Sürdürülebilir Dengelenmiş Kurum Karnesi ile Depo Performans Ölçümü

Abstract

Günümüzde başarılı depo yönetimi işletmelerin rekabet avantajı elde edebilmesi için önemli bir unsurdur. Depo yönetiminin başarılı bir şekilde uygulanması için işletmelerin mevcut depolarının durumlarını analiz etmeleri, başarılı ve başarısız oldukları noktaları belirlemeleri gerekir. Performans ölçümü işletmelerin mevcut durumlarını değerlendirip, uygulama sonucuna göre gerekli aksiyonlar almalarına yardımcı olacaktır. Depoların performans ölçümünün yapılması ve sonuçların dikkate alınması işletmelerin daha iyi bir performansa ulaşmasını sağlayacaktır. Bu noktada işletmeler performanslarını ölçmek ve var olan performans ölçüm yöntemlerini geliştirmek amacıyla çeşitli yöntemler kullanmaktadırlar. Bu yöntemlerin sonucunda işletmeler performanslarını değerlendirerek eksik yönlerini belirler ve bu doğrultuda gerekli aksiyonları alırlar. Bu değerlendirmeler işletmelerin daha verimli çalışmalarına ve rekabet ortamında sürdürülebilir olmalarına katkı sağlayacaktır. Bu çalışmada bir lojistik firmasının üç deposunun performans ölçümü yapılmıştır. Depoların performansları geçmiş yıllara ait performanslarıyla kıyaslanmıştır. Çalışmada sürdürülebilir dengelenmiş kurum karnesi kullanılmış olup bu yöntemde belirlenen boyutlar toplum, çevre ve ekonomi boyutlarını birlikte ele almaktadır. Bulanık AHP yöntemiyle sürdürülebilir dengelenmiş kurum karnesi boyutlarının önem ağırlıkları belirlenmiştir. EDAS yöntemiyle uygulama yapılarak depolar performanslarına göre sıralanmıştır. Uygulama sonucunda değerlendirmeler yapılarak depoların geliştirilmesi gereken yönleri hakkında öneriler sunulmuştur.

Keywords

• Depo Performans
• Sürdürülebilirlik
• Dengelenmiş kurum karnesi
• Bulanık AHP
• EDAS

Warehouse Performance Measurement with Sustainable Balanced Scorecard

Abstract

Today, successful warehouse management is an important factor in the competitive advantage of organizations. In order to ensure successful warehouse management, businesses need to analyze their current situation and identify their successful and unsuccessful points. Performance measurement will help businesses evaluate their current situation and take the necessary actions according to the results of the implementation. Measuring the performance of the warehouses and considering the results will enable businesses to achieve a better performance. At this point, businesses use various methods to measure their performance and improve existing performance measurement methods. As a result of these methods, businesses evaluate their performance, identify their deficiencies and take the necessary actions in this direction. These evaluations will contribute to the more efficient work of enterprises and their sustainability in a competitive environment. In this study, the performance measurement of three warehouses of a logistics company was studied. The performances of the warehouses were compared with the performances of the previous years. Sustainable balanced scorecard was used in the study and the dimensions determined in this method deal with the society, environment and economy dimensions together. In the next step, the Fuzzy AHP method was used. The importance weights of the sustainable balanced scorecard dimensions were determined by the fuzzy AHP method. By applying the EDAS method, the warehouses are ranked according to their performance. As a result of the study, evaluations were made and suggestions were made about the aspects of the warehouses that should be developed.

Keywords

• Warehouse performance
• Sustainability
• Balanced Scorecard
• Fuzzy AHP
• EDAS

References

1. Abdul, D., Wenqi, J., Tanveer, A., & Sameeroddin, M. (2024). Comprehensive Analysis of Renewable Energy Technologies Adoption in Remote Areas Using the Integrated Delphi-Fuzzy AHP-VIKOR Approach. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 49(5), 7585-7610. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-023-08334-2
2. Acuña-Carvajal, F., Pinto-Tarazona, L., López-Ospina, H., Barros-Castro, R., Quezada, L., & Palacio, K. (2019). An integrated method to plan, structure and validate a business strategy using fuzzy DEMATEL and the balanced scorecard. Expert systems with applications, 122, 351-368. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2019.01.030
3. Aggarwal, A., Choudhary, C., & Mehrotra, D. (2018). Evaluation of smartphones in Indian market using EDAS. Procedia computer science, 132, 236-243. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.05.1
4. Agrawal, S., Singh, R. K., & Murtaza, Q. (2016). Outsourcing decisions in reverse logistics: Sustainable balanced scorecard and graph theoretic approach. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 108, 41-53. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.01.004
5. Akman, G., & Alkan, A. (2006). Tedarik Zinciri Yönetiminde Bulanık AHP yöntemi kullanılarak tedarikçilerin performansının ölçülmesi: Otomotiv Yan Sanayiinde bir uygulama. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 5(9), 23-46. Erişim: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/199475
6. Albayrak, Ö., & Erkayman, B. (2018). Bulanik Dematel ve EDAS yöntemleri kullanilarak sporcular için akilli bileklik seçimi. Ergonomi, 1(2), 92-102. doi: https://doi.org/10.33439/ergonomi.478303
7. Alidade, B., & Ghasemi, M. (2015). Ranking the branches of bank sepah of sistan baluchistan using balanced score card and fuzzy multi-attribute decision making methods. Research Journal of Recent Sciences. Erişim adresi: http://www.isca.me/rjrs/archive/v4/i1/3.ISCA-RJRS-2013-915.pdf
8. Akyurt, İ. Z., & Kabadayı, N. (2020). Bulanık AHP ve Bulanık Gri İlişkiler Analizi Yöntemleri ile Kargo Uçak Tipi Seçimi: Bir Türk Havayolu Firmasında Uygulama. Yaşar Üniversitesi E-Dergisi, 15(57), 38-55. doi: https://doi.org/10.19168/jyasar.609416

9. Boender, C. G. E., De Graan, J. G., & Lootsma, F. (1989). Multi-criteria decision analysis with fuzzy pairwise comparisons. Fuzzy sets and Systems, 29(2), 133-143. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(89)90187-5 Buckley, J. J. (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy sets and systems, 17(3), 233-247. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(85)90090-9
10. Çakir, E. (2018). Elektronik Belge Yönetim Sistemi (Ebys) Yazilimi Seçiminde Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri: Bir Belediye Örneği. Business Economics and Management Research Journal, 1(1), 15-30. Erişim adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/bemarej/issue/38762/434887
11. Cebeci, C. (2012). Lojistikte Dengeli Skor Kartinin Uygulanabilirliği: Teorik Çerçeve. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, (40), 21-41. Erişim adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/erciyesiibd/issue/5897/78013
12. Çinar, A., & Uygun, Ö. (2019). Sezgisel Bulanık AHP Yöntemiyle Yeşil Tedarikçi Seçimi. Journal of Intelligent Systems: Theory and Applications, 2(2), 24-31. doi: https://doi.org/10.38016/jista.515881
13. Chang, D. Y. (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European journal of operational research, 95(3), 649-655. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(95)00300-2
14. Darko, A. P., & Liang, D. (2020). Some q-rung orthopair fuzzy Hamacher aggregation operators and their application to multiple attribute group decision making with modified EDAS method. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 87, 103259. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2019.103259
15. De Koster, R., Le-Duc, T., & Roodbergen, K. J. (2007). Design and control of warehouse order picking: A literature review. European journal of operational research, 182(2), 481-501. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2006.07.009
16. Deng, D., Wen, S., Chen, F. H., & Lin, S. L. (2018). A hybrid multiple criteria decision making model of sustainability performance evaluation for Taiwanese Certified Public Accountant firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 180, 603-616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.107
17. Dias‐Sardinha, I., & Reijnders, L. (2005). Evaluating environmental and social performance of large Portuguese companies: a balanced scorecard approach. Business Strategy and the Environment, 14(2), 73-91. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.421
18. Dias-Sardinha, I., Reijnders, L., & Antunes, P. (2007). Developing sustainability balanced scorecards for environmental services: A study of three large Portuguese companies. Environmental Quality Management, 16(4). doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1002/tqem.20139
19. Dincer, H., Hacıoğlu, Ü., & Yüksel, S. (2020). Balanced scorecard-based performance assessment of Turkish banking sector with the Analytic Network Process (ANP). International Journal of Decision Sciences & Applications. doi: https://doi.org/10.20525/ijdsa.v1i1.1415
20. Dinçer, H. & Yüksel, S. "An Integrated Stochastic Fuzzy MCDM Approach To The Balanced Scorecard-Based Service Evaluation." Mathematics And Computers in Simulation 166, (2019), S. 93-112. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matcom.2019.04.008
21. Dožić, S., Lutovac, T., & Kalić, M. (2018). Fuzzy AHP approach to passenger aircraft type selection. Journal of air transport management, 68, 165-175. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2017.08.003
22. Ecer, F. (2018). Third-party logistics (3PLs) provider selection via Fuzzy AHP and EDAS integrated model. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 24(2), 615-634. Erişim adresi: https://jau.vgtu.lt/index.php/TEDE/article/view/110
23. Epstein, M. J., & Wisner, P. S. (2001). Using a balanced scorecard to implement sustainability. Environmental quality management, 11(2), 1-10. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/tqem.1300
24. Falle, S., Rauter, R., Engert, S., & Baumgartner, R. J. (2016). Sustainability management with the sustainability balanced scorecard in SMEs: Findings from an Austrian case study. Sustainability, 8(6), 545.
25. Ghorabaee, M.K., Zavadskas, E. K., Olfat, L., & Turskis, Z. (2015). Multi-criteria inventory classification using a new method of evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS). Informatica, 26(3), 435-451. Erişim adresi: https://content.iospress.com/articles/informatica/inf1070
26. Ghorabaee, M. K., Zavadskas, E. K., Amiri, M., & Turskis, Z. (2016). Extended EDAS method for fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making: an application to supplier selection. International journal of computers communications & control, 11(3), 358-371. Erişim adresi: https://www.univagora.ro/jour/index.php/ijccc/article/view/2557
27. Ghorabaee, M. K., Amiri, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Antucheviciene, J. (2017). A new hybrid simulation-based assignment approach for evaluating airlines with multiple service quality criteria. Journal of Air Transport Management, 63, 45-60. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2017.05.008
28. Ghorabaee, M. K., Amiri, M., Zavadskas, E. K., & Antucheviciene, J. (2018). A new hybrid fuzzy MCDM approach for evaluation of construction equipment with sustainability considerations. Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 18, 32-49. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acme.2017.04.011
29. Göksu, A., & Güngör, İ. (2008). Bulanik analitik hiyerarşik proses ve üniversite tercih siralamasinda uygulanmasi. Suleyman Demirel Univ J Fac Econ Adm Sci, 13(3), 1-26. Erişim: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/35314605.pdf
30. Hsu, C. W., Hu, A. H., Chiou, C. Y., & Chen, T. C. (2011). Using the FDM and ANP to construct a sustainability balanced scorecard for the semiconductor industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(10), 12891-12899. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.08
31. Hsu, C. H., Chang, A. Y., & Luo, W. (2017). Identifying key performance factors for sustainability development of SMEs–integrating QFD and fuzzy MADM methods. Journal of cleaner production, 161, 629-645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.063
32. Kabir, G., & Sumi, R. S. (2014). Power substation location selection using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and PROMETHEE: A case study from Bangladesh. Energy, 72, 717-730. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.05.098
33. Kang, J. S., Chiang, C. F., Huangthanapan, K., & Downing, S. (2015). Corporate social responsibility and sustainability balanced scorecard: The case study of family-owned hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 48, 124-134. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.05.001
34. Karabasevic, D., Zavadskas, E. K., Stanujkic, D., Popovic, G., & Brzakovic, M. (2018). An approach to personnel selection in the IT industry based on the EDAS method. Transformations in Business & Economics, 17, 54-65. Erişim adresi: https://etalpykla.lituanistika.lt/object/LT-LDB-0001:J.04~2018~1580310756787/
35. Karakiş, E. (2019). Bulanık AHP ve bulanık TOPSIS ile bütünleşik karar destek modeli önerisi: Özel okullarda öğretmen seçimi. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, (53), 112-137. doi: https://doi.org/10.18070/erciyesiibd.414655
36. Lei, F., Wei, G., Shen, W., & Guo, Y. (2022). PDHL-EDAS method for multiple attribute group decision making and its application to 3D printer selection. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 28(1), 179-200. doi: https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2021.15884
37. Lin, M. H., Hu, J., Tseng, M. L., Chiu, A. S., & Lin, C. (2016). Sustainable development in technological and vocational higher education: Balanced scorecard measures with uncertainty. Journal of Cleaner Production, 120, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.054
38. Liou, T. S., & Wang, M. J. J. (1992). Ranking fuzzy numbers with integral value. Fuzzy sets and systems, 50(3), 247-255. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(92)90223-Q
39. Liu, Y., Eckert, C. M., & Earl, C. (2020). A review of fuzzy AHP methods for decision-making with subjective judgements. Expert Systems with Applications, 161, 113738. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113738
40. Lu, I. Y., Kuo, T., Lin, T. S., Tzeng, G. H., & Huang, S. L. (2016). Multicriteria decision analysis to develop effective sustainable development strategies for enhancing competitive advantages: Case of the TFT-LCD industry in Taiwan. Sustainability, 8(7), 646. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su8070646
41. Medel-González, F., García-Ávila, L. F., Salomon, V. A. P., Marx-Gómez, J., & Hernández, C. T. (2016). Sustainability performance measurement with Analytic Network Process and balanced scorecard: Cuban practical case. Production, 26, 527-539. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0103-6513.189315
42. Möller, A., & Schaltegger, S. (2005). The sustainability balanced scorecard as a framework for eco‐efficiency analysis. Journal of industrial ecology, 9(4), 73-83. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/108819805775247927
43. Nikolaou, I. E., & Tsalis, T. A. (2013). Development of a sustainable balanced scorecard framework. Ecological Indicators, 34, 76-86. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.04.005
44. Noori, B. (2015). Prioritizing strategic business units in the face of innovation performance: Combining fuzzy AHP and BSC. International Journal of Business and Management, 3(1), 36-56. doi: https://doi.org/10.20472/BM.2015.3.1.003
45. Osati, M., & Manouchehr, M. (2016). Performance measurement of electricity suppliers using PROMETHEE and balance scorecard. Management science letters, 6(6), 387-394. doi: https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2016.4.007
46. Özbek, A., & Engür, M. (2018). EDAS yöntemi ile lojistik firma web sitelerinin değerlendirilmesi. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Meslek Yüksekokulu Dergisi, 21(2), 417-429. doi: https://doi.org/10.29249/selcuksbmyd.454013
47. Özbek, A. (2019). Türkiye’deki İllerin EDAS ve WASPAS Yöntemleri İle Yaşanabilirlik Kriterlerine Göre Sıralanması. Kırıkkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(1), 177-200. Erişim adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/kusbd/issue/42808/478334
48. Öztemiz, H. H., & Karaa, İ. E. (2017). Lojistik Firmalarinda Performans Ölçümü: Tek Skorlu Dengelenmiş Skor Kart Ve Markov Zincirleri Analizi: Sertel Lojistik Örneği. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 19(2), 249-286. doi: https://doi.org/10.16953/deusbed.45128
49. Özyörük, B., Şirin, Y., Yoksulabakan, T., Şanver, M., & Saraç, M. A. (2014). Performans ölçümünde dengelenmiş skor kart ve analitik hiyerarşi prosesi entegrasyonu. TÜBAV Bilim Dergisi, 7(1), 7-28. Erişim adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/200975
50. Rabbani, A., Zamani, M., Yazdani-Chamzini, A., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2014). Proposing a new integrated model based on sustainability balanced scorecard (SBSC) and MCDM approaches by using linguistic variables for the performance evaluation of oil producing companies. Expert systems with applications, 41(16), 7316-7327. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.05.023
51. Radwan, N. M., Elstohy, R., & Hanna, W. K. (2021). A Proposed Method for Multi-Criteria Group Decision Making: An Application to Site Selection. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 35(7), 505-519.
52. Raut, R., Cheikhrouhou, N., & Kharat, M. (2017). Sustainability in the banking industry: A strategic multi‐criterion analysis. Business strategy and the environment, 26(4), 550-568. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1946
53. Rostami, M., Goudarzi, A., & Zaj, M. (2015). Defining balanced scorecard aspects in banking industry using FAHP approach. International Journal of Economics and Business Administration, 1(1), 25-38. Erişim adresi: https://fdocuments.us/document/defining-balanced-scorecard-aspects-in-banking-industry-using-.html?page=1
54. Quezada, L. E., Reinao, E. A., Palominos, P. I., & Oddershede, A. M. (2019). Measuring performance using SWOT analysis and balanced scorecard. Procedia Manufacturing, 39, 786-793. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2020.01.430
55. Saaty, T. L. (1994). How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Interfaces, 24(6), 19-43. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1287/inte.24.6.19
56. Sardinha, I. D., Reijnders, L., & Antunes, P. (2011). Using corporate social responsibility benchmarking framework to identify and assess corporate social responsibility trends of real estate companies owning and developing shopping centres. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(13), 1486-1493. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.04.011
57. Schitea, D., Deveci, M., Iordache, M., Bilgili, K., Akyurt, I. Z., & Iordache, I. (2019). Hydrogen mobility roll-up site selection using intuitionistic fuzzy sets based WASPAS, COPRAS and EDAS. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 44(16), 8585-8600. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.02.011
58. Şengül, D., Cağıl, G., & Ardalı, Z. (2021). Bulanık SWARA ve Aralık Değerli Sezgisel Bulanık AHP Yöntemi ile İş Değerlemesi. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Dergisi, 28(2), 243-263. doi: https://doi.org/10.18657/yonveek.731727
59. Shaverdi, M., Akbari, M., & Tafti, S. F. (2011). Combining fuzzy MCDM with BSC approach in performance evaluation of Iranian private banking sector. Advances in fuzzy Systems, 2011, 1-12. doi: https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/148712
60. Srichetta, P., & Thurachon, W. (2012). Applying fuzzy analytic hierarchy process to evaluate and select product of notebook computers. International Journal of Modeling and Optimization, 2(2), 168. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.7763/IJMO.2012.V2.105
61. Stock, J. R., & Lambert, D. M. (2001). Strategic logistics management (Vol. 4). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
62. Toklu, M. C., Bozkurt, İ., & Sekmen, B. (2020). Bulanık AHP ve bulanık WASPAS yaklaşımı ile kaizen öneri sistemi değerlendirme modeli. Academic Platform-Journal of Engineering and Science, 8(1), 128-138. doi: https://doi.org/10.21541/apjes.579084
63. Tsai, F. M., Bui, T. D., Tseng, M. L., Wu, K. J., & Chiu, A. S. (2020). A performance assessment approach for integrated solid waste management using a sustainable balanced scorecard approach. Journal of cleaner production, 251, 119740. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119740
64. Tsalis, T. A., Nikolaou, I. E., Grigoroudis, E., & Tsagarakis, K. P. (2013). A framework development to evaluate the needs of SMEs in order to adopt a sustainability-balanced scorecard. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 10(3-4), 179-197. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1943815X.2013.858751
65. Ulutaş, A. (2017). EDAS yöntemi kullanılarak bir tekstil atölyesi için dikiş makinesi seçimi. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(2), 169-183. doi: https://doi.org/10.20491/isarder.2017.266
66. Ulutaş, A. (2018). Entropi Tabanli Edas Yöntemi ile Lojistik Firmalarinin Performans Analizi. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, (23), 53-66. doi: https://doi.org/10.18092/ulikidince.458754
67. Ulutaş, A., & Çelik, D. (2019). Transpalet seçimi probleminin AHP ve EDAS yöntemleri ile değerlendirilmesi. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 7(2), 668-686. Erişim Adresi: https://www.bmij.org/index.php/1/article/view/1028
68. Van Laarhoven, P. J., & Pedrycz, W. (1983). A fuzzy extension of Saaty's priority theory. Fuzzy sets and Systems, 11(1-3), 229-241. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(83)80082-7.
69. Vatansever, K., & Uluköy, M. (2013). Kurumsal kaynak planlaması sistemlerinin bulanık ahp ve bulanık moora yöntemleriyle seçimi: Üretim sektöründe bir uygulama. Manisa Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 11(2), 274-293. Erişim adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/cbayarsos/issue/4064/53561
70. Yıldırım, B., & Önay, O. (2013). Bulut Teknolojisi Firmalarinin Bulanik AHP–MOORA Yöntemi Kullanilarak Siralanmasi. İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi İşletme İktisadı Enstitüsü Yönetim Dergisi, 24(75), 59-81. Erişim adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/iuiieyd/issue/9206/115578
71. Wang, Y. M., Luo, Y., & Hua, Z. (2008). On the extent analysis method for fuzzy AHP and its applications. European journal of operational research, 186(2), 735-747. doi : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2007.01.050
72. Zadeh, L.A., 1965. Fuzzy Sets, Information and Control, vol. 8, pp. 338-353. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X
73. Zhao, H., & Li, N. (2015). Evaluating the performance of thermal power enterprises using sustainability balanced scorecard, fuzzy Delphic and hybrid multi-criteria decision making approaches for sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 569-582. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.141
74. Zingales, F. G., O’Rourke, A., & Hockerts, K. (1996). Sustainability balanced scorecard state of the art review. Business Review. Erişim adresi: https://flora.insead.edu/fichiersti_wp/inseadwp2002/2002-65.pdf