Entropy Tabanlı Bütünleşik ÇKKV Yaklaşımı ile Kurumsal Sürdürülebilirlik Performans Ölçümü

Öz

Sürdürülebilir kalkınma kavramının işletme düzeyindeki karşılığı olan kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik, çok boyutlu bir kavramdır ve ekonomik, çevresel ve sosyal olmak üzere üç boyutu bulunmaktadır. Bu üç boyutun tek bir boyuta indirgenmesinde sorunlar ortaya çıkmaktadır. Çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri (ÇKKV), bu değişkenlerin birlikte değerlendirilmesi için kullanışlı bir çerçeve sunmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik performansının değerlendirilmesinde ÇKKV yöntemlerinin melez kullanımına dayalı bir algoritma önerilmiştir. Entropy yöntemi kriterlerin ağırlığını belirlemek için kullanılırken, Topsis ve Gri İlişkisel Analiz (GİA) yöntemleri ise alternatiflerin performans sıralamalarını belirlemek için kullanılmıştır. Önerilen metodoloji, Türkiye’de beyaz eşya sektöründe faaliyet gösteren bir firmanın kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik performansını değerlendirmek üzere kullanılmıştır. Çalışmada ayrıca, kriterlerin ağırlıkları değiştirilerek duyarlılık analizi gerçekleştirilmiş ve bu yolla sonuçların hassasiyeti test edilmiştir. Çalışma sonunda, önerilen yaklaşımın sürdürülebilirlik performans ölçümünde etkili bir şekilde kullanılabileceği tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik performansı
• entropy
• topsis
• gri ilişkisel analiz

Entropy Based Hybrid MCDM Approach for Measuring the Corporate Sustainability Performance

Öz

Sustainability as the business definition of the concept of sustainable development is a multidimensional concept which has three categories including economic, environmental, and social. Problems arise as we try to reduce the number of categories from three to one. Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods provide a suitable framework where these variables can be used collectively. In this study, we suggest an algorithm based on a hybrid multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) model to measure corporate sustainability performance. The Entropy method was used to find out criteria weightings, and Topsis and Grey Relational Analysis (GRA) methods were used to define performance ranking of alternatives. The suggested methodology was used to measure the corporate sustainability performance of a company from the white goods industry in Turkey. We also conducted a sensitivity analysis by changing criteria weightings, and therefore, tested the sensitivity of the results. It was concluded that the suggested approach could be used effectively in measuring sustainability performance.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Corporate sustainability performance
• entropy
• topsis
• gray relational analysis

Kaynakça

1. Acar, E., Kilic, M. ve Güner, M.(2015) “Measurement of Sustainability Performance in Textile Industry By Using A Multi-Criteria Decision Making Method” Journal Of Textile and Apparel, 25 (1): 3-9.
2. Adaoğlu, C. (1999) “Yasal Düzenlemelerin İstanbul Menkul Kıymetler Borsası (İMKB) Şirketlerinin Temettü Politikalarına Etkisi” İMKB Dergisi, 3(11): 1-15.
3. Akgüç, Ö. (1995) “Mali Tablolar Analizi” Avcıol Yayın, İstanbul, 1995.
4. Aktan, B. ve Bodur, B. (2006) “Oranlar Aracılığı ile Finansal Durumunuzu Nasıl Çözümlersiniz?” Journal Of Yaşar University, 1(1): 49-67.
5. Aktaş, R., Doğanay, M., Atılım, M. ve Başcı, E. S. (2005) “Finansal Yönetim” Saüsem Yayınları, Sakarya.
6. Aktin, T. ve Gergin, Z. (2016) “Mathematical Modelling Of Sustainable Procurement Strategies: Three Case Studies” Journal Of Cleaner Production, 113: 767-780.
7. Alpman, D. (2008) “Uluslararası Finansal Raporlama Standartlarına Genel Bir Bakış ve Bir Uygulama Örneği”, Deloitte Türkiye, 1-63, http://www.denetimnet.net/UserFiles/Documents/
8. UFRS%20Genel%20Bak%C4%B1%C5%9F.pdf (10.10.2016). Anonymous (2004) “Su Kirliliği Kontrolü Yönetmeliği Tebliği”.

9. Ankara: Çevre ve Orman Bakanlığı. http://www.resmigazete. gov.tr/eskiler/2004/12/20041231.htm, (13.10.2016).
10. Arçelik sürdürülebilirlik raporu, http://www.arcelikas.com/ sayfa/204/Surdurulebilirlik_Raporu, (15.10.2016).
11. Athawale, V.M. ve Chakraborty, S. (2011) “Application of Grey Relational Analysis Method in Solving Supplier Selection Problems” The Iup Journal of Operations Management, 10(1): 18-28.
12. Azadi, M., Jafarian, M., Saen, R. F. ve Mirhedayatian, S. M. (2015) “A New Fuzzy DEA Model For Evaluation Of Efficiency And Effectiveness Of Suppliers in Sustainable Supply Chain Management Context” Computers & Operations Research, 54: 274-285.
13. Balteiro, D. L., González, V. R. ve Romero, C. (2011) “Making Sustainability Rankings Using Compromise Programming. An Application to European Paper Industry” Silva Fennica, 45(4): 761-773.
14. Baumgartner, R.J. ve Ebner. D. (2010) “Corporate Sustainability Strategies: Sustainability Profiles And Maturity Levels” Sustainable Development, 18 (2): 76–89.
15. Blau, G. (1989) “Testing The Generalizability Of A Career Commitment Measure And Its Impact On Employee Turnover” Journal Of Vocational Behavior, 35(1): 88-103.
16. Chaharsooghi, S. K. ve Ashrafi, M. (2014) “Sustainable Supplier Performance Evaluation and Selection with Neofuzzy Topsis Method” International Scholarly Research Notices, 1-10.
17. Chan, J. W. Ve Tong, T. K. (2007) “Multi-criteria material selections and end-of-life product strategy: Grey relational analysis approach” Materials & Design, 28(5): 1539-1546.
18. Chiou, C. Y., Hsu, C. W. ve Chen, H. C. (2011) “Using Dematel To Explore A Casual And Effect Model Of Sustainable Supplier Selection” In Business Innovationand Technology Management (APBITM), Dalian, China, 240-244.
19. Chithambaranathan, P., Subramanian, N., Gunasekaran, A. ve Palaniappan, P. K. (2015) “Service Supply Chain Environmental Performance Evaluation Using Grey Based Hybrid Mcdm
20. Approach” International Journal Of Production Economics, 166: 163-176.
21. Dadzie, A. A., Dadzie, A. E. Ve Turkson, C. A. (2016) “Topsis Extension Framework For Re-Conceptualizing Sustainability Measurement” Kybernetes, 45(1): 70-86.
22. Dyllick, T. Ve Hockerts, K. (2002) “Beyond The Business Case For Corporate Sustainability” Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(2): 130-141.
23. Ebner D. ve Baumgartner, R. J. (2007) “The Relationship Between Sustainable Development and Corporate Social Responsibility” Corporate Responsibility Research Conference, 17 Eylül, Dublin.
24. Erol, I., Sencer, S. ve Sari, R. (2011) “A New Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Framework For Measuring Sustainability Performance Of A Supply Chain” Ecological Economics, 70(6): 1088-1100.
25. Ghasemi, A. ve Nadiri, M. (2016) “Performance Assessment Of Iranian Petrochemical Companies Using Sustainable Excellence Model” Safety Science, 87: 280-291.
26. Giannarakis, G. ve Theotokas, I. (2011) “The Effect of Financial Crisis in Corporate Social Responsibility Performance” International Journal Of Marketing Studies, 3(1): 2-10.
27. Godfrey, M. ve Manikas, A. (2014) “Integrating Sustainability into a Goal Programming Exercise” Business Education and Accreditation, 6(1): 45-54.
28. González, M. F., García-Á. L. F., Salomon, V. A. P., Gómez, M. J. ve Hernández, C. T. (2016) “Sustainability Performance Measurement With Analytic Network Process And Balanced Scorecard: Cuban Practical Case” Production, 26(3): 527-539.
29. Govindan, K., Khodaverdi, R. ve Jafarian, A. (2013) “A Fuzzy Multi Criteria Approach For Measuring Sustainability Performance Of A Supplier Based On Triple Bottom Line Approach” Journal Of Cleaner Production, 47: 345-354.
30. Goyal, P., Rahman, Z. ve Kazmi, A. A. (2013) “Corporate Sustainability Performance And Firm Performance Research: Literature Review And Future Research Agenda” Management Decision, 51(2): 361-379.
31. Goyal, P., Rahman, Z. ve Kazmi, A. A.(2015) “Identification And Prioritization Of Corporate Sustainability Practices Using Analytical Hierarchy Process” Journal Of Modelling İn Management, 10(1): 23-49.
32. GRI, Global Reporting Initiative, Environmental indicator protocols, https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/ Turkish-G3-Environment-Indicator-Protocols.pdf (09.09.2016).
33. GRI, Global Reporting Initiative, http://www.globalreporting. org/resourcelibrary/Turkish-G4-Part-One.pdf, (09.09.2016).
34. GRI, Global Reporting Initiative, Economic Indicator Protocols, https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/Turkish- G3-Economic-Indicator Protocols.pdf, (15.10.2016).
35. Gürsoy, B. (1975) “Kamu Maliyesi, Giriş- Masraflar” Ankara Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Yayınları, Ankara.
36. Hassan, M. F., Saman, M. Z. M., Sharif, S. ve Omar, B. (2016) “Sustainability Evaluation Of Alternative Part Configurations In Product Design: Weighted Decision Matrix And Artificial Neural Network Approach” Clean Technologies And Environmental Policy, 18(1): 63-79.
37. Hernández, C. T., Marins, F. A. S., Rocha, P. M. (2009) “Using AHP And ANP To Evaluate The Relation Between Reverse Logistics And Corporate Performance in Brazilian Automotive Industry”. In Proceeding Of Proceedings Of The 10th International Symposium On The Analytic Hierarchy/Network Process Multi-Criteria Decision Making Held At Pennsylvania, USA.
38. Herzig, C. ve Schaltegger, S. (2006) “Reporting External Accounting Frameworks and Benchmarking: Corporate Sustainability Reporting. An Overwiev, Sustainability Accounting and Reporting” Schaltegger, S., Bennetand, M., Burrit, R. (eds) Netherlands, Dordrecht: Springer, 301-324..
39. Hughey, A. W. ve Mussnug, K. J. (1997) “Designing Effective Employee Training Programmes” Training For Quality, 5(2): 52-57.
40. Hwang, C. L. ve Yoon, K. (1981) “Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems: Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods And Appllication” Springer, Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1-222.
41. Jauhar, S. K. ve Pant, M. (2016) “Using Differential Evolution To Develop A Carbon-Integrated Model For Performance Evaluation And Selection Of Sustainable Suppliers in Indian Automobile Supply Chain” In Proceedings Of Fifth International Conference On Soft Computing For Problem Solving, 515-528, Springer, Singapore, 2.
42. Juan, Y. K., Gao, P. ve Wang, J. (2010) “A Hybrid Decision Support System For Sustainable Office Building Renovation And Energy Performance Improvement” Energy and Buildings, 42(3): 290- 297.
43. Kanber, R., Baştuğ, R., Büyüktaş, D., Ünlü, M. Ve Kapur, B. (2010) “Küresel iklim değişikliğinin su kaynakları ve tarımsal sulamaya etkileri.” Türkiye ziraat mühendisliği VII. Teknik kongresi, 83- 118, 11-15 Ocak, Ankara.
44. Lombard, L. P., Ortiz, J. ve Pout, C. (2008) “A Review On Buildings Energy Consumption Information” Energy and Buildings, 40(3): 394-398.
45. Makdisi, R. S. (1991) “Tannery Wastes Definition, Risk Assessment And Cleanup Options”, Berkeley, California. Journal Of Hazardous Materials, 29(1): 79-96.
46. Mazurkiewicz, P. (2004) “Corporate Environmental Responsibility: Is A Common. CSR Framework Possible” World Bank, 2, 1-18.
47. Monjezi, M., Amiri, H., Farrokhi, A. ve Goshtasbi, K. (2010) “Prediction Of Rock Fragmentation Due To Blasting in Sarcheshmeh Copper Mine Using Artificial Neural Networks” Geotechnique And Geology Engineering, 28(4): 423–430.
48. Ness, B., Urbel, P. E., Anderberg, S. ve Olsson, L. (2007) “Categorising Tools For Sustainability Assessment” Ecological Economics, 60(3): 498–508.
49. Rad, S. ve Yarşı, G. (2005) “Silifke İlçesi’nde Serada Domates Yetiştiren İşletmelerin Ekonomik Performansları ve Birim Ürün Maliyetleri”. Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 11(1): 26-33.
50. Rajak, S. ve Vinodh, S. (2015) “Application Of Fuzzy Logic For Social Sustainability Performance Evaluation: A Case Study Of An Indian Automotive Component Manufacturing Organization” Journal Of Cleaner Production, 108: 1184-1192.
51. Sandıkcıoğlu, A. (2005) “Kurumsal Yönetim Uyum Derecelendirmesi”, Sermaye Piyasası Kurulu Ortaklıklar Finansmanı Dairesi, Yeterlik Etüdü, Ankara.
52. Singh, R.K., Murty, H.R., Gupta, S.K. ve Dikshit, A.K. (2007) “Development Of Composite Sustainability Performance Index For Steel Industry” Ecological Indicators, 7: 565–588.
53. Singh, S., Olugu, E. U., Musa, S. N. ve Mahat, A. B. (2015) “Fuzzy- Based Sustainability Evaluation Method For Manufacturing SMEs Using Balanced Scorecard Framework” Journal Of Intelligent Manufacturing, 1-18.
54. Sürmeli, F. (2003) “Genel Muhasebe”, 1341, Anadolu Universitesi. Tavana, M., Shabanpour, H., Yousefi, S. ve Saen, R. F. (2016) “A Hybrid Goal Programming And Dynamic Data Envelopment Analysis Framework For Sustainable Supplier Evaluation” Neural Computing And Applications, 1-14.
55. Tilt, C. A. (2009) “Corporate Responsibility, Accounting And Accounts”, Idowu, S.; Filho, O. W. L. (eds) Professionals’ Perspectives of Corporate Social Responsibility, Springer- Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg.
56. Tong, C. C. ve Lin, T. Y. (2008) “Applying Grey Relational Method To Determine The Carbon Black Ranking of Rubber Samples” Journal Of Grey System, 11(1): 27-34.