KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Electronic Letters on Science and Engineering / 2025 / Volume: 21 Issue: 2

Kurumsal Sosyal Sorumluluk Projelerinin Değerlendirilmesine Yönelik Bulanık TOPSIS Tabanlı Karar Verme Modeli

A Fuzzy TOPSIS Based Decision-Making Model for the Evaluation of Corporate Social Responsibility Projects

Beyza Betül Arslan(BURSA TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY)0009-0000-2282-4842
Birgül Erbaş(USKUDAR UNIVERSITY)0009-0009-5235-6272
Aytaç Yildiz(BURSA TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-0729-633X
Sayfa
—
Yayın Tarihi
2025-12-16
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Bu sonuçlar, KSS projelerinin değerlendirilmesinde toplumsal katkı, ekonomik kalkınma ve sürdürülebilir kalkınma hedeflerinin dikkate alınmasının önemini vurgulamaktadır.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Özet: Kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk (KSS), son yıllarda giderek önem kazanan ve faaliyetlerini sosyal, kültürel, ekonomik ve çevresel sorumluluklarının bilincinde olarak yürüten birey ve kurumları temsil eden bir kavramdır.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Kurumlar, toplumsal fayda sağlamak amacıyla çeşitli projeler yürütürler, ancak sınırlı kaynakların verimli kullanılmasını sağlamak için bu projelerin maliyet-fayda dengesinin değerlendirilmesi gerekir.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Bu sonuçlar, KSS projelerinin değerlendirilmesinde toplumsal katkı, ekonomik kalkınma ve sürdürülebilir kalkınma hedeflerinin dikkate alınmasının önemini vurgulamaktadır.
🔬Tür:Literatür & Derleme Çalışması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Social responsibility · corporate social responsibility projects · sustainability

Özet

Özet: Kurumsal sosyal sorumluluk (KSS), son yıllarda giderek önem kazanan ve faaliyetlerini sosyal, kültürel, ekonomik ve çevresel sorumluluklarının bilincinde olarak yürüten birey ve kurumları temsil eden bir kavramdır. Kurumlar, toplumsal fayda sağlamak amacıyla çeşitli projeler yürütürler, ancak sınırlı kaynakların verimli kullanılmasını sağlamak için bu projelerin maliyet-fayda dengesinin değerlendirilmesi gerekir. Çok sayıda kriter ve belirsizliği içeren bu süreç karmaşık bir karar alma problemi olduğundan, belirsizlikleri daha gerçekçi bir şekilde modelleyebilen çok kriterli karar alma yöntemleri sürece önemli katkı sağlar. Bu çalışmada, bir ilçe belediyesi tarafından uygulanması planlanan KSS projelerini değerlendirmek için bulanık TOPSIS yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Literatür taraması ve uzman görüşlerine dayanarak, KSS'nin ekonomik, sosyal, çevresel ve yönetişim boyutlarını kapsayan on değerlendirme kriteri ve yedi alternatif proje belirlenerek bir karar modeli oluşturulmuştur. Sonuçlara göre, kadın kooperatifleri aracılığıyla kadınların sosyal ve ekonomik yaşamdaki rollerini güçlendirmeyi amaçlayan bir projeye öncelik verilmiştir. Ancak, erişilebilirliğe dayalı ancak sürdürülebilirliği ve paydaş katılımı zayıf bir proje son sırada yer almıştır. Bu sonuçlar, KSS projelerinin değerlendirilmesinde toplumsal katkı, ekonomik kalkınma ve sürdürülebilir kalkınma hedeflerinin dikkate alınmasının önemini vurgulamaktadır.

Abstract

Abstract: Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a concept that has gained increasing importance in recent years and represents individuals and organizations that conduct their activities with awareness of their social, cultural, economic, and environmental responsibilities. Organizations undertake various projects to provide social benefits, but the cost-benefit balance of these projects must be evaluated to ensure the efficient use of limited resources. Because this process involves a complex decision-making problem involving numerous criteria and uncertainties, multi-criteria decision-making methods that can model uncertainties more realistically contribute significantly to the process. In this study, the fuzzy TOPSIS method was used to evaluate CSR projects planned for implementation by a district municipality. Based on a literature review and expert opinions, a decision model was created by identifying ten evaluation criteria and seven alternative projects encompassing the economic, social, environmental, and governance dimensions of CSR. The results indicated that a project aimed at strengthening women's roles in social and economic life through women's cooperatives was prioritized. However, a project based on accessibility but weak sustainability and stakeholder engagement was ranked last. These results highlight the importance of considering social contribution, economic development, and sustainable development goals in the evaluation of CSR projects.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Arslan, B. B., Erbaş, B., Yildiz, A. (2025). Kurumsal Sosyal Sorumluluk Projelerinin Değerlendirilmesine Yönelik Bulanık TOPSIS Tabanlı Karar Verme Modeli. Electronic Letters on Science and Engineering, Volume: 21 Issue: 2. https://ajindex.com/articles/1180946

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (33)

  1. B. Başar and M. Başar, “Social responsibility reporting and its situation in Turkey, Social Responsibility Reporting: The Case of Turkey,” Anadolu University Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 6, no. 2, 2021.
  2. Ö. Demir, “‘Non‐governmental organizations’, ‘social entrepreneurship’, ‘corporate social responsibility’ and ‘social business’,” Journal of Academic Social Research, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 347–356, 2014.
  3. A. V. Wirba, “Corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of government in promoting CSR,” Journal of the Knowledge Economy, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 7428–7454, 2024.
  4. O. Licandro, J. L. Vázquez-Burguete, L. Ortigueira, and P. Correa, “Definition of corporate social responsibility as a management philosophy oriented towards the management of externalities: Proposal and argumentation,” Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 13, p. 10722, 2023.
  5. M. Khalilzadeh and K. Salehi, “A multi‐objective fuzzy project selection problem considering social responsibility and risk,” Procedia Computer Science, vol. 121, pp. 646–655, 2017.
  6. W.-H. Tsai, J.-L. Hsu, C.-H. Chen, W.-R. Lin, and S.-P. Chen, “An integrated approach for selecting corporate social responsibility programs and costs evaluation in the international tourist hotel,” International Journal of Hospitality Management, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 385–396, 2010.
  7. S. A. Hernandez, P. P. Mauricio, and M. L. Vazquez, “Neutrosophic TOPSIS for prioritization social responsibility projects,” International Journal of Neutrosophic Science, vol. 19, no. 1, 2022.
  8. T. Sattayapanich, P. Janmaimool, and J. Chontanawat, “Factors affecting community participation in environmental corporate social responsibility projects: Evidence from mangrove forest management project,” Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, vol. 8, no. 4, p. 209, 2022.
  9. L. Matsutani et al., “Critical analysis of corporate social responsibility projects developed by Brazilian companies: Providing new insights for debates,” Cleaner Engineering and Technology, vol. 7, p. 100412, 2022.
  10. J. Lu et al., “Assessment of corporate social responsibility by addressing sustainable development goals,” Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 686–703, 2021.
  11. I. Jovanović, A. Stojanović, and N. Milijić, “Influence of corporate social responsibility on intangible benefits in the project‐based companies,” in Proc. 5th IPMA SENET Project Management Conf., 2019, pp. 112–120.
  12. L. Lv, L. Fan, B. Meng, M. Z. Abedin, & H. Feng, “A combined evaluation method of corporate social responsibility based on the difference and similarity: a case study of transportation industry in China,” Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 6, p. 5561, 2023.
  13. M. Kasradze, M. Kamali Saraji, and D. Streimikiene, “Challenges to corporate social responsibility adoption for sustainability: A picture fuzzy approach,” Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 1254–1275, 2023.
  14. M. Al‐Marri, A. H. Pinnington, M. Karatas‐Ozkan, and K. Nicolopoulou, “The corporate management social responsibility through projects: A more economically developed country perspective,” Business Strategy & Development, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 358–371, 2019.
  15. Z. Hatunoğlu, M. Satır, and M. Yaşar, “Evaluation of corporate social responsibility performance of participation banks: Application with ENTROPY and TOPSIS methods,” Selçuk Univ. J. Social Sciences Institute, no. 41, pp. 348–364, 2019.
  16. M. Kırkıl and G. Boran, “Evaluation of social responsibility projects within the scope of Kotler and Lee’s six social initiatives,” MBS Journal of Corporate Studies, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 45–62, 2024.
  17. M. Biter, “An evaluation of social responsibility projects in the context of the social state,” Dicle Univ. J. Social Sciences Institute, no. 85685, 2024.
  18. F. Azak Sungur, Evaluation of corporate social responsibility projects of pharmaceutical companies operating in Turkey, Ph.D. dissertation, Hacettepe Univ., 2021.
  19. M. Can, Evaluation of corporate social responsibility projects in hotel chains, M.S. thesis, Afyon Kocatepe Univ., 2013.
  20. A. Büyükşalvarcı, M. Şapçılar, and S. Uyaroğlu, “Evaluation of corporate hotels and social responsibility projects,” Selçuk University Open Access, 2016.
  21. D. Özbay, Corporate social responsibility index: A model proposal, Ph.D. dissertation, Istanbul Univ., 2013.
  22. X. Yang, H. Wang, and Q. Zhang, “Evaluation of social major responsibility in municipal road infrastructure: Case study of Zhengzhou 107 Auxiliary Road project,” Buildings, vol. 12, no. 3, p. 369, 2022.
  23. M. Chipriyanov, “Researching the corporate social responsibility impact on economic growth and inequality: Methodological aspects,” Journal of Global Economics, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 77–94, 2024.
  24. N. Scelles, S. Morrow, and A. Gallo, “Social impact assessment of corporate social responsibility initiatives: Evaluating the social return on investment of an inclusion offer,” Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 321–339, 2024.
  25. A. Stojanović, M. Petrović, and T. Stanišić, “The multi‐criteria corporate analysis social responsibility: A comparative study of Russia, Bulgaria and Serbia,” Journal of Management and Organization, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 418–433, 2021.
  26. E. Aydoğdu, E. Güner, B. Aldemir, and H. Aygün, “Complex spherical fuzzy TOPSIS based on entropy,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 215, p. 119331, 2023.
  27. Z. B. Kurt and A. Yıldız, “A fuzzy TOPSIS-based decision model for the evaluation and prioritization of R&D/innovation projects,” Electronic Letters on Science and Engineering, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 93–107, 2020.
  28. P. Bhatia and N. Diaz‐Elsayed, “Facilitating decision‐making for the smart adoption manufacturing technologies by SMEs via fuzzy TOPSIS,” International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 257, p. 108762, 2023.
  29. A. Yıldız and Y. Demir, “Selection of the most suitable factory location for turkey’s domestic automobile using the fuzzy TOPSIS method,” Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 1427–1445, 2019.
  30. Y. A. Solangi, C. Longsheng, and S. A. A. Shah, “Assessing and overcoming the renewable energy barriers for sustainable development in Pakistan: An integrated AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS approach,” Renewable Energy, vol. 173, pp. 209–222, 2021.
  31. M. Hajiaghaei-Keshteli et al., “Pythagorean fuzzy TOPSIS method for green supplier selection in the food industry,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 224, p. 120036, 2023.
  32. F. M. Abdullah, A. M. Al-Ahmari, and S. Anwar, “An integrated fuzzy DEMATEL and fuzzy TOPSIS method for analyzing smart manufacturing technologies,” Processes, vol. 11, no. 3, p. 906, 2023.
  33. Chen, C. T. (2000). Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy sets and systems, 114(1), 1-9.