İmalat sektöründe net-sıfır emisyon için enerji dönüşüm stratejilerinin bütünleşik karar verme modeliyle değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Arka Plan—Bu çalışma, net sıfır emisyon hedeflerine ulaşmak için imalat sektöründe uygulanabilecek enerji dönüşüm stratejilerinin önceliklendirilmesini stratejik bir karar problemi olarak ele almaktadır. Artan sanayileşme ve ekonomik büyüme, enerji tüketimi ve karbon emisyonlarını önemli ölçüde artırmış; bu durum, imalat sektörünü net sıfır hedeflerine ulaşmada öncelikli bir alan hâline getirmiştir. Bu bağlamda, enerji dönüşüm stratejilerinin doğru şekilde belirlenmesi, çevresel sürdürülebilirlik ve ekonomik rekabet gücü açısından büyük önem taşımaktadır. Ancak enerji dönüşümü süreci; ekonomik, teknik, çevresel ve düzenleyici kriterlerin bir arada değerlendirildiği, çok boyutlu ve çoğu zaman çelişkili karar problemleri içermektedir. Mevcut çalışmalar genellikle bu kriterleri bütüncül bir çerçevede ele almakta yetersiz kalmakta ve stratejilerin sistematik biçimde önceliklendirilmesine yönelik sınırlı yaklaşımlar sunmaktadır. Bu nedenle, imalat sektöründe net sıfır hedeflerine yönelik enerji dönüşüm stratejilerinin bütünleşik ve yapılandırılmış bir karar verme yaklaşımıyla değerlendirilmesine ihtiyaç duyulmaktadır.

Amaç—Bu bağlamda çalışma, enerji dönüşümüne yönelik kararların sistematik ve analitik yöntemlerle desteklenmesi gerekliliğine odaklanmaktadır. Literatürde çoğu çalışmanın “hangi teknoloji?” sorusuna yoğunlaştığı gözlemlenirken, bu çalışma “hangi stratejik dönüşüm yolu?” sorusuna yanıt vermeyi hedeflemektedir. Çalışma, enerji dönüşümünü sadece belirli teknolojilerin seçimiyle sınırlı ele almak yerine, imalat işletmeleri için uygulanabilir ve önceliklendirilebilir stratejik dönüşüm yollarını bütünleşik bir karar modeli aracılığıyla sunmaktadır.

Yöntem—İfade edilen amacı gerçekleştirmek için kriter ağırlıklarının belirlenmesinde Logaritmik Yüzde Değişime Dayalı Nesnel Ağırlıklandırma (LOPCOW) ve Kriterler Arası Korelasyona Dayalı Kriter Önemlendirme (CRITIC) yöntemleri, enerji dönüşüm alternatiflerinin sıralanmasında ise İdeal Çözüme Olan Uzaklığa Dayalı Uzlaşık Alternatif Sıralama (CRADIS) yöntemi kullanılarak net sıfır bağlamında stratejik bir yol haritası çıkarılmıştır.

Bulgular—Elde edilen bulgular, stratejilerin performansının S4 > S1 > S5 > S3 > S2 şeklinde sıralandığını göstermiştir. S4 stratejisi, diğer tüm stratejilere kıyasla belirgin biçimde daha yüksek performans sergileyerek anlamlı bir üstünlük sağlamıştır. S1 ve S5 orta düzeyde benzer sonuçlar üretirken, S2 stratejisi en düşük performansı göstermiştir.

Sonuç—Sonuçlar, dijitalleşme ve enerji yönetimi stratejisinin net sıfır hedeflerine ulaşmada daha yüksek etkinlik sağladığını göstermektedir. Bu durum, enerji dönüşüm süreçlerinde teknolojik yatırımların yanı sıra enerji kullanımının izlenmesi, analiz edilmesi ve etkin şekilde yönetilmesinin önemini ortaya koymaktadır. Elde edilen bulgular, politika yapıcılar ve sektör paydaşları için karar destek aracı niteliği taşımakta olup, sürdürülebilir enerji yatırımlarının önceliklendirilmesinde yol gösterici olabilir. Gelecek çalışmaların, farklı bölgesel senaryolar ve uzun dönemli etkiler üzerinden bu yaklaşımların uygulanabilirliğini ve ölçeklenebilirliğini incelemesi önerilmektedir.

Keywords

• CRADIS
• CRITIC
• Karar verme modeli
• Enerji dönüşümü
• LOPCOW
• Net-sıfır emisyon hedefi

Ethical Statement

Bu çalışma, bilimsel araştırma ve yayın etiği ilkelerine uygun olarak hazırlanmış olup, veri bütünlüğü, kaynak gösterimi ve etik kurallara riayet edilmiştir.

Evaluating energy transition strategies for net-zero emissions in the manufacturing sector using an integrated decision-making model

Abstract

Context—This study addresses the prioritization of energy transition strategies applicable to the manufacturing sector to achieve net-zero emission targets as a strategic decision problem. Increased industrialization and economic growth have significantly increased energy consumption and carbon emissions, making the manufacturing sector a priority area for achieving net-zero targets. In this context, correctly identifying energy transition strategies is of great importance in terms of environmental sustainability and economic competitiveness. However, the energy transition process involves multi-dimensional and often contradictory decision problems where economic, technical, environmental, and regulatory criteria are evaluated together. Existing studies generally fail to address these criteria within a holistic framework and offer limited approaches to systematically prioritizing strategies. Therefore, there is a need to evaluate energy transition strategies for net-zero targets in the manufacturing sector with an integrated and structured decision-making approach.

Objective—In this context, the study focuses on the necessity of supporting decisions regarding energy transition with systematic and analytical methods. While most studies in the literature focus on the question of "which technology?", this study focuses on "which strategic transformation path?" This study aims to answer the question of how energy transition can be addressed. Instead of limiting the discussion to the selection of specific technologies, the study presents feasible and prioritized strategic transformation pathways for manufacturing businesses through an integrated decision model.

Method—To achieve this, the study applies a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) framework, using LOgarithmic Percentage Change-driven Objective Weighting (LOPCOW) and Criteria Importance Through Intercritera Correlation (CRITIC) methods to determine criteria weights and the Compromise Ranking of Alternatives from Distance to Ideal Solution (CRADIS) method to rank energy transition alternatives, thereby constructing a strategic roadmap in the context of net-zero emissions.

Results—The findings showed that the performance of the strategies was ranked as S4 > S1 > S5 > S3 > S2. The S4 strategy demonstrated a significant advantage, exhibiting considerably higher performance compared to all other strategies. S1 and S5 produced moderately similar results, while strategy S2 showed the lowest performance.

Conclusion—The results show that digitalization and energy management strategies are more effective in achieving net-zero targets. This highlights the importance of monitoring, analyzing, and effectively managing energy use, in addition to technological investments, in energy transition processes. The findings serve as a decision support tool for policymakers and industry stakeholders and can guide the prioritization of sustainable energy investments. Future studies are recommended to examine the applicability and scalability of these approaches through different regional scenarios and long-term impacts.

Keywords

• CRADIS
• CRITIC
• Decision-making model
• Energy transition
• LOPCOW
• Net-zero emission target

Ethical Statement

This study has been prepared in accordance with the principles of scientific research and publication ethics, and due care has been taken to ensure data integrity, proper citation, and compliance with ethical standards.

References

1. M. Bashir, Y. Pan, M. Shahbaz, S. Ghosh, "How energy transition and environmental innovation ensure environmental sustainability? Contextual evidence from Top-10 manufacturing countries", Renewable Energy, 204, 697-709, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2023.01.049.
2. Y. Zhang, Z. Zahoor, "The role of energy subsidies, savings, and transitions in driving energy transformations toward net-zero emissions", Energy, 320, 135209, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2025.135209.
3. C. Karakosta, J. Papathanasiou, "Climate-driven sustainable energy investments: key decision factors for a low-carbon transition using a multi-criteria approach", Energies, 17(21), 5515, 2024. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17215515.
4. P. W. G. Newman, "Net zero in the maelstrom: professional practice for net zero in a time of turbulent change", Sustainability, 15(6), 4810, 2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15064810.
5. F. Bandeiras, M. Gomes, P. Coelho, J. Fernandes, "Towards net zero energy in industrial and commercial buildings in Portugal", Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 119, 109580, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109580.
6. P. A. Lombardi, "Technical and economic approaches to design net-zero energy factories: a case study of a German carpentry factory", Sustainability, 17(17), 7891, 2025. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177891.
7. N. Alsulamy, A. Shoukat, I. Elgammal, "Business strategies for managing non-renewable energy dynamics in Saudi Arabia’s manufacturing sector", Sustainability, 17(10), 4331, 2025. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17104331.
8. E. Izadpanahi, A. Downward, T. Arthanari, Y. Liu, "Robust optimization for energy transition planning in manufacturing firms: an integrated model addressing economic and environmental issues", Journal of Cleaner Production, 334, 130237, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.130237.

9. M. L. Lode, G. te Boveldt, C. Macharis, T. Coosemans, "Application of multi-actor multi-criteria analysis for transition management in energy communities", Sustainability, 13(4), 1783, 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041783.
10. J. V. Lugo, N. N. Torres, R. D. Cavalcante, T. G. Lago, J. A. Lima, J. J. Ledesma, O. H. Ando Junior, "Evaluation of technological alternatives for the energy transition of coal-fired power plants, with a multi-criteria approach", Energies, 18(17), 4473, 2025. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18174473.
11. A. Menacho, R. Sacchi, C. Bauer, E. Panos, R. McKenna, P. Burgherr, "The material-energy nexus in net-zero transition scenarios: exploring environmental trade-offs and uncertainties", Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 218, 108251, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2025.108251.
12. M. Pinto, G. Crespi, F. Dell’Anna, C. Becchio, "Combining energy dynamic simulation and multi-criteria analysis for supporting investment decisions on smart shading devices in office buildings", Applied Energy, 332, 120470, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.120470.
13. E. Sevgi, A. Figen, "Determination of renewable energy growth using cluster analysis and multi-criteria decision-making methods", Applied Sciences, 15(3), 1575, 2025. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15031575.
14. A. Soltani, M. A. Imani, M. S. Imani, "Comprehensive strategic assessment of Iran’s renewable energy potentials through a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making approach", Renewable Energy, 256, 123896, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2025.123896.
15. W. Ma, C. Xiao, S. Ahmed, T. Feng, G. Liu, "Multi-objective carbon neutrality optimization and G1-EW-TOPSIS assessment for renewable energy transition", Journal of Cleaner Production, 415, 137808, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137808.
16. L. Chen, L. Cao, Y. Wen, H. Chen, S.-L. Jiang, "A knowledge-based NSGA-II algorithm for multi-objective hot rolling production scheduling under flexible time-of-use electricity pricing", Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 69, 255-270, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2023.06.009.
17. Y. Chi, S. Xu, X. Yang, J. Li, X. Zhang, Y. Chen, "Research on Beijing manufacturing green-oriented transition path under ‘double carbon’ goal-based on the GML-SD model", Sustainability, 15(9), 7716, 2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097716.
18. Y. He, M. Wang, C. Yuan, "Digital economy and low-carbon trade competitiveness: a multidimensional analysis of China’s manufacturing sector", Sustainability, 17(1), 274, 2025. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17010274.
19. L. Gao, M. Zhou, M. Shafieezadeh, "Fuzzy TOPSIS-based multi-criteria selection of renewable energy sources for smart grids", Wind Energy, 28(10), e70058, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1002/we.70058.
20. A. Haq, R. Sharma, B. Bakshi, H. Kodamana, M. Ramteke, "Forecasting sustainable power generation profiles to achieve net zero emissions using multi-objective techno-ecological framework: a study in the context of India", Computers & Chemical Engineering, 179, 108439, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2023.108439.
21. G. Lopez, A. Aghahosseini, D. Bogdanov, R. Satymov, A. Oyewo, C. Breyer, "Sustainable energy industry systems in the United States and Canada demonstrating the value of solar-to-X", IEEE Journal of Photovoltaics, 15(2), 215-222, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPHOTOV.2025.3531043.
22. S. Miyake, S. Teske, J. Rispler, M. Feenstra, "Solar and wind energy potential under land-resource constrained conditions in the Group of Twenty (G20)", Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 202, 114622, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2024.114622.
23. P. Paiboonsin, G. Oluleye, M. Howells, R. Yeganyan, C. Cannone, S. Patterson, "Pathways to clean energy transition in Indonesia’s electricity sector with open-source energy modelling system modelling (OSeMOSYS)", Energies, 17(1), 75, 2024. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17010075.
24. R. Krishankumar, F. Ecer, S. Korucuk, A. Aytekin, A. Yadav, "Evaluating zero-carbon measures through a probabilistic hesitant fuzzy LOPCOW and WISP approach", Applied Soft Computing, 186, 114216, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2025.114216.
25. A. Ulutas, A. Topal, O. Gorçün, F. Ecer, "Evaluation of third-party logistics service providers for car manufacturing firms using a novel integrated grey LOPCOW-PSI-MACONT model", Expert Systems with Applications, 241, 122680, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.122680.
26. F. Ecer, H. Kücükönder, S. Kaya, O. Görçün, "Sustainability performance analysis of micro-mobility solutions in urban transportation with a novel IVFNN-Delphi-LOPCOW-CoCoSo framework", Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 172, 103667, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2023.103667.
27. F. F. Altıntaş, "Analysis of the prosperity performances of G7 countries: an application of the LOPCOW-based CRADIS method", Alphanumeric Journal, 11(2), 157-182, 2023. https://doi.org/10.17093/alphanumeric.1360478.
28. R. Cheng, J. Fan, M. Wu, H. Seiti, "A large-scale multi-attribute group decision-making method with R-numbers and its application to hydrogen fuel cell logistics path selection", Complex & Intelligent Systems, 10(4), 5213-5260, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40747-024-01437-9.
29. N. Keleş, "LOPCOW ve CRADIS yöntemleriyle G7 ülkelerinin ve Türkiye’nin yaşanabilir güç merkezi şehirlerinin değerlendirilmesi", Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(3), 727-747, 2023. https://doi.org/10.25287/ohuiibf.1239201.
30. M. Riaz, J. Alcantud, Y. Yasin, T. Jameel, "Integration of recursive feature elimination in renewable energy sources with evaluation based on relative utility and nonlinear standardization", Renewable Energy, 256, 124538, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2025.124538.
31. W. Wang, Y. Wang, S. Fan, X. Han, Q. Wu, D. Pamucar, "A complex spherical fuzzy CRADIS method based Fine-Kinney framework for occupational risk evaluation in natural gas pipeline construction", Geoenergy Science and Engineering, 220, 111246, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2022.111246.
32. S. Ashraf, W. Iqbal, M. Hameed, V. Simic, N. Bacanin, "An enhanced CRADIS decision model for optimizing radioactive waste reduction through transmutations based on disc spherical fuzzy information", Applied Soft Computing, 167, 112289, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2024.112289.
33. A. Ulutas, F. Balo, K. Mirkovic, Z. Stevic, M. Mostafa, "MCDM model for critical selection of building and insulation materials for optimising energy usage and environmental effect in production focus", Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 29(7), 587-603, 2023. https://doi.org/10.3846/jcem.2023.19569.
34. X. Zhang, M. Lv, X. Yuan, "Research on Cloud-CRITIC-PDR method for hybrid multi-criteria decision making", Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 45(5), 8789-8803, 2023. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-232605.
35. N. Sharkasi, S. Rezakhah, "A modified CRITIC with a reference point based on fuzzy logic and Hamming distance", Knowledge-Based Systems, 255, 109768, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2022.109768.
36. A. Krishnan, M. Kasim, R. Hamid, M. Ghazali, "A modified CRITIC method to estimate the objective weights of decision criteria", Symmetry, 13(6), 973, 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13060973.
37. I. A. Bashmakov, L. J. Nilsson, A. Acquaye, C. Bataille, J.M. Cullen, S. de la Rue du Can, M. Fischedick, Y. Geng, K. Tanaka, “Industry”, Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, P. R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, J. Malley, Eds., Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, Cambridge University Press. 2023, Ch. 11, 1161–1244 https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926.013.
38. European Commission, "European industrial strategy", https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/industry/strategy_en (30.01.2026).
39. IEA, "Net zero by 2050", Paris, France, 2021. https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050.
40. IEA, "World energy outlook 2022", Paris, France, 2022. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/.../WorldEnergyOutlooC2022.pdf.
41. IEA, "Energy technology perspectives 2020", Paris, France, 2021. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/.../Energy_Technology_Perspectives_2020_PDF.pdf.
42. J. H. Wesseling, C. Bidmon, R. Bohnsack, "Business model design spaces in socio-technical transitions: the case of electric driving in the Netherlands", Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 154, 119950, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119950.
43. IEA, "Energy, climate change and environment 2014 insights", Paris, France, 2014. https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-climate-change-and-environment-2014-insights.
44. P. Thollander, J. Palm, J. Hedbrant, "Energy efficiency as a wicked problem", Sustainability, 11(6), 1569, 2019. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061569.
45. Environmental Management — Life Cycle Assessment — Principles and Framework, ISO 14040:2006, 2006.
46. Environmental Management — Life Cycle Assessment — Requirements and Guidelines, ISO 14044:2006, 2006.
47. A. Trianni, E. Cagno, "Dealing with barriers to energy efficiency and SMEs: some empirical evidences", Energy, 37(1), 494-504, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2011.11.005.
48. S. Sorrell, A. Mallett, S. Nye, "Barriers to industrial energy efficiency: a literature review", United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), Vienna, Austria, Working Paper 10/2011, 2011. https://downloads.unido.org/ot/48/17/4817768/...pdf.
49. A. Kylili, P. A. Fokaides, P. A. Lopez Jimenez, "Key performance indicators (KPIs) approach in buildings renovation for the sustainability of the built environment: a review", Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 56, 906-915, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.11.096.
50. J. Mankins, "Technology readiness level – a white paper", NASA, Washington, D.C., USA, 1995.
51. P. Aghion, A. Dechezleprêtre, D. Hémous, R. Martin, J. V. Reenen, "Carbon taxes, path dependency, and directed technical change: evidence from the auto industry", Journal of Political Economy, 124(1), 1-51, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1086/684581.
52. World Bank, "State and trends of carbon pricing 2023", Washington, D.C., USA, 2023. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/58f2a409-9bb7-4ee6-899d-be47835c838f.
53. S. Adams, F. Adedoyin, E. Olaniran, F. V. Bekun, "Energy consumption, economic policy uncertainty and carbon emissions; causality evidence from resource rich economies", Economic Analysis and Policy, 68, 179-190, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2020.09.012.