Comparing Sustainability in Türkiye and G7 Countries: A Novel Hybrid Method Entropy-ARTASI

Abstract

In recent years, the growing importance of sustainability has become increasingly apparent, driven by concerns over air pollution from fossil fuels and the need to leave a habitable world for future generations. Addressing these challenges requires a robust understanding of countries’ sustainability performance across environmental, social, and economic dimensions. This study aims to evaluate and compare Türkiye and G7 countries using sustainability data from the World Economic Forum’s The Future Growth Report 2024. Employing a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) framework, the Entropy and ARTASI (Alternative ranking technique based on adaptive standardized intervals) methods are combined to conduct a systematic and data-driven analysis. Entropy is used to objectively weigh sustainability criteria, ARTASI ranks the countries based on these criteria. This analysis highlights Türkiye’s position compared to G7 countries and suggests potential policy adjustments for enhancing sustainable growth. In conclusion it’s found that Türkiye ranked seventh among the G7 countries. And the “Green Patents Total” criterion is selected as the most important. And the sensitivity analysis shows applicability and robustness of the analysis.

Keywords

• Sustainability
• WEF Report
• Entropy Method
• ARTASI

Türkiye ve G7 Ülkelerinin Sürdürülebilirlik Karşılaştırması: Yeni Bir Hibrit Yöntem Entropi-ARTASI

Abstract

Son yıllarda, sürdürülebilirliğin artan önemi, fosil yakıtlardan kaynaklanan hava kirliliği ve gelecek nesillere yaşanabilir bir dünya bırakma gerekliliğiyle daha belirgin hale gelmiştir. Bu zorlukların üstesinden gelmek, ülkelerin çevresel, sosyal ve ekonomik boyutlar açısından sürdürülebilirlik performanslarını sağlam bir şekilde anlamayı gerektirmektedir. Bu çalışma, Dünya Ekonomik Forumu’nun Geleceğin Büyüme Raporu 2024 verilerini kullanarak Türkiye ve G7 ülkelerini değerlendirmeyi ve karşılaştırmayı amaçlamaktadır. Çalışmada, çok kriterli karar verme (MCDM) çerçevesi uygulanmış ve Entropi ile ARTASI (Alternatiflerin uyarlanabilir standart aralıklara dayalı sıralama tekniği) yöntemleri birleştirilerek sistematik ve veri odaklı bir analiz gerçekleştirilmiştir. Entropi, sürdürülebilirlik kriterlerine objektif ağırlık atamak için kullanılırken, ARTASI bu kriterlere göre ülkeleri sıralamıştır. Analiz, Türkiye’nin G7 ülkelerine kıyasla konumunu vurgulamakta ve sürdürülebilir büyümeyi artırmaya yönelik olası politika düzenlemelerini önermektedir. Sonuç olarak, Türkiye G7 ülkeleri arasında yedinci sırada yer almaktadır. “Toplam Yeşil Patent” kriteri ise en önemli kriter olarak tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca, duyarlılık analizi, yöntemin uygulanabilirliğini ve sağlamlığını ortaya koymaktadır.

Keywords

• Sürdürülebilirlik
• WEF Raporu
• Entropi Yöntemi
• ARTASI

References

1. Alidrisi, H. (2021, April). Development of a global sustainability index for G8+ 5 countries by using TOPSIS. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Sao Paulo, Brazil (pp. 5-8).
2. Aydin, C. I. (2019). Identifying ecological distribution conflicts around the inter-regional flow of energy in Turkey: a mapping exercise. Frontiers in energy research, 7, 33. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2019.00033
3. Aytekin, A. (2022). Energy, environment, and sustainability: A multi-criteria evaluation of countries. Strategic planning for energy and the environment, 281-316. https://doi.org/10.13052/spee1048-5236.4133
4. Bošković, S., Švadlenka, L., Dobrodolac, M., Jovčić, S., & Zanne, M. (2023). An extended AROMAN method for cargo bike delivery concept selection. Decision Making Advances, 1(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.31181/v120231
5. Çelen, A. (2014). Comparative analysis of normalization procedures in TOPSIS method: with an application to Turkish deposit banking market. Informatica, 25(2), 185-208. https://doi.org/10.15388/Informatica.2014.10 Chasek, P. S. (2018). Global environmental politics. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429495236
6. Chilvers, J., Foxon, T. J., Galloway, S., Hammond, G. P., Infield, D., Leach, M., ... & Thomson, M. (2017). Realising transition pathways for a more electric, low-carbon energy system in the United Kingdom: Challenges, insights and opportunities. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part A: Journal of Power and Energy, 231(6), 440-477. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650917695448
7. Climate Transparency. (2022). Turkey Country Profile 2022. https://www.climate-transparency.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/CT2022-Turkey-Web.pdf#page=6_blank Durmaz, E. D., & Gölcük, İ. (2023). Entropi tabanlı TOPSIS-Sort ile iş güvenliği risklerinin sınıflandırılması. Journal of Turkish Operations Management, 7(1), 1550-1563. https://doi.org/10.56554/jtom.1258801
8. Duru, F. (2024). Integrating Pathways: Exploring the Evolution and Convergence of Science and Technology Policies in the European Union and Turkiye (2000-2020) (Master's thesis, Middle East Technical University (Turkey)).

9. Ecer, F., Pamucar, D., Zolfani, S. H., & Eshkalag, M. K. (2019). Sustainability assessment of OPEC countries: Application of a multiple attribute decision making tool. Journal of Cleaner Production, 241, 118324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118324
10. Fernandez, R. (2018). The effects of the international economic crisis on Spain’s environmental policy. The impact of the economic crisis on European environmental policy, 152-74.
11. Frank, S. T. (2015). Carbon emission policy in the United States: State patchwork vs. national policy. City University of New York.
12. Giannetti, B. F., Sevegnani, F., Almeida, C. M., Agostinho, F., García, R. R. M., & Liu, G. (2019). Five sector sustainability model: A proposal for assessing sustainability of production systems. Ecological Modelling, 406, 98-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2019.06.004
13. Gökgöz, F., & Yalçin, E. (2022). Sustainability of G20 Countries within Environmental and Energy Perspectives. Present Environment & Sustainable Development, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.47743/pesd2022162010
14. Guliyev, M. (2024). Türkiye’s Energy Security Challenges: A Theoretical Aspects Of Shifting From Hydrocarbons to Renewables. Journal of European Economy, 23(4), 635-653. https://doi.org/10.35774/jee2024.04.635
15. Häbel, S., & Hakala, E. (2021). Policy coherence for sustainable development and environmental security: A case study of European Union policies on renewable energy. Environmental policy and governance, 31(6), 633-646. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1962
16. Hariram, N. P., Mekha, K. B., Suganthan, V., & Sudhakar, K. (2023). Sustainalism: An integrated socio-economic-environmental model to address sustainable development and sustainability. Sustainability, 15(13), 10682. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310682
17. Harrison, K., & Bang, G. (2022). Supply-side climate policies in major oil-producing countries: Norway’s and Canada’s struggles to align climate leadership with fossil fuel extraction. Global Environmental Politics, 22(4), 129-150. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00682
18. Karahan, M., Yıldırım, Z., & Yıldırım, T. (2025). Comparative analysis of Türkiye’s environmental performance with Eastern European countries according to international EPI 2022 data. Green Technologies and Sustainability, 3(1), 100116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.grets.2024.100116
19. Karagöz, G. N. (2019). Renewable energy in Turkey: a cleaner, self-sufficient alternative to coal. PQDT-Global. Krüger, T. (2022). The German energy transition and the eroding consensus on ecological modernization: A radical democratic perspective on conflicts over competing justice claims and energy visions. Futures, 136, 102899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2021.102899
20. Kuzma S., Saccoccia L., Chertock M. (2023) 25 Countries, Housing One-Quarter of the Population, Face Extremely High Water Stress, https://www.wri.org/insights/highest-water-stressed-countries Martín, C. J., & Carnero, M. C. (2019). Evaluation of sustainable development in European Union Countries. Applied Sciences, 9(22), 4880. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9224880
21. OECD. (2025). OECD Economic Surveys: Türkiye 2053 (EN): Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2025/04/oecd-economic-surveys-turkiye-2025_fa62886d/d01c660f-en.pdf
22. Onwuka, O. U., & Adu, A. (2024). Technological synergies for sustainable resource discovery: Enhancing energy exploration with carbon management. Engineering Science & Technology Journal, 5(4), 1203-1213. https://doi.org/10.51594/estj.v5i4.996
23. Özkan, O., Degirmenci, T., Destek, M. A., & Aydin, M. (2024). Unlocking time-quantile impact of energy vulnerability, financial development, and political globalization on environmental sustainability in Türkiye: evidence from different pollution indicators. Journal of Environmental Management, 365, 121499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.121499
24. Öztürk, T., & Durak, İ. N. (2024). EU Environmental Policies in the Context of Green Theory and Türkiye's adaptation process. Alanya Akademik Bakış, 8(1), 224-226. https://doi.org/10.29023/alanyaakademik.1324780
25. Pamucar, D., Simic, V., Görçün, Ö. F., & Küçükönder, H. (2024). Selection of the best Big Data platform using COBRAC-ARTASI methodology with adaptive standardized intervals. Expert Systems with Applications, 239, 122312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.122312
26. Pata, U. K., Kartal, M. T., Erdogan, S., & Sarkodie, S. A. (2023). The role of renewable and nuclear energy R&D expenditures and income on environmental quality in Germany: Scrutinizing the EKC and LCC hypotheses with smooth structural changes. Applied Energy, 342, 121138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.121138
27. Raihan, A., Rahman, J., Tanchangtya, T., Ridwan, M., & Islam, S. (2024). An overview of the recent development and prospects of renewable energy in Italy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy, 2(2), 0008. https://doi.org/10.55092/rse20240008
28. Rees, W. E. (2021). Achieving Sustainability: Reform or Transformation?. In The Earthscan reader in sustainable cities (pp. 22-52). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1177/088541229500900402
29. Ridwan, M., Raihan, A., Ahmad, S., Karmakar, S., & Paul, P. (2023). Environmental sustainability in France: The role of alternative and nuclear energy, natural resources, and government spending. Journal of Environmental and Energy Economics, 2(2), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.56946/jeee.v2i2.343
30. Sancar, C. (2017). 14| Urbanization in Turkey in terms of Globalization and Environmental Problems. Logic of Our Age: The Individual and Society in the Market’s Grasp, 263.
31. Senir, G. (2024). Evaluation of the environmental sustainability performance of Eastern European countries with integrated MCDM methods. International Journal of Agriculture Environment and Food Sciences, 8(2), 378-391. https://doi.org/10.31015/jaefs.2024.2.13
32. Siksnelyte, I., Zavadskas, E. K., Bausys, R., & Streimikiene, D. (2019). Implementation of EU energy policy priorities in the Baltic Sea Region countries: Sustainability assessment based on neutrosophic MULTIMOORA method. Energy policy, 125, 90-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.10.013
33. Stecyk, A. (2019). The AHP-TOPSIS model in the analysis of the countries sustainable development in the West Pomeranian Province in 2010 and 2017. Journal of Ecological Engineering, 20(7). DOI https://doi.org/10.12911/22998993/109870
34. Stević, Ž., Pamučar, D., Puška, A., & Chatterjee, P. (2020). Sustainable supplier selection in healthcare industries using a new MCDM method: Measurement of alternatives and ranking according to COmpromise solution (MARCOS). Computers & industrial engineering, 140, 106231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.106231
35. Stojčić, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Pamučar, D., Stević, Ž., & Mardani, A. (2019). Application of MCDM methods in sustainability engineering: A literature review 2008–2018. Symmetry, 11(3), 350. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11030350
36. T.C. Ticaret Bakanlığı. (2021). Yeşil Mutabakat Eylem Planı. https://ticaret.gov.tr/data/60f1200013b876eb28421b23/MUTABAKAT%20YE%C5%9E%C4%B0L.pdf Thiele, L. P. (2024). Sustainability. John Wiley & Sons.
37. Tutak, M. (2021). Using MCDM methods to assess the extent to which the European union countries use renewable energy. Multidisciplinary Aspects of Production Engineering, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.2478/mape-2021-0017
38. TÜİK. (2023). Su ve Atık Su İstatistikleri. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. https://www.tuik.gov.tr
39. Wang, T. C., Lee, H. D., 2009, Developing a fuzzy TOPSIS approach based on subjective weights and objective weights, Expert systems with applications, 36(5), 8980-8985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.11.035 Wang,
40. J., & Azam, W. (2024). Natural resource scarcity, fossil fuel energy consumption, and total greenhouse gas emissions in top emitting countries. Geoscience Frontiers, 15(2), 101757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2023.101757 World Economic Forum (2024), The Future of Growth Report 2024,
41. https://www.weforum.org/publications/the-future-of-growth-report/ Yeldan, A. E. (2023). Turkey: Challenges and strategies toward de-carbonization and sustainable development under the age of finance. The Japanese Political Economy, 49(2-3), 183-211. https://doi.org/10.1080/2329194X.2023.2259948