KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Elektronik Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 17 Sayı: 2

Ford Otosan’ın Çevresel Sürdürülebilirlik Performansının PSI, SPOTIS ve RAM Yöntemleriyle Entegre Bir Şekilde Değerlendirilmesi

Integrated Assessment of Ford Otosan's Environmental Sustainability Performance Using PSI, SPOTIS and RAM Methods

Nazife Şahin Macit

Sayfa
341–363
Yayın Tarihi
2026-06-07
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗

Özet

Bu çalışma, Ford Otosan’ın 2011–2022 dönemi çevresel sürdürülebilirlik performansını çok kriterli karar verme (ÇKKV) yöntemleri aracılığıyla sistematik olarak değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Analiz sürecinde, PSI yöntemi ile çevresel kriterlerin göreli önem dereceleri belirlenmiş; ardından SPOTIS ve RAM yöntemleri kullanılarak yıllık performans sıralamaları oluşturulmuştur. Elde edilen sıralamalar, Borda sayım yöntemiyle bütünleştirilerek tek bir birleşik karar modeli elde edilmiştir. Ayrıca, bu bütünleşik modelin güvenilirliğini test etmek amacıyla PSI tabanlı alternatif ÇKKV yöntemleri (CoCoSo, MARCOS, MAUT ve PIV) ile karşılaştırma yapılmış ve Spearman sıra korelasyon analizi gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bulgular, su tüketimi, enerji kullanımı ve atık yönetiminin Ford Otosan’ın sürdürülebilirlik stratejisinde öncelikli alanlar olduğunu ortaya koyarken, 2020 ve 2021 yıllarının en yüksek performans gösterdiği dönemler olduğunu doğrulamıştır. Spearman korelasyon analizinden elde edilen yüksek uyum değerleri, Borda yöntemine dayalı bütünleşik modelin karar verme süreçleri açısından güvenilir ve tamamlayıcı bir araç olduğunu göstermiştir. Çalışma, çok kriterli karar verme yaklaşımlarının kurumsal çevresel performansın çok boyutlu değerlendirilmesinde etkin bir yöntem olduğunu ve benzer sektörler için uygulanabilir bir model sunduğunu ortaya koymaktadır.

Abstract

This study aims to systematically evaluate Ford Otosan's environmental sustainability performance for the period 2011–2022 using multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods. During the analysis process, the relative importance of environmental criteria was determined using the PSI method, and then annual performance rankings were created using the SPOTIS and RAM methods. The obtained rankings were integrated using the Borda count method to obtain a single combined decision model. Additionally, to test the reliability of this integrated model, comparisons were made with PSI-based alternative MCDM methods (CoCoSo, MARCOS, MAUT, and PIV), and a Spearman rank correlation analysis was conducted. The findings revealed that water consumption, energy use, and waste management are priority areas in Ford Otosan's sustainability strategy, while confirming that 2020 and 2021 were the periods with the highest performance. The high correlation values obtained from the Spearman correlation analysis demonstrate that the integrated model based on the Borda method is a reliable and complementary tool for decision-making processes. The study highlights that multi-criteria decision-making approaches are an effective method for the multi-dimensional assessment of corporate environmental performance and provide an applicable model for similar sectors.

Anahtar kelimeler
🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Macit, N. Ş. (2026). Ford Otosan’ın Çevresel Sürdürülebilirlik Performansının PSI, SPOTIS ve RAM Yöntemleriyle Entegre Bir Şekilde Değerlendirilmesi. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Elektronik Dergisi, Cilt: 17 Sayı: 2, 341–363. https://ajindex.com/articles/1066433

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

Kaynakça (103)

  1. Abdel-aziem, A. H., Mohamed, H. K. & Abdelhafeez, A. (2023). Neutrosophic decision making model for investment portfolios selection and optimizing based on wide variety of investment opportunities and many criteria in market. Neutrosophic Systems with Applications, 6, 32-38. https://doi.org/10.61356/j.nswa.2023.36
  2. Acar, E., Kılıç, M. & Güner, M. (2015). Measurement of sustainability performance in Textile Industry by using a multi-criteria decision making method. Textile and Apparel, 25(1), 3-9.
  3. Akbulut, E. A., Ulutaş, A., Yürüyen, A. A. & Balalan, S. (2024). Hibrit bir ÇKKV modeli ile G20 ülkelerinin lojistik performansının ölçülmesi. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 12(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v12i1.2300
  4. Akçakanat, Ö. & Aksoy, E. (2023). G-20 ülkelerinin yeşil merkez bankacılığı karnelerine göre değerlendirilmesi / evaluation of countries according to green central banking scorecards. Uluslararası Ekonomi İşletme Ve Politika Dergisi, 7(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.29216/ueip.1166931
  5. Akpan, U. F. & Akpan, G. E. (2012). The contribution of energy consumption to climate change: a feasible policy direction. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 2(1), 21-33.
  6. Aksoylu, S. & Taşdemir, B. (2020). Kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik performans değerlendirmesi: BIST sürdürülebilirlik endeksinde bir araştırma. Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(1), 95-106. https://doi.org/10.25287/ohuiibf.642675
  7. Aktaş, N. & Demirel, N. (2021). A hybrid framework for evaluating corporate sustainability using multi-criteria decision making. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23(10), 15591-15618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01311-5
  8. Akter, A. Y. & Başak, H. (2025). BICAD bio-ınspired design method and BICAD assistant design tool. Journal of Engineering Design, 1-23.
  9. Alp, İ., Öztel, A. & Köse, M. S. (2015). Entropi tabanlı MAUT yöntemi ile kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik performansı ölçümü: bir vaka çalışması. Ekonomik ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 11(2), 65-81.
  10. Alter, H. (2000). Environmentally sound management of the recycling of hazardous wastes in the context of the Basel Convention. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 29(1-2), 111-129.
  11. Altıntaş, F. F. (2024). Analysis of democracy performances of G7 Countries: An application wıth PSI method. Toplum Ekonomi ve Yönetim Dergisi, 5(2), 245-268. https://doi.org/10.58702/teyd.1382058
  12. Aras, G., Tezcan, N. & Furtuna, O. K. (2018). Multidimensional comprehensive corporate sustainability performance evaluation model: Evidence from an emerging market banking sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 185, 600-609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.175
  13. Baczkiewicz, A., Kizielewicz, B., Shekhovtsov, A., Yelmikheiev, M., Kozlov, V. & Sałabun, W. (2021). Comparative analysis of solar panels with determination of local significance levels of criteria using the MCDM methods resistant to the rank reversal phenomenon. Energies, 14(18), 5727. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14185727
  14. Bektaş, S. (2023). Özel sermayeli bir mevduat bankasının sürdürülebilirlik performansının hibrit ÇKKV modeliyle değerlendirilmesi: 2009-2021 dönemi Akbank örneği. İzmir İktisat Dergisi, 38(4), 884-907. https://doi.org/10.24988/ije.1216968
  15. Bilgin Sarı, E. (2019). Measuring the performances of the machines via Preference Selection Index (PSI) method and comparing them with values of Overall Equipment Efficiency (OEE). İzmir İktisat Dergisi, 34(4), 573-581. https://doi.org/10.24988/ije.2019344859
  16. Block, S., Emerson, J. W., Esty, D. C., de Sherbinin, A., Wendling, Z. A., et al. (2024). 2024 Environmental Performance Index. New Haven, CT: Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy. https://epi.yale.edu
  17. Bui, H. A., Tran, N. T. & Nguyen, D. L. (2023). Multi-criteria decision making in the powder-mixed electrical discharge machining process based on the COCOSO, SPOTIS algorithms and the weighting methods. International Journal of Modern Manufacturing Technologies (IJMMT), 15(1).
  18. Cavallaro, F. (2015). A Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy inference system for developing a sustainability index of biomass. Sustainability, 7(9), 12359-12371. https://doi.org/10.3390/su70912359
  19. Cavallaro, F., Zavadskas, E.K., Streimikiene, D. & Mardani, A. (2019). Assessment of concentrated solar power (CSP) technologies based on a modified intuitionistic fuzzy topsis and trigonometric Entropy weights. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 140, 258–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.12.009
  20. Cengiz, N., Abdulvahitoğlu, A. & Abdulvahitoğlu, A. (2025). Comparative analysis of different drying methods on strawberry aroma compounds via multi-criteria decision-making techniques. Applied Sciences, 15(2), 815. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15020815
  21. Chowdhury, P. & Paul, S. K. (2020). Applications of MCDM methods in research on corporate sustainability: A systematic literature review. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 31(2), 385-405. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-12-2019-0284 de Azevêdo Junior, C. M., Júnior, E. L. P., de Castro Araujo, T. M. P., dos Santos, M., Gomes, C. F. S. & de Moura Pereira, D. A. (2023). Ordering of solar photovoltaic panels using the MEREC-SPOTIS hybrid analytical model. Procedia Computer Science, 230, 808-818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2023.12.052
  22. Demir, G. (2022). Bilgi ve iletişim teknolojisinin G8 ülkelerindeki gelişiminin değerlendirilmesi. Innovative Ideas, 165, 61-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.29228/jobacs.67424
  23. Demir, G. (2022). Hayat dışı sigorta sektöründe kurumsal performansın PSI-SD Tabanlı MABAC metodu ile ölçülmesi: Anadolu Sigorta örneği. Ekonomi Politika Ve Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(1), 112-136. https://doi.org/10.30784/epfad.1072645
  24. Demir, G., Chatterjee, P. & Pamucar, D. (2024). Sensitivity analysis in multi-criteria decision making: A state-of-the-art research perspective using bibliometric analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, 237, 121660.
  25. Demirci, A. (2022). Multi-criteria decision-making technique for personnel selection: PSI sample. Toros Üniversitesi İİSBF Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(Special Issue 2nd International Symposium of Sustainable Logistics “Circular Economy”), 10-17. https://doi.org/10.54709/iisbf.1167228
  26. DeNicola, E., Aburizaiza, O. S., Siddique, A., Khwaja, H. & Carpenter, D. O. (2015). Climate change and water scarcity: The case of Saudi Arabia. Annals of Global Health, 81(3), 342-353.
  27. Dezert, J., Tchamova, A., Han, D., & Tacnet, J.-M. (2020, July). The SPOTIS rank reversal free method for multi-criteria decision-making support. In 2020 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Information Fusion (FUSION) (pp. 1–8). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.23919/FUSION45008.2020.9190347
  28. Doğan, B. & Kılıç, M. B. (2022). Kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik performansının ENTROPİ ve Gri İlişkisel Analizi ile değerlendirilmesi: Bankacılık sektöründe bir uygulama. Mehmet Akif Ersoy İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(3), 2027-2057. https://doi.org/10.30798/makuiibf.1097637
  29. Dragomir, V. D. (2012). The disclosure of industrial greenhouse gas emissions: a critical assessment of corporate sustainability reports. Journal of Cleaner Production, 29, 222-237.
  30. Dudic, B., Dung, H. T. & Truong, N. X. (2024). Innovation in financial health assessment: Applying MCDM techniques to banks in Vietnam. Economics, 12(2).
  31. Duran, Z., & Tavlan Soydan, N. (2022). OECD ülkelerinde inovasyon performanslarının Entropy tabanlı CODAS-WASPAS ve PSI yöntemleriyle değerlendirilmesi. Girişimcilik ve İnovasyon Yönetimi Dergisi, 11(2), 30-54.
  32. 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). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2022.102690
  33. Elsayed, A. (2024). TrS-RAM: Leveraging novel MCDM techniques for evaluating sustainability of fuel cell vehicles based on tree soft technique. HyperSoft Set Methods in Engineering, 1, 46-58.
  34. Ersoy, N. (2018). Entropy tabanlı bütünleşik ÇKKV yaklaşımı ile kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik performans ölçümü. Ege Academic Review, 18(3), 367-385.
  35. Ford Otosan. (n.d.). Ford Otosan’a Genel Bakış. Erişim adresi: https://www.fordotosan.com.tr/tr/kurumsal/ford-otosan-hakkinda/ford-otosana-genel-bakis (Erişim Tarihi: 9 Ekim 2025)
  36. Gharizadeh Beiragh, R., Alizadeh, R., Shafiei Kaleibari, S., Cavallaro, F., Zolfani, S. H., Bausys, R., et al. (2020). An integrated multi-criteria decision making model for sustainability performance assessment for insurance companies. Sustainability, 12(3), 789. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030789
  37. Goyal, P., Rahman, Z. & Kazmi, A. A. (2013). Corporate sustainability performance and firm performance research: Literature review and future research agenda. Management Decision, 51(2), 361-379. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741311301867
  38. Hellstrom, T. (2007). Dimensions of environmentally sustainable innovation: The structure of eco-innovation concepts. Sustainable Development, 15, 148–159. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.309
  39. Hsu, W. C. J., Lin, K. Y., Lo, H. W. & Yang, J. J. (2024). Assessing corporation sustainability performance towards achieving sustainable development goals using a novel trapezoidal fuzzy ITARA-RIM approach. Annals of Operations Research, 1-28.
  40. Işık, Ö. (2023). COVID-19 salgınının katılım bankacılığı sektörünün performansına etkisinin MEREC-PSI-MAIRCA modeliyle incelenmesi. Nişantaşı Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.52122/nisantasisbd.1167829
  41. Jiang, Q., Liu, Z., Liu, W., Li, T., Cong, W., Zhang, H. & Shi, J. (2018). A principal component analysis based three-dimensional sustainability assessment model to evaluate corporate sustainable performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 187, 625-637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.255
  42. Junior, C. M. D. A., Júnior, E. L. P., Araujo, T. M. P. D. C., dos Santos, M., Gomes, C. F. S. and Pereira, D. A. D. M. (2023). Ordering of solar photovoltaic panels using the MEREC-SPOTIS hybrid analytical model. Procedia Computer Science, 230, 808-818.
  43. Keleş, N. & Ersoy, N. (2023). Analyzing climate change performance over the last fıve years of G20 countries using a multi-criteria decision-making framework. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 24(2), 13-34. https://doi.org/10.24889/ifede.1284974
  44. Kizielewicz, B., Więckowski, J., Shekhovtsov, A., Wątróbski, J., Depczyński, R. & Sałabun, W. (2021). Study towards the time-based mcda ranking analysis–a supplier selection case study. Facta Universitatis, Series: Mechanical Engineering, 19(3), 381-399.
  45. Kneipp, J. M., Gomes, C. M., Kruglianskas, I., Motke, F. D. & Frizzo, K. (2021). Sustainable innovation practices and the degree of innovation of business models in Brazilian industrial companies. World Journal of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development, 18(3), 221-238. https://doi.org/10.1108/WJSTSD-02-2021-0019
  46. Korga, S. & Dirik, C. (2023). Geliştirilmiş Entropi tabanlı TOPSIS yöntemiyle İmalat sektöründe sürdürülebilirlik performansı ölçümü ve bir gösterge seti önerisi. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 15(1), 561-577. https://doi.org/10.20491/isarder.2023.1604
  47. Kumar, R., Dubey, R., Singh, S., Singh, S., Prakash, C., Nirsanametla, Y., et al. (2021). Multiple-criteria decision-making and sensitivity analysis for selection of materials for knee implant femoral component. Materials, 14(8), 2084.
  48. Lin, A. J. & Chang, H. Y. (2019). Business sustainability performance evaluation for taiwanese banks—A hybrid multiple-criteria decision-making approach. Sustainability, 11(8), 2236. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082236
  49. Mai, N. T. (2025). Hybrid multi-criteria decision making methods: combination of preference selection index method with faire un choix adèquat, root assessment method, and proximity ındexed value. Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, 15(1), 19086-19090. https://doi.org/10.48084/etasr.9235
  50. Mohamed, M., Salam, A., Ye, J. & Yong, R. (2024). Single-valued neutrosophic MCDM approaches integrated with MEREC and RAM for the selection of UAVs in forest fire detection and management. Neutrosophic Systems with Applications, 19, 1-14.
  51. Morgadinho, L., Oliveira, C. & Martinho, A. (2015). A qualitative study about perceptions of European automotive sector's contribution to lower greenhouse gas emissions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 644-653.
  52. Naura, W. S. R., Mansyur, S. H. & Purnawansyah (2024). Application of group decision making in determining culinary tourism with Topsis and Borda methods. JTK (Jurnal Ilmu Pengetahuan dan Teknologi Komputer), 9(2), 236-246.
  53. Nilashi, M., Cavallaro, F., Mardani, A., Zavadskas, E. K., Samad, S. & Ibrahim, O. (2018). Measuring country sustainability performance using ensembles of neuro-fuzzy technique. Sustainability, 10(8), 2707. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082707
  54. Northey, S., Haque, N. & Mudd, G. (2013). Using sustainability reporting to assess the environmental footprint of copper mining. Journal of Cleaner Production, 40, 118-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.09.027
  55. Ostojic, S. & Traverso, M. (2024). Application of life cycle sustainability assessment in the automotive sector–A systematic literature review. Sustainable Production and Consumption. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2024.03.033
  56. Özçelik, F.& Avcı Öztürk, B. (2014). Evaluation of Banks' sustainability performance in Turkey with grey relational analysis. Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi, 63, 189-210.
  57. Özdağoğlu, A., Ustaömer, T. C. & Keleş, M. K. (2022). Performance evaluation in Airline Industry with CRITIC and MEREC based MAUT and PSI methods. Transport & Logistics, 22(52).
  58. Özekenci, E. K. (2024). International market selection based on integrated MCDM methods: A case study of Iron and Steel Sector. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Meslek Yüksekokulu Dergisi, 27(1), 274-293. https://doi.org/10.29249/selcuksbmyd.1440711
  59. Özevin, O. (2022). Kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik performansının Entropi ve TOPSİS yöntemleriyle ölçülmesi: BIST şirketleri üzerine bir uygulama. Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi, (95): 75-98. https://doi.org/10.25095/mufad.1087406
  60. Öztaş, T. (2024). Big data analytics software selection wıth multi-criteria decision-making methods for digital transformation. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi(63), 297-317. https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.1398830
  61. Öztel, A., Aydın, B. & Köse, M. S. (2018). Entropi tabanlı TOPSIS yöntemi İle enerji sektöründe kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik performansının ölçümü: Akenerji örneği. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(24), 1-24.
  62. Paradowski, B. & Sałabun, W. (2021). Are the results of MCDA methods reliable? Selection of materials for Thermal Energy Storage. Procedia Computer Science, 192, 1313-1322.
  63. Paradowski, B. & Szyjewski, Z. (2022). Comparative analyses of multi-criteria methods in supplier selection problem. Procedia Computer Science, 207, 4593-4602.
  64. Petković, D., Madić, M., Radovanović, M. & Gečevska, V. (2017). Application of the performance selection index method for solving machining MCDM problems. Facta Universitatis, Series: Mechanical Engineering, 15(1), 97-106.
  65. Portella, A. G., Da Silva, M. P. R. L., Dos Santos, M. & Gomes, C. F. S. (2024, January). A new multi-criteria approach to the identification of the best companies to work for, using the PSI-SPOTIS hybrid method. In 2024 5th International Conference on Mobile Computing and Sustainable Informatics (ICMCSI) (pp. 249-256). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMCSI61536.2024.00043
  66. Rebelato, M. G., Rodrigues, A. M. & Ferreira, B. S. (2024). Proposal of an environmental performance index to assess leather-manufacturing companies. Green Technologies and Sustainability, 100106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.grets.2024.100106
  67. Regragui, H., Sefiani, N., Azzouzi, H. & Cheikhrouhou, N. (2024). A hybrid multi-criteria decision-making approach for hospitals’ sustainability performance evaluation under fuzzy environment. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 73(3), 855-888. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-10-2022-0538
  68. Rençber, İ. (2024). Türk Hava Yollarının kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik performansının ENTROPİ ve TOPSIS yöntemleriyle incelenmesi. Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 22(52), 597-628. https://doi.org/10.35408/comuybd.1397485
  69. Roy, D., Mitra, S. & Basak, R. (2024). Study on a multi-criteria decision making selection problem using Preference Selection Index (PSI) method. Journal of Mechanical Engineering Advancements, 1(2), 29-35.
  70. Senir, G. & Büyükkeklik, A. (2017). Sürdürülebilirlik raporlaması ve lojistik şirketler üzerine bir uygulama. The International New Issues in Social Sciences, 5(5), 119-138.
  71. Senir, G. & Büyükkeklik, A. (2023). Karayolu taşımacılığında sürdürülebilirlik performansının ölçülmesi: Karşılaştırmalı bir analiz. Bmij, 11(1), 10-30. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v11i1.2147
  72. Shekhovtsov, A., Dezert, J. & Sałabun, W. (2025). Enhancing personalized decision-making with the balanced SPOTIS algorithm. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence (ICAART) 3, 264-271.
  73. Shekhovtsov, A., Więckowski, J., Kizielewicz, B. & Sałabun, W. (2022). Towards reliable decision-making in the green urban transport domain. Facta Universitatis, Series: Mechanical Engineering, 20(2), 381-398.
  74. Sheskin, D. J. (2004). Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures (3rd ed.). Chapman & Hall/CRC.
  75. Shigetomi, Y., Matsumoto, K. I., Ogawa, Y., Shiraki, H., Yamamoto, Y., Ochi, Y., et al. (2018). Driving forces underlying sub-national carbon dioxide emissions within the household sector and implications for the Paris Agreement targets in Japan. Applied Energy, 228, 2321-2332.
  76. Sofyalıoğlu, Ç. & Sürücü, E. (2018). Corporate sustainability performance measurement: an application on home appliance firm. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 20(3), 461-484. https://doi.org/10.16953/deusosbil.418845
  77. 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.
  78. Sutrisno, A., & Kumar, V. (2022). Supply chain sustainability risk decision support model using integrated Preference Selection Index (PSI) method and prospect theory. Journal of Advances in Management Research, 19(2), 316-346.
  79. Şimşek Gündüz, G. & Gündüz, Ç. (2023). Performance evaluation of sustainability in a textile firm via multi-criteria decision-making method. Industria Textila, 74(4), 426-432.
  80. Torres, P.S., Gomes, C.F.S. & Santos, M. (2024). Selection of unmanned aerial vehicle systems for border monitoring using the MPSI-SPOTIS method. Journal of Defense Analytics and Logistics, 8(1), 80-104. https://doi.org/10.1108/JDAL-12-2023-0016
  81. Tran, N. T. (2024). Application of the multi-criteria analysis method mairca, spotis, comet for the optimisation of sustainable electricity technology development. EUREKA: Physics and Engineering, (1), 180-188.
  82. Trung, D. D. (2024). Using RAM method for optimal selection of flame retardant nanocomposite material fabrication solution. EPJ Applied Metamaterials, 11, 4. https://doi.org/10.1051/epjam/2024005
  83. Tuş, A. & Aytaç Adalı, E. (2018). CODAS ve PSI yöntemleri ile personel değerlendirmesi. Alphanumeric Journal, 6(2), 243-256. https://doi.org/10.17093/alphanumeric.432843
  84. Uğuz Arsu, Ş. & Arsu, T. (2023). Evaluation of the corporate sustainability performance of manufacturing companies in the BIST Sustainability Index with multi-criteria decision making methods. Business and Economics Research Journal, 14(4), 479-501. http://dx.doi.org/10.20409/berj.2023.427
  85. Ulutaş, A. (2020). Stacker selection with PSI and WEDBA methods. International Journal of Contemporary Economics and Administrative Sciences, 10(2), 493-504.
  86. Ulutaş, A., Balo, F. & Topal, A. (2023). Identifying the most efficient natural fibre for common commercial building insulation materials with an integrated PSI, MEREC, LOPCOW and MCRAT model. Polymers, 15(6), 1500. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15061500
  87. Van Dua, T., Van Duc, D. & Bao, N. C. (2024). Integration of objective weighting methods for criteria and MCDM methods: application in material selection. EUREKA: Physics and Engineering, (2), 131-148. https://doi.org/10.21303/2461-4262.2024.003171
  88. Vivas, R., Sant’anna, Â., Esquerre, K. & Freires, F. (2019). Measuring sustainability performance with multi criteria model: A case study. Sustainability, 11(21), 6113. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11216113
  89. Waheed, B., Khan, F. & Veitch, B. (2009). Linkage-based frameworks for sustainability assessment: Making a case for driving force-pressure-state-exposure-effect-action (DPSEEA) frameworks. Sustainability, 1, 441–463. https://doi.org/10.3390/su1030441
  90. Wang, Y., Ng, K. T. W. & Asha, A. Z. (2016). Non-hazardous waste generation characteristics and recycling practices in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, Canada. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 18, 715-724.
  91. Wardany, R. N. (2024). A study comparative of PSI, PSI-TOPSIS, and PSI-MABAC methods in analyzing the financial performance of state-owned enterprises companies listed on the Indonesia stock exchange. Yugoslav Journal of Operations Research, 1-18.
  92. Wicher, P., Zapletal, F. & Lenort, R. (2019). Sustainability performance assessment of industrial corporation using Fuzzy Analytic Network Process. Journal of Cleaner Production, 241, 118132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118132
  93. Wieckowski, J. & Zwiech, P. (2021). Can weighting methods provide similar results in MCDA problems? Selection of energetic materials study case. Procedia Computer Science, 192, 4592-4601.
  94. Wieckowski, J., Krol, R. & Watrobski, J. (2022). Towards robust results in multi-criteria decision analysis: Ranking reversal free methods case study. Procedia Computer Science, 207, 4584-4592.
  95. Wieckowski, J., Wątróbski, J., Shkurina, A. & Sałabun, W. (2024). Adaptive multi-criteria decision making for electric vehicles: a hybrid approach based on RANCOM and ESP-SPOTIS. Artificial Intelligence Review, 57(10), 270.
  96. Wu, W. W. (2012). An integrated solution for benchmarking using DEA, gray entropy, and Borda count. The Service Industries Journal, 32(2), 321-335.
  97. Xing, K., Wang, X. & Chen, P. (2025). Robust seismic performance evaluation of super high-rise concrete structures using MCDM and Plithogenic-RAM approach. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 80, 229-246.
  98. Yarlıkaş, S.& Öztürk, C. (2021). Bankacılık sektöründe kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik performansının Critic-Moora önem katsayısı yaklaşımı ile değerlendirilmesi. Journal of Social and Humanities Sciences Research, 8(77), 3124-3136. http://dx.doi.org/10.26450/jshsr.2863
  99. Yıldız Kaya, P. & Öztel, A. (2018). Kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik performansının gri ilişkisel analiz yöntemi ile değerlendirilmesi: Otokar örneği. Uluslararası Batı Karadeniz Sosyal Ve Beşeri Bilimler Dergisi, 2(2), 98-130. https://doi.org/10.46452/baksoder.493562
  100. Yılmaz, G. & Nuri İne, M. (2018). Assessment of sustainability performances of banks by TOPSIS method and balanced scorecard approach. International Journal of Business and Applied Social Science (IJBASS), 4(1), 62-75.
  101. Yorulmaz, M. & Can, G. F. (2022). PSI-Entropi-Marcos entegrasyonu ile moodle öğrenim yönetim sistemi için öğrencilerin performans düzeylerinin kullanılabilirlik kriterleri açısından değerlendirilmesi. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 28(4), 588-603.
  102. Zhang, Y., Khan, U., Lee, S. & Salik, M. (2019). The influence of management innovation and technological innovationon organization performance: A mediating role of sustainability. Sustainability, 11(2), 495. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020495
  103. Zhang, Z., Malik, M. Z., Khan, A., Ali, N., Malik, S. & Bilal, M. (2022). Environmental impacts of hazardous waste, and management strategies to reconcile circular economy and eco-sustainability. Science of The Total Environment, 807, 150856.