Evaluating Innovation, Quality of Life and Sustainability in OECD Countries: A Vikor Approach

Yıl 2025, Sayı: Özel Sayı 3, 279 - 298, 31.12.2025

Murat Unanoglu

https://doi.org/10.33203/mfy.1830836

Öz

This study evaluates how well OECD countries (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) balance innovation, quality of life, and environmental sustainability while accounting for per capita CO₂ emissions and cost-of-living pressures. Using 2022–2024 data, Global Innovation Index, Environmental Performance Index, and Quality-of-Life Index are benefit criteria; CO₂ emissions and Cost of Living Index are cost criteria. Weights are derived objectively by CRiteria Importance Through Intercriteria Correlation (CRITIC); compromise ranking is obtained via VIšekriterijumska optimizacija i KOmpromisno Rangiranje (VIKOR) (v=0.5). Finland, Netherlands, Sweden, Estonia, and Denmark achieve the best overall performance, whereas innovation leaders United States (32nd), Israel (35th), and Australia (34th) rank low due to high carbon intensity and affordability issues. Results show that trade-offs between innovation-driven growth and socio-environmental goals are largely policy-dependent, with the Nordic-Continental European model offering the most successful integrated approach.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Innovation , Industrialization , Sustainable Development , VIKOR

OECD Ülkelerinde Yenilik, Yaşam Kalitesi ve Sürdürülebilirliğin Değerlendirilmesi: Bir Vikor Yaklaşımı

Öz

Bu çalışma, OECD ülkelerinde (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) yenilik, yaşam kalitesi ve çevresel sürdürülebilirliği eş zamanlı dengeleme başarısını, kişi başı CO₂ emisyonu ve yaşam maliyeti baskılarını da dikkate alarak değerlendirmektedir. 2022-2024 verileriyle Küresel Yenilik Endeksi, Çevresel Performans Endeksi ve Yaşam Kalitesi Endeksi fayda kriteri; CO₂ emisyonu ve Yaşam Maliyeti Endeksi maliyet kriteri olarak alınmıştır. Ağırlıklar CRiteria Importance Through Intercriteria Correlation (CRITIC), sıralama VIšekriterijumska optimizacija i KOmpromisno Rangiranje (VIKOR) (v=0.5) yöntemiyle belirlenmiştir. Finlandiya, Hollanda, İsveç, Estonya ve Danimarka en iyi uzlaşma performansını sergilerken; ABD (32.), İsrail (35.) ve Avustralya (34.) yüksek karbon yoğunluğu ve yaşam maliyeti nedeniyle geride kalmıştır. Bulgular, yenilik odaklı büyümenin çevresel ve sosyal hedeflerle çelişkisinin büyük ölçüde politika tercihi olduğunu ve Nordik modelin bu dengeyi en başarılı şekilde sağladığını ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Yenilik , Sanayileşme , Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma , VIKOR

Kaynakça

• Aghion, P., Akcigit, U., Deaton, A., & Roulet, A. (2016). Creative destruction and subjective well-being. American Economic Review, 106(12), 3869–3897. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20150949
• Amin, F., Dong, Q.-L., Grzybowska, K., Ahmed, Z., & Yan, B.-R. (2022). A novel fuzzy-based VIKOR–CRITIC soft computing method for evaluation of sustainable supply chain risk management. Sustainability, 14(5), Article 2827. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052827
• Block, S., Emerson, J. W., Esty, D. C., de Sherbinin, A., Wendling, Z. A. (2024). 2024 Environmental Performance Index. Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy. https://epi.yale.edu/
• Crippa, M., Guizzardi, D., Pagani, F., Banja, M., Muntean, M., Schaaf E., Becker, W., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Quadrelli, R., Risquez Martin, A., Taghavi-Moharamli, P., Köykkä, J., Grassi, G., Rossi, S., Brandao De Melo, J., Oom, D., Branco, A., San-Miguel, J., Vignati, E., GHG emissions of all world countries, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2023, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/9816914
• Dang, V. T., & Dang, W. V. (2020). Multi-criteria decision-making in the evaluation of environmental quality of OECD countries: The entropy weight and VIKOR methods. International Journal of Ethics and Systems, 36(1), 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOES-06-2019-0101
• Dechezleprêtre, A., & Sato, M. (2017). The impacts of environmental regulations on competitiveness. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 11(2), 183–206. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rex013
• 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
• Easterlin, R. A. (2017). Paradox lost? Review of Behavioral Economics, 4(4), 311–339. https://doi.org/10.1561/105.00000068
• Girardi, G. C., Rubbo, P., Broday, E. E., Arnold, M., & Picinin, C. T. (2024). Comparative analysis between quality of life and human labor in countries belonging to G7 and BRICS blocks: Proposition of discriminant analysis model. Economies, 12(5), Article 124. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies12050124
• Global Carbon Project. (2024). Global carbon budget 2024 (Version 1.0) [Data set]. https://doi.org/10.18160/GCP-2024
• Haberl, H., Wiedenhofer, D., Virág, D., Kalt, G., Plank, B., Brockway, P., Fishman, T., Hausknost, D., Krausmann, F., Leon-Gruchalski, B., Mayer, A., Pichler, M., Schaffartzik, A., Sousa, T., Streeck, J., & Creutzig, F. (2020). A systematic review of the evidence on decoupling of GDP, resource use and GHG emissions, part II: Synthesizing the insights. Environmental Research Letters, 15(6), Article 065003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab842a
• Hickel, J., & Kallis, G. (2020). Is green growth possible? New Political Economy, 25(4), 469–486. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2019.1598964
• Jackson, T. (2009). Prosperity without growth: Economics for a finite planet. Earthscan.
• Kırda, K., & Aytekin, A. (2023). Assessing industrialized countries' environmental sustainability performances using an integrated multi-criteria model and software. Environment, Development and Sustainability. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03349-z
• Kumar, A., Sah, B., Singh, A. R., Deng, Y., He, X., Kumar, P., & Bansal, R. C. (2017). A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 69, 596–609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.191
• Machado, C. M. (2024). Global analysis of the relationship between environmental performance, economic development, and the innovation index through the Kuznets Environmental Curve. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 16(11), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijef.v16n11p1
• Mahmood, T., Ali, Z., & Naeem, M. (2023). Aggregation operators and CRITIC‐VIKOR method for confidence complex q‐rung orthopair normal fuzzy information and their applications. CAAI Transactions on Intelligence Technology, 8(1), 40–63. https://doi.org/10.1049/cit2.12146
• Mardani, A., Jusoh, A., MD Nor, K., Khalifah, Z., Zakwan, N., & Valipour, A. (2015). Multiple criteria decision-making techniques and their applications – a review of the literature from 2000 to 2014. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 28(1), 516–571. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2015.1075139
• Mazzucato, M. (2021). Mission economy: A moonshot guide to changing capitalism. Harper Business.
• Ming-jun, C., & Jian-ya, Z. (2025). Research on the comprehensive effect of the Porter hypothesis of environmental protection tax regulation in China. Environmental Sciences Europe, 37, Article 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-025-01069-x
• Numbeo. (2024a). Cost of living plus rent index 2024 mid-year. https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/rankings_by_country.jsp?title=2024-mid
• Numbeo. (2024b). Quality of life index by country 2024 mid-year. https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/rankings_by_country.jsp?title=2024-mid
• Opricovic, S. (1998). Multicriteria optimization of civil engineering systems. Faculty of Civil Engineering, Belgrade, 2(1), 5–21.
• Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G.-H. (2004). Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research, 156(2), 445–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00020-1
• Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G.-H. (2007). Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 178(2), 514–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2006.01.020
• Porter, M. E., & van der Linde, C. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), 97–118. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.9.4.97
• Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5, Part 2), S71–S102. https://doi.org/10.1086/261725
• Rostamzadeh, R., Ghorabaee, M. K., Govindan, K., Esmaeili, A., & Nobar, H. B. K. (2018). Evaluation of sustainable supply chain risk management using an integrated fuzzy TOPSIS-CRITIC approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 175, 651–669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.071
• Rousselière, S., Coisnon, T., Hassan, M., Musson, A., & Rousselière, D. (2024). Beyond Porter hypothesis: Empirical evidence of heterogeneous and contextual economic returns of eco-innovations on a sample of European SMEs. Journal of Cleaner Production, 484, Article 144329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.144329
• Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Harper & Brothers.
• Stern, D. I. (2017). The environmental Kuznets curve after 25 years. Journal of Bioeconomics, 19, 7–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10818-017-9243-1
• United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. United Nations General Assembly. https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda
• Vadivel, S. M., Pranamya, B., Arivazhagan, P., Sequeira, A. H., & Chandana, V. (2023). Application of VIKOR method for green postal sustainable service design. In A. Abraham, S. Pllana, G. Casalino, K. Ma, & A. Bajaj (Eds.), Intelligent systems design and applications (pp. 358–368). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27440-4_33
• Vergara-Perucich, F. (2019). [Review of the book The new urban crisis: How our cities are increasing inequality, deepening segregation, and failing the middle class—and what we can do about it, by R. Florida]. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 34, 647–649. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-018-9632-3
• Vidal, L.-A., Marle, F., & Bocquet, J.-C. (2011). Using a Delphi process and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to evaluate the complexity of projects. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(5), 5388–5405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.10.016
• World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford University Press.
• World Intellectual Property Organization. (2024). Global Innovation Index 2024: Unlocking the innovation potential of the world’s regions. https://doi.org/10.34667/TIND.50062
• World Intellectual Property Organization. (2025). Global Innovation Index 2025. https://www.wipo.int/web-publications/global-innovation-index-2025/en/gii-2025-results.html