Kurumsal Yönetim Olgunluk Düzeyi Performansının Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleriyle Değerlendirilmesi

Year 2024, Issue: 101, 45 - 66, 23.01.2024

Abdullah Kılıçarslan

https://doi.org/10.25095/mufad.1326778

Abstract

Borsa İstanbul’da kurumsal yönetim standart ve ilkelerinin şirketler bazında performans başarısı, Kurumsal Yönetim Olgunluk Düzeyi’nin ölçülebilirliğiyle ortaya konulmaktadır. Kurumsal yönetim ilke ve standartlarının uygulamaya konu olduğu piyasa ve sektörlerin spesifik özellikleri, kurumsal yönetimin başarısını etkileyen temel faktörler arasında sayılabilir. Dolayısıyla n farklı risk değişkeninin kurumsal yönetim üzerindeki etkisini ölçümlemek, çok kriterli bir karar problemidir. Bu çalışmada, Merkezi Kayıt Kuruluşu tarafından kamuoyuyla paylaşılan 2018-2022 dönemlerine ait Kurumsal Yönetim Olgunluk
Düzeyi verileri kullanılmış olup, Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri (ÇKKV) ile şirket gruplarının Kurumsal Yönetim Olgunluk Düzeyi performansları analiz edilmiştir. Kriterlerin ağırlıklandırılmasında CRITIC yöntemi, alternatif sıralamalarında ise WASPAS, MARCOS ve COCOSO yöntemleri kullanılmıştır. Yöntemlerin sıralama sonuçları arasındaki ilişkiler, Spearman korelasyon yöntemi kullanılarak belirlenmiştir. WASPAS ve MARCOS yöntem sıralama sonuçları arasındaki korelasyon düzeyinin yüksek olduğu tespit edilmiştir. WASPAS, MARCOS ve COCOSO yöntemleriyle elde edilen sıralama sonuçlarının, genel olarak Merkezi Kayıt Kuruluşu tarafından hesaplanan genel başarı puan ve sıralamaları ile farklılaştığı görülmüştür.

Keywords

Kurumsal Yönetim Olgunluk Düzeyi, Marcos Yöntemi, Cocoso Yöntemi, Waspas Yöntemi

Evaluation of Corporate Governance Maturity Level Performance through Multicriteria Decision Making Methods

Abstract

The performance success of corporate governance standards and policies in Borsa İstanbul is demonstrated by the scalability of the corporate governance maturity level. The specific features of the markets and industries on which corporate governance principles and standards are implementation are cited as key factors affecting the success of corporate governance. Thus, measuring the effect of most different risk variables on corporate governance is a multi-criteria decision problem. In this study, the Corporate Governance Maturity Level data for the periods 2018-2022, which are publicly disclosed by the Merkezi Kayıt Kuruluşu, are used and the performance of the Corporate Governance Maturity Level of the company groups are analysed through Multicriteria Decision Making Methods. The CRITIC method was used to weigh the criteria, while the WASPAS, MARCOS, and COCOSO methods were used in their alternate rankings. Relationships between the ranking results of methods are determined using the Spearman correlation method. The correlation level between WASPAS and MARCOS method ranking results has been found to be high. The ranking results obtained through the WASPAS, MARCOS, and COCOSO methods have been found to differentiate between overall success scores and rankings calculated by the Merkezi Kayıt Kuruluşu.

Keywords

Maturity Level of Corporate Governance, Marcos Method, Cocoso Method, Waspas Method

References

• Alinezhad, A. - Khalili, J. (2019), “Dematel Method, International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: New Methods and Applications in Multiple Attribute Decision Making (MADM)", Springer, 277, pp. 103-108.
• Al-Zwyalif, I. M. (2015), “The Role of Internal Control in Enhancing Corporate Governance: Evidence from Jordan”, International Journal of Business and Management, 10(7), pp. 57-66.
• Arıkan, E. (2022), “Kurumsal Yönetim Olgunluk Düzeyini Etkileyen Faktörler ve Dijital Olgunluk Düzeyinin Analizi: Borsa İstanbul’da İşlem Gören Şirketler Üzerine Araştırma”, (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi), İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
• Arsu, T. - Ayçin, E. (2021), “Evaluation of OECD countries with multi-criteria decisionmaking methods in terms of economic, social and environmental Aspects”, Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 4(2), pp. 55-78.
• Black, B. - De Carvalho, A. G. - Khanna, V. - Kim, W. - Yurtoglu, B. (2020), “Which Aspects of Corporate Governance Do and Do Not Matter in Emerging Markets”, Journal of Law, Finance, and Accounting, 5(1), pp. 137-177.
• Botelho, M. (2022), “Analyzing the AHP Priority Vectors: Going Beyond Inconsistency Indexes”, IJAHP, 4(2), pp. 1-19.
• Chakraborty, S. - Zavadskas, E. K. (2014), “Applications of Waspas Method in Manufacturing Decision Making”, Informatica, 25(1), pp. 1-20.
• Deloitte, T. (2010), “The centre for corporate governance: Board Leadership” Deloitte & Touche LLP Internal Audit Professionals. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/in/Documents/risk/Board%20of%20 Directors/in-gc-board-leadership-services-noexp.pdf (01.04.2023).
• Durisin, B., - Puzone, F. (2009), “Maturation of Corporate Governance Research, 1993-2007: An Assessment”, Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(3), pp. 266-291.
• Esen, S. - Yilmaz, N. N. (2015), “Examination Of Corporate Governance Criteria For Companies Listed in Istanbul Stock Exchange 100 Index”, Research Journal of Business and Management, 2(3), pp. 220-237.
• Keleş, Y. (2015), “İnsan Kaynakları Yönetiminin Tarihi Gelişimi”. E. Pelit (Ed), Turizm İşletmelerinde İnsan Kaynakları Yönetimi içinde (ss. 17-43). Ankara: Grafiker Yayınları.
• Koçyiğit, M. - Tekel, E. - Karadağ, E. (2018), “Eğitimde Ahlâk ve Etik”. Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
• Koutoupis A. G. - Pappa, E. (2018), “Corporate governance and internal controls: a case study from Greece”, Journal of Governance & Regulation, 7(2), pp. 91-99.
• Krishnan, A. R. - Hamid, R. - Kasim, M. M. (2020), “An Unsupervised Technique to Estimate Λ0-Fuzzy Measure Values and Its Application to Multi-Criteria Decision Making”. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE 7th international Conference on Industrial Engineering and Applications (ICIEA), Bangkok, Thailand, 16-21 April 2020; pp. 969-973.
• Krishnan, A. R. - Kasim, M. M. - Hamid, R. - Ghazali, M. F. (2021). A modified CRITIC Method to Estimate the Objective Weights of Decision Criteria, Symmetry, 13, 973.
• Massie, R. (2012), “Key Identifiers of Corporate Governance Maturity: A Literature Review”, 10th EuropeanAcademic Conferenceon Internal Audit and Corporate Governance, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
• Mestanza, J. G. - Bakhat, R. (2023), “An integrated CRITIC-VIKOR Model for Overtourism Assessment in Spain: Post-COVID-19 Sustainable Actions”, International Journal of Multicriteria Decision Making, 9(2), pp. 87-107.
• MKK (2023), “Kurumsal Yönetim Olgunluk Düzeyi Hesaplama Kuralları”, https://www.vap.org.tr/sites/default/files/2023-06/kurumsal-yonetim-olgunluk-duzeyikurallari_1.pdf (10.06.2023)
• Mukhametzyanov, I. (2021), “Specific Character of Objective Methods for Determining Weights of Criteria in MCDM Problems: Entropy, CRITIC and SD”, Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 4(2), pp. 76-105.
• Özcan, M., (2021), “Türk Bankacılık Sektörünün Finansal Performans Göstergeleri: BIST Mali Sektörü Üzerine Bir Araştırma”, Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 35(2), ss. 389-406.
• Peng, X. - Zhang, X. - Luo, Z. (2020), “Pythagorean Fuzzy MCDM Method Based on CoCoSo and CRITIC with Score Function for 5G Industry Evaluation”, Artif. Intell. Rev., 53, pp. 3813-3847.
• Rehman, A. - Hashim, F. (2018), “Corporate Governance Maturity and its Related Measurement Framework”, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Accounting Studies (ICAS 2018)16-17 October 2018, Penang, Malaysia.
• Rezaee, Z. (Ed.) (2012), “Corporate Governance Post–Sarbanes Oxley, Regulations, Requirements, and Integrated Processes”, Hoboken:John Wiley&Sons.
• Saygili, A. T. - Saygili, E. - Taran, A. (2021), “The effects of corporate governance practices on firm-level financial performance: Evidence from Borsa Istanbul XKURY companies”, Journal of Business Economics and Management, 22(4), pp. 884-904.
• Stevic, Z. - Pamucar, D. - Puska, 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)”, Comput. Ind. Eng., 140 (2020), pp. 1-33.
• Tien, D. H. - Trung, D. D. - Nguyen, V. T. (2022), “Comparison of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods Using The Same Data Standardization Method”, Strojnícky časopis -Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 72(2), pp. 57-72.
• Trung, D. D. (2022), “Multi-criteria Decision Making under the MARCOS Method and the Weighting Methods: Applied to Milling, Grinding and Turning Processes”, Manufacturing Review, 9(3), pp. 1-13.
• Trung, D. D. - Son, N. H. - Hieu, T. T. - Uyen, V. T. N. (2023), “Doe-MARCOS: A New Approach to Multi-Criteria Decision Making”, Journal of Applied Engineering Science, 21(1), pp. 263-274.
• Wilkinson, N. (2014), “A Framework for Organisational Governance Maturity: An Internal Audit Perspective”, (PhD Thesis), University of Pretoria, South Africa.
• Yazdani, M. - Zarate, P. - Kazimieras Zavadskas, E. - Turskis, Z. (2019), “A Combined Compromise Solution (CoCoSo) Method for Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Problems”, Management Decision, 57(9), pp. 2501-2519.
• Yılmaz, H. – Yakut, E. (2023), “COVID-19 Pandemisinin BİST Turizm Endeksi İşletmelerinin Finansal Performanslarına Etkisinin CRITIC Tabanlı COPRAS ve PROMETHEE Yöntemleri ile İncelenmesi”, Sosyoekonomi, 31(58), pp. 249-276
• Zahra, S. - Pearce, J. (1989), “Boards of Directors and Corporate Financial Performance: A Review and Integrative Model”, Journal of Management, 15(2), pp. 291-34.
• Zavadskas, E. K. - Turskis, Z. - Antucheviciene, J. - Zakarevicius, A. (2012), “Optimization of Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment”, Elektronika ir Elektrotechnika, 122(6), pp. 3-6.
• Zolfani S. H.- Aghdaie M. H. - Derakhti A. - Zavadskas E. K. V. – Varzandeh, M. H. M. (2013), “Decision Making on Business Issues with Foresight Perspective; An Application of New Hybrid MCDM Model in Shopping Mall Locating”, Expert Systems With Applications, 40(17), pp. 7111-7121.
• Zolfani, S. H. - Maknoon, R. - Zavadskas, E. K. (2016), “An Introduction to Prospective Multiple Attribute Decision Making (PMADM)”, Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 22(2), pp. 309-326.