SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Black Sea Journal of Engineering and Science / 2026 / Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1

Employee-Centered Social and Financial Performance Analysis in the Airline Industry: Integrated LOPCOW-COCOSO Approach

Havayolu Sektöründe Çalışan Odaklı Sosyal ve Finansal Performans Analizi: Bütünleşik LOPCOW-COCOSO Yaklaşımı

Abdulkadir Alıcı(KASTAMONU ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-4796-6385
Ahmet Ertek(KASTAMONU ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-8156-5075
Şafak Aktemur(KASTAMONU ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-4167-2244
Pages
334–350
Publication Date
2026-01-05
🏛️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)

It has been observed that the Price-to-Book (PD/DD) ratio remains relatively high, particularly when both return on equity and the return on investment (ROI) and the return on capital (ROC) ratio improve; conversely, high employee turnover, female employees, and female managers lower overall performance.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study offers a holistic framework that evaluates the performance of airline companies not solely through financial ratios, but also by considering human resource dynamics and governance/diversity indicators.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The aim of the research is to compare 28 international airlines using a multi-criteria approach with data from 2024; integrating the indicators of workforce turnover rate, female employee rate, and female manager rate in the social dimension, and Return on Equity (ROE), Market Value/Book Value (MV/BV), Gross Profit Margin (GPM), and Operating Profit Margin (OPM) in the financial market dimension, into a single decision framework.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It has been observed that the Price-to-Book (PD/DD) ratio remains relatively high, particularly when both return on equity and the return on investment (ROI) and the return on capital (ROC) ratio improve; conversely, high employee turnover, female employees, and female managers lower overall performance.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2024 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Finansal performans · Havacılık yönetimi · Havayolu performansı

Abstract

This study offers a holistic framework that evaluates the performance of airline companies not solely through financial ratios, but also by considering human resource dynamics and governance/diversity indicators. The aim of the research is to compare 28 international airlines using a multi-criteria approach with data from 2024; integrating the indicators of workforce turnover rate, female employee rate, and female manager rate in the social dimension, and Return on Equity (ROE), Market Value/Book Value (MV/BV), Gross Profit Margin (GPM), and Operating Profit Margin (OPM) in the financial market dimension, into a single decision framework. In this context, criterion weights were calculated using the LOPCOW method; and the combined performance ranking of the airlines was obtained using COCOSO. The findings show that the common profile of the top-tier airlines includes low workforce turnover, high female representation, and strong profitability-market indicators. It has been observed that the Price-to-Book (PD/DD) ratio remains relatively high, particularly when both return on equity and the return on investment (ROI) and the return on capital (ROC) ratio improve; conversely, high employee turnover, female employees, and female managers lower overall performance. From a management and policy perspective, it is recommended to prioritize human resources practices aimed at reducing turnover rates (fair wages and benefits, career progression, flexible shifts, and psychosocial support); and to redesign promotion/mentoring processes with impartiality principles by setting measurable targets for the proportion of female employees and female managers. On the profitability side, while process investments such as fuel efficiency, fleet standardization, and network optimization support margins, transparent and consistent reporting practices should be strengthened due to the sensitivity of market-based indicators. The study reflects the unique value of combining social and financial indicators within the same scale to provide a balanced and comparable performance evaluation.

Özet

Bu çalışma, havayolu işletmelerinin performansını yalnızca finansal oranlarla değerlendirmek yerine, insan kaynağı dinamikleri ve yönetişim/çeşitlilik göstergeleriyle birlikte ele alan bütüncül bir çerçeve sunmaktadır. Araştırmanın amacı, 2024 yılına ait verilerle 28 uluslararası havayolunu çok ölçütlü bir yaklaşımla karşılaştırmak; sosyal boyuttaki işgücü dönüşüm oranı, kadın çalışan oranı ve kadın yönetici oranı ile finansal piyasa boyutundaki Özkaynak Getirisi (ROE), Piyasa Değeri/Defter Değeri (PD/DD), Brüt Kâr Marjı (BKM) ve Operasyonel Kâr Marjı (OKM) göstergelerini tek bir karar çerçevesinde bütünleştirmektir. Bu kapsamda kriter ağırlıkları LOPCOW yöntemi ile hesaplanmış; havayollarının birleşik performans sıralaması COCOSO ile elde edilmiştir. Bulgular, üst dilimde yer alan havayollarının ortak profilinde düşük işgücü dönüşüm, yüksek kadın temsili ve güçlü kârlılık-piyasa göstergelerinin birlikte yer aldığını göstermektedir. Özellikle özkaynak getirisi ile BKM/OKM’nin birlikte iyileştiği durumlarda PD/DD oranınında görece yüksek seyrettiği; buna karşılık yüksek işgücü dönüşüm, kadın çalışan ve yönetici göstergelerinin genel performansı düşürdüğü gözlemlenmiştir. Yönetim ve politika açısından, devir oranını düşürmeyi hedefleyen insan kaynakları uygulamalarının (adil ücret-yan haklar, kariyer basamakları, esnek vardiya ve psikososyal destek) önceliklendirilmesi; kadın çalışan ve kadın yönetici oranları için ölçülebilir hedefler belirlenerek terfi/mentorluk süreçlerinin tarafsızlık ilkeleriyle yeniden tasarlanması önerilmektedir. Kârlılık tarafında, yakıt verimliliği, filo standardizasyonu ve ağ optimizasyonu gibi süreç yatırımları marjları desteklerken; piyasa temelli göstergelerin duyarlılığı sebebiyle şeffaf ve tutarlı raporlama pratikleri güçlendirilmelidir. Çalışmanın, sosyal ile finansal göstergelerin aynı ölçek kapsamında birleştirilerek, dengeli ve karşılaştırılabilir bir performans değerlendirmesi özgün değerini yansıtmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Alıcı, A., Ertek, A., Aktemur, Ş. (2026). Employee-Centered Social and Financial Performance Analysis in the Airline Industry: Integrated LOPCOW-COCOSO Approach. Black Sea Journal of Engineering and Science, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1, 334–350. https://doi.org/10.34248/bsengineering.1831229

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (55)

  1. Alıcı, A., & Yıldırım, M. (2025). Financial and environmental sustainability in aircraft selection for an airline in Türkiye: The LOPCOW-CRADIS application. Research in Aviation Management, 4(2), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16629036
  2. Alici, A. (2025). Financial sustainability performance of airlines. Scientific Journal of Silesian University of Technology. Series Transport, 129, 27–50. https://doi.org/10.20858/sjsutst.2025.129.2
  3. Arjomandi, A., & Seufert, J. H. (2014). An evaluation of the world’s major airlines’ technical and environmental performance. Economic Modelling, 41, 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2014.05.002
  4. Atay, M., Eroğlu, Y., & Seckiner, S. U. (2022). Does fleet standardization matter on profitability and financial policy response of airlines during COVID-19 pandemics in the U.S.? EURO Journal on Transportation and Logistics, 11, Article 100088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejtl.2022.100088
  5. Aydın, U., Karadayı, M. A., & Ülengin, F. (2020). How efficient airways act as role models and in what dimensions? A superefficiency DEA model enhanced by social network analysis. Journal of Air Transport Management, 82, Article 101725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2019.101725
  6. Bae, K. H. G., Gupta, A., & Mau, R. (2021). Comparative analysis of airline financial and operational performances: A fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS integrated approach. Decision Science Letters, 10(3), 361–374. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.dsl.2021.2.002
  7. Bakir, M., Akan, Ş., Kiraci, K., Karabasevic, D., Stanujkic, D., & Popovic, G. (2020). Multiple-criteria approach of the operational performance evaluation in the airline industry: Evidence from the emerging markets. Romanian Journal of Economic Forecasting, 23(2), 149–172.
  8. Barros, C. P., & Wanke, P. (2015). An analysis of African airlines efficiency with two-stage TOPSIS and neural networks. Journal of Air Transport Management, 44–45, 90–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2015.03.002
  9. Biswas, S., Bandyopadhyay, G., & Mukhopadhyaya, J. N. (2022a). 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. https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame0306102022b
  10. Biswas, S., Chatterjee, S., & Majumder, S. (2022b). A spherical fuzzy framework for sales personnel selection. Journal of Computational and Cognitive Engineering, 2(4), 263–274. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewJCCE2202357
  11. Budd, L., Ison, S., & Adrienne, N. (2020). European airline response to the COVID-19 pandemic – Contraction, consolidation and future considerations for airline business and management. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 37, Article 100578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2020.100578
  12. Chang, Y. H., & Yeh, C. H. (2001). Evaluating airline competitiveness using multiattribute decision making. Omega, 29(5), 405–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0483(01)00032-9
  13. Chang, Y. T., Park, H., Jeong, J. S., & Lee, J. W. (2014). Evaluating economic and environmental efficiency of global airlines: A SBM-DEA approach. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 27, 46–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2013.12.013
  14. Chen, C. F. (2006). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and flight attendants’ turnover intentions: A note. Journal of Air Transport Management, 12(5), 274–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2006.05.001
  15. Chen, Y., Cheng, S., & Zhu, Z. (2021). Exploring the operational and environmental performance of Chinese airlines: A two-stage undesirable SBM-NDEA approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 289, Article 125711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125711
  16. Cociș, A. D., Batrancea, L., & Țulai, H. (2021). The link between corporate reputation and financial performance and equilibrium within the airline industry. Mathematics, 9(17), Article 2150. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9172150
  17. Cregan, C., Kelly, J. A., & Clinch, J. P. (2024). Are environmental, social and governance (ESG) ratings reliable indicators of emissions outcomes? A case study of the airline industry. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 31(2), 909–928. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2608
  18. Cui, Q., & Jin, Z. (2020). Airline environmental efficiency measures considering negative data: A modified network SBM model. Energy, 207, Article 118221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.118221
  19. Cui, Q., Hu, Y. X., & Yu, L. T. (2022). Can the aviation industry achieve carbon emission reduction and revenue growth simultaneously under the CNG2020 strategy? An empirical study with 25 benchmarking airlines. Energy, 245, Article 123272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.123272
  20. Dinçer, H., Hacıoğlu, Ü., & Yüksel, S. (2017). Balanced scorecard based performance measurement of European airlines using a hybrid multicriteria decision making approach under the fuzzy environment. Journal of Air Transport Management, 63, 17–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2017.05.005
  21. Doganis, R. (2009). Flying off course: Airline economics and marketing (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203863992
  22. Durak, M. Ş. (2025). Flying towards equality: The role of female employees in enhancing airline performance. Journal of Aviation, 9(3), 694–702. https://doi.org/10.30518/jav.1729023
  23. Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Management Science, 60(11), 2835–2857. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.1984
  24. Ecer, F., & Pamucar, D. (2022). A novel LOPCOW-DOBI multi-criteria sustainability performance assessment methodology: An application in developing country banking sector. Omega, 112, Article 102690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2022.102690
  25. Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. (2010). Managing for stakeholders: Survival, reputation, and success. Yale University Press.
  26. Friede, G., Busch, T., & Bassen, A. (2015). ESG and financial performance: Aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 5(4), 210–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2015.1118917
  27. Gillen, D., & Lall, A. (2004). Competitive advantage of low-cost carriers: Some implications for airports. Journal of Air Transport Management, 10(1), 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2003.10.009
  28. Göçmen, D., Keleş, M. K., & Özdağoğlu, A. (2025). Performance evaluation in airline operations using SD and DNMA methods within the framework of sustainability: The case of Turkish Airlines. Journal of Aviation, 9(1), 156–167. https://doi.org/10.30518/jav.1591007
  29. Gramani, M. (2012). Efficiency decomposition approach: A cross-country airline analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(5), 5815–5819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.11.107
  30. Gudiel Pineda, P. J., Liou, J. J. H., Hsu, C. C., & Chuang, Y. C. (2018). An integrated MCDM model for improving airline operational and financial performance. Journal of Air Transport Management, 68, 103–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2017.06.003
  31. Han, T. Y., Bi, J. W., & Yao, Y. (2024). Exploring the antecedents of airline employee job satisfaction and dissatisfaction through employee-generated data. Journal of Air Transport Management, 115, Article 102545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2024.102545
  32. Hsu, C. C., & Liou, J. J. H. (2013). An outsourcing provider decision model for the airline industry. Journal of Air Transport Management, 28, 40–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2012.12.009
  33. Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Olfat, L., & Turskis, Z. (2019). COCOSO: A combined compromise solution method for multi-criteria decision-making problems. Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research, 53(2), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.24818/18423264/53.2.19.02
  34. Kiracı, K. (2025). An integrated MCDM approach to evaluating global and regional airline performance. Transport Economics and Management, 3, 222–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.team.2025.05.002
  35. Lee, S., Seo, K., & Sharma, A. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and firm performance in the airline industry: The moderating role of oil prices. Tourism Management, 38, 20–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.02.002
  36. Lin, Y. H., & Hong, C. F. (2020). Efficiency and effectiveness of airline companies in Taiwan and Mainland China. Asia Pacific Management Review, 25(1), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2019.04.002
  37. Lozano, S., & Gutiérrez, E. (2014). A slacks-based network DEA efficiency analysis of European airlines. Transportation Planning and Technology, 37(7), 623–637. https://doi.org/10.1080/03081060.2014.935569
  38. Lu, W. M., Wang, F. H., & Nguyen, T. H. Y. (2025). The moderating effect of relational capital and board gender diversity on the relationship between environmental performance and firm performance in the airline industry. Business Strategy and the Environment, 2025; 34:6925–6947. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.4330
  39. Maneenop, S., & Kotcharin, S. (2020). The impacts of COVID-19 on the global airline industry: An event study approach. Journal of Air Transport Management, 89, Article 101920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2020.101920
  40. Margolis, J. D., Elfenbein, H. A., & Walsh, J. P. (2009). Does it pay to be good. and does it matter? (Harvard Business School Working Paper No. 08-041). SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1866371
  41. Mintah, E. O., Elmarzouky, M., & Shohaieb, D. (2025). Examining airlines’ environmental and social disclosure: Does board gender diversity matter? Business Strategy and the Environment. 2025, 1–17 https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.70164
  42. Orazayeva, A., & Arslan, M. (2022). CSR and financial performance in the airline industry: Moderating effects of the airline type, government ownership and COVID-19. International Journal of Electronic Finance, 11(3), 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEF.2022.124481
  43. Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840603024003910
  44. Pires, H. M., & Fernandes, E. (2012). Malmquist financial efficiency analysis for airlines. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 48(5), 1049–1055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2012.03.007
  45. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62–77.
  46. Stanujkic, D., Zavadskas, E. K., & Karabasevic, D. (2022). A framework for the application of COCOSO method in sustainable decision-making. Sustainability, 14(3), Article 1221. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031221
  47. Suau-Sanchez, P., Voltes-Dorta, A., & Lamolla, L. (2025). Board and executive gender diversity as a driver of airline efficiency: A network-DEA analysis. Journal of Air Transport Management, 124, Article 102745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2025.102745
  48. Şişman, M. E., & Cankaya, S. (2020). Effect of ESG data on the financial performance of companies: A study on the airline sector. PressAcademia Procedia, 12, 98–100. https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2020.1365
  49. Tanrıverdi, G., & Eryaşar, M. (2022). Global airline alliances before and during the COVID-19 crisis: Exploring the critical success factors through CRITIC–CoCoSo methods. Anadolu Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 23(4), 177–203. https://doi.org/10.53443/anadoluibfd.1142910
  50. Tanrıverdi, G., Merkert, R., Karamaşa, Ç., & Asker, V. (2023). Airline sustainability performance during COVID-19: Integrating MEREC and CoCoSo. Journal of Air Transport Management, 112, Article 102456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2023.102456
  51. Wang, Y. J. (2008). Applying FMCDM to evaluate financial performance of domestic airlines in Taiwan. Expert Systems with Applications, 34(3), 1837–1845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2007.02.029
  52. Wanke, P., Barros, C. P., & Chen, Z. (2015). An analysis of Asian airlines efficiency with two-stage TOPSIS and MCMC GLMM. International Journal of Production Economics, 169, 110–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.07.028
  53. Yazdani, M., Chatterjee, P., & Pamucar, D. (2022). Recent developments of the COCOSO method in multi-criteria decision-making: A systematic review and future research directions. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 5(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.31181/oresta030322001y
  54. Yıldız, F., Dayı, F., Yücel, M., & Çilesiz, A. (2024). The impact of ESG criteria on firm value: A strategic analysis of the airline industry. Sustainability, 16(19), Article 8300. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198300
  55. Margolis, J. D., Elfenbein, H. A., & Walsh, J. P. (2009). Does it pay to be good. and does it matter? (Harvard Business School Working Paper No. 08-041). SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1866371