Institutional Factors and Sustainable Development Goals-Based Sustainability Performance in G7 Countries

Öz

Although the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) aim to promote sustainability in all over the world, some factors based on institutional theory, such as economic, political, and legal systems, may lead to differences in the sustainability performance (SP) of countries. In this regard, this paper measures the SP of G7 countries by considering 17 SDGs. Moreover, this study aims to determine the most influential goal affecting SP. To achieve these goals, the researchers use a hybrid multicriteria decision-making method, namely, SIWEC-ARLON. While the SIWEC method determines criterion weights, the ARLON method measures country ranking. According to the results of the SIWEC method, the following goals, "No poverty," "Good Health and Well-being," "Quality Education," "Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure," and "Sustainable Cities and Communities" are the most effective goals in determining SP, whereas "Responsible Consumption and Production" is the least effective criterion. On the other hand, the results from the ARLON method indicate that while Germany is the top performing country, the USA performs the worst. Factors determining environmental performance may provide arguments to support these rankings.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sustainability performance
• Financial risk management
• SIWEC-ARLON MCDM Methods

Kaynakça

1. Akay, F. (2021). UN SDSN Türkiye’den açık çağrı: tüm paydaşları ağımıza bekliyoruz. Retrieved November 25, 2025 from https://www.ekoiq.com/un-sdsn-turkiyeden-acik-cagri-tum-paydaslari-agimiza-bekliyoruz/ google scholar
2. Alkan, N. (2024). Evaluation of sustainable development and utilization-oriented renewable energy systems based on CRITIC-SWARA-CODAS method using interval valued picture fuzzy sets. Sustainable Energy, Grids and Networks, 38. 101263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.segan.2023.101263 google scholar
3. Antanasijevic, D., Pocajt, V., Ristic M., & Peric-Grujic A. (2017). A differential multi-criteria analysis for the assessment of sustainability performance of European countries: Beyond country ranking. Journal of Cleaner Production, 165, 213-220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.131 google scholar
4. Ayçin, E., Cerci, M., & Sonugelen, E. (2024). An evaluation of women’s human development level using multi-criteria decision-making methods: A case study of OECD countries. Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research, 58 (Issue 4/2024). http://dx.doi.org/10.24818/18423264/58.4.24.07 google scholar
5. Bennett, D. L., & Nikolaev, B. (2021). Individualism, pro-market institutions, and National innovation. Small Business Economics, 57(4), 2085–2106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00396-y google scholar
6. Biswas, S., Datta, D., & Kar, S. (2023). Energy efficiency and environmental sustainability: a multi-criteria based comparison of BRICS and G7 countries. In Emerging Technology and Management Trends in Environment and Sustainability (pp. 107-124). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003356233 google scholar
7. Brauers, W. K. M., Baležentis, A., & Baležentis, T. (2012). European Union member states preparing for EUROPE 2020: An application of the MULTIMOORA method. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 18(4), 567–587. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2012.734692 google scholar
8. Brauers, W. K., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2013). Multi-objective decision making with a large number of objectives: An application for Europe 2020. International Journal of Operations Research, 10(2), 67–79. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2012.734692 google scholar

9. Brodny, J., & Tutak, M. (2023). Assessing regional implementation of sustainable development goal 9 “build resilient infrastructure, promote sustainable industrialization and foster innovation” in Poland. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 195 (122773). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122773 google scholar
10. Burhan, H. A. (2024). Sustainability in industry, innovation and infrastructure: A mcdm based performance evaluation of European Union and Türkiye for sustainable development goal 9 (sdg 9). Verimlilik Dergisi, 21-38. https://doi.org/10.51551/verimlilik.1333767 google scholar
11. Busu, C., & Busu, M. (2018). Modeling the circular economy processes at the EU level using an evaluation algorithm based on Shannon entropy. Processes, 6(11), 225. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr6110225 google scholar
12. Candan, G., & Cengiz Toklu, M. (2022). A comparative analysis of the circular economy performances for European Union countries. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 29(7), 653–664. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2022.2090674 google scholar
13. Cao, J., Spulbar, C., Eti, S., Horobet, A., Yüksel, S., & Dincer, H. (2025). Innovative approaches to green digital twin technologies of sustainable smart cities using a novel hybrid decision-making system. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 10(1), 100651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2025.100651 google scholar
14. Cenamor, J., Parida, V., & Wincent, J. (2019). How entrepreneurial SMEs compete through digital platforms: The roles of digital platform capability, network capability and ambidexterity. Journal of Business Research, 100, 196-206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.03.035. google scholar
15. Chauhan, A., Jakhar, S. K., & Chauhan, C. (2021). The interplay of circular economy with Industry 4.0 enabled smart city drivers of healthcare waste disposal. Journal of Cleaner Production, 279, 123854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123854 google scholar
16. D’Adamo, I.; & Gastaldi , M. (2022). Sustainable development goals: a regional overview based on multi-criteria decision analysis. Sustainability, 14 (15), 9779. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159779 google scholar
17. Demirhan, A., Ulutaş, A., Pala, O (2025). BİST’te işlem gören seçili ticari bankaların LODECI ve ARLON yöntemleriyle performansının değerlendirilmesi. İzmir İktisat Dergisi. 40(3). 918-941. https://doi.org/10.24988/ije.1595885 google scholar
18. Dung, H.T., Bao, N.C., Van Duc, D. (2025). A novel approach for determining criteria weights: Application in ranking materials for mechanical manufacturing processes. Manuf. Rev., 12, 16. https://doi.org/10.1051/mfreview/2025014 google scholar
19. Dwivedi, P.P., & Sharma, D.K. (2025). Performance measures of sustainable development goals using SWI MCDM methods: a case of the Indian states. International Transactions In Operational Research, 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.13609 google scholar
20. Ecer, F., Pamucar, D., Zolfani, S. H., & Eshkalag, M. K. (2019). Sustainability assessment of OPEC countries: Application of a multiple attribute decision making tool. Journal of Cleaner Production, 241, 118324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118324 google scholar
21. EPI (2024), Environmental Performance Index, Retrieved February 9, 2026 from https://epi.yale.edu/measure/2024/epi google scholar
22. Ersoy, N., Özçalıcı, M. & Trung D.D. (2026). A hybrid MCDM approach for SDGs assessment of EU countries. Spectrum of Decision Making and Applications. 3(1). 164-186. https://orcid.org/0009-0002-8047-0469 google scholar
23. Fagioli, F. F., Rocchi, L., Paolotti, L., Roman, S., & Boggia, A. (2017). From the farm to the agrifood system: A multiple criteria framework to evaluate extended multi-functional value. Ecological Indicators, 79, 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.04.008 google scholar
24. Garcia-Bernabeu, A., Hilario-Caballero, A., Pla-Santamaria, D., & Salas-Molina, F. (2020). A process oriented MCDM approach to construct a circular economy composite index. Sustainability, 12(2), 618. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020618 google scholar
25. Göksu, G. G., & Demirtaş, N. (2024). How do the implementations of regulatory impact analysis perform on sustainable development? Investigating the OECD countries through data envelopment analysis. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 42(6), 582–599. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2024.2324920 google scholar
26. Grybaitė, V., & Burinskienė, A. (2024). Assessment of circular economy development in the EU countries based on SAW method. Sustainability, 16(21), 9582. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16219582 google scholar
27. Hinestroza-Olascuaga, L. M., Carvalho, P. M., & Cardoso de Jesus, C. M. (2021). Using a multi-criteria model to assess the suitability of potential sites to implement off-grid solar PV projects in South America. Sustainability, 13(14), 7546. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147546 google scholar
28. IMF (2026), GDP based on PPP, share of World, Retrieved January 31, 2026, from https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/profile/MAE google scholar
29. IPCC (2014). Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of working groups i, ii and iii to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Switzerland.Retrieved November 3, 2025 from https://epic.awi.de/id/eprint/37530/1/IPCC_AR5_SYR_Final.pdf google scholar
30. IPRI (2025), International Property Rights Index, Retrieved January 15, 2026 from https://internationalpropertyrightsindex.org/compare/country?id=78,80,14,10,113 and https://internationalpropertyrightsindex.org/compare/country?id=80,9,27 google scholar
31. Jafari-Moghadam, S., Zali, M., & Sanaeepour, H. (2017). Tourism entrepreneurship policy: A hybrid MCDM model combining DEMATEL and ANP (DANP). Decision Science Letters, 6(3), 233–250. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.dsl.2016.12.006 google scholar
32. Jayaraman, R., Colapinto, C., La Torre, D., & Malik, T. (2017). A weighted goal programming model for planning sustainable development applied to Gulf Cooperation Council countries. Applied Energy, 185, 1931–1939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.11.002 google scholar
33. Kandakoglu, A., Frini, A., & Ben Amor, S. (2019). Multicriteria decision making for sustainable development: A systematic review. Journal of Multi‐Criteria Decision Analysis, 26(5–6), 202–251. https://doi.org/10.1002/mcda.1682 google scholar
34. Kara, K., Yalçın, G. C., Simic, V., Baysal, Z., Pamucar, D. (2024a). The alternative ranking using two step logarithmic normalization method for benchmarking the supply chain performance of countries. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2024.101822 google scholar
35. Kara, K., Yalçın, G. C., Ergin, E. A., Simic, V., Pamucar, D. (2024b). A neutrosophic WENSLO-ARLON model for measuring sustainable brand equity performance. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2024.101918 google scholar
36. Khemani, P., & Kumar, D. (2023). Is financial development crucial to achieving the “2030 agenda of sustainable development”? Evidence from Asian countries. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 18(11), 5009–5027. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-06-2021-0931 google scholar
37. Komasi, H., Nemati, A., Zolfani, S. H., Williams, N. L., & Šaparauskas, J. (2024). Comparative analysis of economic development indicators among South American countries based on a novel MCDM model. Journal of Competitiveness, 16(3), 97–121. https://doi.org/10.7441/joc.2024.03.05 google scholar
38. Lozano, S., & Saavedra-Nieves, A. (2025). An SDG composite index based on hierarchical dea and cooperative game theory. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 99 (2025), 102219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2025.102219 google scholar
39. Lukic, R. (2025). Application of fuzzy SIWEC and rough MABAC methods in the evaluation of trade performance dynamics in Serbia. Manag. Econ. Rev., 10, 448–456. https://doi.org/10.24818/mer/2025.02-11 google scholar
40. Martí, L. (2023). Disparities in sustainable development goals compliance and their association with country risk. Sustainable Development, 31(4), 3038–3051. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2568 google scholar
41. Martín, C. J., & Carnero, M. C. (2019). Evaluation of sustainable development in European Union countries. Applied Sciences, 9(23), 4880. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9234880 google scholar
42. Mârza, B., Bratu, R., Șerbu, R., Stan, S., & Oprean-Stan, C. (2021). Applying AHP and fuzzy AHP management methods to assess the level of financial and digital inclusion. Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research, 55(4), 166–183. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.10001 google scholar
43. Mukherjee, S. (2017). Selection of alternative fuels for sustainable urban transportation under multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Information and Engineering, 9(1), 117–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fiae.2017.04.004 google scholar
44. Neofytou, H., Nikas, A., & Doukas, H. (2020). Sustainable energy transition readiness: A multicriteria assessment index. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 131, 109988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.109988 google scholar
45. Oztemiz, H. H., Vatansever, K., Bayraktar, T. (2025). Sustainable financial performance analysis of logistics companies listed on Borsa Istanbul: an integrated multi-criteria decision-making approach. Sustainability, 17, 9243. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17209243 google scholar
46. Pereira, J., Contreras, P., Morais, D. C., & Arroyo-López, P. (2022). A multi-criteria and stochastic robustness analysis approach to compare nations sustainability. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 80, 101159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2021.101159 google scholar
47. Perez, J. P., Martins, I., Mahauad, M. D., & Sarango-Lalangui, P. O. (2024). A Bridge between entrepreneurship education, program inspiration, and entrepreneurial intention: The role of individual entrepreneurial orientation. Evidence from Latin American emerging economies. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 16(2), 288–310. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-04-2021-0137 google scholar
48. Phillis, A., Grigoroudis, E., & Kouikoglou, V. (2020). Assessing national energy sustainability using multiple criteria decision analysis. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 27(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2019.1679270 google scholar
49. Piwowarski, M., Miłaszewicz, D., Łatuszyńska, M., Borawski, M., & Nermend, K. (2018). Application of the vector measure construction method and technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution for the analysis of the dynamics of changes in poverty levels in the European Union countries. Sustainability, 10(9), 2858. https://doi.org/10.3390/su1009285 google scholar
50. Popovic, G., Fedajev, A., Mitic, P., & Meidute-Kavaliauskiene, I. (2025). An ADAM-based approach to unveiling entrepreneurial ecosystems in selected European countries. Management Decision, 63(4), 1262–1291. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2023-0679 google scholar
51. Puška, A., Nedeljkovic, M., Pamucar, D., Božanic, D., Simic, V. (2024). Application of the new simple weight calculation (SIWEC) method in the case study in the sales channels of agricultural products. MethodsX, 13, 102930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2024.102930 google scholar
52. Remeikienė, R., Gasparėnienė, L., Fedajev, A., Arsić, S., & Noga, G. (2023). Challenges of entrepreneurship development in Europe in the light of the pandemic crisis. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 24(2), 354–367. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2023.18863 google scholar
53. Resce, G., & Schiltz, F. (2021). Sustainable development in Europe: A multicriteria decision analysis. Review of Income and Wealth, 67(2), 509–529. https://doi.org/10.1111/roiw.12465 google scholar
54. Ricciolini, E., Rocchi, L., Cardinali, M., Paolotti, L., Ruiz, F., Cabello, J. M., & Boggia, A. (2022). Assessing progress towards SDGs implementation using multiple reference point based multicriteria methods: The case study of the European countries. Social Indicators Research, 162(3), 1233–1260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-022-02892-6 google scholar
55. Sachs, J.D (2015). The age of sustainable development. New York, Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/10.7312/sach17314-014. google scholar
56. Sant’Anna, A. P., & Menna Barreto, M. F. S. S. (2020). Inequality assessment by probabilistic development indices. Social Indicators Research, 150(3), 781–804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-020-02331-4 google scholar
57. SDG Transformation Center’ Sustainability Report (2025). Sustainable Development Goals for 2030, Retrieved December 25, 2025 from https://sdg-transformation-center-sdsn.hub.arcgis.com/datasets/sdsn::sustainable-development-report-2025-with-indicators/about google scholar
58. Sitaridis, I., & Kitsios, F. (2020). Competitiveness analysis and evaluation of entrepreneurial ecosystems: A multi-criteria approach. Annals of Operations Research, 294(1), 377–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-019-03341-4 google scholar
59. Sousa, M., Almeida, M.F., & Calili, R. (2021). Multiple criteria decision making for the achievement of the un sustainable development goals: a systematic literature review and a research agenda. Sustainability, 13, 4129. https://doi.org/10.3390/su1308412 google scholar
60. Srejović, A. K., Stamenković, M., & Vuksanović, N. (2024). Monitoring Sustainable Development Goals: Stepwise benchmarking approach. Journal of Multi‐Criteria Decision Analysis, 31(3–4), e1838. https://doi.org/10.1002/mcda.1838 google scholar
61. Stanković, J. J., Marjanović, I., Papathanasiou, J., & Drezgić, S. (2021). Social, economic and environmental sustainability of port regions: MCDM approach in composite index creation. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 9(1), 74. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9010074 google scholar
62. 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 5717. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145717 google scholar
63. Stevens, C., & Kanie, Norichika (2016). The transformative potential of the sustainable development goals (sdgs). International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 16, 393–396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-016-9324-y google scholar
64. Torkayesh, A. E., & Torkayesh, S. E. (2021). Evaluation of information and communication technology development in G7 countries: An integrated MCDM approach. Technology in Society, 66, 101670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101670 google scholar
65. Torkayesh, A. E., Ecer, F., Pamucar, D., & Karamaşa, Ç. (2021). Comparative assessment of social sustainability performance: Integrated data-driven weighting system and CoCoSo model. Sustainable Cities and Society, 71, 102975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.102975 google scholar
66. Türe, H., Doğan, S., & Koçak, D. (2019). Assessing Euro 2020 Strategy using multi-criteria decision making methods: VIKOR and TOPSIS. Social Indicators Research, 142(2), 645–665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-1938-8 google scholar
67. United Nations (2022), Marking the Kyoto Protocol’s 25th anniversary, Retrieved 20 January, 2026 from https://www.un.org/fr/node/192312#:~:text=The%20Kyoto%20Protocol%20did%20not,and%20later%20withdrew%20its%20signature google scholar
68. Wang, C., Qiao, C., Ahmed, R. I., & Kirikkaleli, D. (2021). Institutional quality, bank finance and technological innovation: A way forward for fourth industrial revolution in BRICS economies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 163, 120437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120437 google scholar
69. Wątróbski, J., Bączkiewicz, A., Ziemba, E., & Sałabun, W. (2022). Sustainable cities and communities assessment using the DARIA-TOPSIS method. Sustainable Cities and Society, 83, 103926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.103926 google scholar
70. Wei, Z., Lee, M. J., Jia, Z., & Roh, T. (2023). Do entrepreneurial resources drive startup activation? Mediating effect of entrepreneurial orientation. Heliyon, 9(12), e21135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21135 google scholar
71. Yalçın, G.C., Limon, E.G., Kara, K., Limon, O., Gürol, P., Deveci, M., Demirayak, Ö., Tomášková, H. (2025a). A hybrid decision support system for transport policy selection: A case study on Russia’s Northern Sea route in Artic region. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci., 98, 102171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2025.102171 google scholar
72. Yalçın, G. C., Kara, K., Özekenci, E. K., Simic, V., & Pamucar, D. (2025b). Green maritime transport performance analysis of G-7 countries using an interval-valued Fermatean fuzzy ARLON-based decision model. Applied Soft Computing, 113677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2025.113677 google scholar
73. Yalçın, G. C., Kara, K., Özekenci, E. K., Simic, V., & Pamucar, D. (2025c). Multidimensional trade performance assessment for integrating sustainability and economic diversification in OECD countries using a spherical fuzzy SIWEC-SPC-based decision support model. Applied Soft Computing, 113934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2025.113934 google scholar
74. Yang, Y., & Yee, R. W. (2022). The effect of process digitalization initiative on firm performance: A dynamic capability development perspective. International Journal of Production Economics, 254, 108654. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2022.108654 google scholar
75. Yavuz, S., & Esen, Ş. B. (2024). A re-evaluation of how well each country is doing in terms of achieving the SDGs: An objective approach based on multi-criteria-decision-analysis. Ege Academic Review, 24(2), 179–198. https://doi.org/10.21121/eab.1287079 google scholar
76. Yousefi, H., Ardehali, A., & Ghodusinejad, M. H. (2023). BRICS or G7? Current and future assessment of energy and environment performance using multi-criteria and time series analyzes. Energy Strategy Reviews, 49, 101164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2023.101164 google scholar
77. Zhou, K., Zhang, Y., & Wang, J. (2025). Assessment of sustainable development levels, country disparities, and dynamic evolution trends of ASEAN‑10 countries. Sustainable Development, 33(6), 1125–1140. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.70107 google scholar