Türkiye İhracatında Sektörel İklim Risklerinin Değerlendirilmesi: Yeşil Finans Politikası İçin Entegre Çok Kriterli Karar Alma Çerçevesi

Abstract

Amaç: Bu araştırma, Türkiye'nin ihracat sektörlerinin iklim değişikliğine karşı duyarlılığını değerlendirmeyi ve sektörel düzeyde iklim risklerini karşılaştırmalı olarak analiz etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Yöntem: Çalışmada, Türkiye’nin ihracatında öncü konumda bulunan on sektör (tarım–gıda, tekstil, otomotiv, demir-çelik, kimya, elektrikli cihazlar, mobilya, plastik, madencilik ve çimento) ile yedi iklim riski kriteri (emisyon yoğunluğu, iklim hassasiyeti, tedarik zinciri kırılganlığı, enerji bağımlılığı, adaptasyon kapasitesi, dış pazara bağımlılık ve su kullanımı) belirlenmiştir. Sektörlerin kırılganlık düzeyleri, iki aşamalı Çok Kriterli Karar Verme (ÇKKV) yaklaşımıyla analiz edilmiştir. İlk aşamada, uzman görüşlerine dayalı SWARA yöntemiyle kriter ağırlıkları hesaplanmış; ikinci aşamada ise ARAS yöntemiyle sektörel performans puanları ve risk sıralamaları oluşturulmuştur. Bulgular: SWARA yöntemiyle elde edilen bulgulara göre en yüksek ağırlık emisyon yoğunluğuna (%22), enerji bağımlılığına (%17) ve iklim hassasiyetine (%15) verilmiştir. ARAS yöntemi sonuçları ise tarım–gıda sektörünün (0,740) en kırılgan sektör olduğunu, bunu tekstil (0,587) ve çimento (0,559) sektörlerinin izlediğini göstermiştir. Otomotiv (0,472) ve elektrikli cihazlar (0,466) sektörleri ise en düşük risk grubunda yer almıştır. Sonuç: Araştırma sonuçları, Türkiye’nin ihracat sektörlerinin iklim risklerine göre önceliklendirilmesini sağlayarak yeşil finans politikalarının geliştirilmesine veri temelli bir çerçeve sunmaktadır. Elde edilen bulgular, karar alıcılara yönelik stratejik planlamalarda kullanılabilecek nitelikte önemli katkılar sağlamaktadır.

Keywords

• İklim Riski
• Sektörel Duyarlılık
• İhracat Performansı
• Yeşil Finans
• Çok Kriterli Karar Verme

Assessing Sectoral Climate Risks in Turkish Exports: An Integrated Multi-Criterion Decision-Making Framework for Green Finance Policy

Abstract

Aim: This study aims to assess the vulnerability of Türkiye’s export sectors to climate change and to conduct a comparative analysis of climate-related risks across key industries. Method: The research focuses on ten leading Türkiye’s export sectors (agriculture–food, textiles, automotive, iron–steel, chemicals, electrical devices, furniture, plastics, mining, and cement) and evaluates them based on seven climate risk criteria: emission intensity, climate sensitivity, supply chain vulnerability, energy dependency, adaptive capacity, dependency on foreign markets, and water usage. A two-stage Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) approach was employed. In the first stage, the SWARA (Step-wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis) method was used to determine the weights of the criteria based on expert opinions. In the second stage, the ARAS (Additive Ratio Assessment) method was applied to calculate performance scores and rank sectoral vulnerabilities. Result: According to the SWARA results, the most heavily weighted criteria were emission intensity (22%), energy dependency (17%), and climate sensitivity (15%). The ARAS analysis revealed that the agriculture–food sector (0.740) had the highest vulnerability, followed by the textile (0.587) and cement (0.559) sectors. The automotive (0.472) and electrical devices (0.466) sectors were found to be the least vulnerable. Conclusion: The findings offer a data-driven roadmap for prioritizing Türkiye’s export sectors based on climate risks, supporting the development of green finance policies. This study provides strategic insight for policymakers in designing climate-resilient economic and trade frameworks.

Keywords

• Climate Risk
• Sectoral Vulnerability
• Export Performance
• Green Finance
• Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM)

References

1. AGHDAIE, M. H., ZOLFANI, S. H. AND ZAVADSKAS, E. K. (2013). Decision making in machine tool selection: An integrated approach with SWARA and COPRAS-G methods. Engineering Economics, 24(1), 5-17.
2. ALKAYA, E., BOGURCU, M., ULUTAS, F. and DEMIRER, G. N. (2015). Adaptation to climate change in industry: Improving resource efficiency through sustainable production applications. Water Environment Research, 87(1), 14-25.
3. ARAS, M., TANIK, A., COSGUN, A. Y., ABAT, S. and ASKINER, M. (2017). Sectoral impact analysis methodology within the scope of climate change adaptation. Turkish Journal of Water Science and Management, 1(1), 44-53.
4. BASTUG, S., AKGUL, E. F., HARALAMBIDES, H. and NOTTEBOOM, T. (2024). A decision-making framework for the funding of shipping decarbonization initiatives in non-EU countries: insights from Türkiye. Journal of Shipping and Trade, 9(1), 12.
5. BATTISTON, S., MANDEL, A., MONASTEROLO, I., SCHUTZE, F. and VISENTIN, G. (2017). A climate stress-test of the financial system. Nature Climate Change, 7(4), 283–288.
6. BRODNY, J. and TUTAK, M. (2023). Assessing the energy and climate sustainability of European Union member states: an MCDM-based approach. Smart Cities, 6(1), 339-367.
7. DADELO, S., TURSKIS, Z., ZAVADSKAS, E. K. and DADELIENĖ, R. (2012). Multiple criteria assessment of elite security personal on the basis of ARAS and expert methods.
8. DELLINK, R., HWANG, H., LANZI, E. and CHATEAU, J. (2017). International trade consequences of climate change.

9. ECER, F. (2016). ARAS Yöntemi kullanılarak kurumsal kaynak planlaması yazılımı seçimi. Uluslararası Alanya İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(1).
10. GHADGE, A., WURTMANN, H. and SEURING, S. (2020). Managing climate change risks in global supply chains: a review and research agenda. International Journal of Production Research, 58(1), 44-64.
11. GIELEN, D., BOSHELL, F., SAYGIN, D., BAZILIAN, M. D., WAGNER, N. and GORINI, R. (2019). The role of renewable energy in the global energy transformation. Energy strategy reviews, 24, 38-50.
12. GWP (Global Water Partnership). (2014). Water, climate change and development. Stockholm: Global Water Partnership.
13. HEYDARI, M. (2024). Cultivating sustainable global food supply chains: A multifaceted approach to mitigating food loss and waste for climate resilience. Journal of Cleaner Production, 442, 141037.
14. HUNG, C. C., CHEN, Y. H. and YEH, S. C. (2025). Optimizing climate risk management practices: a hierarchical classification of TCFD risks in Taiwan’s electronics industry. Climate Policy, 1-15.
15. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2021). Climate change 2021: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.
16. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2023). Sixth assessment report.
17. JI, G. (2025). The impact of green finance on export trade under sustainable development strategy. GeoJournal, 90(2), 1-15.
18. KERSULIENE, V., ZAVADSKAS, E. K. and TURSKIS, Z. (2010). Selection of rational dispute resolution method by applying new step‐wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA). Journal of Business Economics and Management, 11(2), 243–258.
19. KLASEN, A., WANJIRU, R., HENDERSON, J. and PHILLIPS, J. (2022). Export finance and the green transition. Global Policy, 13(5), 710-720.
20. LI, Y., ZHANG, Y. and SOLANGI, Y. A. (2023). Assessing ESG factors and policies of green finance investment decisions for sustainable development in China using the fuzzy AHP and fuzzy DEMATEL. Sustainability, 15(21), 15214.
21. LINNENLUECKE, M. K., GRIFFITHS, A. and WINN, M. I. (2013). Firm and industry adaptation to climate change: a review of climate adaptation studies in the business and management field. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 4(5), 397-416.
22. LIU, Z., ZHENG, S., ZHANG, X. and MO, L. (2023). The impact of green finance on export technology complexity: evidence from China. Sustainability, 15(3), 2625.
23. MA, D., ZHU, Y. and YANG, Y. (2024). How Green finance affects export production quality: Fresh evidence from China. Energy Economics, 131, 107381.
24. OECD. (2020). Economic outlook, volume 2020 issue 1: The world economy on a tightrope. OECD Publishing.
25. ÖZBEK, A. (2017). Çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri ve Excel ile problem çözümü. Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara, 197.
26. RISTANOVIĆ, V., PRIMORAC, D. and DORIĆ, B. (2024). The importance of green investments in developed economies—MCDM models for achieving adequate green investments. Sustainability (2071-1050), 16(15).
27. RUZGYS, A., VOLVAČIOVAS, R., IGNATAVIČIUS, Č. and TURSKIS, Z. (2014). Integrated evaluation of external wall insulation in residential buildings using SWARA-TODIM MCDM method. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 20(1), 103-110.
28. SCHAEFFER, R., SZKLO, A. S., DE LUCENA, A. F. P., BORBA, B. S. M. C., NOGUEIRA, L. P. P., FLEMING, F. P., ... and BOULAHYA, M. S. (2012). Energy sector vulnerability to climate change: A review. Energy, 38(1), 1-12.
29. SHEERAZ, M., IQBAL, N. and SAJID, M. (2024). A nexus between climate change risk and financial performance of agricultural businesses in developing economy. In Climate change and finance: Navigating the challenges and opportunities in capital markets (pp. 255-278). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.
30. TAO, Y., MUNEEB, F. M., WANKE, P. F., TAN, Y. and YAZDİ, A. K. (2024). Revisiting the critical success factors of entrepreneurship to promote Chinese agriculture systems: A multi-criteria decision-making approach. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 94, 101951.
31. Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). (2017). Recommendations of the TCFD.
32. ULUDAĞ, A. S. and DOĞAN, H. (2016). Çok kriterli karar verme yöntemlerinin karşılaştırılmasına odaklı bir hizmet kalitesi uygulaması. Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(2), 17-48.
33. UN Water. (2018). The United Nations world water development report 2018: Nature-based solutions for water. United Nations.
34. WIEDMANN, T. and MINX, J. (2008). A definition of ‘carbon footprint’. In C.C. Pertsova (Ed.), Ecological Economics Research Trends.
35. World Bank. (2018). Energy Overview. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/energy/overview
36. 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.
37. ZHOU, C., QI, S. and LI, Y. (2023). Can the green finance improve export green-sophistication? New insights from China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(34), 82927-82937.