Evaluation of the financial performance of energy companies on BIST: A hybrid multi-criteria decision-making method

Abstract

World population growth has accelerated the need for energy resources. Thus, energy companies are directed to renewable energy sources. In the study, the Istanbul Stock Exchange between the years 2021-2025, the financial performance of businesses registered in 20 energy ratios was investigated. In this study, nine criteria are discussed as an indicator of financial performance. Research Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods (MCDM) methods in PIV, WASPAS, ARAS, MOORA Ratio, Borda Count and, Copeland are employed. According to the results, the performance of the companies is better than that of others, A4.

Keywords

• Financial performance
• Sustainability
• Energy companies
• MCDM Methods

References

1. [1] Brignall TJS. A financial perspective on performance management. The Irish Accounting Review 2007; 14(1): 15-29.
2. [2] Bağcı H, Yiğiter ŞY. BİST’te yer alan enerji şirketlerinin finansal performansının SD ve WASPAS yöntemleriyle ölçülmesi. Bingöl Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 2019; 9(18): 877-898.
3. [3] Peattie K. Trappings versus substance in the greening of marketing planning. Journal of Strategic Marketing 1999; 7(2): 131-148.
4. [4] Yılancı A. Denizli’de sürdürülebilir enerji uygulamaları. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Enerji Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi, 2010. [Online] Available from: http://www.solar-bazaar.com/menuis/Denizlide-Surdurulebilir-Enerji-Uygulamalari..pdf (Accessed: 11/06/2026).
5. [5] Nastasi B, Markovska N, Puksec T, Duić N, Foley A. Renewable and sustainable energy challenges to face for the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2022; 157: 112071.
6. [6] Martí Selva ML, Puertas Medina RM. Sustainable energy development analysis: Energy trilemma. 2022.
7. [7] Liu J, Kitamura Y, Savelyeva T. Building an ‘Ecosystem’ for transforming higher education teaching and learning for sustainability. Asia Pacific Education Review 2022; 23(4): 539-542.
8. [8] Adegbite WM, Hoole C. Modelling female nurses’ career sustainability towards career competency development and teamwork using self-efficacy as a mediator. Social Sciences & Humanities Open 2024; 10: 100908.

9. [9] Mutlu E. Türkiye’de yenilenebilir enerji ekonomisi ve Ankara iline ait SWOT analizler. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul Kültür Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, 2013.
10. [10] Korkusuz M. Türk vergi kanunları ve diğer ilgili mevzuat hükümleri kapsamında karbon ticaretinin vergilendirilmesi. İçinde: Preparing Turkey for the Post-2012 Projesi. ÇOB İklim Değişikliği Dairesi Başkanlığı, 2012.
11. [11] Savrul M. AB ilişkileri çerçevesinde Türkiye'nin yenilenebilir enerji kaynaklarının iktisadi açıdan değerlendirilmesi. Doktora Tezi, 2010.
12. [12] Gönüllü O, Çakır N, Küçükkocaoğlu G. Analysing the financial performance of Borsa Istanbul Energy Companies: Integrated LOPCOW-MAIRCA MCDM approach. Sosyoekonomi 2026; 34(68): 33-58.
13. [13] Cebeci C. Multi-Criteria evaluation with gradual weighting and aggregation of normalised distance matrices: a case study in renewable energy grid selection. PeerJ Computer Science 2026; 12: E3819.
14. [14] Pamučar D, Stanković M, Karabašević D. An integrated Fuzzy MCDM framework for evaluating sustainable logistics performance in the green supply chain. Sustainability 2026; 18(3): 1845-1868.
15. [15] Belhadi A, Kamble SS, Jabbour CJC, Gunasekaran A. A Multi-Criteria Decision-Support tool based on the MMCP for sustainable smart grid planning: Application to the Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur Region. Energies 2026; 19(2): 415-438.
16. [16] Sassi Rekik S, Khabbouchi I, El Alimi S. A Spatial analysis for optimal wind site selection from a sustainable supply-chain-management perspective. Sustainability 2025; 17(4): 1420-1450.
17. [17] Wątróbski J. A Multi-criteria approach to sustainable energy management evaluation focusing on renewable energy sources. Procedia Computer Science 2022; 207: 4640-4650.
18. [18] Ginevicius R, Noga G, Petraškevicius V, Žemaitis E, Novotný M. Assessing renewable energy growth in the European Union. Energies 2025; 18(7): 1688.
19. [19] Biswas A, Sarkar S, Das S, Dutta S, Choudhury MR, Giri A, ... & Paul D. Water scarcity: A global hindrance to sustainable development and agricultural production–A critical review of the impacts and adaptation strategies. Cambridge Prisms: Water 2025; 3: e4.
20. [20] Kondak GN. BIST enerji şirketlerinin dönemsel performans analizi. [Online] Available at: URL_Eksik_Lütfen_Ekleyin (Accessed: 01/04/2026).
21. [21] Adewoyin MA, Adediwin O, Audu AJ. Artificial intelligence and sustainable energy development: A review of applications, challenges, and future directions. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Growth Evaluation 2025; 6(2): 196-203.
22. [22] Biswas S, Pamucar D, Dawn S, Simic V. Evaluation based on relative utility and nonlinear standardization (ERUNS) method for comparing firm performance in energy sector. Decision Making Advances 2024; 2(1): 1-21.
23. [23] Karasan A, Kahraman C, Kaya I. Evaluation of solar energy investments under uncertainty: A comparative Copeland and Borda choice perspective for Turkey's regions. Energy Strategy Reviews 2025; 51: 101210.
24. [24] Şahin M, Turkmen S, Yılmaz B. Location optimization for wind energy power plants in Turkey using a hybrid GIS-based fuzzy MCDM and Borda count integration. Journal of Cleaner Production 2024; 412: 138540.
25. [25] Özdemir S, Demirel N, Zaralı F, Çelik T. Multi-criteria assessment framework for evaluation of Green Deal performance. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2024; 31(3): 4686-4704.
26. [26] Sönmez F, Baysal G, Baysal IA, Bademcıoglu M. BIST 100’de işlem gören enerji şirketlerinin TOPSIS yöntemiyle finansal performanslarının belirlenmesi. PressAcademia Procedia 2023; 16(1): 149-155.
27. [27] Durak İ, Taş E. Çok Boyutlu Ölçekleme Analiziyle OECD üyesi ülkelerin enerji göstergeleri açısından incelenmesi. Üçüncü Sektör Sosyal Ekonomi Dergisi 2021; 56(2): 715-735.
28. [28] Ecer F. A consolidated MCDM framework for performance assessment of battery electric vehicles based on ranking strategies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2021; 143: 110916.
29. [29] Mostafaeipour A, Jahangiri M, Solomin E, Ghasemi M. Ranking locations for hydrogen production using hybrid wind-solar: A case study. Sustainability 2021; 13(21): 12044.
30. [30] Park SR, Jang JY. The impact of ESG management on investment decision: Institutional investors’ perceptions of country-specific ESG criteria. International Journal of Financial Studies 2021; 9(3): 48.
31. [31] Ghenai C, Albawab M, Bettayeb M. Sustainability indicators for renewable energy systems using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making model and extended SWARA/ARAS hybrid method. Renewable Energy 2020; 146: 580-597.
32. [32] Kuvata Ö, Güler G. Energy sector analysis with fuzzy TOPSIS. International Scientific and Vocational Journal 2020; 4(1): 37-48.
33. [33] Albawaba M, Ghenaia C, Bettayeba M, Janajreh I. Sustainability performance index for ranking energy storage technologies using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making model and hybrid computational method. Journal of Energy Storage 2020; 32: 101820.
34. [34] Kamari L, Isvand MH, Alhuyi Nazari M. Applications of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) methods in renewable energy development: A review. Renewable Energy Research and Applications 2020; 1(1): 47-54.
35. [35] Kara S. Borsa İstanbul'da işlem gören enerji sektöründeki firmaların finansal performanslarının AHP temelli TOPSİS yöntemi ile karşılaştırılması. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, 2019.
36. [36] Lestari S, Adji TB, Permanasari AE. Performance comparison of rank aggregation using Borda and Copeland in recommender system. 2018 International Workshop on Big Data and Information Security (IWBIS), Jakarta, Indonesia, 2018: 69-74, doi: 10.1109/IWBIS.2018.8471722.
37. [37] Chalikias MS, Ntanos S. Countries clustering with respect to carbon dioxide emissions by using the IEA database. HAICTA Proceedings 2015; 347-351.
38. [38] Kamuyu Aydınlatma Platformu. Enerji şirketleri verileri, yıl sonu konsolide finansal tabloları ve bağımsız denetim raporları (2021-2025). 2026. [Online] Available from: https://www.kap.org.tr (Accessed: 01/04/2026).
39. [39] Enerji Piyasası Düzenleme Kurumu. Enerji piyasası veri tabanı ve Yenilenebilir Enerji Kaynaklarını Destekleme Mekanizması (YEKDEM) listeleri. 2026. [Online] Available from: https://www.epdk.gov.tr (Accessed: 01/04/2026).
40. [40] Borsa İstanbul. Veri analiz platformu: Sektörel finansal oranlar ve enerji sektörü şirket verileri. 2026. [Online] Available from: https://www.borsaistanbul.com (Accessed: 01/04/2026).
41. [41] Li X, Wang K, Liu L, Xin J, Yang H, Gao C. Application of the entropy weight and TOPSIS method in safety evaluation of coal mines. Procedia Engineering 2011; 26: 2085-2091.
42. [42] Karami K, Asadzadeh S, Abdolmaleki A, Safari Z. Holographic f(T)-gravity model with power-law entropy correction. Physical Review D 2013; 88(8): 084034.
43. [43] Mufazzal S, Muzakkir SM. A new Multi-Criterion Decision Making (MCDM) method based on Proximity Indexed Value for minimizing rank reversals. Computers & Industrial Engineering 2018; 119: 427-438.
44. [44] Khan NZ, Ansari TSA, Siddiquee AN, Khan ZA. Selection of e-learning websites using a novel Proximity Indexed Value (PIV) MCDM method. Journal of Computers in Education 2019; 6(1): 241-256.
45. [45] Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z. A new additive ratio assessment (ARAS) method in Multi-Criteria Decision‐Making. Technological and Economic Development of Economy 2010; 16(2): 159-172.
46. [46] Brauers WKM, Zavadskas EK. Project management by MULTIMOORA as an instrument for transition economies. Technological and Economic Development of Economy 2009; 15(1): 5-24.
47. [47] Ersoz F. Çok Kriterli Karar Verme problemlerinde MOORA yöntemi. YAEM 2011, 2011.
48. [48] Celikbilek Y. Çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri: Açıklamalı ve karşılaştırmalı sağlık bilimleri uygulamaları ile. Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık, 2018.
49. [49] Chakraborty S, Zavadskas EK, Antucheviciene J. Applications of WASPAS method as a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making tool. Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research 2015; 49(1): 5-22.
50. [50] Favardin P, Lepelley D, Serais J. Borda rule, Copeland method and strategic manipulation. Review of Economic Design 2002; 7(2): 213-228.
51. [51] Al-Sharrah G. Ranking using the Copeland score: A comparison with the Hasse diagram. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 2010; 50(5): 785-791.
52. [52] Hu YC. Recommendation using neighborhood methods with preference-relation-based similarity. Information Sciences 2014; 284: 18-30.
53. [53] Choi K, Yoo D, Kim G, Suh Y. A hybrid online-product recommendation system: Combining implicit rating-based collaborative filtering and sequential pattern analysis. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 2012; 11(4): 309-317.
54. [54] Tang Y, Tong Q. BordaRank: A ranking aggregation-based approach to collaborative filtering. 2016 IEEE/ACIS 15th International Conference on Computer Information Science (ICIS), 2016.
55. [55] Das J, Mukherjee P, Majumder S, Gupta P. Clustering-based recommender system using principles of voting theory. Proceedings of 2014 International Conference on Contemporary Computing and Informatics (IC3I), 2014: 230-235.
56. [56] Bailey D, Kohler MA, Cole-Rhodes A. Rank Aggregation of Dispersion Measure Ordering for Estimating Gaussian Mixture Model Language Recognition Performance. 2010 International Conference on Signal Image Processing, 2010: 135-138.