SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2025 / Volume: 12 Issue: 4

An Integrated Evaluation of Climate Change and Environmental Sustainability in G20 Countries Using Advanced MCDM Methods

Nazife Şahin Macit(GÜMÜŞHANE ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-7996-4704
Pages
—
Publication Date
2025-12-23
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results show that China and Saudi Arabia demonstrate strong environmental performance in CCPI-based rankings, while Germany, the United Kingdom and France demonstrate strong performance in EPI-based evaluations.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study analytically assesses the climate change and environmental sustainability performance of G20 countries using data from the 2024 Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) and Environmental Performance Index (EPI) reports.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study created three separate decision matrices, taking into account the CCPI and EPI criteria individually, as well as their combination.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results show that China and Saudi Arabia demonstrate strong environmental performance in CCPI-based rankings, while Germany, the United Kingdom and France demonstrate strong performance in EPI-based evaluations.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2024 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Climate Change · Environmental Sustainability · Multi-Criteria Decision Making

Abstract

This study analytically assesses the climate change and environmental sustainability performance of G20 countries using data from the 2024 Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) and Environmental Performance Index (EPI) reports. The analysis employs Sum-Weighted Information (SWI) and Ranking Alternatives with Weights of Criterion (RAWEC), which are Logarithmic Decomposition of Criteria Importance (LODECI)-based multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods. The study created three separate decision matrices, taking into account the CCPI and EPI criteria individually, as well as their combination. The criterion weights were determined using the LODECI method; greenhouse gas emissions, climate policy, and air quality were the most significant criteria. The results show that China and Saudi Arabia demonstrate strong environmental performance in CCPI-based rankings, while Germany, the United Kingdom and France demonstrate strong performance in EPI-based evaluations. In the integrated analysis, Germany ranked first using both methods. The consistency of the rankings obtained using the SWI and RAWEC methods was high, which supports the reliability of the analyses. However, some differences in ranking were observed depending on the method used, the distribution of criteria and the country sample. Overall, the study emphasizes the pivotal role of methodological diversity and data-driven approaches in multidimensional environmental assessments for policy-making, while demonstrating the robustness of the findings through sensitivity and comparative analyses.

🔖

Cite This Article

Macit, N. Ş. (2025). An Integrated Evaluation of Climate Change and Environmental Sustainability in G20 Countries Using Advanced MCDM Methods. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Volume: 12 Issue: 4. https://doi.org/10.30798/makuiibf.1729026

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (53)

  1. Abdullah, L. (2017). A fuzzy decision making method in developing environ-mental performance index. WSEAS Transactions on Environment and Development, 13, 350-359.
  2. Akbulut, O. Y., & Aydın, Y. (2024). Türk bankaları için MSD-MPSI-RAWEC modelini kullanan hibrit çok boyutlu performans ölçüm modeli. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(3), 1157-1183. https://doi.org/10.30798/makuiibf.1464469
  3. Alrashdi, I., Ali, A. M., Sallam, K. M., & Abdel-Basset, M. (2025). Assessment and analysis of development risks under uncertainty: The impact of disruptive technologies on renewable energy development. Energy Nexus, 100371.
  4. Altıntaş, F. F. (2021). Çevre performanslarının ENTROPĠ tabanlı ROV, ARAS ve COPRAS yöntemleri ile ölçülmesi: G20 Grubu Ülkeleri Örneği. Social Sciences Research Journal, 10 (1), 55-78.
  5. Altıntaş, F. F. (2025). Analysis of climate change performances of G7 group countries: An application using the MEREC-based RAFSI method. Journal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Economics and Administrative Sciences Faculty, 12(1), 214-245. https://doi.org/10.30798/makuiibf.1489592
  6. Appiah-Otoo, I., Chen, X., & Ampah, J. D. (2023). Does financial structure affect renewable energy consumption? Evidence from G20 countries. Energy, 272, 127130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2023.127130
  7. Climate Transparency. (2018). Brown to Green: The G20 transition to a low-carbon economy. Climate Transparency, c/o Humboldt-Viadrina Governance Platform. https://www.climate-transparency.org/wp- content/uploads/2019/01/2018-BROWN-TO-GREEN-REPORT-FINAL.pdf
  8. Codal, K. S., Ari, I., & Codal, A. (2021). Multidimensional perspective for performance assessment on climate change actions of G20 countries. Environmental Development, 39, 100639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2021.100639
  9. Cook, D., Saviolidis, N. M., Davíðsdóttir, B., Jóhannsdóttir, L., & Ólafsson, S. (2017). Measuring countries’ environmental sustainability performance: The development of a nation-specific indicator set. Ecological Indicators, 74, 463-478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.12.009
  10. Çilek, A., & Şeyranlıoğlu, O. (2025). Türkiye'deki Reasürans şirketlerinin finansal performansının LODECI, CRADIS ve AROMAN MCDM yöntemleriyle ölçülmesi. Uluslararası İşletme ve Ekonomi Çalışmaları Dergisi, 7(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.54821/uiecd.1587675
  11. Do, D. T. (2024). Assessing the Impact of Criterion Weights on the ranking of the top ten universities in Vietnam. Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, 14(4).
  12. Doğan, H. (2022). Seçilmiş ülkelerin çevresel performanslarının bütünleşik CRITIC-MABAC yöntemleriyle ölçülmesi. Journal of Emerging Economies & Policy, 7(2), 433-448.
  13. Durmus, Z. (2025). Assessment of renewable energy performance in Turkey using a novel integrated MSD-CRITIC-RAWEC model. Journal of Operational and Strategic Analytics (JOSA), 3(1), 49-64. http://doi.org/10.56578/josa030105
  14. Dündar, S. (2024). Performance evaluation of IPARD-II rural development programs with integrated DIBR-RAWEC methods. Pamukkale University Journal of Engineering Sciences, 31(3), 0-0.
  15. Dündar, S., & Karadağ, İ. (2025). Selection of a facility location for a cosmetics company by integrated F-LBWA and I-RAWEC methods. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-024-01960-4
  16. 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
  17. Ecer, F., & Pamucar, D. (2022). A novel LOPCOW-DOBI multi-criteria sustainability performance assessment methodology: An application in developing country banking sector. Omega, 112(2022), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2022.102690
  18. 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://doi.org/10.31181/sdmap31202637
  19. Gelmez, E., Eren, H., & Özceylan, E. (2025). Evaluation of environmental performance of OECD countries using SD-based ARAS and WASPAS methods. Gazi University Journal of Science, 38(2), 808-831. https://doi.org/10.35378/gujs.1458807
  20. Germanwatch. (2021). Climate change performance index (CCPI) 2021. https://www.germanwatch.org/en/ccpi
  21. Goswami, S. S., Behera, D. K., Afzal, A., Kaladgi, A. R., Khan, S. A., Rajendran, P., Subbiah, R., & Asif, M. (2021). Analysis of a robot selection problem using two newly developed hybrid MCDM models of TOPSIS-ARAS and COPRAS-ARAS. Symmetry, 13(8), 1331. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13081331
  22. Gök Kısa, A. C. (2022). A multi-criteria decision making approach for evaluating environmental performances of OECD countries. In N. İyit, B. Hastaoğlu Özbek, & A. Toptaş (Eds.), Current research in social, human and administrative sciences (pp. 223-238). Gece Kitaplığı.
  23. Gökgöz, F., & Yalçın, E. (2021). Can renewable energy sources be a viable instrument for climate change mitigation? Evidence from EU countries via MCDM methods. Climate Change Science, 19-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-823767-0.00002-1
  24. Hasanzadeh, R., Mojaver, P., Khalilarya, S., & Azdast, T. (2023). Air co-gasification process of LDPE/HDPE waste based on thermodynamic modeling: Hybrid multi-criteria decision-making techniques with sensitivity analysis. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 48(6), 2145-2160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.10.101
  25. Karadağ, M. M. (2025). An in-depth evaluation of the financial performance of Turkish Football Clubs using entropy-based RAWEC, FUCA, and SAW methodologies. Journal of Physical Education & Sport, 25(3), 661-671. http://dx.doi.org/10.7752/jpes.2025.03071
  26. Karahan, M., Yıldırım, Z., & Yıldırım, T. (2025). Comparative analysis of Turkey’s environmental performance with Eastern European countries according to international EPI 2022 data. Green Technologies and Sustainability, 3(1), 100116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.grets.2024.100116
  27. Keleş, N. (2024). Çevresel performans indeksi değerlendirmesinde kullanılan kriter ağırlıklarının objektif yöntemlerle belirlenmesi: OECD ülkeleri örneği. İstanbul Gelişim Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 11(2), 632-651.
  28. Keleş, N., & Ersoy, N. (2023). Analyzing climate change performance over the last five years of G20 countries using a multi-criteria decision-making framework. Dokuz Eylül University Journal of Faculty of Business, 24(2), 13-34. https://doi.org/10.24889/ifede.1284974
  29. Köse, E., Aksoy, E., & Gürbüz, C. (2024). An analysis of climate change performances of the G-20 countries. Uluslararası İşletme, Ekonomi ve Yönetim Perspektifleri Dergisi, 8(1), 75-102. http://dx.doi.org/10.29228/ijbemp.7
  30. Lukić, R. (2025). Analysis of climate change performance of G7 countries based on AHP-CODAS methods. The Holistic Approach To Environment, 15(2), 47-56. https://doi.org/10.33765/thate.15.2.1
  31. Malefaki, S., Markatos, D., Filippatos, A., & Pantelakis, S. (2025). A comparative analysis of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making methods and normalization techniques in holistic sustainability assessment for engineering applications. Aerospace, 12(2), 100. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace12020100
  32. Mathew, M., & Sahu, S. (2018). Comparison of New multi-criteria decision making methods for material handling equipment selection. Management Science Letters, 8(3), 139-150. http://dx.doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2018.1.004
  33. Mohaghar, A., Amiri, K., Ghasemi, R., & Azani, M. (2018). Prioritizing the OECD countries based on Environmental Performance Index indicators. In International Conference on Law, Management, Business, Economics and CSR (Dubai, 2018).
  34. Mohamed, M., Salam, A., & Ye, J. (2024). Selection of sustainable material for the construction of drone aerodynamic wing using Neutrosophic RAWEC. Systems Assessment and Engineering Management, 1, 54-72. https://doi.org/10.61356/j.saem.2024.1295
  35. Nedeljković, M., Puška, A., Pamučar, D., & Marinković, D. (2024). Selection of agricultural product sales channels using fuzzy double MEREC and fuzzy RAWEC method. Agriculture and Forestry, 70(3), 45-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.17707/AgricultForest.70.3.03
  36. Olafsson, S., Cook, D., Davidsdottir, B., & Johannsdottir, L. (2014). Measuring countries׳ environmental sustainability performance: A review and case study of Iceland. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 39, 934-948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.101
  37. Pala, O. (2024). Assessment of the social progress on European Union by logarithmic decomposition of criteria importance. Expert Systems with Applications, 238, 121846.
  38. Pala, O., Atçeken, Ö., Omurtak, H., Şimşir, B. (2024). BİST çimento sektöründe LODECI ve CRADIS ile finansal performans analizi. Alanya Akademik Bakış, 8(3), 956-970. https://doi.org/10.29023/alanyaakademik.1452960
  39. Pamučar, D., & Ćirović, G. (2015). The selection of transport and handling resources in logistics centers using multi-attributive border approximation area comparison (MABAC). Expert Systems with Applications, 42(6), 3016-3028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.11.057
  40. Puška, A., Hodžić, I., Štilić, A., & Murtič, S. (2024). Evaluating European Union countries on climate change management: A fuzzy MABAC approach to the climate change performance index. Journal of Green Economy and Low-Carbon Development, 3(1), 15-25. https://doi.org/10.56578/jgelcd030102
  41. Puška, A., Štilić, A., Pamučar, D., Božanić, D., & Nedeljković, M. (2024). Introducing a novel multi-criteria ranking of alternatives with weights of criterion (RAWEC) model. MethodsX, 12, 102628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2024.102628
  42. Senir, G. (2024). Evaluation of the environmental sustainability performance of Eastern European countries with integrated MCDM methods. International Journal of Agriculture Environment and Food Sciences, 8(2), 378-391.
  43. Shah, W. U. H., Zhang, X., Yasmeen, R., & Padda, I. U. H. (2023). Green transition and economic growth in G20 countries: Evidence from disaggregated energy sources. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(40), 92206-92223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-28781-6
  44. Shamsi, M., Zakerinejad, M., & Zareifard, M. R. (2025). Optimal, reliable, and sustainable technology selection for mining overburden waste utilization using green & climate-smart mining (GCSM): A hybrid fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making tool. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 13(3), 116118.
  45. Sikder, A., Inekwe, J., & Bhattacharya, M. (2019). Economic output in the era of changing energy-mix for G20 countries: New evidence with trade openness and research and development investment. Applied Energy, 235, 930-938. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.10.092
  46. Terra dos Santos, L. C., Frimaio, A., Giannetti, B. F., Agostinho, F., Liu, G., & Almeida, C. M. (2023). Integrating environmental, social, and economic dimensions to monitor sustainability in the G20 countries. Sustainability, 15(8), 6502. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086502
  47. Trung, D. D., Ašonja, A., Van Duc, D., Bao, N. C., & Son, N. H. (2025). Comparison of RAWEC and AROMAN methods in material selection for manufacturing or maintenance. In H. Glavaš, M. Hadzima-Nyarko, N. Ademović, & T. Hanák (Eds.), 33rd International Conference on Organization and Technology of Maintenance (OTO 2024) (Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, Vol. 1242, pp. 190–200). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-80597-4_15
  48. Tufan, D., & Ulutaş, A. (2026). Supplier selection in the food sector: An integrated approach using LODECI and CORASO methods. Spectrum of Decision Making and Applications, 3(1), 40-51.
  49. Yalçın, G. C., Kara, K., & Senapati, T. (2024). A hybrid spherical fuzzy logarithmic decomposition of criteria importance and alternative ranking technique based on adaptive standardized intervals model with application. Decision Analytics Journal, 11, 100441.
  50. Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy. (2020). Environmental Performance Index (EPI) 2020 Report. Yale University. https://epi.yale.edu
  51. Yürüyen, A. A., & Ulutaş, A. (2024). Assessing the urban competitiveness of european cities using LOPCOW-RAWEC methodologies. International Journal of Knowledge and Innovation Studies, 2(3), 179-189. https://doi.org/10.56578/ijkis020305
  52. Zhou, P., Poh, K. L., & Ang, B. W. (2007). A non-radial DEA approach to measuring environmental performance. European Journal of Operational Research, 178(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2006.04.038
  53. Zolfani, S. H., Pourhossein, M., Yazdani, M., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2018). Evaluating construction projects of hotels based on environmental sustainability with MCDM framework. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 57(1), 357-365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2016.11.002