41310-020-00098-7. google scholar
69. Moghimi, R., & Anvari, A. (2014). An Integrated Fuzzy MCDM Approach and Analysis to Evaluate The Financial Performance Of Iranian Cement Companies. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 71(1-4), 685-698. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-013-5370-6. google scholar
70. Mulliner, E., Smallbone, K., & Maliene, V. (2013). An Assessment of Sustainable Housing Affordability Using A Multiple Criteria Decision-Making Method. Omega, 41(2), 270-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/). omega.2012.05.002. google scholar
71. Ömürbek, N., Karaatlı, M., & Balcı, H. F. (2016). Entropi Temelli MAUT ve SAW yöntemleri ile Otomotiv Firmalarının Performans Değerlemesi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 31(1), 227-255. https://doi.org/10.24988/deuiibf.2016311446. google scholar
72. Önder, E., Taş, N., & Hepsen, A. (2014). REITs in Turkey: Fundamentals vs. Market. The International Journal of Latest Trends in Finance and Economic Sciences, 4(1), 662-676. google scholar
73. Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 411-419. google scholar
74. Podvezko, V. (2011). The Comparative Analysis of MCDA Methods SAW and COPRAS. Engineering Economics, 22(2), 134-146. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.22.2.310. google scholar
75. Poongavanam, G., Sivalingam, V, Prabakaran, R., Salman, M., & Kim, S. C. (2021). Selection of the best refrigerant for replacing R134a in automobile air conditioning system using different MCDM methods: A comparative study. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering, 27, 101344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi-te.2021.101344. google scholar
76. Rahmani, Z., & Keshavarz, E. (2015). Prioritisation of technological capabilities to maximise the financial performance by fuzzy AHP. International Journal of Operational Research, 22(3), 263-286. https://doi. org/10.1504/IJ0R.2015.068283. google scholar
77. Ren, J., Ren, X., Liu, Y, Man, Y, & Toniolo, S. (2020). Sustainability assessment framework for the prioritization of urban sewage treatment technologies. In J. Ren (Ed.), Waste-to-Energy (pp. 153-176). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Academic Press. google scholar
78. Rezaei, A., Shayestehfar, M., Hassani, H., & Mohammadi, M. R. T. (2015). Assessment of the metals contamination and their grading by SAW method: a case study in Sarcheshmeh copper complex, Kerman, Iran. Environmental earth sciences, 74(4), 3191-3205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-015-4356-0. google scholar
79. Rezaie, K., Ramiyani, S. S., Nazari-Shirkouhi, S., & Badizadeh, A. (2014). Evaluating Performance of Iranian Cement Firms Using an Integrated Fuzzy AHP-VIKOR Method. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 38(21-22), 5033-5046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2014.04.003. google scholar
80. Saari, D. G., & Merlin, V. R. (1996). The copeland method. Economic Theory, 8(1), 51-76. https://doi. org/10.1007/BF01212012. google scholar Safaei Ghadikolaei, A., Khalili Esbouei, S., & Antucheviciene, J. (2014). Applying fuzzy MCDM for financial performance evaluation of Iranian companies. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 20(2), 274-291. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2014.913274. google scholar Shabbir, M. S., & Wisdom, O. (2020). The relationship between corporate social responsibility, environmental investments and financial performance: Evidence from manufacturing companies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 39946-39957. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-10217-0. google scholar
81. Shaverdi, M., Heshmati, M. R., & Ramezani, I. (2014). Application of Fuzzy AHP Approach for Financial Performance Evaluation of Iranian Petrochemical Sector. Procedia Computer Science, 31, 995-1004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2014.05.352. google scholar
82. Shaverdi, M., Ramezani, I., Tahmasebi, R., & Rostamy, A. A. A. (2016). Combining Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS With Financial Ratios to Design A Novel Performance Evaluation Model. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 18(2), 248-262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-016-0142-8. google scholar
83. Singh, Y., & Milan, R. (2020). Analysis of Financial Performance of Public Sector Banks in India: CAMEL. Arthaniti: Journal of Economic Theory and Practice, 1-27. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0976747920966866. google scholar
84. Statista. (2021). Market share of leading retail e-commerce companies in the United States as of October 2021. https://www.statista.com/statistics/274255/market-share-of-the-leading-retailers-in-us-e-commerce/. Accessed February 27, 2022. google scholar
85. Statista. (2022a). Retail e-commerce sales worldwide from 2014 to 2025. https://www.statista.com/statis-tics/379046/worldwide-retail-e-commerce-sales/. Accessed February 27, 2022. google scholar
86. Statista. (2022b). E-commerce share of total global retail sales from 2015 to 2025. https://www.statista.com/ statistics/534123/e-commerce-share-of-retail-sales-worldwide/. Accessed February 27, 2022. google scholar
87. Şahin, M. (2021). Location selection by multi-criteria decision-making methods based on objective and subjective weightings. Knowledge and Information Systems, 63(8), 1991-2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10115-021-01588-y. google scholar
88. Tavana, M., Khalili-Damghani, K., & Rahmatian, R. (2014). A hybrid fuzzy MCDM method for measuring the performance of publicly held pharmaceutical companies. Annals of Operations Research, 226(1), 589-621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-014-1738-8. google scholar
89. Tey, D. J. Y., Gan, Y. F., Selvachandran, G., Quek, S. G., Smarandache, F., Abdel-Basset, M., & Long, H. V (2019). A novel neutrosophic data analytic hierarchy process for multi-criteria decision making method: A case study in kuala lumpur stock exchange. IEEE Access, 7, 53687-53697. https://doi.org/10.1109/ ACCESS.2019.2912913. google scholar
90. Titiyal, R., Bhattacharya, S., & Thakkar, J. J. (2019). The distribution strategy selection for an e-tailer using a hybrid DANP VIKOR MCDM model. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 26(2), 395-433. https:// doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-01-2018-0018. google scholar
91. Torres, P. M., Lisboa, J. V., & Yasin, M. M. (2014). E-commerce strategies and corporate performance: an empirical investigation. Competitiveness Review, 24(5), 463-481. https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-06-2013-0064. google scholar
92. Tung, C. T., & Lee, Y. J. (2010). The Innovative Performance Evaluation Model of Grey Factor Analysis: A Case Study of Listed Biotechnology Corporations in Taiwan. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(12), 7844-7851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.04.053. google scholar
93. UNCTAD. (2020, April 27). Global e-Commerce hits $25.6 trillion - latest UNCTAD [Press release]. https:// unctad.org/press-material/global-e-commerce-hits-256-trillion-latest-unctad-estimates/. Accessed November 24, 2020. google scholar
94. Urbonaviciute, K., & Maknickiene, N. (2019). Investigation of digital retail companies financial performance using multiple criteria decision analysis. Mokslas-Lietuvos ateitis/Science-Future of Lithuania, 11,19. https://doi.org/10.3846/mla.2019.9737. google scholar
95. U.S Census Bureau. (2022). Estimated Quarterly U.S. Retail Sales (Adjusted): Total and E-commerce. https://www.census.gov/retail/mrts/www/data/excel/tsadjustedsales.xls. Accessed February 27, 2022. google scholar
96. Visalakshmi, S., Lakshmi, P., Shama, M. S., & Vijayakumar, K. (2015). An integrated fuzzy DEMATEL-TOPSIS approach for financial performance evaluation of GREENEX industries. International Journal of Operational Research, 23(3), 340-362. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJOR.2015.069626. google scholar
97. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ins.2016.01.076. google scholar
98. Wang, Y.-J. (2008). Applying FMCDM to evaluate financial performance of domestic airlines in Taiwan. Expert Systems with Applications, 34(3), 1837-1845. https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.eswa.2007.02.029. google scholar
99. Wu, H.-Y, Tzeng, G.-H., & Chen, Y.-H. (2009). A fuzzy MCDM approach for evaluating banking performance based on Balanced Scorecard. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(6), 10135-10147. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.01.005. google scholar
100. Wu, H.-W., Zhen, J., & Zhang, J. (2020). Urban rail transit operation safety evaluation based on an improved CRITIC method and cloud model. Journal of Rail Transport Planning & Management, 100206. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jrtpm.2020.100206. google scholar
101. Wu, W. -W. (2011). Beyond Travel & Tourism competitiveness ranking using DEA, GST, ANN and Borda count. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(10), 12974-12982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.096. google scholar
102. Yalcin, N., Bayrakdaroglu, A., & Kahraman, C. (2012). Application of fuzzy multi-criteria decision making methods for financial performance evaluation of Turkish manufacturing industries. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(1), 350-364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.07.024. google scholar
103. Yang, Z., Shi, Y, & Wang, B. (2015). Search engine marketing, financing ability and firm performance in E-commerce. Procedia Computer Science, 55, 1106-1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.07.078. google scholar
104. Zavadskas, E. K., Kaklauskas, A. (1996). Determination of an efficient contractor by using the new method of multicriteria assessment, in Langford, D. A.; Retik, A. (Eds.). International Symposium for The Organisation and Management of Construction, Shaping Theory and Practice, Managing the Construction Project and Managing Risk. (Vol. 2, pp. 94-104). CIB W/65. London: E. & F.N. SPON. google scholar
105. Zavadskas, E. K. & 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. google scholar
106. Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Vilutiene, T. (2010). Multiple Criteria Analysis of Foundation Instalment Alternatives by Applying Additive Ratio Assessment (ARAS) Method. Archives of civil and mechanical engineering, 10(3), 123-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1644-9665(12)60141-1. google scholar