Bütünleşik PCA, Entropi ve TOPSIS Modeli ile Kurumsal Sürdürülebilirlik Performans Ölçümü: Mastercard Örneği

Öz

Bu çalışma, küresel ödeme sistemleri alanında lider şirketlerden biri olan Mastercard’ın 2018-2023 dönemine ait kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik performansını, Principal Component Analysis (PCA), Entropi ve TOPSIS yöntemlerini bütünleştiren bütünleşik bir Çok Kriterli Karar Verme (ÇKKV) yaklaşımıyla değerlendirmektedir. Ekonomik, çevresel ve sosyal göstergeler, şirketin sürdürülebilirlik ve finansal raporlarından elde edilmiştir. PCA yöntemi, kriterler arası ilişkileri ve veri yapısını incelemiş; Entropi yöntemi, kriterlerin objektif ağırlıklarını belirlemiş; TOPSIS yöntemi ise yıllık performans sıralamalarını oluşturmuştur. Bulgular, ekonomik sürdürülebilirlikte istikrarlı bir artış olduğunu, sosyal performansın 2021 yılında zirveye çıktığını ve bunun pandemi sonrası toparlanma ile çeşitlilik ve sosyal sorumluluk projelerinin artışıyla ilişkili olduğunu göstermektedir. Çevresel performans ise dalgalı bir seyir izlemiş ve 2023 yılında dönem içindeki en düşük seviyesine gerilemiştir. Elde edilen sonuçlar, Mastercard’ın pandemi sonrası ekonomik ve sosyal alanlarda güçlendiğini, ancak çevresel boyutta sürdürülebilir bir iyileşme sağlayamadığını ortaya koymaktadır. Çalışma, bütünleşik ÇKKV tekniklerinin kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik değerlendirmelerinde uygulanabilirliğini kanıtlamakta ve sektörel kıyaslama ile genişletilebilecek bir analiz çerçevesi sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik performansı
• PCA
• Entropi
• TOPSIS
• Çok kriterli karar verme teknikleri

Measuring Corporate Sustainability Performance Using an Integrated PCA, Entropy, and TOPSIS Model: The Case of Mastercard

Öz

This study evaluates the corporate sustainability performance of Mastercard, one of the leading companies in the global payment systems sector, for the period 2018-2023 using an integrated Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) approach that integrates Principal Component Analysis (PCA), Entropy, and TOPSIS methods. Economic, environmental, and social indicators were obtained from the company's sustainability and financial reports. The PCA method examined the relationships between criteria and the data structure; the Entropy method determined the objective weights of the criteria; and the TOPSIS method created annual performance rankings. The findings show a steady increase in economic sustainability, with social performance peaking in 2021, which is associated with post-pandemic recovery and an increase in diversity and social responsibility projects. Environmental performance, on the other hand, has been volatile and declined to its lowest level in 2023. The results reveal that Mastercard has strengthened in economic and social areas post-pandemic but has not achieved sustainable improvement in the environmental dimension. The study demonstrates the applicability of integrated MCDM techniques in corporate sustainability assessments and provides an analytical framework that can be expanded through sectoral benchmarking.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Corporate sustainability performance
• PCA
• Entropy
• TOPSIS
• Multi-criteria decision making

Kaynakça

1. Abdi, H., & Williams, L. J. (2010). Principal component analysis. WIREs Computational Statistics, 2(4), 433-459. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/wics.101
2. Afriyie, J. K., Tawiah, K., Pels, W. A., Addai-Henne, S., Dwamena, H. A., Owiredu, E. O., Ayeh, S. A., & Eshun, J. (2023). A supervised machine learning algorithm for detecting and predicting fraud in credit card transactions. Decision Analytics Journal, 6, 100163. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dajour.2023.100163
3. Aktaş, N., & Demirel, N. (2021). A hybrid framework for evaluating corporate sustainability using multi-criteria decision making. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23(10), 15591-15618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01311-5
4. Alsayegh, M. F., Rahman, R. A., & Homayoun, S. (2020). Corporate economic, environmental, and social sustainability performance transformation through ESG disclosure. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093910
5. Barua, A. (2021, Haziran). A spring in consumers’ steps: Americans prepare to get back to their spending ways. Deloitte. https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/economy/us-consumer-spending-after-covid.html
6. Bergquist, A.-K., Söderholm, K., Kinneryd, H., Lindmark, M., & Söderholm, P. (2013). Command-and-control revisited: Environmental compliance and technological change in Swedish industry 1970–1990. Ecological Economics, 85, 6-19. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.10.007
7. Borsellino, V., Kaliji, S. A., & Schimmenti, E. (2020). COVID-19 drives consumer behaviour and agro-food markets towards healthier and more sustainable patterns. Içinde Sustainability (Switzerland) (C. 12, Sayı 20, ss. 1-26). MDPI. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208366
8. Bowen, K. J., Cradock-Henry, N. A., Koch, F., Patterson, J., Häyhä, T., Vogt, J., & Barbi, F. (2017). Implementing the “Sustainable Development Goals”: towards addressing three key governance challenges—collective action, trade-offs, and accountability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26-27, 90-96. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.05.002

9. Caporal, J. (2024, Eylül 11). Study: How Rich Americans Use Credit Cards. Motley Fool Money. https://www.fool.com/money/research/wealthy-credit-card-habits/
10. Coşkun, S. (2023). Evaluation of Financial Performance of BIST Sustainability 25 Index Companies within the Framework of SDGs Reporting with TOPSIS Approach. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 18(3), 707-729. https://doi.org/10.17153/oguiibf.1312831
11. Cui, L., Zhai, M., Dai, J., Liu, Y., & Zhang, P. (2019). Assessing sustainability performance of high-tech firms through a hybrid approach. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 119(8), 1581-1607. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-02-2019-0066
12. Diaz-Balteiro, L., Voces, R., & Romero, C. (2011). Making Sustainability Rankings Using Compromise Programming. An Application to European Paper Industry. Silva Fennica, 45(4), 2011. http://www.metla.fi/silvafennica/full/sf45/sf454761.pdf
13. Ericsson, K., Nilsson, L. J., & Nilsson, M. (2011). New energy strategies in the Swedish pulp and paper industry—The role of national and EU climate and energy policies. Energy Policy, 39(3), 1439-1449. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.12.016
14. Erol, I., Sencer, S., & Sari, R. (2011). A new fuzzy multi-criteria framework for measuring sustainability performance of a supply chain. Ecological Economics, 70(6), 1088-1100. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.01.001
15. Ersoy, N. (2018). Entropy Tabanlı Bütünleşik ÇKKV Yaklaşımı ile Kurumsal Sürdürülebilirlik Performans Ölçümü. Ege Academic Review, 18(3), 367-385. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/eab/issue/41358/499959
16. Garcia, S., Cintra, Y., Torres, R. de C. S. R., & Lima, F. G. (2016). Corporate sustainability management: a proposed multi-criteria model to support balanced decision-making. Journal of Cleaner Production, 136, 181-196. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.110
17. Gençoğlu, Ü. G., & Aytaç, A. (2016). Kurumsal Sürdürülebilirlik Açısından Entegre Raporlamanın Önemi ve BIST Uygulamaları. Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi, 72, 51-66. https://doi.org/10.25095/mufad.396719
18. Greene, C., Merry, E., & Stavins, J. (2021). Has COVID changed consumer payment behavior? https://doi.org/10.29412/res.wp.2021.12
19. Gulbrandsen, L. H., & Stenqvist, C. (2013). The limited effect of EU emissions trading on corporate climate strategies: Comparison of a Swedish and a Norwegian pulp and paper company. Energy Policy, 56, 516-525. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.01.014
20. Hwang, C.-L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple Attribute Decision Making (C. 186). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9
21. Jaynes, E. T. (1957). Information Theory and Statistical Mechanics. Physical Review, 106(4), 620-630.
22. Kefe, İ., Evci, S., & Kefe, İ. (2024). Data on the financial performance of companies on BIST Sustainability 25 Index: An Entropy-based TOPSIS approach. Data in Brief, 57, 110959. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2024.110959
23. Lee, K.-H., & Farzipoor Saen, R. (2012). Measuring corporate sustainability management: A data envelopment analysis approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 140(1), 219-226. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.08.024
24. Liu, J., Cheng, Z., Yi, P., Li, W., & Wang, L. (2024). Predictive evaluation of city sustainability based on benchmarking method - A case study of 34 cities in northeastern China. Sustainable Cities and Society, 112, 105627. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2024.105627
25. Mastercard. (2018). Mastercard Sustainability Report 2018.
26. Mastercard. (2019). Mastercard Sustainability Report 2019.
27. Mastercard. (2020). Mastercard Sustainability Report 2020.
28. Mastercard. (2021). Mastercard Sustainability Report 2021.
29. Mastercard. (2022). Mastercard Sustainability Report 2022.
30. Mastercard. (2023). Mastercard Sustainability Report 2023.
31. Mastercard Inc. (2018). U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. https://www.ezodproxy.com/mastercard/2019/ar/images/Mastercard-10K2018.pdf
32. Mastercard Inc. (2019). U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. https://s25.q4cdn.com/479285134/files/doc_financials/2019/ar/2019-Annual-Report-on-Form-10-K.pdf
33. Mastercard Inc. (2020). U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. https://s25.q4cdn.com/479285134/files/doc_financials/2020/ar/MA.12.31.2020-10-K-as-filed-w-exhibits.pdf
34. Mastercard Inc. (2021). U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. https://s25.q4cdn.com/479285134/files/doc_financials/2021/ar/2021-Annual-Report-NO-EMAIL-ALERTS.pdf
35. Mastercard Inc. (2022). U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. https://s25.q4cdn.com/479285134/files/doc_financials/2022/AR/MA.12.31.2022-10-K-as-filed.pdf
36. Mastercard Inc. (2023). U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. https://s25.q4cdn.com/479285134/files/doc_financials/2023/AR/ma-12-31-2023-10-k-as-filed-with-exhibits.pdf
37. Once, S., Onay, A., & Yesilcelebi, G. (2025). Corporate Sustainability Reporting and Situation in Turkey. Journal of Economics Finance and Accounting, 2. https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademnia.2015211515
38. Ömürbek, V., Aksoy, E., & Akçakanat, Ö. (2017). Bankalarin Sürdürülebilirlik Performanslarinin ARAS, MOOSRA VE COPRAS Yöntemleri İle Değerlendirilmesi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Vizyoner Dergisi, 8(19), 14-32. https://doi.org/10.21076/vizyoner.329346
39. Öztel, A., Aydın, B., & Köse, M. S. (2018). Entropi Tabanlı TOPSIS Yöntemi İle Enerji Sektöründe Kurumsal Sürdürülebilirlik Performansının Ölçümü: Akenerji Örneği. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(24), 1-24. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/gumus/issue/40078/374945
40. Patnaik, R. (2018). Impact of Industrialization on Environment and Sustainable Solutions – Reflections from a South Indian Region. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 120(1), 012016. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/120/1/012016
41. Pazienza, M., de Jong, M., & Schoenmaker, D. (2023). Why Corporate Sustainability Is Not Yet Measured. Sustainability (Switzerland), 15(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/su15076275
42. Peluso, A. M., Pichierri, M., & Pino, G. (2021). Age-related effects on environmentally sustainable purchases at the time of COVID-19: Evidence from Italy. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 60, 102443. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102443
43. Shannon, C. E. (1951). Prediction and entropy of printed English. The Bell System Technical Journal, 30(1), 50-64. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1951.tb01366.x
44. Söderholm, P., Bergquist, A.-K., & Söderholm, K. (2019). Environmental Regulation in the Pulp and Paper Industry: Impacts and Challenges. Current Forestry Reports, 5(4), 185-198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-019-00097-0
45. Statista. (2024a, Şubat). Market share of Visa, Mastercard, American Express, Discover as general purpose card brands in the United States from 2007 to 2023, based on value of transactions. https://www.statista.com/statistics/279469/market-share-of-credit-card-companies-in-the-united-states-by-purchase-volume/
46. Statista. (2024b, Mayıs). Number of purchase transactions on global general purpose card brands American Express, Diners/Discover, JCB, Mastercard, UnionPay and Visa from 2014 to 2023. https://www.statista.com/statistics/261327/number-of-per-card-credit-card-transactions-worldwide-by-brand-as-of-2011/
47. Vivas, R., Sant’anna, Â., Esquerre, K., & Freires, F. (2019). Measuring sustainability performance with multi criteria model: A case study. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(21). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11216113
48. 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/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.11.035
49. Wicher, P., Zapletal, F., & Lenort, R. (2019). Sustainability performance assessment of industrial corporation using Fuzzy Analytic Network Process. Journal of Cleaner Production, 241, 118132. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118132
50. Yurttadur, M., Akbalık, M., & Taşcı, M. Z. (2022). ENTROPİ ve COPRAS Yöntemleriyle Finansal Performans Analizi: Mevduat ve Katılım Bankaları Karşılaştırması. Bankacılık ve Sigortacılık Araştırmaları Dergisi, 16, 13-27. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/bsad/issue/73539/1199302