Endüstriyel Atık Geri Dönüşümünde Etkili Olan Karar Kriterlerinin BWM ile Değerlendirilmesi: Plastik, Cam ve Çelik Endüstrisinde Uygulama

Yıl 2021, , 390 - 398, 31.12.2021

Damla Çevik Aka

https://doi.org/10.31590/ejosat.1001853

Cited By: 2

Bu makale için 15 Şubat 2024 tarihinde bir düzeltme yayımlandı. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ejosat/issue/82065/1435792

Öz

Tüm dünyada üretim ve tüketime bağlı olarak birçok endüstride ortaya çıkan çevresel, sosyal ve ekonomik problemler ve endüstriler tarafından değişen beklentiler, firmaları sürdürülebilir iş uygulamalarına itmektedir. Çalışmada, firmaların dış kaynak kullanımı ile geri dönüşüm faaliyetlerini üretim süreçlerine dahil etme kararı vermesinde etkili olan kriterlerin önem derecelerinin belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Ayrıca kriterlerin ağırlıkları plastik, cam ve çelik olmak üzere üç farklı sektör için ayrı olarak hesaplanarak, sektörel farklılıkların ve benzerliklerin ortaya koyulması istenmektedir. Mevcut literatürde aynı amaca ulaşacak farklı sektörlerdeki uygulamalara yer verilmemiş olması, araştırmanın özgün değerini ortaya koymaktadır. Çalışmada literatür taraması ve uzman görüşleri sonrasında ilgili kriterler: alternatif getiri, maliyet avantajı, istihdam, müşteri memnuniyeti, su tüketimi, enerji tüketimi ve sera gazı olarak belirlenmiş ve bu yedi kriterin ağırlıklandırmasında her sektörden ayrı ayrı altı kişi olacak şekilde toplamda 18 kişiyle çalışılmıştır. Problem çözümünde birden fazla kriterin olması ve her kritere çalışmayla tutarlı olacak şekilde ağırlık verilme ihtiyacı sebebiyle “En İyi En Kötü Yöntem (Best Worst Method)” kullanılmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sürdürülebilirlik, Geri Dönüşüm, Kaynak Geri Kazanım, Çok Kriterli Karar Verme, En iyi En Kötü Yöntem.

Evaluation of Effective Decision Criteria in Industrial Waste Recycling with BWM: Application in The Plastic, Glass And Steel Industry

Bu makale için 15 Şubat 2024 tarihinde bir düzeltme yayımlandı. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ejosat/issue/82065/1435792

Öz

Environmental, social and economic problems arising in many industries due to production and consumption all over the world and changing expectations by industries push companies to sustainable business practices. In the study, it’s aimed to determine the importance levels of the criteria that are effective in the decision of adding the recycling activities to the production processes together with the outsourcing of the companies. In addition, the weights of the criteria are calculated separately for three different sectors, plastic, glass and steel, to reveal sectoral differences and similarities. The fact that the current literature does not include applications in different sectors that will achieve the same goal, reveals the original value of the research. In the study, after the literature review and expert opinions, the relevant criteria were determined as: alternative return, cost advantage, employment, customer satisfaction, water consumption, energy consumption and greenhouse gas, and six people from each sector were employed separately in the weighting of these seven criteria. “Best Worst Method” is used in problem solving because of the need to have more than one criterion and to give weight to each criterion in a way that is consistent with the study.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sustainability, Recycling, Resource Recovery, Multi-Criteria Decision Making, Best Worst Method, Sustainability, Recycling, Resource Recovery, Multi-Criteria Decision Making, Best Worst Method

Kaynakça

• Alba Ingenieros. (2012). S. La Energía de los Residuos. Erişim Tarihi: 31.07.2021, https://www.fenercom.com/publicacion/la-energia-delos-residuos/.
• Ahi, P., & Searcy, C. (2015). An analysis of metrics used to measure performance in green and sustainable supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 86 (1), 360-377.
• Ameer, R. & Othman, R. (2012). Sustainability practices and corporate financial performance: A study based on the top global corporations. Journal of Business Ethics, 108 (1), 61–79.
• Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S. J., Papadopoulos T., Luo, Z., & Roubaud, D. (2020). Upstream supply chain visibility and complexity effect on focal company’s sustainable performance: Indian manufacturers’ perspective. Annals of Opr. Res. (290), 343-67.
• Elliott, S. R. (2005). Sustainability: an economic perspective. Resources. Conservation and Recycling, 44, 263–277.
• Eltayeb, T. K. & Zailani, S. (2010). Investigation on the drivers of green purchasing towards environmental sustainability in the Malaysian manufacturing sector. Int. J. Procurement Management, 3(3), 316.
• EPA. (2018). Durable Goods: Product-Specific Data. Erişim Tarihi: 1.08.2021, https://www.worldsteel.org/about-steel/steel-facts.html.
• Erol, İ., & Özmen, A. (2018). Çevresel düzeyde sürdürülebilirlik performansının ölçülmesi: Parekende sektöründe bir uygulama. İktisat İşletme ve Finans, 23(266), 70-94.
• Gatimbu, K., Ogada, M., Budambula, N., & Kariuk, S. (2018). Environmental sustainability and financial performance of the small‐scale tea processors in Kenya. Business Strategy & the Environment, John Wiley & Sons, 27(8), 1765-1771.
• Glavas, A., & Mish, J. (2015). Resources and capabilities of triple bottom line firms: going over old or breaking new ground?. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(3), 623-642.
• Goodland, R. (1995). The Concept of environmental sustainability. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, , 1-24.
• Govindan, K., Jha, P. C., Agarwal, V., & Darbari, J. D. (2019). Environmental management partner selection for reverse supply chain collaboration: A sustainable approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 236, 784-797.
• Gregory, J. R., & Kirchain, R. E. (2008). A framework for evaluating the economic performance of recycling systems: a case study of North American electronics recycling systems. Environmental Science & Technology, 42(18), 6800–8.
• Harris, J. (2000). Basic principles of sustainable development. Dimensions of Sustainable Development, 21-41.
• Holappa, L. (2020). A general vision for reduction of energy consumption and CO2 emissions from the steel industry. Metals, 10, 1117; doi:10.3390/met10091117.
• Hu, J., Liu, Y., Yuen, T., Lim, M. & Hu, J. (2019). Do green practices really attract customers? the sharing economy from the sustainable supply chain management perspective. Resources. Conservation and Recycling, 149, 177–187.
• Hubbard, G. (2009). Measuring organizational performance: beyond the triple bottom line. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 18, 177-191.
• Kaza, S., Yao, L., Bhada-Tata, P., & Van Woerden, F. (2018). What a waste 2.0: a global snapshot of solid waste management to 2050. The World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1329-0.
• Kurnaz, N., & Kestane, A. (2016). Kurumsal sürdürülebilirliğin ekonomik açıdan incelenmesi ve yatırımcı davranışları ilişkisi: BİST sürdürülebilirlik endeksinde bir uygulama. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 49, 278-302.
• Küçük, M., & Güneş, G. (2013). Sivil toplum kuruluşları ve çevresel sürdürülebilirlik. Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Dergisi, 5(2), 298-311.
• Larsen, A. W., Merrild, H., & Christensen, T. H. (2009). Recycling of glass: Accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming contributions. Waste Manag. Res., 27, 754–762.
• Lenort, R., Staš, D., Wicher, P., Holman, D., & Ignatowicz, K. (2017). Comparative study of sustainable key performance ındicators in metallurgical industry. Annual Set The Environment Protection, 19, 36-51.
• McMichael, A. J., Butler, C. D., & Folke, C. (2003). New visions for addressing sustainability. Science, (302), 1919-1920.
• Ni, W., & Sun, H. (2019). The effect of sustainable supply chain management on business performance: Implications for integrating the entire supply chain in the chinese manufacturing sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 232, 1176–1186. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.384.
• Rao, P. (2002). Greening the supply chain: A new initiative in South East Asia. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22(5), 631-655.
• Santos, M. A. D., Svensson, G., & Padin, C. (2013). Indicators of sustainable business practices: Woolworths in South Africa. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J., 18 (1), 104-108.
• Shrivastava, P. (1995). The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 936-960.
• Singh, R. K., Murty, H. R., Gupta, S. K., & Dikshit, A. K. (2007). Development of composite sustainability performance index for steel industry. Ecol. Indicat., (7), 565588.
• Sudharsan, N., Palanisamy, T., & Subhash, C. Y. (2018). Environmental sustainability of waste glass as a valuable construction material-A critical review. Ecol. Environ. Conser., 24, 331–338.
• Szekely, F., & Knirsch, M. (2005). Responsible leadership and corporate social responsibility: metrics for sustainable performance. Eur. Manag. J., 23 (6), 628-647.
• Tajbakhsh, A., & Hassini, E. (2015). Performance Measurement of Sustainable Supply Chains: A Review and Research Questions. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag., 64, 744–783.
• Tsai, W., & Hung, S. (2009). A fuzzy goal programming approach for green supply chain optimisation under activity-based costing and performance evaluation with a value-chain structure. International Journal of Production Research, 47 (18), 4991–5017.
• Vachon, S., & Mao, Z. (2008). Linking supply chain strength to sustainable development: a country-level analysis. J. Clean. Prod., 16 (15), 1552-1560.
• Wang, Q., Li, J., Yan, H., & Zhu, S. X. (2016). Optimal remanufacturing strategies in name-your-own-price auctions with limited capacity. Int. J. Production Economics, 181, 113–129.
• World Steel Association. (2020). Steel facts. Erişim Tarihi: 1. 08. 2021, https://www.worldsteel.org/about-steel/steel-facts.html.