CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT: AN APPLICATION ON HOME APPLIANCE FIRM

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 20 Sayı: 3, 461 - 484, 12.11.2018

Çiğdem Sofyalıoğlu , Ebru Sürücü

https://doi.org/10.16953/deusosbil.418845

Cited By: 5

Öz

Firms that want to create long-term value can use corporate
sustainability as a business approach while preventing risks that arise from the company's
decision-making activities with unifying management standards and economic,
environmental and social factors. Corporate sustainability performance
measurement ensures the examination of sustainability's three dimensions, which
are social, environmental and economic, on a corporate level. However, when
assessing corporate sustainability performance, using too many criteria poses a
problem because it is difficult to set all the criteria for a master criterion.
Using multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) modeling is an applicable approach
to measure corporate sustainability. In this study, AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process),
which is one of the multi-criteria decision-making modelings, is used for weighting sustainability's three dimensions
and three dimensions' sub-factors. Later, TOPSIS (Technical Order of Similarity
to Ideal Solution) method was used to measure the supply chain sustainability
performance of one of the white goods companies known and recognized in Turkey.
The data are derived from the annual and sustainability reports of the
well-known household appliances brand between 2010 and 2015. This study aimed to show that AHP and TOPSIS
can be used in MCDM methods while
measuring sustainability performance. The article ends with constraints of the
study and future work ideas.

Anahtar Kelimeler

AHP, Corporate Sustainability, Multi-Criteria Decision Modelling, Sustainability Performance, TOPSIS, Turkey

KURUMSAL SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK PERFORMANS ÖLÇÜMÜ: BEYAZ EŞYA FİRMASI ÜZERİNE BİR UYGULAMA

Öz

Kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik,
uzun vadeli değer yaratmayı hedefleyen, yönetim standartlarını ve ekonomik,
çevresel ve sosyal faktörleri birleştirerek şirketin karar alma
faaliyetlerinden kaynaklanan riskleri önleyen bir iş yaklaşımıdır. Kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik
performans ölçümü, sürdürülebilirliğin sosyal, çevresel ve ekonomik olan üç
boyutunun kurumsal düzeyde incelenmesini sağlar. Ancak, kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik performansını değerlendirirken, çok
fazla ölçüt kullanmak bir sorun yaratmaktadır çünkü bir ana ölçüt için tüm alt
kriterleri belirlemek gerçekten zor olabilmektedir. Çok kriterli karar verme
(ÇKKV) modellemesinin kullanılması, kurumsal sürdürülebilirliği ölçmek için
uygulanabilir bir yaklaşımdır. Bu çalışmada, ÇKKV modellemelerinden biri olan
AHS (Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci), sürdürülebilirliğin üç boyutu ve üç boyut alt
faktörünü ağırlıklandırmak için kullanılmıştır. Daha sonra, Türkiye'de bilinen
ve tanınan beyaz eşya firmalarından birinin tedarik zinciri sürdürülebilirlik
performansını ölçmek için TOPSIS (İdeal Çözüm ile Benzerlik Yöntemi) yöntemi
kullanılmıştır. Veriler, 2010-2015 yılları arasında tanınmış beyaz eşya
markalarının yıllık ve sürdürülebilirlik raporlarından elde edilmiştir. Bu
çalışma, sürdürülebilirlik performansını ölçerken AHS ve TOPSIS'in aynı anda
kullanılabileceğini göstermeyi amaçlamıştır. Makale, çalışmanın kısıtları ve
gelecekteki yapılabilecek çalışmalarla ilgili fikirler sunarak sona ermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

AHS, Kurumsal Sürdürülebilirlik, Çok Kriterli Karar Verme, Sürdürülebilirlik Performansı, TOPSIS, Türkiye

Kaynakça

• Arrington, C. E., Jensen, R. E. & Tokutani, M. (1982). Scaling of corporate multivariate performance criteria: Subjective composition versus the analytical hierarchy process. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 1(2), 95-123. DOI: 10.1016/S0278-4254(82)80003-3
• Aupperle, K. E. (1984). An empirical measure of corporate social orientation in Preston, In. L.E. Preston (ed.). Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, 6 27-54, JAI Press.
• Babaie- Kafaky, S. Mataji, A. & Sani, N. A. (2009). Ecological capability assessment for multiple-use in forest areas using GIS-based multiple criteria decision-making approach. American Journal of Environmental Sciences, 5(6), 714-721. DOI: 10.3844/ajessp.2009.714.721
• Banerjee, S. B. (2001). Corporate environmental strategies and actions. Management Decision, 39(1), 36-44. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000005405
• Bibly, C. L. (2008). Should I stay or should I leave? Perceptions of age discrimination, organizational justice and employee attitudes on intentions to leave. The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 13(2), 63-86.
• Bilbao-Terol, A., Arenas-Parra, M. A., Canal-Fernandez, V., & Antomil-Ibias, J. (2014). Using TOPSIS for assessing the sustainability of government bond funds. Omega. 49, 1-17. DOI: 10.1016/j.omega.2014.04.005
• Boiral, O. (2011). Managing with ISO Systems: Lessons from Practice. Long Range Planning, 44(3), 197-220. DOI: 10.1016/j.lrp.2010.12.003
• Burke, L., & Logsdon, J. M. (1996). How corporate social responsibly pays off. Long Range Planning, 29(4), 495-502. DOI: 10.1016/0024-6301(96)00041-6
• Carter, C. R., & Rogers, D. S. (2008). a framework of sustainable supply chain management: Moving toward new theory. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 38(5), 360-387. DOI: http://sci-hub.cc/10.1108/09600030810882816
• Chen, S., & Fan, J. (2011). Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility Based on a Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process. I.J. Computer Network and Information Security, 5, 13-22. DOI: 10.5815/ijcnis.2011.05.02
• Deloitte. (2016). Ekonomik Gorunum, https://www2.deloitte.com/tr/tr/pages/financial-services/articles/ekonomik-gorunum-kritik-bir-esikte-turkiye-ekonomisi.html, (accessed 12 January 2017)
• Diaz-Balteiro, L., Voces, R. & Romero, C. (2011). Making sustainability ranking using compromise programming.: An application to European paper industry. Sılva Fennica, 45(4), 761-773. DOI: 10.14214/sf.103
• Epstein, M. (2008). Making Sustainability Work. Best Practices in Managing and Measuring Corporate Social, Environmental and Economic Impacts. Sheffield: Greenleaf.
• Erol, İ., Sencer, S. & Sari, R. (2011). A new fuzzy multi-criteria framework for measuring sustainability performance of a supply chain. Ecological Economics, 70 (6), 1088-1100. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.01.001
• Figge, F., Hahn, T., Schaltegger, S. & Wagner, M. (2002). The sustainability balanced scorecard – linking sustainability management to business strategy. Business Strategy and the Environment. 11(5), 269-284, https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.339
• Filbeck, G. & Gorman, R. F. (2004). The relationship between the environmental and financial performance of public utilities. Environmental and Resource Economics, 29(2), 137-157. DOI: 10.1023/B:EARE.0000044602.86367.ff
• Gonzalez-Benito, J. & Gonzalez-Benitoi O. (2005). environmental pro-activity and business performance: An empirical analysis. Omega, 33(1), 1-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.omega.2004.03.002
• Goyal, P., Rahman, Z., & Kazmi, A. A. (2015). Identification and prioritization of corporate sustainability practices using analytical hierarchy process. Journal of Modelling in Management, 10(1), 23-49. DOI: http://sci-hub.cc/10.1108/JM2-09-2012-0030
• Gray, R., Kouhy, R. & Lavers, S. (1995). Corporate social and environmental reporting: A review of the literature and a longitudinal study of uk disclosure. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 8(2), 47-77. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513579510146996
• Haugh, H. M., & Talwar, A. (2010). How do corporations embed sustainability across the organization. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(3), 384-396.
• Husted, B. W., & Allen, D. B., (2007). Strategic corporate social responsibility and value creation among large firms: Lessons from the Spanish experience. Long Range Planning, 40(6), 594-610. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.42.8.1199
• Hwang, C. L, & Yoon, K. P. (1981). Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
• Klassen, R. D. & McLaughlin, C. P. (1996). The impact of environmental management on firm performance. Management Science, 42(8), 1199-1214. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.42.8.1199
• Lee, K. H. and Saen, R. F. (2012). Measuring corporate sustainability management: A data envelopment analysis approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 140(1), 219-226, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.08.024
• McGuire, J. B., Sundgren, A. & Schneeweis, T. (1988). corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 854-872. DOI: 10.2307/256342
• McWilliams, A., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, P. M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 1-18. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00580.x
• Mendoza, G. A. & Dalton, W. J. (2005). Multi-stakeholder assessment of forest sustainability: multi-criteria analysis and the case of the Ontario forest assessment system. Forestry Chronicle, 81(2), 222-228. DOI: 10.5558/tfc81222-2
• Moore, G. (2001). Corporate social and financial performance: An investigation in the UK supermarket industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 34(3-4), 299-315. DOI: 10.1023/A:1012537016969
• Ozmehmet, E. (2008). Dünyada ve Türkiye’de sürdürülebilir kalkınma yaklaşımları. Journal of Yasar University, 3(12), 1853-1876.
• Oztel, A., Köse, M. S. & Aytekin, İ. (2012). Kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik performansının ölçümü için çok kriterli bir çerçeve: Henkel örneği. Tarih Kültür ve Sanat Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(4), 32-44. DOI: 10.7596/taksad.v1i4
• Quazi, A. M. & O’Brien, D. (2000). An empirical test of a cross-national model of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethic., 25, 33-51. DOI: 10.1023/A:1006305111122
• Rouyendegh, B. D., and Erkan, T. E. (2012). Selecting the best supplier using analytical hierarchy process (AHP) method. African Journal of Business Management, 6(4), 1455-1462. DOI: 10.5897/AJBM11.2009
• Ruf, B. M., Muralidhar, K. & Paul, K. (1998). The development of a systematic, aggregate measure of corporate social performance. Journal of Management, 24(1), 119-133. DOI: 10.1016/S0149-2063(99)80056-7
• Saaty, T. L., (1981). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Saaty, T. L., (1990). Physics as a decision theory. European Journal of Research, 48(1), 98-104. DOI: 10.1016/0377-2217(90)90066-K
• Sarkis, J. & Cordeiro, J. J. (2001). An empirical evaluation of environmental efficiencies and firm performance: pollution prevention versus end-of-pipe practice. European Journal of Operational Research, 135(1), 102-113. DOI: 10.1016/S0377-2217(00)00306-4
• Scherer, A. G. & Palazzo, G. (2011). The new political role of business in a globalized world: A Review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance and democracy. Journal of Management Studies, 45(4), 899-931. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00950.x
• Scholtens, B. (2008), A note on the interaction between corporate social responsibility and financial performance, Ecological Economics, 68(1-2), 46-55. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.01.024
• Singh, R. K., Murty, H. R., Gupta, S. K. & Dikshit, A. K. (2007). Development of composite sustainability performance index for steel industry. Ecological Indicators, 7, 556-588. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2006.06.004
• Tencati, A., Perrini, F. & Pogutz, S. (2004), New tools to foster corporate socially responsible behavior. Journal of Business Ethics. 53(1/2), 173-190. DOI: 10.1023/B:BUSI.0000039407.37497.44
• Turker, D. (2009). Measuring corporate social responsibility: a scale development study. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 411-427. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-008-9780-6
• Tzenghi, G. H., & Huang, J. J. (2011), Multi-Criteria Decision Making: Methods and Applications. USA: CRC Press.
• Waddock, S. A. & Graves, S. B. (1997). The Corporate Social Performance-Financial Performance Link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303-319. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199704)18:4<303::AID-SMJ869>3.0.CO;2-G
• Waddock, S. A., Bodwell, C., & Graves, S. B. (2002). Responsibility: The new business imperative. The Academy of Management Executive, 16(2), 132-148. DOI: 10.5465/AME.2002.7173581
• WCED. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf (accessed 11 November 2016)
• Windolph, S. E., Harms, D. and Schaltegger, S. (2014a). Motivations for corporate sustainability management; contrasting survey results and implementation. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 21(5), https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1337
• Windolph, S. E., Schaltegger, S., and Herzig, C. (2014b). Implementing corporate sustainability: what drives the application of sustainability management tools in Germany. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 5(4), 378-404. DOI: http://sci-hub.cc/10.1108/SAMPJ-01-2014-0002