SavedAdd your journal

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

Examining and Prioritizing Quantifiable Social Sustainability Indicators in the Textile Sector from a Producer's Perspective: An Application with Level Based Weight Assessment (LBWA) Model

Üretici Perspektifinden Tekstil Sektöründe Ölçülebilir Sosyal Sürdürülebilirlik İndikatörlerinin İncelenmesi ve Önceliklendirilmesi: Seviye Bazlı Ağırlıklandırma (LBWA) Modeliyle Bir Uygulama

Damla Çevik Aka(Kırklareli Üniversitesi)0000-0001-9622-273X
Pages
458–474
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)

According to the study findings, the most important social sustainability indicators, in order of priority, are “Employee Health and Safety”, “Human Rights and Ethics”, and “Legal Responsibility”.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The textile industry is one of the sectors with the largest global workforce and the most complex supply chain relationships.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The need to examine and prioritize social sustainability factors within this sector is a matter of significant importance from both academic and industry perspectives.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:According to the study findings, the most important social sustainability indicators, in order of priority, are “Employee Health and Safety”, “Human Rights and Ethics”, and “Legal Responsibility”.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Sosyal Sürdürülebilirlik · Tekstil Sektörü · LBWA

Abstract

The textile industry is one of the sectors with the largest global workforce and the most complex supply chain relationships. The need to examine and prioritize social sustainability factors within this sector is a matter of significant importance from both academic and industry perspectives. This study aims to investigate the most prioritized social sustainability criteria in Turkish textile supply chains from the perspective of manufacturers. The study is exploratory, aiming to reveal the perspectives of company managers operating in Türkiye. This article proposes a set of 42 quantitative social sustainability indicators encompassing 14 key criteria that enable the evaluation of the entire supply chain. The indicators were developed based on a literature review and expert opinions, and validated through content analysis of twelve sustainability reports covering all levels of the supply chain. Interviews were conducted with nine expert groups, each consisting of three managers from each company. A total of 27 senior managers were included in the research, and criterion weighting was performed using the Level Based Weight Assessment (LBWA). According to the study findings, the most important social sustainability indicators, in order of priority, are “Employee Health and Safety”, “Human Rights and Ethics”, and “Legal Responsibility”.

Özet

Tekstil endüstrisi, küresel ölçekte en çok işgücü barındıran ve tedarik zinciri ilişkileri en karmaşık olan sektörlerin başında gelir. Bu sektörde sosyal sürdürülebilirlik faktörlerinin incelenmesi ve önceliklendirilmesi gerekliliği hem akademik hem de sektörel açıdan öne çıkmaktadır. Bu çalışma, üreticilerin perspektifinden Türkiye’deki tekstil tedarik zincirlerinde en öncelikli görülen sosyal sürdürülebilirlik faktölerini araştırmayı amaçlamaktadır. Çalışma, Türkiye’de faaliyet gösteren firma yöneticilerinin bakış açılarını ortaya koymak amacıyla yapılan keşifseldir. Bu makalede, tüm tedarik zincirinin değerlendirilmesini sağlayan 14 temel kriteri kapsayan 42 nicel sosyal sürdürülebilirlik göstergesi seti önerilmiştir. Göstergeler, literatür taramasına ve uzman görüşlerine dayanarak geliştirilmiş ve tedarik zincirinin tüm kademelerini kapsayan 12 sürdürülebilirlik raporunun içerik analizi ile doğrulanmıştır. Firmaların her birinden üçer yöneticinin katılımıyla oluşturulan dokuz uzman grup ile görüşmeler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bu kapsamda toplam 27 üst düzey yönetici araştırmaya dahil edilmiş ve Seviye Bazlı Ağırlık Değerlendirmesi (LBWA) ile kriter ağırlıklandırma yapılmıştır. Çalışma bulgularına göre en önemli görülen sosyal sürdürülebilirlik göstergeleri sırasıyla “Çalışan Sağlığı ve Güvenliği”, “Insan hakları ve Etik” ve “Yasal Sorumluluk” dur.

🔖

Cite This Article

Aka, D. Ç. (2026). Examining and Prioritizing Quantifiable Social Sustainability Indicators in the Textile Sector from a Producer's Perspective: An Application with Level Based Weight Assessment (LBWA) Model. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 28 Sayı: Özel Sayı Özel Sayı, 458–474. https://doi.org/10.33707/akuiibfd.1971905

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (51)

  1. Abdulaal, R.M.S., & Bafail, O.A. (2022). Two new approaches (RAMSRATMI) in multi-criteria decision-making tactics, Journal of Mathematics, pp. 1–20, Sep. 2022, doi:10.1155/2022/6725318.
  2. Agyemang, M., Kusi-Sarpong, S., Agyemang, J., Jia, F., & Adzanyo, M. (2022). Determining and evaluating socially sustainable supply chain criteria in agri-sector of developing countries: insights from West Africa cashew industry. Production Planning & Control, 33(11), 1115-1133.
  3. Ateş, K. T. (2024). Bir firmanın belirsizlik altında sürdürülebilirlik performansının değerlendirilmesi: Bulanık AHP yaklaşımı. Çukurova Üniversitesi Mühendislik Fakültesi Dergisi, 39(2), 527-533.
  4. Barbieri, P., Ellram, L., Formentini, M., & Ries, J. M. (2021). Emerging research and future pathways in digital supply chain governance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 41(7), 1021-1034.
  5. Bhatia, P., & Diaz-Elsayed, N. (2023). Facilitating Decision-making for the adoption of smart manufacturing technologies by SMEs via Fuzzy TOPSIS. International Journal of Production Economics, 257: 108762.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2022.108762
  6. Demian, M., Grecu, L., & Demian, G. (2025). A Key Performance Indicator for an Integrated Assessment of the Social Sustainability of an Enterprise. European Journal of Sustainable Development, 14(4), 745-745.
  7. Desiderio, E., García-Herrero, L., Hall, D., Segrè, A., & Vittuari, M. (2022). Social sustainability tools and indicators for the food supply chain: A systematic literature review. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 30: 527– 540. doi:10.1016/j.spc.2021.12.015.
  8. Fadara, T. G., Wong, K. Y., & Zarei, H. (2024). A comprehensive framework for the sustainability indicators in the textile industry of developing countries. Business Strategy & Development, 7(1), e332.https://doi.org/10.1002/ bsd2.332.
  9. Fernando, Y., Halili, M., Tseng, M. L., Tseng, J. W., & Lim, M. K. (2022). Sustainable social supply chain practices and firm social performance: Framework and empirical evidence. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 32, 160-172.
  10. Fidan, F. Ş., Aydoğan, E. K., & Uzal, N. (2025). Comprehensive analysis of social subcategories throughout life cycle assessment approach for the textile industry. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 30(6), 1464-1479.
  11. Formentini, M. (2021). Sustainable supply chain management. In Corporate Sustainability in Practice: A Guide for Strategy Development and Implementation (pp. 207-223). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
  12. Gomes, C., Pires,I., Monteiro, L., Lima, T. M., & Gaspar, P.D. (2024). Empowering eco-friendly choices: An environmental impact assessment decision support system for textiles and clothing. Applied Sciences, 14(2): 659.
  13. Govindan, K., Shaw, M., & Majumdar, A. (2021). Social sustainability tensions in multi-tier supply chain: A systematic literature review towards conceptual framework development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 279, 123075.
  14. Götze, U., Richter, F., & Döring, J. (2024). A stakeholder-related procedure model for social sustainability assessment. Sustainability, 16(23), 10396.
  15. Guo, R., & Wu, Z. (2022). Social sustainable supply chain performance assessment using hybrid fuzzy-AHP– DEMATEL–VIKOR: a case study in manufacturing enterprises: R. Guo, Z. Wu. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 25(11), 12273-12301.
  16. Hendiani, S., & Bagherpour, M. (2019). Developing an integrated index to assess social sustainability in construction industry using fuzzy logic. Journal of Cleaner Production, 230, 647-662.
  17. 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.
  18. Johanson, U., Aboagye, E., & Yao, J. (2022). Integrating business model for sustainability and performance management to promote occupational health and safety—A discussion of value. Frontiers in Sustainability, 3, 950847.
  19. Khan, S. A. R., Zkik, K., Belhadi, A., & Kamble, S. S. (2021). Evaluating barriers and solutions for social sustainability adoption in multi-tier supply chains. International Journal of Production Research, 59(11), 3378-3397.
  20. Kumar, D., & Rahman, Z. (2017). Analyzing enablers of sustainable supply chain: ISM and fuzzy AHP approach. Journal of Modelling in Management, 12(3), 498-524.
  21. Lin, C. J., & Efranto, R. Y. (2026). Designing Sustainable workplaces: the strategic role of ergonomics and employee well-being. Ergonomics, 1-11.
  22. Mak, C. (2022). Corporate sustainability due diligence: More than ticking the boxes?. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 29(3), 301-303.
  23. Mani, V., Gunasekaran, A., Papadopoulos, T., Hazen, B., & Dubey, R. (2016). Supply chain social sustainability for developing nations: Evidence from India. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 111, 42-52.
  24. Mani, V., Gunasekaran, A., & Delgado, C. (2018). Enhancing supply chain performance through supplier social sustainability: An emerging economy perspective. International Journal of Production Economics, 195, 259-272.
  25. Mani, V., Jabbour, C. J. C., & Mani, K. T. (2020). Supply chain social sustainability in small and medium manufacturing enterprises and firms’ performance: Empirical evidence from an emerging Asian economy. International Journal of Production Economics, 227, 107656.
  26. Marzouk, M., & Sabbah, M. (2021). AHP-TOPSIS social sustainability approach for selecting supplier in construction supply chain. Cleaner Environmental Systems, 2, 100034.
  27. Morais, D. O. C., & Barbieri, J. C. (2022). Supply chain social sustainability: Unveiling focal firm’s archetypes under the lens of stakeholder and contingency theory. Sustainability, 14(3), 1185.
  28. Nadeem, S. P., Garza-Reyes, J. A., & Anosike, A. I. (2023). A C-LeanFramework for Deploying Circular Economy in Manufacturing SMEs.Production Planning & Control 36(5): 650–670. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2023.2294307.
  29. Nakamba, C. C., Chan, P. W., & Sharmina, M. (2017). How does social sustainability feature in studies of supply chain management? A review and research agenda. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 22(6), 522-541.
  30. Okay, N. C., Sencer, A., & Taskin, N. (2024). Quantitative metrics for environmental and social sustainability performance assessment of the supply chain. Environment, Development and Sustainability.
  31. Olivero, F., Tuni, A., Priarone, P. C., Morandi, F., & Bassani, G. (2024). A methodology to assess social sustainability of multi-tier supply chains in the textile industry. In Titolo volume non avvalorato. Decision Sciences Institute.
  32. Omoloso, O., Mortimer, K., & Wise, W. R. (2024). The influence of sustainability drivers on the implementation of social sustainability practices in the leather industry. Cleaner Production Letters, 6, 100051.
  33. Pandey, V., Kumar, S., Gupta, S., & Khatri, N. (2024). UnlockingSustainability: Prioritizing Barriers for SME Success in India WithAHP Analysis. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 14(1):25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40497- 024-00395 -3.
  34. Pitkänen, K., Karppinen, T. K. M., Kautto, P., Pirtonen, H., Salmenperä, H., Savolahti, H.,. & Myllymaa, T. (2023). How to measure the social sustainability of the circular economy? Developing and piloting social circular economy indicators in Finland. Journal of Cleaner Production, 392, 136238.
  35. Popovic, T., Barbosa-Póvoa, A., Kraslawski, A., & Carvalho, A. (2018). Quantitative indicators for social sustainability assessment of supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 180, 748-768.
  36. Saboor, S., Ahmed, V., Anane, C., & Bahroun, Z. (2025). A Hybrid AHP–Fuzzy MOORA decision support tool for advancing social sustainability in the construction sector. Sustainability, 17(11), 4879.
  37. Saini, S. (2025). Customer experience and sustainability in social, environmental and economic contexts. International Journal of Innovation Science, 17(4), 824-839.
  38. Samadhiya, A., Agrawal, R., & Garza-Reyes, J. A. (2023). Investigating the influence of total productive maintenance key success factors on the social sustainability dimension of manufacturing SMEs. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 30(10), 4651-4680.
  39. Schilling-Vacaflor, A., & Gustafsson, M. T. (2024). Towards more sustainable global supply chains? Company compliance with new human rights and environmental due diligence laws. Environmental Politics, 33(3), 422- 443.
  40. Seuring, S., & Müller, M. (2008). From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15), 1700, 1699- 1710.
  41. Shafiq, A., Ahmed, M. U., & Mahmoodi, F. (2020). Impact of supply chain analytics and customer pressure for ethical conduct on socially responsible practices and performance: An exploratory study. International Journal of Production Economics, 225, 107571.
  42. Sharma, R., & Gupta, H. (2024). Harmonizing sustainability in Industry 5.0 Era: Transformative strategies for cleaner production and sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Cleaner Production, 445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141118.
  43. Sousa, M., Almeida, M. F., & Calili, R. (2021). Multiple criteria decision making for the achievement of the UN sustainable development goals: A systematic literature review and a research agenda. Sustainability, 13(8), 4129.
  44. Ternsjö, L., & Hillbom, E. (2025). Labour-intensive garment-based industrialization with social sustainability? The case of Mauritius. Competition & Change, 29(5), 696-716.
  45. Uttam, N., Dutta, P., & Singh, A. (2022). Micro, small, and medium suppliers' perspectives on supply chain social sustainability: New evidence from India. Journal of Cleaner Production, 379, 134473.
  46. Yan, H., Fu, L., & Hu, X. (2022). Harnessing service robots to increase frontline service employees’ safety and health: The critical role of CSR. Safety Science, 151, 105731.
  47. Wang, K., & Ke, Y. (2024). Social sustainability of communities: A systematic literature review. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 47, 585-597.
  48. WCED. (1987). Our Common Future (‘The Brundtland Report’). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  49. Žižović, M., & Pamucar, D. (2019). New model for determining criteria weights: Level Based Weight Assessment (LBWA) model. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 2(2), 126-137.
  50. Zwetsloot, G., Leka, S., Kines, P., & Jain, A. (2020). Vision zero: Developing proactive leading indicators for safety, health and wellbeing at work. Safety Science, 130, 104890.
  51. Pitkänen, K., Karppinen, T. K. M., Kautto, P., Pirtonen, H., Salmenperä, H., Savolahti, H.,. & Myllymaa, T. (2023). How to measure the social sustainability of the circular economy? Developing and piloting social circular economy indicators in Finland. Journal of Cleaner Production, 392, 136238.