Evaluation of the financial performance of international logistics firms using the MAXC-LOGSTA-AROMAN hybrid approach

Öz

In this study, 10 logistics firms were analyzed operating in Turkey, Germany, the Netherlands, and Italy within the framework of 10 financial criteria representing the dimensions of liquidity, profitability, operating efficiency, and leverage, defined partly as benefit-oriented and partly as cost-oriented. A three-stage decision-making process was designed. In the first stage, the criteria weights were calculated using the MAXC and LOGSTA objective weighting methods, derived from the structure of the decision matrix. In the second stage, these weights were integrated through a linear combination equation to obtain the final criteria weights. In the third stage, the alternative firms were ranked using the AROMAN method. The findings show that the most decisive criterion is net profit margin (0.2996), followed by the debt-to-equity ratio (0.1792) and return on equity (0.1434). According to the AROMAN results, PST, ALFO, and Logwin AG rank in the top three, while Denge Lojistik is positioned last. The results reveal that superior financial performance depends not only on operational scale but also on the balance among profitability, liquidity, and capital structure. In conclusion, the study demonstrates that evaluating logistics firms' financial performance through a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making approach—rather than one-dimensional ratio analyses—yields more holistic and explanatory results.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Logistics Firms
• Financial Performance
• Multi-Criteria Decision Making
• MAXC
• LOGSTA
• AROMAN

Uluslararası lojistik firmalarının finansal performansının MAXC-LOGSTA-AROMAN hibrit yaklaşımıyla değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Bu çalışmada Türkiye, Almanya, Hollanda ve İtalya’da faaliyet gösteren 10 lojistik firması; likidite, kârlılık, faaliyet etkinliği ve borçluluk boyutlarını temsil eden ve bir bölümü fayda, bir bölümü maliyet yönlü olarak tanımlanan 10 finansal kriter çerçevesinde analiz edilmiştir. Çalışmada üç aşamalı bir karar verme süreci tasarlanmıştır. İlk aşamada kriter ağırlıkları, karar matrisinin yapısından türetilen MAXC ve LOGSTA objektif ağırlıklandırma yöntemleriyle hesaplanmış; ikinci aşamada bu ağırlıklar doğrusal birleştirme denklemiyle bütünleştirilerek nihai kriter ağırlıkları elde edilmiş; üçüncü aşamada ise alternatif firmalar AROMAN yöntemiyle sıralanmıştır. Bulgular, en belirleyici kriterin net kâr marjı (0.2996) olduğunu; bunu borç/özkaynak oranı (0.1792) ve özkaynak kârlılığının (0.1434) izlediğini göstermektedir. AROMAN sonuçlarına göre PST, ALFO ve Logwin AG ilk üç sırada yer alırken, Denge Lojistik son sırada konumlanmıştır. Sonuçlar, üstün finansal performansın yalnızca operasyonel ölçeğe değil; kârlılık, likidite ve sermaye yapısı arasındaki dengeye de bağlı olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Sonuç olarak çalışma, lojistik firmalarının finansal performansının tek boyutlu oran analizleri yerine hibrit çok kriterli karar verme yaklaşımıyla değerlendirilmesinin daha bütüncül ve açıklayıcı sonuçlar sunduğunu ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Lojistik Firmaları
• Finansal Performans
• Çok Kriterli Karar Verme
• MAXC
• LOGSTA
• AROMAN

Kaynakça

1. Abdel-Basset, M., Ding, W., Mohamed, R., & Metawa, N. (2020). An integrated plithogenic MCDM approach for financial performance evaluation of manufacturing industries. Risk Management, 22, 192–218. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41283-020-00061-4
2. Adalar, I., & Işık, Ö. (2025). Criterion importance based on sum of squares (CRISUS): A novel objective weighting method and its implementation in multidimensional sustainability performance measurement. Economic Computation & Economic Cybernetics Studies & Research, 59(2). https://doi.org/10.24818/18423264/59.2.25.13
3. Akbulut, O. Y. (2025). A hybrid framework for assessing multi-dimensional bank sustainability with multi-criteria decision making. International Journal of Insurance and Finance, 5(2), 29–47. https://doi.org/10.52898/ijif.2025.8
4. Akbulut, O. Y. (2026). A novel integrated MCDM framework for ESG risk assessment in manufacturing firms: The LOGSTA-SPC-MUNRA hybrid model. Knowledge and Decision Systems With Applications, 2, 502–523. https://doi.org/10.59543/krgvw760
5. Alkahtani, B. S. T., Simic, V., Anjum, M., Pamucar, D., Algahtani, O., & Alzaid, S. S. (2025). Decision support system for financial and accounting performance assessment in manufacturing industries. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, 18(1), 314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44196-025-01066-1
6. Altman, E. I., & Hotchkiss, E. (2006). Corporate financial distress and bankruptcy (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
7. Ayaydın, H., Shırzadı, S. A., Balıkçı, H. C., Sharabati, A.-A. A., & Barut, A. (2025). Entropy-based VIKOR and TOPSIS approaches for financial performance ranking: Evidence from Turkish cement companies listed on Borsa Istanbul. Quality & Quantity. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-025-02494-z
8. Bahrini, R., Zamzam, A., & Filfilan, A. (2024). Financial performance measurement of logistics companies: Empirical evidence from Saudi Arabia. In I. Alharbi, C. E. Ben Ncir, B. Alyoubi, & H. Ben-Romdhane (Eds.), Advances in computational logistics and supply chain analytics (pp. 139–157). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-50036-7_8

9. Baydaş, M., Elma, O. E., & Stević, Ž. (2024). Proposal of an innovative MCDA evaluation methodology: Knowledge discovery through rank reversal, standard deviation, and relationship with stock return. Financial Innovation, 10(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-023-00526-x
10. Baydaş, M., Yılmaz, Ö., Acar, E., & Ulutaş, A. (2024a). Hibrit bir ÇKKV modeli ile G20 ülkelerinin lojistik performansının ölçülmesi. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 12(1), 180–207. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v12i1.2300
11. Baydaş, M., Stević, Ž., Eren, T., & Starčević, V. (2024b). Addressing the global logistics performance index rankings with methodological insights and an innovative decision support framework. Applied Sciences, 14(22), Article 10334. https://doi.org/10.3390/app142210334
12. Bošković, S., Švadlenka, L., Jovčić, S., Dobrodolac, M., Simić, V., & Bačanin, N. (2023). An alternative ranking order method accounting for two-step normalization (AROMAN)—A case study of the electric vehicle selection problem. IEEE Access, 11, 39496–39507.
13. Brigham, E. F., & Houston, J. F. (2019). Fundamentals of financial management (15th ed.). Cengage Learning.
14. Chamochumbi Diaz, G. D., Palazzi, F., & Sorini, L. (2026). Creditworthiness of small and medium enterprises: A fuzzy decision-making approach. Computational Management Science, 23(1), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10287-025-00546-1
15. Çakır, S., & Perçin, S. (2013). Çok kriterli karar verme teknikleriyle lojistik firmalarında performans ölçümü. Ege Akademik Bakış, 13(4), 449–459. https://doi.org/10.21121/eab.2013418013
16. Damodaran, A. (2012). Investment valuation: Tools and techniques for determining the value of any asset (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
17. da Cunha, Í. G. F., Policarpo, R. V. S., de Oliveira, P. C. S., Zanon, L. G., & Rebelatto, D. A. do N. (2025). Exploring ESG indicators and the sustainable development goals: A fuzzy multi-criteria approach to cause-and-effect analysis. Business Strategy & Development, 8(3), e70155. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsd2.70155
18. de Lima Silva, D. F., Ferreira, L., & de Almeida-Filho, A. T. (2020). A new preference disaggregation TOPSIS approach applied to sort corporate bonds based on financial statements and expert’s assessment. Expert Systems with Applications, 152, 113369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113369
19. Dhingra, V., Sharma, A., & Gupta, S. K. (2024). Sectoral portfolio optimization by judicious selection of financial ratios via PCA. Optimization and Engineering, 25(3), 1431–1468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11081-023-09849-1
20. Ecer, F., & Pamucar, D. (2022). A novel LOPCOW-DOBI multi-criteria sustainability performance assessment methodology: An application in developing country banking sector. Omega, 112, 102690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2022.102690
21. Ecer, F., Böyükaslan, A., Pamucar, D., & Tirkolaee, E. B. (2024). Evaluating the financial credibility of third-party logistic providers through a novel Frank operators-driven group decision-making model with dual hesitant linguistic q-rung orthopair fuzzy information. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 138, Article 109415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2024.109415
22. Erdoğan, H., & Kırbaç, G. (2021). Financial performance measurement of logistics companies based on entropy and WASPAS methods. Journal of Business Research - Turk, 13(2), 1093. https://doi.org/10.20491/isarder.2021.1186
23. Ersoy, N. (2023). Applying an integrated data-driven weighting system – CoCoSo approach for financial performance evaluation of Fortune 500 companies. E&M Economics and Management, 26(3), 92–108. https://doi.org/10.15240/tul/001/2023-3-006
24. Gligorić, Z., Görçün, Ö. F., Gligorić, M., Pamucar, D., Simic, V., & Küçükönder, H. (2024). Evaluating the deep learning software tools for large-scale enterprises using a novel TODIFFA-MCDM framework. Journal of King Saud University-Computer and Information Sciences, 36(5), Article 102079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksuci.2024.102079
25. Görçün, Ö. F., Shabir, M., Çalık, A., & Işık, Ö. (2025). Evaluation of the financial performance of the textile and apparel industry in interval type-2 fuzzy environment. Applied Soft Computing, Article 113830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2025.113830
26. Güngör, H. Y. (2025). Analysis of the financial performance of logistics companies in ASEAN countries based on revenue ratios. Iğdır Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 40, 328. https://doi.org/10.54600/igdirsosbilder.1719559
27. Hajek, P., Sahut, J.-M., & Olej, V. (2025). Credit rating prediction using a fuzzy MCDM approach with criteria interactions and TOPSIS sorting. Annals of Operations Research, 353(1), 251–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-024-06183-2
28. Halkos, G. E., & Tzeremes, N. G. (2012). Industry performance evaluation with the use of financial ratios: An application of bootstrapped DEA. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(5), 5872–5880.
29. Hofmann, E., & Lampe, K. (2013). Financial statement analysis of logistics service providers: Ways of enhancing performance. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 43(4), 321. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijpdlm-08-2012-0229
30. Işık, Ö. (2022). Gri entropi, FUCOM ve EDAS-M yöntemleriyle Türk lojistik firmalarının çok kriterli performans analizi. Yaşar Üniversitesi E-Dergisi, 17(66), 472–489. https://doi.org/10.19168/jyasar.939276
31. Işık, Ö., Adalar, İ., & Shabir, M. (2025). Measuring efficiency, productivity and sustainability performance for Islamic banks: A fuzzy expert-based multi-criteria decision support model using spherical fuzzy information. International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and Management, 18(6), 1482–1519. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMEFM-09-2024-0477
32. Isik, O., Aydin, Y., & Kosaroglu, S. M. (2020). The assessment of the logistics performance index of CEE countries with the new combination of SV and MABAC methods. LogForum, 16(4), 549–559. https://doi.org/10.17270/J.LOG.2020.504
33. Işık, Ö., Çalık, A., & Shabir, M. (2025). A consolidated MCDM framework for overall performance assessment of listed insurance companies based on ranking strategies. Computational Economics, 65(1), 271–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10614-024-10578-5
34. Işık, Ö., Shabir, M., Demir, G., Puska, A., & Pamucar, D. (2025). A hybrid framework for assessing Pakistani commercial bank performance using multi-criteria decision-making. Financial Innovation, 11(1), 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-024-00728-x
35. Işık, Ö., Shabir, M., & Moslem, S. (2024). A hybrid MCDM framework for assessing urban competitiveness: A case study of European cities. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 96, Article 102109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2024.102109
36. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The balanced scorecard: Translating strategy into action. Harvard Business School Press.
37. Katrancı, A., Kundakcı, N., & Pamucar, D. (2025). Financial performance evaluation of firms in BIST 100 index with ITARA and COBRA methods. Financial Innovation, 11(1), 34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-024-00704-5
38. Kaya, A., Pamucar, D., Gürler, H. E., & Özçalıcı, M. (2024). Determining the financial performance of the firms in the Borsa Istanbul sustainability index: Integrating multi-criteria decision making methods with simulation. Financial Innovation, 10(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-023-00512-3
39. Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M., Amiri, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Antuchevičienė, J. (2021). Determination of objective weights using a new method based on the removal effects of criteria (MEREC). Symmetry, 13(4), Article 525. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13040525
40. Lee, P. F., Siew, L. W., & Hoe, L. W. (2021). Evaluation and improvement of the efficiency of logistics companies with data envelopment analysis model. Engineering Journal, 25(6), 45. https://doi.org/10.4186/ej.2021.25.6.45
41. Liang, Y. (2023). The impact of international logistics cost on international trade based on VAR model. Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.2478/amns.2023.2.00877
42. Mukhametzyanov, I. (2021). Specific character of objective methods for determining weights of criteria in MCDM problems: Entropy, CRITIC and SD. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 4(2), 76–105. https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame210402076i
43. Neely, A., Adams, C., & Kennerley, M. (2002). The performance prism: The scorecard for measuring and managing business success. Financial Times Prentice Hall.
44. Nguyen, P.-H., Nguyen, T.-L., Nguyen, T.-G., Nguyen, D.-T., Tran, D.-H., & Le, H.-A. (2025a). Performance evaluation of listed Vietnamese logistics companies in the pre-, during, and post-COVID-19 based on a three-layer MCDM method. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12, Article 141. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-06266-w
45. Nguyen, P.-H., Tsai, J.-F., & Lin, M.-H. (2025b). Evaluating port and logistics companies using integrated fuzzy MCDM with MM–regret framework. Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2025.100041
46. Nguyen, P.-H., Nguyen, T.-L., & Nguyen, D.-T. (2025c). Assessing financial performance disparities in the Vietnam logistics sector amidst COVID-19: A hybrid MCDM evaluation approach using MEREC-COBRA [Preprint]. Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6484793/v1
47. Özbek, A., & Erol, E. (2017). BİST’te işlem gören lojistik firmasının GİA ile finansal analizi. The International New Issues in Social Sciences, 5(5), 295–310.
48. Özçalıcı, M., Pamucar, D., Gürler, H. E., Güngör Karyağdı, N., & Kaya, A. (2026). A robust hybrid MCDM framework with emphasis on decision stability intervals: Performance evaluation of global insurance brokers using fuzzy LBWA and modified ARTASI. Applied Soft Computing, 190, 114557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2026.114557
49. Pala, O. (2021). IDOCRIW ve MARCOS temelli BIST ulaştırma işletmelerinin finansal performans analizi. Kafkas Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(23), 263–294. https://doi.org/10.36543/kauiibfd.2021.007
50. Penman, S. H. (2013). Financial statement analysis and security valuation (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
51. Sharifi, S. (2025). Novel stratified algorithms for sustainable decision-making under uncertainty: MOSDM and SSDM. Applied Soft Computing, 178, 113239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2025.113239
52. Stević, Ž., Pamučar, D., Puška, A., & Chatterjee, P. (2020). Sustainable supplier selection in healthcare industries using a new MCDM method: Measurement of alternatives and ranking according to compromise solution (MARCOS). Computers & Industrial Engineering, 140, 106231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.106231
53. Ulutaş, A. (2018). Entropi tabanlı EDAS yöntemi ile lojistik firmalarının performans analizi. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, (23), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.18092/ulikidince.348599
54. Ulutaş, A., Balo, F., Sua, L., Karabasevic, D., Stanujkic, D., & Popovic, G. (2024). Evaluation of third-party logistics service providers for car manufacturing firms using a novel integrated grey LOPCOW-PSI-MACONT model. Expert Systems with Applications, 247, Article 125013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2024.125013
55. Verma, S., Sahu, S. P., & Sahu, T. P. (2023). Portfolio management using Additive Ratio Assessment based stock selection and deep learning for prediction. International Journal of Information Technology, 15(8), 4055–4062. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41870-023-01493-3
56. Wu, H.-Y., Tzeng, G.-H., & Chen, Y.-H. (2009). A fuzzy MCDM approach for evaluating banking performance based on Balanced Scorecard. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(6), 10135–10147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.01.005
57. Yalçın, G. C., Kara, K., Özyürek, H., Simic, V., & Pamucar, D. (2026). Benchmarking the financial performance of initial public offering companies via a Z score normalization-based MPSI-RBNAR hybrid approach. Financial Innovation, 12(1), 70. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-025-00902-9
58. Yürüyen, A. A., Ulutaş, A., & Özdağoğlu, A. (2023). Lojistik işletmelerinin performansının bir hibrit ÇKKV modeli ile değerlendirilmesi. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 11(3), 1151–1178. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v11i3.2245
59. Zavadskas, E. K., & Podvezko, V. (2016). Integrated determination of objective criteria weights in MCDM. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 15(2), 267–283.
60. Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Kildienė, S. (2014). State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM/MADM methods. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 20(1), 165–179.
61. Zhang, X., Wang, C., Li, E., & Xu, C. (2014). Assessment model of ecoenvironmental vulnerability based on improved entropy weight method. The Scientific World Journal, 2014(1), Article 797814. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/797814