Environmental Performance of Advanced and Emerging Market Economies: A Comparative Analysis of G7 and E7 Countries

Abstract

The systematic monitoring and analysis of environmental performance levels are of critical importance for countries to develop effective solutions and strategies to combat environmental degradation and climate change. In this context, a careful examination of national environmental performance is essential for identifying key factors driving environmental issues and for formulating appropriate policies. The significance of specific environmental indicators may vary depending on a country's level of economic development, leading to differences in the applicable policy frameworks. Accordingly, this study analyzes the environmental performance of G7 and E7 countries using the 2024 Environmental Performance Index (EPI) data through an integrated CRITIC-COPRAS approach. The CRITIC method was employed to determine and compare the weights of environmental performance criteria based on their relative importance for both country groups, while the COPRAS method was utilized to rank the countries according to their overall environmental performance. The analysis reveals that air pollution and heavy metals are among the most critical criteria in both groups. However, sanitation and drinking water emerged as high-weighted criteria for the G7 countries, whereas forests held significant weight for the E7 group. Among the G7 countries, Germany demonstrated the highest environmental performance, while Brazil stood out within the E7 group.

Keywords

• Environmental Performance
• Multi Criteria Decision Making
• G7
• E7

Gelişmiş ve Yükselen Piyasa Ekonomilerinin Çevresel Performansı: G7 ve E7 Ülkelerinin Karşılaştırmalı Analizi

Öz

Çevresel performans düzeyinin sistematik biçimde izlenmesi ve analiz edilmesi, ülkelerin çevresel bozulma ve iklim değişikliğiyle mücadele konusunda uygun çözümler üretebilmeleri ve bu sorunlara yönelik stratejiler geliştirmeleri açısından önem taşımaktadır. Bu nedenle çevresel sorunlara sebep olan kritik faktörlerin belirlenmesi ve gerekli politikaların oluşturulabilmesi için ülkelerin çevresel performans düzeylerinin dikkatle ele alınması gerekmektedir. Farklı ekonomik gelişmişlik seviyesine sahip olan ülkelerde farklı çevresel göstergeler kritik öneme sahip olabilmekte ve uygulanacak politikalar da bu bağlamda değişebilmektedir. Bu kapsamda, çalışmada G7 ve E7 ülkelerinin çevresel performansları 2024 yılı ÇPE verileri yardımıyla CRITIC-COPRAS bütünleşik yaklaşımıyla analiz edilmiştir. CRITIC yöntemiyle, G7 ve E7 ülkelerinin çevresel performans endeksi kriterleri önem derecelerine göre sıralanarak karşılaştırılmış; COPRAS yöntemiyle ise ülkeler çevresel performans düzeylerine göre sıralanmıştır. Buna göre hava kirliliği ve ağır metaller değişkenleri her iki ülke grubunda da önem düzeyi yüksek kriterler olurken; G7 için sanitasyon ve içme suyu, E7 içinse ormanlar kriteri yüksek ağırlığa sahip kriterler olarak belirlenmiştir. G7’de en yüksek çevresel performansa sahip ülke Almanya olurken E7’de öne çıkan ülke Brezilya olmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Çevresel Performans
• Çok Kriterli Karar Verme
• G7
• E7

Kaynakça

1. Akandere, G. (2021). Kuşak yol ülkelerinin lojistik ve çevresel performansının analizi. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 20(4), 1893-1915. https://doi.org/10.21547/jss.927509
2. Altıntaş, F. F. (2021). Ülkelerin çevre performanslarının CODAS ve TOPSIS yöntemleri ile ölçülmesi: G7 grubu ülkeleri örneği. Ulakbilge Dergisi, 9(59), 544-559. https://doi.org/10.7816/ulakbilge-09-59-05
3. Altıntaş, F. F. (2024). Analysis of the ocean and marine health performances of 18 countries in the G20 countries: An application using the CEBM-based TOPSIS method. Ege Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 41(3), 166-178. https://doi.org/10.12714/egejfas.41.3.01
4. Arsu, T., & Ayçin, E. (2021). Evaluation of OECD countries with multi-criteria decision-making methods in terms of economic, social and environmental aspects. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 4(2), 55-78. https://doi.org/10.31181/oresta20402055a
5. Ayçin, E. (2020). Çok kriterli karar verme bilgisayar uygulamalı çözümler. Nobel Yayın.
6. Ayçin, E., & Bektaş, S. (2024). BIST Kocaeli Şehir Endeksinde Yer Alan Şirketlerin LOPCOW ve OPARA Yöntemleriyle Finansal Performanslarının Değerlendirilmesi. Sinop Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8(Eğitim Bilimleri Özel Sayısı), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.30561/sinopusd.1551020
7. Bajdor, P., & Korpysa, J. (2025). Multi-criteria-based approach in Environmental Performance Index evaluation. 971-980. https://hdl.handle.net/10125/108953
8. Baykara, S. T. (2025). Ukrayna Savaşı’nın üçüncü yılına girerken AB’nin pandemi sonrası enerji politikası: Prangalanma mı? Sorumluluğu paslama mı? Alternatif Politika, 17(1), 85-113. https://doi.org/10.53376/ap.2025.04

9. Bekun, F. V., Gyamfi, B. A., Köksal, C., & Taha, A. (2024). Impact of financial development, trade flows, and institution on environmental sustainability in emerging markets. Energy & Environment, 35(6), 3253-3272. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X221147603
10. Bilbao-Terol, A., Arenas-Parra, M., Cañal-Fernández, V., & Antomil-Ibias, J. (2014). Using TOPSIS for assessing the sustainability of government bond funds. Omega, 49, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2014.04.005
11. Boldrin, M. T. N., Neisse, A. C., & Formiga, K. T. M. (2025). Supporting environmental decision-making in urban water and wastewater systems: Proposal for an environmental performance index. Water Resources Management, 39, 689-703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-024-03979-6
12. Brodny, J., & Tutak, M. (2023). Assessing the Energy and Climate Sustainability of European Union Member States: An MCDM-Based Approach. Smart Cities, 6(1), 339-367. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities6010017
13. Cucchiella, F., D’Adamo, I., Gastaldi, M., Koh, S. L., & Rosa, P. (2017). A comparison of environmental and energetic performance of European countries: A sustainability index. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 78, 401-413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.04.077
14. Çakın, E., & Ayçin, E. (2019). Ülkelerin çevresel performanslarının çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri ve bulanık mantık tabanlı bir yaklaşım ile bütünleşik olarak değerlendirilmesi. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 14(3), 631-656. https://doi.org/10.17153/oguiibf.476373
15. Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G., & Papayannakis, L. (1995). Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The CRITIC method. Computers & Operations Research, 22(7), 763-770. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0548(94)00059-H
16. Doğan, H. (2022). Seçilmiş ülkelerin çevresel performanslarının bütünleşik CRITIC-MABAC yöntemleriyle ölçülmesi. JOEEP: Journal of Emerging Economies and Policy, 7(2), 433-448.
17. Dong, Y. (2023). Remediation technology and practice of heavy metal polluted soil. Engineering Advances, 3(2), 135-138. https://doi.org/10.26855/ea.2023.04.011
18. Ellis, E. A., Romero Montero, J. A., & Hernández Gómez, I. U. (2017). Deforestation processes in the state of Quintana Roo, Mexico: The role of land use and community forestry. Tropical Conservation Science, 10, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940082917697259
19. Environmental Performance Index. (2024a). 2024 Environmental performance index showcases an unexpected top ranking and failing of international biodiversity commitment. https://epi.yale.edu/downloads/2024epipressrelease.pdf
20. Environmental Performance Index. (2024b). About the EPI. https://epi.yale.edu/about-epi
21. Environmental Performance Index. (2024c). EPI Downloads. https://epi.yale.edu/downloads/2024-epi-report-20250106.pdf
22. Gelmez, E., Eren, H., & Özceylan, E. (2025). Evaluation of environmental performance of OECD countries using SD-based ARAS and WASPAS methods. Gazi University Journal of Science, 38(2), x-x. https://doi.org/10.35378/gujs.1458807
23. Glomsrød, S., Wei, T., & Alfsen, K. H. (2013). Pledges for climate mitigation: The effects of the Copenhagen accord on CO2 emissions and mitigation costs. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 18(5), 619-636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-012-9378-2
24. Gökgöz, F., & Yalçın, E. (2022). Sustainability of G20 countries within environmental and energy perspectives. Present Environment and Sustainable Development, 16(2), 127-145. https://doi.org/10.47743/pesd2022162010
25. Hashemkhani Zolfani, S., Pourhossein, M., Yazdani, M., & Kazimieras Zavadskas, E. (2018). Evaluating construction projects of hotels based on environmental sustainability with MCDM framework. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 57(1), 357-365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2016.11.002
26. Karahan, M., Yıldırım, Z., & Yıldırım, T. (2025). Comparative analysis of Turkey’s environmental performance with Eastern European countries according to international EPI 2022 data. Green Technologies and Sustainability, 3(1), 100116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.grets.2024.100116
27. Karstensen, J., Peters, G. P., & Andrew, R. M. (2013). Attribution of CO2 emissions from Brazilian deforestation to consumers between 1990 and 2010. Environmental Research Letters, 8(2), 024005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024005
28. Kastens, J. H., Brown, J. C., Coutinho, A. C., Bishop, C. R., & Esquerdo, J. C. D. M. (2017). Soy moratorium impacts on soybean and deforestation dynamics in Mato Grosso, Brazil. PLOS ONE, 12(4), e0176168. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0176168
29. Kolb, M., & Galicia, L. (2012). Challenging the linear forestation narrative in the Neo‐tropic: Regional patterns and processes of deforestation and regeneration in southern Mexico. The Geographical Journal, 178(2), 147-161. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2011.00431.x
30. Korkmaz, O., Demirci, A., Bolat, S., Bedlek, P., & İşbilir, H. A. (2022). Avrupa Birliği üyesi ülkelerin lojistik performansları ile sürdürülebilirlik düzeylerinin karşılaştırılması. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 8(1), 122-137. https://doi.org/10.29131/uiibd.1126468
31. Li, X., Zheng, W., Yin, L., Yin, Z., Song, L., & Tian, X. (2017). Influence of social-economic activities on air pollutants in Beijing, China. Open Geosciences, 9(1), 314-321. https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2017-0026
32. Lombardi Netto, A., Salomon, V. A. P., & Ortiz Barrios, M. A. (2021). Multi-Criteria Analysis of Green Bonds: Hybrid Multi-Method Applications. Sustainability, 13(19), 10512. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910512
33. Mahmoody Vanolya, N., & Jelokhani-Niaraki, M. (2021). The use of subjective–objective weights in GIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis for flood hazard assessment: A case study in Mazandaran, Iran. GeoJournal, 86(1), 379-398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-019-10075-5
34. Malleleang, A. M. A., KY, I. G. S., Saragih, H. J. R., & Widodo, P. (2023). The Greenpeace’s Efforts for Forest Destruction Management in Riau Province to Achieve National Security. International Journal Of Humanities Education and Social Sciences (IJHESS), 3(2), 839-846. https://doi.org/10.55227/ijhess.v3i2.706
35. Masyithoh, G., & Nurjannah, S. (2024). History of origin status and land use of oil palm plantations in West Kalimantan province. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1407, 012006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1407/1/012006
36. Mateusz, P., Danuta, M., Małgorzata, Ł., Mariusz, B., & Kesra, N. (2018). TOPSIS and VIKOR methods in study of sustainable development in the EU countries. Procedia Computer Science, 126, 1683-1692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.08.109
37. Özkaya, Y. (2025). Enerji tüketimi, çevresel sürdürülebilirlik ve dijitalleşme: Gelişmekte olan ülkelerde ekonomik büyümeye etkileri. Enderun, 9(1), 67-87. https://doi.org/10.59274/enderun.1617689
38. Öztekin, E. (2024). Sürdürülebilir kentsel gelişim bağlamında eko şehirlerde su ve atık yönetimi. Karaelmas Fen ve Mühendislik Dergisi, 14(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.7212/karaelmasfen.1383715
39. Podvezko, V. (2011). The comparative analysis of MCDA methods SAW and COPRAS. Engineering Economics, 22(2), 134-146. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.22.2.310
40. Praveen, D. V., Rao, P. U., Nancharaiah, T., Krugon, S., Babu, Y. N., Naidu, G. C., Tej, D. J., Pavan, B., & Ganesh, K. (2025). Experimental investigations and optimization of process parameters using COPRAS method during laser beam machining of Hardox-400 spur gears. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM), 19, 2465-2475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-024-01851-w
41. Saaty, T. L. (2001). Analytic hierarchy process. İçinde Encyclopedia of operations research and management science (ss. 19-28). Springer.
42. Sachs, J. D., Kroll, C., Lafortune, G., Fuller, G., & Woelm, F. (2022). Sustainable Development Report 2022. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009210058
43. Senir, G. (2024). Evaluation of the environmental sustainability performance of Eastern European countries with integrated MCDM methods. International Journal of Agriculture Environment and Food Sciences, 8(2), 378-391. https://doi.org/10.31015/jaefs.2024.2.13
44. Simola, H., & Solanko, L. (2017). Overview of Russia’s oil and gas sector [BOFIT Policy Brief 5]. Bank of Finland. https://www.europeangashub.com/wp-content/uploads/attach_810.pdf
45. Singwal, P. (2021). Challenges of India’s fast-growing economy: An analytical study. Journal of Cardiovascular Disease Research, 12(5), 3113-3120.
46. Sogut, M. Z. (2023). A comparative analysis of a dry bulk carrier’s fuel preference in terms of entropy and environmental sustainability. Energy, 275, 127338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2023.127338
47. Stanujkic, D., Popovic, G., Zavadskas, E. K., Karabasevic, D., & Binkyte-Veliene, A. (2020). Assessment of progress towards achieving sustainable development goals of the “Agenda 2030” by using the CoCoSo and the Shannon Entropy methods: The case of the EU countries. Sustainability, 12(14), Article 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145717
48. T. C. Ticaret Bakanlığı. (2024). Yenilenebilir enerji yatırımları ve destekleme merkanizmaları. https://ticaret.gov.tr/data/65dc9d3113b8762768385d66/ETKB%20SKDM%20Sunum-Yenilenebilir%20Enerji_23022024.pdf
49. Tanrıkulu, Y. S., & Partigöç, N. S. (2024). Güneş enerjisi santrallerinin (GES) coğrafi bilgi sistemleri (CBS) tabanlı analitik hiyerarşi süreci (AHS) yöntemi ile yer seçimi: Denizli ili örneği. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 60, Article 60. https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.1384299
50. Wang, Q., Hao, D., Li, F., Guan, X., & Chen, P. (2020). Development of a new framework to identify pathways from socioeconomic development to environmental pollution. Journal of Cleaner Production, 253, 119962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.119962
51. Xu, K., Tan, K., & Chen, Y. (2018). National ecological environmental quality assessment based on multi-sources remote sensing data. 2018 Fifth International Workshop on Earth Observation and Remote Sensing Applications (EORSA), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1109/EORSA.2018.8598547