Journals / Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 28 Sayı: Özel Sayı Özel Sayı

A hybrid multi-criteria decision-making framework for evaluating corporate ESG performance

Kurumsal ESG performansının değerlendirilmesine yönelik hibrit çok kriterli karar verme çerçevesi

Alparslan Oğuz(ERZİNCAN BİNALİ YILDIRIM ÜNİVERSİTESİ, KEMAH MESLEK YÜKSEKOKULU)0000-0003-1920-5674
Pages
386–406
Publication Date
2026-10-21
🏛️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 the ESG performance of the company generally had a positive trend during the entire study period.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of this research is to analyze the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) performance of Coca-Cola İçecek A.Ş. during the years 2012-2023 with the help of a combined multi-criteria decision-making approach.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study took the years as decision alternatives and included ten criteria related to ESG performance in the evaluation process.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results show that the ESG performance of the company generally had a positive trend during the entire study period.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2012-2023 Verileri
⚙️Variables:ESG performansı · Sürdürülebilirlik · ÇKKV

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to analyze the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) performance of Coca-Cola İçecek A.Ş. during the years 2012-2023 with the help of a combined multi-criteria decision-making approach. The data utilized in the study was sourced from the Refinitiv/LSEG ESG database. The study took the years as decision alternatives and included ten criteria related to ESG performance in the evaluation process. To find the weights of the criteria, two recently developed objective weighting methods, SITDE and RECA, were used. The final weights were combined by using the geometric mean method. Then, the ALPAS method was used to rank the alternatives. The results show that the ESG performance of the company generally had a positive trend during the entire study period. Based on the results, 2021 was the year with the highest ESG performance, whereas 2022 and 2020 also showed very good levels of performance. On the other hand, 2013 was found to be the year with the lowest ESG performance. The integrated weights assign the highest importance to CSR strategy, resource use, and emissions. Also, the sensitivity analysis, comparisons with different MCDM methods, Spearman rank correlation test, and rank reversal analyses indicate that the rankings remain largely stable under the methodological assumptions examined. This study adds to the literature by assessing ESG performance through a longitudinal evaluation and by integrating objective weighting methods with different computational foundations and systematically testing the robustness of the resulting rankings.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Coca-Cola İçecek A.Ş.’nin 2012–2023 dönemine ait Çevresel, Sosyal ve Yönetişim (ESG) performansını hibrit bir Çok Kriterli Karar Verme modeli kullanarak değerlendirmektir. Analizde kullanılan veriler Refinitiv/LSEG ESG veri tabanından elde edilmiştir. Çalışmada yıllar alternatif olarak ele alınmış ve ESG performansını temsil eden on kriter değerlendirmeye dâhil edilmiştir. Kriter ağırlıklarının belirlenmesinde yeni nesil objektif ağırlıklandırma yöntemlerinden SITDE ve RECA yöntemleri kullanılmış, elde edilen ağırlıklar geometrik ortalama yaklaşımı ile bütünleştirilmiştir. Alternatiflerin sıralanmasında ise ALPAS yöntemi uygulanmıştır. Analiz sonuçları, şirketin ESG performansının yıllar içerisinde genel olarak yükseliş eğilimi gösterdiğini ortaya koymuştur. Bulgulara göre 2021 yılı en yüksek ESG performansının elde edildiği dönem olarak belirlenirken, 2022 ve 2020 yılları da yüksek performans gösteren dönemler arasında yer almıştır. Buna karşılık, 2013 yılı en düşük ESG performansına sahip yıl olarak tespit edilmiştir. Bütünleşik ağırlıklarda en yüksek önem düzeyleri kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk stratejisi, kaynak kullanımı ve emisyon kriterlerine atanmıştır. Ayrıca gerçekleştirilen duyarlılık analizi, farklı ÇKKV yöntemleriyle karşılaştırmalar, Spearman sıra korelasyon testi ve sıra tersine dönme analizleri sıralama sonuçlarının incelenen yöntemsel varsayımlar altında büyük ölçüde kararlı kaldığını göstermiştir. Çalışma, aynı şirketin ESG performansını yıllar bazında boylamsal olarak değerlendirmesi ve farklı hesaplama temellerine sahip objektif ağırlıklandırma yöntemlerini bütünleştirerek sıralamaların sağlamlığını sistematik biçimde sınaması bakımından literatüre katkı sağlamaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Oğuz, A. (2026). A hybrid multi-criteria decision-making framework for evaluating corporate ESG performance. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 28 Sayı: Özel Sayı Özel Sayı, 386–406. https://doi.org/10.33707/akuiibfd.1964413

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (43)

  1. Apergis, N., Poufinas, T., & Antonopoulos, A. (2022). ESG scores and cost of debt. Energy Economics, 112, 106186.
  2. Azmi, W., Hassan, M. K., Houston, R., & Karim, M. S. (2021). ESG activities and banking performance: International evidence from emerging economies. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 70, 101277.
  3. Belke, M., Gülcemal, T., & Bosna, J. (2026). Multi-criteria performance assessment of beverage companies integrating financial and ESG indicators: A hybrid analytical framework. Economics, 14(1).
  4. Bilgin, E., & Yılmaz, E. (2025). İşletmelerin sürdürülebilirlik etkinliği: ESG ve finansal performansın veri zarflama analizi ile değerlendirilmesi. Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 47(3).
  5. Brauers, W. K. M., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2006). The MOORA method and its application to privatization in a transition economy. Control and Cybernetics, 35(2), 445–469.
  6. Buallay, A. (2019). Is sustainability reporting (ESG) associated with performance? Evidence from the European banking sector. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 30(1), 98–115.
  7. Çıtak, Ö., & Ünlü, U. (2024). BİST'te işlem gören bankaların sürdürülebilirlik raporlarının ÇKKV yöntemi ile değerlendirilmesi. Alanya Akademik Bakış, 8(3), 840–857.
  8. da Cunha, Í. G. F., Policarpo, R. V. S., de Oliveira, P. C. S., Zanon, L. G., & do Nascimento Rebelatto, D. A. (2025). Exploring ESG indicators and the Sustainable Development Goals: A fuzzy multi-criteria approach to cause- and-effect analysis. Business Strategy & Development, 8(3), e70155.
  9. Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Management Science, 60(11), 2835–2857.
  10. Ecer, F., & Pamucar, D. (2022). A novel LOPCOW-DOBI multi-criteria sustainability performance assessment methodology: An application in developing country banking sector. Omega, 112, 102690.
  11. 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.
  12. Gopisetty, Y. B., & Sama, H. R. (2025). Skewness impact through distributional evaluation (SITDE) method: A new method in multi-criteria decision making. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 76(6), 1204–1224.
  13. Görçün, Ö. F., Shabir, M., Çalık, A., & Işık, Ö. (2025). Evaluation of the Financial Performance of the Textile and Apparel Industry in interval type-2 fuzzy environment. Applied Soft Computing, 113830.
  14. Gül, S., & Bektaş, S. (2025). Yeni bir hibrit karar verme modeliyle ESG performans sıralaması: Bankacılık sektörü için CRISUS-PIV hibrit modeli uygulaması. Üçüncü Sektör Sosyal Ekonomi Dergisi, 60(4), 3557–3579.
  15. Hashemkhani Zolfani, S., Şengönül, A., Koşaroğlu, Ş. M., Tekgün, B., & Işık, Ö. (2026). Measuring Urban Economic Performance in G7 Countries Through a Novel Grey-Based Multi-Criteria Framework. Axioms, 15(9), 671.
  16. Hoang, P. D., Nguyen, L. T., & Tran, B. Q. (2024). Assessing environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance of global electronics industry: An integrated MCDM approach-based spherical fuzzy sets. Cogent Engineering, 11(1), 2297509.
  17. İnanç, Y., Altuntaş, C., & Altuntaş, G. (2026). Multi-criteria decision-making framework for ESG evaluation in the logistics industry. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 101701.
  18. Işık, Ö., Shabir, M., & Moslem, S. (2024). A hybrid MCDM framework for assessing urban competitiveness: A case study of European cities. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 96, 102109.
  19. Işık, Ö., & Adalar, İ. (2025). A multi-criteria sustainability performance assessment based on the extended CRADIS method under intuitionistic fuzzy environment: A case study of Turkish non-life insurers. Neural Computing and Applications, 37(5), 3317–3342.
  20. Işık, Ö., & Adalar, İ. (2026). Assessing Sustainability Performance in the Life Insurance Industry: An Integrated Sustainability Balanced Scorecard Framework Under q‐Rung Orthopair Fuzzy Information. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 1-36.
  21. Işık, Ö., Shabir, M., Oğuz, A., & Alkan, O. (2026). Multidimensional Sustainability Performance Measurement in the Banking Industry: A Data‐Driven Grey Decision‐Support Framework. Business Strategy and the Environment. 1-26.
  22. Işık, Ö., Zolfani, S. H., Shabir, M., & Šaparauskas, J. (2025). A grey-based hybrid decision support framework for assessing the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) sustainable performance: A case study of BIST- listed banks. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 31(4), 1237–1273.
  23. Kaya, F., & Altuntaş, C. (2023). Seçili Avrupa Birliği üyesi ülkelerin sürdürülebilirlik düzeyleri ile kurumsal sürdürülebilirliklerinin analizi. EURO Politika, (19), 42–62.
  24. Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Olfat, L., & Turskis, Z. (2015). Multi-criteria inventory classification using a new method of evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS). Informatica, 26(3), 435– 451.
  25. Le, H. T., & Chu, T. C. (2026). Evaluating sustainable business model innovations under ESG by signed distance based intuitionistic fuzzy MCDM method. Advances in Fuzzy Systems, 2026(1), 7841020.
  26. Lombardi Netto, A., Salomon, V. A., & Ortiz-Barrios, M. A. (2026). An environmental, social, and governance (ESG) model for multiple criteria analysis of investments. International Transactions in Operational Research, 33(1), 489–506.
  27. LSEG. (2024). Environmental, social and governance scores from LSEG. London Stock Exchange Group.
  28. Luo, C., Wei, D., & He, F. (2023). Corporate ESG performance and trade credit financing: Evidence from China. International Review of Economics & Finance, 85, 337–351.
  29. Mao, L. X., Lan, J., & Gao, Z. (2025). Sustainable business performance evaluation of the environmental, social and governance dimensions using Fermatean fuzzy linguistic term sets-based CRADIS method. Kybernetes, 1– 31.
  30. Megawaty, D. A., Damayanti, Sumanto, Permata, D., Setiawan, D., & Setiawansyah. (2025). Development of a decision support system based on new approach respond to criteria weighting method and grey relational analysis: Case study of employee recruitment selection. International Journal on Informatics Visualization, 9(1), 314–323.
  31. Menicucci, E., & Paolucci, G. (2023). ESG dimensions and bank performance: An empirical investigation in Italy. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 23(3), 563–586.
  32. Ok, Ş., & Göktaş, F. (2024). Kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik analizi için bütüncül bir bakış açısı: BIST Katılım sürdürülebilirlik endeksi hizmet sektörü şirketleri üzerine bir uygulama. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 16(2), 1067– 1080.
  33. Pamučar, D., Simic, V., Görçün, Ö. F., & Küçükönder, H. (2024). Selection of the best Big Data platform using COBRAC-ARTASI methodology with adaptive standardized intervals. Expert Systems with Applications, 239, 122312.
  34. Refinitiv. (2023). Refinitiv ESG scores methodology. Refinitiv.
  35. Reig-Mullor, J., Garcia-Bernabeu, A., Pla-Santamaria, D., & Vercher-Ferrandiz, M. (2022). Evaluating ESG corporate performance using a new neutrosophic AHP-TOPSIS based approach. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 28(5), 1242–1266.
  36. Sotoudeh-Anvari, A. (2023). Root Assessment Method (RAM): A novel multi-criteria decision making method and its applications in sustainability challenges. Journal of Cleaner Production, 423, 138695.
  37. Tekgün, B. (2025). Evaluating ESG sustainability performance in the Turkish banking industry: A Grey LOPCOW- MSD-PIV approach. Ekonomi Politika ve Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 10(Özel Sayı), 59–87.
  38. Tekgün, B., Koşaroğlu, Ş. M., Hashemkhani Zolfani, S., Akbulut, O. Y., & Işık, Ö. (2026). Comparative Assessment of Financial Market Development in African Economies: An Integrated MCDM Framework Based on CRISUS- LODECI-WENSLO Weighting and ARTASI Ranking. Mathematics, 14(10), 1677.
  39. Ulutaş, A., Topal, A., & Ecer, F. (2025). The Alternative Prioritization and Assessment System (ALPAS) method for environmental performance evaluation. Mathematics, 13(20), 3333.
  40. Yolcu, M. (2025). Evaluation of the financial performance of sustainability funds in Turkey using CRITIC and TOPSIS methods. Third Sector Social Economic Review, 60(3), 2494–2513.
  41. Yu, K., Wu, Q., Chen, X., Wang, W., & Mardani, A. (2024). An integrated MCDM framework for evaluating the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) sustainable business performance. Annals of Operations Research, 342(1), 987–1018.
  42. Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., Antucheviciene, J., & Zakarevicius, A. (2012). Optimization of weighted aggregated sum product assessment. Elektronika ir Elektrotechnika, 122(6), 3–6.
  43. Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Kildienė, S. (2014). State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM/MADM methods. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 20(1), 165–179.