SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Sosyoekonomi / 2026 / Cilt: 34 Sayı: 69

Sustainability in the Skies: A Tri-Dimensional Performance Evaluation of Global Airlines with Hybrid MCDM Methods

Gökyüzünde Sürdürülebilirlik: Küresel Hava Yolu İşletmelerinin Melez ÇKKV Yöntemleriyle Üç Boyutlu Performans Değerlendirmesi

Metecan Çakrak(Institute of Social Sciences, Program of Transportation and Logistics Management, Istanbul University,)0000-0002-5919-6648
Gültekin Altuntaş(Faculty of Transportation and Logistics, Department of Logistics, Istanbul University)0000-0002-7205-3289
Yelda İnanç(Faculty of Economical and Administrative Sciences, Department of Logistics Management, Istanbul Beykent University)0000-0003-0123-7694
Pages
241–264
Publication Date
2026-07-31
🏛️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 findings provide data-driven insights for sustainable aviation strategies, bridging theoretical and empirical approaches in the sustainability performance literature.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study proposes a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) framework that combines entropy and TOPSIS to evaluate the corporate sustainability performance of ten global airlines, utilising 22 GRI-based economic, environmental, and social criteria.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Using 2020 data, the analysis identifies China Southern, China Eastern, and American Airlines as top performers, while Qatar Airways ranks lowest due to weak social indicators.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings provide data-driven insights for sustainable aviation strategies, bridging theoretical and empirical approaches in the sustainability performance literature.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2020 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Sürdürülebilirlik · Kurumsal Sürdürülebilirlik · Kurumsal Sürdürülebilirlik Performansı

Abstract

This study proposes a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) framework that combines entropy and TOPSIS to evaluate the corporate sustainability performance of ten global airlines, utilising 22 GRI-based economic, environmental, and social criteria. Using 2020 data, the analysis identifies China Southern, China Eastern, and American Airlines as top performers, while Qatar Airways ranks lowest due to weak social indicators. Key drivers include available seat kilometres, cargo volume, and water use, while gender metrics and fleet age contribute less. The findings provide data-driven insights for sustainable aviation strategies, bridging theoretical and empirical approaches in the sustainability performance literature.

Özet

Bu çalışma, ekonomik, çevresel ve sosyal 22 GRI tabanlı kriter üzerinden küresel hava yolu işletmelerinin kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik performansını değerlendirmek amacıyla entropi ve TOPSIS yöntemlerini birleştiren melez birçok kriterli karar verme (ÇKKV) çerçevesi sunmaktadır. 2020 verilerine dayalı analizde, China Southern, China Eastern ve American Airlines en yüksek performansı gösterirken, sosyal göstergelerdeki zayıflıklar nedeniyle Qatar Airways en düşük sırada yer almıştır. Öne çıkan belirleyici unsurlar koltuk-kilometre kapasitesi, taşınan kargo hacmi ve su tüketimidir. Bulgular, sürdürülebilir havacılık stratejileri geliştirmek isteyen politika yapıcılar ve sektör paydaşları için veri temelli yol gösterici bilgiler sunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Çakrak, M., Altuntaş, G., İnanç, Y. (2026). Sustainability in the Skies: A Tri-Dimensional Performance Evaluation of Global Airlines with Hybrid MCDM Methods. Sosyoekonomi, Cilt: 34 Sayı: 69, 241–264. https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2026.03.11

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (54)

  1. Akdemir, T. (2020), “Avrupa Birliği’nde İklim Değişikliği ile Mücadelede Havacılık Vergileri”, Ankara Avrupa Çalışmaları Dergisi, 19(1), 1-24.
  2. Alkhatib, S.F. & Y.K.A.-A. Migdadi (2021), “A novel technique for evaluating and ranking green airlines: Benchmarking-base comparison”, Management of Environmental Quality, 32(2), 210-226.
  3. Arjomandi, A. & J.H. Seufert (2014), “An evaluation of the world's major airlines' technical and environmental performance”, Economic Modelling, 41(August), 133-144.
  4. Asker, V. (2021), “Havayolu İşletmelerinde İki Aşamalı Veri Zarflama Analizi ile Etkinlik Ölçümü”, MANAS Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 10(4), 2373-2385.
  5. Aytekin, A. & Ç. Karamaşa (2017), “Analyzing financial performance of insurance companies traded in BIST via Fuzzy Shannon’s Entropy based Fuzzy Topsis methodology”, Alphanumeric Journal, 5(1), 71-84.
  6. Bahadır, O. & H. Türkmençalıkoğlu (2021), “Bilgi Kuramında Shannon Entropisi ve Uygulamaları”, European Journal of Science and Technology, 32, 491-497.
  7. Bakır, M. et al. (2019), “Exploring service quality of low-cost airlines in Europe: An integrated MCDM approach”, Economics and Business Review, 5(2), 109-130.
  8. Bansal, P. & H.C. Song (2017), “Similar but not the same: Differentiating corporate sustainability from corporate responsibility”, Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 105-149.
  9. Behzadian, M. (2012), “A State-of-the-Art Survey of TOPSIS Applications”, Expert Systems with Applications, 39, 13051-13069.
  10. Chang, D.-S. et al. (2015), “Identifying strategic factors of the implantation CSR in the airline industry: The Case of Asia-Pacific Airlines”, Sustainability, 7(6), 7762-7783.
  11. Chang, Y.-T. et al. (2014), “Evaluating economic and environmental efficiency of global airlines: A SBM-DEA approach”, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 27, 46-50.
  12. Chen, C.-T. (2000), “Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment”, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 114(1), 1-9.
  13. Chen, Y. et al. (2021), “Exploring the operational and environmental performance of Chinese airlines: A two-stage undesirable SBM-NDEA approach”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 289, 125711.
  14. Chowdhury, P. & S.K. Paul (2020), “Applications of MCDM methods in research on corporate sustainability: A systematic literature review”, Management of Environmental Quality, 31(2), 385-405.
  15. Dyllick, T. & K. Hockerts (2002), “Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability”, Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(2), 130-141.
  16. Eccles, R.G. & M. Krzus (2010), One Report: Integrated reporting for a sustainable strategy, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  17. Elhmoud, E.R. et al. (2021), “Eco-Efficiency performance of airlines in Eastern Asia: A principal component analysis based sustainability assessment”, Proceedings of the 11th Annual International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management (6566-6579).
  18. Elkington, J. (2000), “Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business”, Journal of Business Ethics, 23, 229-231.
  19. Friede, G. et al. (2015), “ESG and financial performance: Aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies”, Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 5(4), 210-233.
  20. Gazel, Y.H. et al. (2021), “Türkiye’de Faaliyet Gösteren Ticari Bankaların Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemlerine Göre Performanslarının Sıralanması”, Sosyoekonomi, 29(48), 161-180.
  21. Global Reporting Initiative (2023),, 30.01.2024.
  22. Hadi-Vencheh, A. et al. (2018), “Sustainability of Chinese airlines: A modified slack‐based measure model for CO2 emissions”, Expert Systems, 37(3), e12302.
  23. Hahn, T. et al. (2018), “A paradox perspective on corporate sustainability: Descriptive, instrumental, and normative aspects”, Journal of Business Ethics, 148(2), 235-248.
  24. Heng, Y. et al. (2023), “Assessment and governance of industrial internet maturity in the building materials industry using the entropy weight method and factor analysis”, Heliyon, 9(8), e18650.
  25. Heydari, C. et al. (2020), “A fully fuzzy network DEA-Range adjusted measure model for evaluating airlines efficiency: A case of Iran”, Journal of Air Transport Management, 89(October), 101923.
  26. Hwang, C.-L. & K. Yoon (1981), “Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications A State-of-the-Art Survey”, Springer-Verlag.
  27. Jain, R. & R. Natarajan (2015), “A DEA study of airlines in India”, Asia Pacific Management Review, 132(4), 285-292.
  28. Karakaş, A. et al. (2016), “Evaluation of university employees’ work behaviours performance via Entropy based TOPSIS methods”, Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 15(58), 1046-1058.
  29. Karaman, A.S. et al. (2018), “Sustainability reporting in the aviation industry: worldwide evidence”, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 9(4), 362-391.
  30. Khan, M. et al. (2016), “Corporate sustainability: First evidence on materiality”, The Accounting Review, 91(6), 1697-1724.
  31. Kılıç, M. & Y. Şimşek (2023), “Evaluating ground operations performance of Turkish low-cost airlines using fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS”, Journal of Air Transport Management, 105, 102308.
  32. Kiracı, K. & M. Bakır (2019), “CRITIC Temelli Edas Yöntemi İle Havayolu İşletmelerinde Performans Ölçümü Uygulaması”, Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 35, 157-174.
  33. Kyriakou, M. & P.N. Psarropoulos (2023), “Sustainability assessment of commercial passenger aircraft with different fuel types using AHP, WSM, and TOPSIS”, Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 55, 102963.
  34. Linnenluecke, M.K. & A. Griffiths (2013), “Firms and sustainability: Mapping the intellectual origins and structure of the corporate sustainability field”, Global Environmental Change, 23(1), 382-391.
  35. Madanchian, M. & H. Taherdoost (2023), “A comprehensive guide to the TOPSIS method for multi-criteria decision making”, Sustainable Social Development, 1(1), 2220.
  36. Montiel, I. (2008), “Corporate social responsibility and corporate sustainability: Separate pasts, common futures”, Organization & Environment, 21(3), 245-269.
  37. Omrani, H. et al. (2022), “Evaluating sustainable efficiency of decision-making units considering undesirable outputs: an application to an airline using integrated multi-objective DEA-TOPSIS”, Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, 25(7), 5899-5930.
  38. Pekkaya, M. & G. Dökmen (2019), “Oecd Ülkeleri Kamu Sağlık Harcamalarının Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri ile Performans Değerlendirmesi”, Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 15(4), 923-950.
  39. Porter, M.E. & M.R. Kramer (2006), “Strategy and Society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility”, Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78-92.
  40. Roszkowska-Menkes, M. et al. (2024), “True transparency or mere decoupling? The study of selective disclosure in sustainability reporting”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 98, 102700.
  41. Sarkis, J. & Q. Zhu (2021), “Environmental sustainability and production: Taking the road less traveled”, International Journal of Production Economics, 181(1), 107-119.
  42. Schaltegger, S. & R. Burritt (2018), “Business cases and corporate engagement with sustainability: Differentiating ethical motivations”, Journal of Business Ethics, 147(2), 241-259.
  43. Searcy, C. (2012), “Corporate sustainability performance measurement systems: A review and research agenda”, Journal of Business Ethics, 107 (3), 239-253.
  44. Shannon, C.E. (1948), “A mathematical theory of communication”, The Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 379-423.
  45. The Air Transport Action Group (ATAG) (2024),, 06.02.2024.
  46. Tsai, W.H. et al. (2020), “Evaluating green suppliers from green environmental perspective”, Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22(3), 2031-2054.
  47. Wang, Q. et al. (2014), “Evaluating corporate social responsibility of airlines using entropy weight and grey relation analysis”, Journal of Air Transport Management, 42 (January), 55-62.
  48. Wanke, P. & C.P. Barros (2016), “Efficiency in Latin American airlines: A two-stage approach combining virtual frontier dynamic DEA and simplex regression”, Journal of Air Transport Management, 54(July), 93-103.
  49. Wu, J. et al. (2011), “Determination of weights for ultimate cross efficiency using Shannon entropy”, Expert Systems with Applications, 38 (5), 5162-5165.
  50. Yılmaz, N. & A. Atmanlı (2016), “Havacılıkta Alternatif Yakıt Kullanılmasının İncelenmesi”, Sürdürülebilir Havacılık Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(1), 3-10.
  51. Yoon, K.P. & C.-L. Hwang (1995), Multiple attribute decision making: An introduction, Sage Publications.
  52. Zieba, M. & E. Johansson (2022), “Sustainability reporting in the airline industry: current literature and future research avenues”, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 102, 103133.
  53. Global Reporting Initiative (2023),, 30.01.2024.
  54. The Air Transport Action Group (ATAG) (2024),, 06.02.2024.