COMPARISON OF MODELS USED IN CARBON ACCOUNTING THROUGH THE AHP METHOD

Öz

This study aims to evaluate carbon accounting methods in the context of the manufacturing sector using a multi-criteria decision-making approach. Five widely used carbon accounting methods in the literature—GHG Protocol, Life Cycle Assessment, Corporate Carbon Footprint, Product Carbon Footprint, and Blockchain-Based Carbon Accounting—were identified and compared based on five main criteria: accuracy, transparency, cost, speed, and scope. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method was used to determine the weights of these criteria, and data collected through pairwise comparison surveys administered to 14 manufacturing firm managers were analyzed. According to the findings, accuracy (49.55%) and transparency (22.50%) emerged as the most important criteria in the sector. This indicates that companies place great importance on producing reliable data and maintaining transparent reporting processes. The strong alignment of the GHG Protocol and Blockchain-Based Carbon Accounting methods with these criteria makes them stand out. This study makes a unique contribution to the literature by offering companies an analytical and sector-specific roadmap for decision-making in sustainability reporting and environmental performance monitoring.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Carbon Accounting
• Sustainability Accounting
• AHP
• Blockchain

KARBON MUHASEBESİNDE KULLANILAN MODELLERİN AHP YÖNTEMİ İLE KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI

Öz

Bu çalışma, karbon muhasebesi yöntemlerinin imalat sektörü özelinde çok kriterli karar verme yaklaşımıyla değerlendirilmesini amaçlamaktadır. Literatürde yaygın olarak kullanılan beş karbon muhasebesi yöntemi (GHG Protocol, Life Cycle Assessment, Corporate Carbon Footprint, Product Carbon Footprint ve Blokzincir Tabanlı Karbon Muhasebesi) belirlenmiş ve bu yöntemler; doğruluk, şeffaflık, maliyet, hız ve kapsam olmak üzere beş ana kriter çerçevesinde karşılaştırılmıştır. Kriter ağırlıklarının belirlenmesinde Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci (AHP) yöntemi kullanılmış, bu kapsamda 14 imalat firması yöneticisine uygulanan ikili karşılaştırma anketinden elde edilen veriler analiz edilmiştir. Bulgulara göre, doğruluk (%49,55) ve şeffaflık (%22,50) kriterleri sektörde en yüksek öneme sahip faktörler olarak öne çıkmaktadır. Bu durum, firmaların güvenilir veri üretimi ve şeffaf raporlama süreçlerine büyük önem verdiğini göstermektedir. GHG Protokolü ve Blokzincir tabanlı yöntemlerin bu kriterlerle yüksek uyum göstermesi, bu yöntemleri öne çıkarmaktadır. Çalışma, sürdürülebilirlik raporlaması ve çevresel performans takibi konularında firmalara karar verme süreçlerinde analitik ve sektöre özgü bir yol haritası sunarak literatüre özgün bir katkı sağlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Karbon Muhasebesi
• Sürdürülebilirlik Muhasebesi
• AHP
• Blokzincir

Kaynakça

1. Abiodun, T. P., Nwulu, N., & Olukanmi, P. (2024). Application of Blockchain Technology in Carbon Trading Market: A Systematic Review. IEEE Access, 14, 5446-5470.
2. Acar, Ö. E., & Köylüoğlu, A. S. (2020). Sürdürülebilir tedarikçi seçiminin analitik hiyerarşi prosesi (AHP) yöntemiyle analizi. Third Sector Social Economic Review, 55(1), 419-440.
3. Al Sadawi, A., Hassan, M. S., & Ndiaye, M. (2021). A survey on the integration of blockchain with IoT to enhance performance and eliminate challenges. IEEe Access, 9, 54478-54497.
4. Alotaibi, E. M., Khallaf, A., Abdallah, A. A. N., Zoubi, T., & Alnesafi, A. (2024). Blockchain-Driven Carbon Accountability in Supply Chains. Sustainability, 16(24), 10872.
5. Altınbay, A., & Durak, H. (2022). Çevre muhasebesi, yeşil muhasebe ve karbon muhasebesi kavramları hakkında yazılan makalelerin bibliyometrik analizi. International Journal of Applied Economic and Finance Studies, 7(1), 140-155.
6. Ascui, F., & Lovell, H. (2011). As frames collide: making sense of carbon accounting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 24(8), 978-999.
7. Bakarich, K. M., Castonguay, J. J., & O'Brien, P. E. (2020). The use of blockchains to enhance sustainability reporting and assurance. Accounting Perspectives, 19(4), 389-412.
8. Bakkal, S., & Kabadayı, N. (2025). Döngüsel tedarik zinciri uygulamalarının önündeki engellerin küresel bulanık AHP yöntemi ile değerlendirilmesi: Akü sektöründe bir uygulama. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 31(1), 17-36.

9. Basu, P., Deb, P., & Singh, A. (2023). Blockchain and the carbon credit ecosystem: sustainable management of the supply chain. Journal of Business Strategy, 45(1), 33-40.
10. Bebbington, J., & Larrinaga-Gonzalez, C. (2008). Carbon Trading: Accounting and Reporting Issues. European Accounting Review, 17(4), 697–717.
11. Boiral, O. (2013). Sustainability Reports as Simulacra? A Counter-Account of A and A+ GRI Reports. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 26(7), 1036-1071.
12. Burritt, R. L., & Schaltegger, S. (2010). Sustainability accounting and reporting: fad or trend? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 23(7), 829–846.
13. Cai, X., Geng, S., Zhang, J., Wu, D., Cui, Z., Zhang, W., & Chen, J. (2021). A sharding scheme-based many-objective optimization algorithm for enhancing security in blockchain-enabled industrial internet of things. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 17(11), 7650-7658.
14. Can, E. N., & Özarı, Ç. (2023). Sürdürülebilirlik Muhasebesi Ve Karbon Muhasebesi Çalışmalarının Bibliyometrik Analizi. Denetişim, (27), 55-71.
15. Carignan, A., & Marvelous, O. (2025). AI-Driven Carbon Accounting: The Key to Enhancing Transparency in Global ESG Standards. 1-11. Preprints. doi: 10.20944/preprints202503.0602.v1
16. CSIS (2024), What’s Plaguing Voluntary Carbon Markets? https://www.csis.org/analysis/whats-plaguing-voluntary-carbon-markets?utm
17. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.
18. Duman, M. Ç. (2023). Sürdürülebilir işletmeler için yeni bir çözüm olan blok zinciri teknolojisi üzerine sistematik bir inceleme. İzmir İktisat Dergisi, 38(1), 192-214.
19. Effah, D., Chunguang, B., Appiah, F., Agbley, B. L. Y., & Quayson, M. (2021). Carbon emission monitoring and credit trading: the blockchain and IOT approach. In 2021 18th International Computer Conference on Wavelet Active Media Technology and Information Processing (ICCWAMTIP). (106-109). IEEE.
20. Erdoğan, S., & Yıldız, T. (2020). Dijital Dönüşüm ve Karbon Yönetimi: Türkiye’deki Sanayi İşletmeleri Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi, 85, 1-18.
21. Finkbeiner, M., Neugebauer, S., & Berger, M. (2013). Carbon footprint of recycled biogenic products: the challenge of modelling CO2 removal credits. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 6(1), 66-73.
22. Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M. Z., Ekvall, T., Guinée, J., Heijungs, R., Hellweg, S., ... & Suh, S. (2009). Recent developments in life cycle assessment. Journal of environmental management, 91(1), 1-21.
23. Forman, E. H., & Gass, S. I. (2001). The analytic hierarchy process—an exposition. Operations Research, 49(4), 469–486.
24. Gielen, D., & Changhong, C. (2001). The CO2 emission reduction benefits of Chinese energy policies and environmental policies:: A case study for Shanghai, period 1995–2020. Ecological Economics, 39(2), 257-270.
25. Global Reporting Initiative. (2002). Sustainability Reporting Guidelines (G2). GRI. https://www.globalreporting.org Gomes, S. M., Ribeiro, M. S., Freire, F. S., Sardeiro, L. S., & Guessi, A. B. (2024). Challenges in Accounting for Carbon: Analysis of Accounting Policies of the World's Largest Polluters. International Journal of Business and Management, 19(5), 121-121.
26. Govindan, K., & Jepsen, M. B. (2016). Analytic network process and supply chain management: A bibliometric analysis. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 101, 643–655.
27. Gregor, L., & Gruber, N. (2020). Global carbon budget 2020. Earth System Science Data, 12(4), 3269-3340.
28. Guilhoto, J. J. (2021). Input–output models applied to environmental analysis. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science.
29. Guinée, J. B., et al. (2011). Life Cycle Assessment: Past, Present, and Future. Environmental Science & Technology, 45(1), 90-96.
30. He, Y., Wang, S., Zhou, Z., Xiao, K., Xie, A., & Wu, B. (2024). A Blockchain-based carbon emission security accounting scheme. Computer Networks, 243, 110304.
31. Heiss, J., Oegel, T., Shakeri, M., & Tai, S. (2024). Verifiable Carbon Accounting in Supply Chains. In IEEE Transactions on Services Computing (pp. 1–14). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). https://doi.org/10.1109/TSC.2023.3332831.
32. Hua, W., & Sun, H. (2019, September). A blockchain-based peer-to-peer trading scheme coupling energy and carbon markets. In 2019 international conference on smart energy systems and technologies (SEST) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
33. Huang, F. (2022). Low‐carbon supplier selection using fuzzy AHP and goal programming approach. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, 2022(1), 3115490.
34. Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2017). The Consequences of Mandatory Corporate Sustainability Reporting. Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 11-100.
35. IPCC (2019). 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.
36. ISO (2006). ISO 14040: Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Principles and framework.
37. Jensen, M. C. (2001). Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the Corporate Objective Function. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 14(3), 8-21.
38. Jiang, L., Gu, Y., Yu, W., & Dai, J. (2023). A Blockchain-Based Greenhouse Gas Emission Tracking System (Gets) for Climate-Related Disclosures. Available at SSRN 4804018.
39. Khaqqi, K. N., Sikorski, J. J., Hadinoto, K., & Kraft, M. (2018). Incorporating seller/buyer reputation-based system in blockchain-enabled emission trading application. Applied energy, 209, 8-19.
40. Kılıç, M., & Kuzey, C. (2019). The Impact of Regulatory Pressure on Corporate Carbon Disclosure: Evidence from the EU Emissions Trading System. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 10(3), 509-534.
41. Klöpffer, W. (2006). The Hitch Hiker´s Guide to LCA - An orientation in LCA methodology and application. Int J Life Cycle Assessment 11, 142. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.02.008
42. Kumar, V., et al. (2019). Blockchain for Carbon Credit Management: A Decentralized Approach. Energy Policy, 129, 299-307.
43. Lee, A. W. L., Toyoda, K., Yeow, I., Yeo, Z., Low, J. S. C., & Lu, W. F. (2023). Blockchain-enabled carbon emission management system in a multi-tier supply chain. Procedia CIRP, 116, 233-238.
44. Leontief, W. W. (1936). Quantitative input and output relations in the economic systems of the United States. The review of economic statistics, 105-125.
45. Levasseur, A., Lesage, P., Margni, M., Deschênes, L., & Samson, R. (2010). Considering time in LCA: dynamic LCA and its application to global warming impact assessments. Environmental science & technology, 44(8), 3169-3174.
46. Li, D., Han, D., Crespi, N., Minerva, R., Raza, S. M., Farahbakhsh, R., ... & Zheng, Z. (2025). Blockchain in the Digital Twin Context: A Comprehensive Survey. ACM Computing Surveys, 58(6), 1-35.
47. Liu, G., Liu, J., Zhao, J., Qiu, J., Mao, Y., Wu, Z., & Wen, F. (2022). Real-time corporate carbon footprint estimation methodology based on appliance identification. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 19(2), 1401-1412.
48. Lohmann, S., & Prakash, N. (2017). Big Data and Carbon Accounting: Opportunities and Challenges. Journal of Cleaner Production, 156, 764-774.
49. MacKenzie, D. (2009). Making things the same: Gases, emission rights and the politics of carbon markets. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(3–4), 440–455.
50. Macquarie, R. (2022). Searching for trust in the Voluntary Carbon Markets. LSE Business Review.1-3 Merlo, A. L., Mendonça, D. S., Santos, J., Carvalho, S. T., Guerra, R., & Brandão, D. (2025). Blockchain for the carbon market: A literature review. Discover Environment, 3(1), 1-21.
51. OECD Environment Working Papers (2024), The interplay between voluntary and compliance carbon markets https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/the-interplay-between-voluntary-and-compliance-carbon- markets_500198e1-en.html?utm
52. Patro, P. K., Acquaye, A., Jayaraman, R., & Salah, K. (2024). A framework for carbon accounting for sustainable supply chains using Blockchain, Internet of Things, and Artificial Intelligence. In IISE Annual Conference. Proceedings (pp. 1-6). Institute of Industrial and Systems Engineers (IISE).
53. Peters, G. P. (2008). From production-based to consumption-based national emission inventories. Ecological economics, 65(1), 13-23.
54. Rawat, V., Dahiya, N., Rai, S., & Arora, A. (2022). A blockchain-based decentralized framework for carbon accounting, trading and governance. In Proceedings of the 2022 8th International Conference on Computer Technology Applications (pp. 148-153).
55. Richardson, A., & Xu, J. (2020, October). Carbon trading with blockchain. In Mathematical Research for Blockchain Economy: 2nd International Conference MARBLE 2020, Vilamoura, Portugal (pp. 105-124). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
56. Roca, L. C., & Searcy, C. (2012). An analysis of indicators disclosed in corporate sustainability reports. Journal of Cleaner Production, 20(1), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.08.002
57. Rodrigo, N., Perera, S., Senaratne, S., & Jin, X. (2024). Development of a blockchain-based embodied carbon estimator. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 14(6), 914-936.
58. Roelfsema, M., Harmsen, M., Olivier, J. J., Hof, A. F., & van Vuuren, D. P. (2018). Integrated assessment of international climate mitigation commitments outside the UNFCCC. Global Environmental Change, 48, 67-75.
59. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. McGraw-Hill, New York.
60. Saraji, S., & Borowczak, M. (2021). A blockchain-based carbon credit ecosystem. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.00185.
61. Schulze, M., et al. (2016). Industry 4.0 and Carbon Accounting: IoT-Based Emission Monitoring. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 20(4), 729-741.
62. Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests, and Identities. Sage.
63. Seidenfad, K., Wagner, T., Hrestic, R., & Lechner, U. (2022). Demonstrating feasibility of blockchain-driven carbon accounting–A design study and demonstrator. In International Conference on Innovations for Community Services (pp. 28-46). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
64. Suh, S., & Huppes, G. (2005). Methods for life cycle inventory of a product. Journal of cleaner production, 13(7), 687-697.
65. Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). (2020). Implementing the Recommendations of the TCFD. TradeLens Solution Brief Edition Two https://www.maersk.com/~/media_sc9/maersk/local-information/files/west-central-asia/india/tradelens-solution-brief.pdf
66. Tukker, A., Pollitt, H., & Henkemans, M. (2020). Consumption-based carbon accounting: sense and sensibility. Climate Policy, 20(sup1), S1-S13.
67. UNFCCC. (2005). Kyoto Protocol Reference Manual on Accounting of Emissions and Assigned Amounts. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/publications/08_unfccc_kp_ref_manual.pdf
68. Vaidya, O. S., & Kumar, S. (2006). Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 169(1), 1–29.
69. Wang, X., Liu, B., He, S., Yuan, H., Ji, D., Qi, L., Song, Y., & Xu, W. (2024). An Analytic Hierarchy Process Method to Evaluate Environmental Impacts of In Situ Oil Shale Mining. Sustainability, 16(4), 1363.
70. Wen, Y., Li, J., & Chen, Y. (2024, May). Design and Implementation of Carbon Accounting Information System Based on Blockchain. In 2024 Second International Conference on Cyber-Energy Systems and Intelligent Energy (ICCSIE) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
71. Wiedmann, T., & Minx, J. (2008). A definition of ‘carbon footprint’. Ecological economics research trends, 1(2008), 1-11.
72. Woo, J., Fatima, R., Kibert, C. J., Newman, R. E., Tian, Y., & Srinivasan, R. S. (2021). Applying blockchain technology for building energy performance measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) and the carbon credit market: A review of the literature. Building and Environment, 205, 108199.
73. WRI & WBCSD (2011). Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard (GHG Protocol). World Resources Institute.
74. Xavier Belem, M. J., Vieira Junior, M., Mummolo, G., & Facchini, F. (2021). An AHP-Based Procedure for Model Selection for Eco-Efficiency Assessment. Sustainability, 13(21), 12121.
75. Xu, H. Z., & Chen, J. (2025). LCD-AHP-TRIZ methodology enhances low-carbon principles in smart product design. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 8486.
76. Yontar, E. (2022). Blockchain Technology and Sustainable Logistics: Integration in the Circular Economy. Toros Üniversitesi İİSBF Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(Special Issue 2nd International Symposium of Sustainable Logistics “Circular Economy”), 1-9.
77. Yorulmaz, H. (2023). Tekstil KOBİ’leri bağlamında yeşil işletme stratejisi motivasyonlarının AHP yöntemiyle önceliklendirilmesi. Sosyal Mucit Academic Review, 4(4), 477-502.
78. Zhang, T. Y., Feng, T. T., & Cui, M. L. (2023). Smart contract design and process optimization of carbon trading based on blockchain: The case of China's electric power sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 397, 136509.
79. Zheng, J. F., Lu, Z. P., Ding, Y., Guo, Z. Z., & Zhou, S. X. (2025). Management of Carbon Emissions Throughout the Building Life Cycle Based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Buildings, 15(4), 592.