SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Sakarya University Journal of Computer and Information Sciences / 2026 / Volume: 9 Issue: 2 Special Issue

MCDM-Based Sustainability Evaluation in the Textile Industry

Onat Özçelik(SAKARYA ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-4266-8215
İhsan Hakan Selvi(SAKARYA ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-8837-2137
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-06-17
🏛️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 framework offers a systematic and straightforward approach, enabling decision-makers to identify areas for improvement and enhance the effectiveness of sustainability initiatives.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This research proposes a framework to assess the sustainability performance of businesses within the textile industry.
📊
Key Findings & Data:By integrating KPI’s created in line with the most common sustainability standards in the textile sector, the three core pillars of sustainability, social, environmental, and economic elements, are incorporated into an evaluation model constructed using multi-criteria decision-making techniques.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The framework offers a systematic and straightforward approach, enabling decision-makers to identify areas for improvement and enhance the effectiveness of sustainability initiatives.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Sustainability · Performance evaluation · AHP

Abstract

This research proposes a framework to assess the sustainability performance of businesses within the textile industry. By integrating KPI’s created in line with the most common sustainability standards in the textile sector, the three core pillars of sustainability, social, environmental, and economic elements, are incorporated into an evaluation model constructed using multi-criteria decision-making techniques. The impact of the sector on sustainability was reflected in the structure of the developed model, and standards compatible with the Global Reporting Initiative, which are globally recognized, have been addressed. In determining the KPI’s, the most commonly used standards in the sector were examined, and performance indicators covering these standards were derived from insights shared by sustainability specialists who are experts in their fields. The weights of the criteria for each dimension were calculated with the AHP technique, based on evaluations by sustainability and analytical professionals with domain expertise and industry-specific experience. These weighted indicators were assessed using TOPSIS and Grey Relational Analysis, with real data obtained from a medium-sized textile company operating in Izmir. The company’s sustainability performance scores were then calculated. The framework offers a systematic and straightforward approach, enabling decision-makers to identify areas for improvement and enhance the effectiveness of sustainability initiatives.

🔖

Cite This Article

Özçelik, O., Selvi, İ. H. (2026). MCDM-Based Sustainability Evaluation in the Textile Industry. Sakarya University Journal of Computer and Information Sciences, Volume: 9 Issue: 2 Special Issue. https://doi.org/10.35377/saucis...1722432

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (22)

  1. A. Kolk, “Sustainability reporting,” VBA J., vol. 21, 2005.
  2. L. P. Thiele, “Sustainability,” Apr. 12, 2024.
  3. T. Kuhlman and J. Farrington, “What is sustainability?” Sustainability, vol. 2, no. 11, pp. 3436–3448, 2010, https://doi.org/10.3390/SU2113436
  4. N. Palich and A. Edmonds, “Social sustainability: Creating places and participatory processes that perform well for people,” Environ. Des. Guide, pp. 1–13, 2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/26151925
  5. A. Markulev and A. Long, “On sustainability: An economic approach,” in Productivity Commission Staff Res. Note, 2013.
  6. A. K. Katyal, “Climate change: Social, economic, and environmental sustainability,” Environ. Forensics, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 177–182, 2009, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/15275920903130131
  7. I. Ali, P. T. Fukofuka, and A. K. Narayan, “Critical reflections on sustainability reporting standard setting,” Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J., vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 776–791, 2023. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-01-2022-0054
  8. A. Amran and S. K. Ooi, “Sustainability reporting: Meeting stakeholder demands,” 2014, https://doi.org/10.1108/SD-03-2014-0035
  9. A. Hayatun, N. Burhan, and W. Rahmanti, “The impact of sustainability reporting on company performance,” J. Econ., vol. 15, no. 2, 2012. [Online]. Available: www.industryweek.com
  10. N. Albu, C. N. Albu, M. Dumitru, and V. F. Dumitru, “Plurality or convergence in sustainability reporting standards?” Amfiteatru Econ., vol. 15, spec. no. 7, pp. 729–742, 2013. [Online]. Available: https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/168809
  11. N. Türegün, “Financial performance evaluation by multi-criteria decision-making techniques,” Heliyon, vol. 8, no. 5, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09361.
  12. B. Ceballos, M. T. Lamata, and D. A. Pelta, “A comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision-making methods,” Prog. Artif. Intell., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 315–322, 2016, doi: 10.1007/s13748-016-0093-1.
  13. S. Cakır and S. Perçin, “Performance measurement of logistics firms with multi-criteria decision making methods,” Ege Acad. Rev., vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 449–460, 2013. [Online]. Available: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/eab/issue/39921/474191
  14. D. Dissanayake, “Sustainability key performance indicators and the global reporting initiative: Usage and challenges in a developing country context,” Meditari Account. Res., vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 543–567, 2021, doi: 10.1108/MEDAR-08-2019-0543.
  15. E. Saygili, A. T. Saygili, and S. G. Yargi, “An analysis of the sustainability disclosures of textile and apparel companies in Turkey,” Tekstil Konfeksiyon, 2019, doi: 10.32710/tekstilvekonfeksiyon.471049.
  16. I. Hristov and A. Chirico, “The role of sustainability key performance indicators (KPIs) in implementing sustainable strategies,” Sustainability, vol. 11, no. 20, 2019, doi: 10.3390/SU11205742.
  17. M. Zeleny, “Measuring criteria: Weights of importance,” Hum. Syst. Manag., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 237–238, 1991, doi: 10.3233/HSM-1991-10401.
  18. H. Taherdoost, “Decision making using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP): A step by step approach,” Int. J. Econ. Manag. Syst., 2017, doi: 10.34894/VQ1DJA.
  19. J. A. Alonso and M. T. Lamata, “Consistency in the analytic hierarchy process: A new approach,” Int. J. Uncertain. Fuzziness Knowl.-Based Syst., 2006, doi: 10.1142/S0218488506004114.
  20. K. Altintas, O. Vayvay, S. Apak, and E. Cobanoglu, “An extended GRA method integrated with fuzzy AHP to construct a multidimensional index for ranking overall energy sustainability performances,” Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 4, p. 1602, 2020, doi: 10.3390/SU12041602.
  21. S. Chakraborty, “TOPSIS and modified TOPSIS: A comparative analysis,” Decis. Anal. J., vol. 2, p. 100021, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.dajour.2021.100021.
  22. F. Abdullahu, F. Zhujani, G. Todorov, and K. Kamberov, “An experimental analysis of Taguchi-based gray relational analysis, weighted gray relational analysis, and data envelopment analysis ranking method multi-criteria decision-making approaches to multiple-quality characteristic optimization in the CNC drilling process,” Processes, vol. 12, no. 6, p. 1212, 2024, doi: 10.3390/PR12061212.