SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Sosyoekonomi / 2026 / Cilt: 33 Sayı: 64

Evaluation of Sustainability Performance of Insurance Companies with Global Fuzzy AHP-Based TOPSIS, CODAS and PIV Methods

Küresel Bulanık AHP Tabanlı TOPSIS, CODAS ve PIV Yöntemleri ile Sigorta Şirketlerinin Sürdürülebilirlik Performansının Değerlendirilmesi

Esra Aydın Ünal(SİVAS CUMHURİYET ÜNİVERSİTESİ, ZARA VEYSEL DURSUN UYGULAMALI BİLİMLER YÜKSEKOKULU)0000-0002-1613-2046
Pages
299–326
Publication Date
2025-04-26
🏛️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)

According to the results, the company with the highest sustainability performance was Euroko Insurance Company.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study will evaluate the sustainability performance of five leading insurance companies in Türkiye for 2021.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Unlike other studies, this research employed sub-criteria and the three basic dimensions of sustainability.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:According to the results, the company with the highest sustainability performance was Euroko Insurance Company.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2021 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Küresel Bulanık AHP · Sürdürülebilirlik · PIV

Abstract

This study will evaluate the sustainability performance of five leading insurance companies in Türkiye for 2021. Unlike other studies, this research employed sub-criteria and the three basic dimensions of sustainability. The criteria weights were determined using the Spherical Fuzzy AHP method, a novel approach in the literature. Thus, the importance of the basic dimensions of sustainability was determined. It was seen that environmental dimensions had the most impact, followed by social and economic dimensions, respectively. TOPSIS, CODAS and PIV methods were used to rank the companies. The results obtained with the three methods were combined with the Borda Counting method to get the final ranking. According to the results, the company with the highest sustainability performance was Euroko Insurance Company.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türkiye'deki önde gelen beş sigorta şirketinin 2021 yılına ait sürdürülebilirlik performansını değerlendirmektir. Sürdürülebilirliğin üç temel boyutu ile birlikte diğer çalışmalardan farklı olarak alt kriterler de kullanılmıştır. Kriter ağırlıkları, yine literatürde yeni bir yöntem olan Küresel Bulanık AHP yöntemi ile belirlenmiştir. Böylece sürdürülebilirliğin temel boyutlarının önemleri belirlenmiştir. Çevresel boyutların en fazla etkiye sahip olduğu, bunu sırasıyla sosyal ve ekonomik boyutların izlediği görülmüştür. Şirketlerin sıralanması için TOPSIS, CODAS ve PIV yöntemleri kullanılmıştır. Üç yöntemle elde edilen sonuçlar, Borda birleştirme yöntemiyle birleştirilerek nihai sıralama elde edilmiştir. Sonuçlar doğrultusunda, sürdürülebilirlik performansı en yüksek olan şirketin Euroko Sigorta Şirketi olduğu belirlenmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Ünal, E. A. (2025). Evaluation of Sustainability Performance of Insurance Companies with Global Fuzzy AHP-Based TOPSIS, CODAS and PIV Methods. Sosyoekonomi, Cilt: 33 Sayı: 64, 299–326. https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2025.02.13

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (43)

  1. Acar, C. et al. (2022), “Comparative fuel cell sustainability assessment with a novel approach”, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 47(1), 575-594.
  2. Akgün, M. & A.S. Temür (2016), “BIST ulaştirma endeksine kayitli şirketlerin finansal performanslarinin TOPSIS yöntemi ile değerlendirilmesi”, Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 12(12), 173-186.
  3. Akyuz, G. & S. Aka (2017), “Çok kriterli karar verme teknikleriyle tedarikçi performansi değerlendirmede toplamsal bir yaklaşım”, Journal of Management & Economics Research, 15(2), 28-46.
  4. Alimohammadlou, M. & Z. Khoshsepehr (2023), “The role of Society 5.0 in achieving sustainable development: a spherical fuzzy set approach”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(16), 47630-47654.
  5. Alp, İ. et al. (2015), “Entropi tabanli maut yöntemi ile kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik performansi ölçümü: bir vaka çalişmasi”, International Journal of Economic & Social Research, 11(2), 65-81.
  6. Atanassov, K.T. & S. Stoeva (1986), “Intuitionistic fuzzy sets”, Fuzzy sets and Systems, 20(1), 87-96.
  7. Bączkiewicz, A. & J. Wątróbski (2022), “A multi-criteria approach to sustainable energy management evaluation focusing on renewable energy sources”, Procedia Computer Science, 207, 4640-4650.
  8. Badi, I. et al. (2018), “A case study of supplier selection for a steelmaking company in Libya by using the Combinative Distance-based Assessment (CODAS) model”, Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 1(1), 1-12.
  9. Biswas, S. et al. (2022), “A multi-criteria framework for comparing dividend pay capabilities: Evidence from Indian FMCG and consumer durable sector”, Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 5(2), 140-175.
  10. Çakir, S. & S. Perçin (2013), “Çok kriterli karar verme teknikleriyle lojistik firmalarinda performans ölçümü/Performance measurement of logistics firms with multi-criteria decision making methods”, Ege Akademik Bakis, 13(4), 449-459.
  11. Erdoğan, B. (2022), BİST'e kayıtlı bankaların finansal performansının AHP-SD tabanli PIV yöntemiyle değerlendirilmesi”, Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (52), 93-109.
  12. Gedik, Y. (2020), “Sosyal, ekonomik ve çevresel boyutlarla sürdürülebilirlik ve sürdürülebilir kalkınma”, Uluslararası Ekonomi Siyaset İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Dergisi, 3(3), 196-215.
  13. Gharizadeh-Beiragh, R. et al. (2020), “An integrated multi-criteria decision making model for sustainability performance assessment for insurance companies”, Sustainability, 12(3), 789.
  14. Goswami, S.S. et al. (2022), “Selection of a green renewable energy source in India with the help of MEREC integrated PIV MCDM tool”, Materials Today: Proceedings, 52, 1153-1160.
  15. Heemskerk, B. et al. (2002), Sustainable development reporting-striking the balance, World Business Council for Sustainable Development: Conches-Geneva.
  16. Hwang, C.-L. et al. (1981), “Methods for multiple attribute decision making”, in: Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications A State-of-the-Art Survey (58-191), Springer-Verlag.
  17. Jin, G. et al. (2022), “Selection of business process modeling tool with the application of fuzzy DEMATEL and TOPSIS method”, Axioms, 11(11), 601.
  18. Kanojia, R. (2014), “Insurance and its role in sustainable development”, Global Journal of Finance and Management, 6(3), 227-232.
  19. Kartal, C. & Z. Özdil (2024), “Comparative Financial Performance Analysis of BIST-500 Listed Insurance Companies Using TOPSIS, VIKOR and MOORA Methods”, Sosyoekonomi, 32(62), 221-246.
  20. Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M. et al. (2016), “A new combinative distance-based assessment (CODAS) method for multi-criteria decision-making”, Economic Computation & Economic Cybernetics Studies & Research, 50(3), 25-44.
  21. Khan, N.Z. et al. (2019), “Selection of E-learning websites using a novel Proximity Indexed Value (PIV) MCDM method”, Journal of Computers in Education, 6(2), 241-256.
  22. Kieu, P.T. et al. (2021), “A spherical fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (SF-AHP) and combined compromise solution (CoCoSo) algorithm in distribution center location selection: A case study in agricultural supply chain”, Axioms, 10(2), 53.
  23. Kumari, A. & B. Acherjee (2022), “Selection of non-conventional machining process using CRITIC-CODAS method”, Materials Today: Proceedings, 56, 66-71.
  24. Kutlu-Gündoğdu, F. & C. Kahraman (2019), “Spherical fuzzy sets and spherical fuzzy TOPSIS method”, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 36(1), 337-352.
  25. Kutlu-Gündoğdu, F. & C. Kahraman (2020), “A novel spherical fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and its renewable energy application”, Soft Computing, 24, 4607-4621.
  26. Lapinskaite, I. & G. Radikaite (2015), “Analysis of measurement of sustainable development in the insurance company”, European Scientific Journal, 11(13), 446-464.
  27. Mufazzal, S. & S.M. Muzakkir (2018), “A new multi-criterion decision making (MCDM) method based on proximity indexed value for minimizing rank reversals”, Computers & Industrial Engineering, 119, 427-438.
  28. Onocak, D. et al. (2023), “BİST’TE işlem gören sigorta şirketlerinin sürdürülebilirlik raporlarının içerik analizi ile değerlendirilmesi”, Dicle Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 32, 368-394.
  29. Ozdemir, Y.S. (2022), “A spherical fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making model for industry 4.0 performance measurement”, Axioms, 11(7), 325.
  30. Parlar, G. & O. Palanci (2020), “Çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri ile dünya üniversitelerinin performanslarinin değerlendirilmesi”, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Vizyoner Dergisi, 11(26), 203-227.
  31. Purvis, B. et al. (2019), “Three pillars of sustainability: in search of conceptual origins”, Sustainability Science, 14, 681-695.
  32. Smarandache, F. (1999), A unifying field in logics. Neutrosophy: Neutrosophic probability, set and logic, American Research Press, Rehoboth.
  33. Taddese, G. et al. (2021), “Sustainability Performance Evaluation of Faceshield Bracket Manufacturing by Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process”, Sustainability, 13(24), 13883.
  34. Taşci, M. (2024), “Measuring sustainability performance with SWARA-MEREC-COBRA multi-criteria model: A case study of Anadolu insurance company”, Decision Science Letters, 13(4), 829-844.
  35. Teker, S. et al. (2024), “Enerji sürdürülebilirliğinin çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri ile ölçülmesi ve Copeland yöntemi ile bütünleştirilmesi: OECD ülkeleri üzerine bir çalışma”, Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 20(4), 871-895.
  36. Trung, D. D. (2021a), Application of EDAS, MARCOS, TOPSIS, MOORA and PIV methods for multi-criteria decision making in milling process. Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 71(2), 69-84.
  37. Trung, D.D. (2021b), “Application of TOPSIS and PIV methods for multi-criteria decision making in hard turning process”, Journal of Machine Engineering, 21(4), 57-71.
  38. Tuffour, P. et al. (2023), “Toward sustainable development: Developing a decision‐making framework for cross‐sectoral engagement in green procurement”, Sustainable Development, 32(3), 2233-2252.
  39. Wątróbski, J. et al. (2022), “Sustainable cities and communities assessment using the DARIA-TOPSIS method”, Sustainable Cities and Society, 83, 103926.
  40. Wu, C.K. et al. (2022), “Fuzzy multi criteria decision making model for agritourism location selection: A case study in Vietnam”, Axioms, 11(4), 176.
  41. Wu, W.-W. (2011), “Beyond Travel & Tourism competitiveness ranking using DEA, GST, ANN and Borda count”, Expert Systems with Applications, 38(10), 12974-12982.
  42. Yager, R.R. (2013), “Pythagorean fuzzy subsets”, Paper presented at the 2013 joint IFSA world congress and NAFIPS annual meeting (IFSA/NAFIPS).
  43. Zadeh, L.A. (1965), “Fuzzy sets”, Information and Control, 8(3), 338-353.