Kurumsal Sürdürülebilirlik Performansının Ölçümü İçin Çok Kriterli Bir Çerçeve: Henkel Örneği
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7596/taksad.v1i4.85Keywords:
Çok kriterli karar verme, kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik, uzlaşık programlama, sürdürülebilirlik performansı, Multi-criteria decision making, corporate sustainability, compromise programing, sustainability performanceAbstract
Kurumsal Sürdürülebilirlik Performansının Ölçümü İçin Çok Kriterli Bir Çerçeve: Henkel Örneği*
Özet
Kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik performans ölçümü, kurumsal sürdürülebilirliğin çevresel, sosyal ve ekonomik yönlerini ele almayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu üç boyutun tek bir boyuta indirgenmesinde sorunlar ortaya çıkmaktadır. Çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri, bu değişkenlerin birlikte değerlendirilmesi için kullanışlı bir çerçeve sunmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, çok kriterli karar verme yöntemlerinden uzlaşık programlama (compromise programing) çerçevesi kullanılarak Henkel firmasının kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik performansının değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Uygulamalı olan bu çalışmada veriler Henkel firmasının yıllık raporlarından temin edilmiştir. Ele alınan şirketin kurumsal yönetim performansı çevresel ve sosyal boyutlarıyla yıllara göre karşılaştırılmış ve sonuçta uzlaşık programlama yönteminin bu tür çalışmalarda kullanılması önerilmiştir.
Abstract
Measurement of corporate sustainability performance is focused on environmental, social and economic aspects of corporate sustainability. Therefore, it can be argued that it is not easy to reduce all dimensions of corporate sustainability in a unit. Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods provide a useful framework for the evaluation of these variables together. Using “compromise programing (CP)”, one of the MCDM methods, this study aimed to assess the corporate sustainability performance. Data were acquired from Henkel Company’s annual reports. Environmental and social aspects of Henkel’s corporate sustainability are compared by years, and in conclusion, using CP model to evaluate corporate sustainability is proposed.
References
Allen, R., (1980). How to Save the World, Barnes and Noble, New Jersey.
Babaie-Kafaky, S., Mataji, A. & Sani, N.A. (2009). Ecological capability assessment for
multiple-use in forest areas using GIS- based multiple criteria decision making
approach. American Journal of Environmental Sciences 5(6): 714–721.
Ballestero, E. (2007). Compromise programming: A utility-based linear-quadratic composite
metric from the trade-off between achievement and balanced (non-corner) solutions,
European Journal of Operational Research 182, 1369-1382.
Bilbao-Terol, A., Perez-Gladish, B., Arenas-Parra, M., & Rodriguez-Uria, M.v. (2006). Fuzzy
compromise programming for portfolio selection, Applied Mathematics and
Computation, 173, 251-264.
Çalışkan, A.Ö., (2012). Đşletmelerde Sürdürülebilirlik ve Muhasebe Mesleği Đlişkisi,
ĐSMMMO Mali Çözüm Dergisi, 133-161.
Diaz-Balteiro, L., Voces, R. & Romero, C. (2011). Making sustainability rankings using
compromise programming. An application to European paper industry. Silva Fennica
(4): 761–773.
Ducey, M.J. & Larson, B.C. (1999). A fuzzy set approach to the problem of sustainability.
Forest Ecology and Management, 115: 29–40.
Erol, Đ., Sencer, S., & Sari, R. (2011). A new fuzzy multi-criteria framework for measuring
sustainability performance of a supply chain, Ecological Economics, 70, 1088-1100.
Filiz, S., Hacıhasanoğlu, O., (2011). Konut Tasarımına Yönelik Sürdürülebilirlik ve Teknoloji
Bağlamında bir Gelecek Tahmin Modeli, ĐTÜ Dergisi/A Mimarlık, 10:2, 95-108.
George, C., Kirkpatrick C., (2007). Impact assessment and sustainable development:
European practice and experience, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.
Gibson, R.B., Hassan, S., Holtz, S., (2005). Sustainability assessment: criteria, processes and
applications, London, Earthscan.
Gosh, S., (2010)., Sustainability potential of sububan gardens: review and new direction,
Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 17, 165-176.
Indicators Of Sustainable Development: Guidelines And Methodologies,
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/publications/indisd-mg2001.pdf, erişim tarihi:
/09/2012.
Indicators of sustainability reliable tools for decisiın making (2006).
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001500/150005e.pdf, erişim tarihi:
/09/2012.
Keeble, J.J, Topiol, S., Berkeley, S., (2003). Using Indicators to Measure Sustainability
Performance at a Corporate and Project Level, Journal of Business Ethics, 44: 149-
Koca, G., Karasözen, R., (2011). Eskişehir Geleneksel Taşbaşı Çarşısının Sürdürülebilirlik
Bağlamında Đredelenmesi, e-Journal of New World Sciences Academy, Volume: 6,
Number: 4, 695-705.
McGranahan, G., Satterthwaite, D., (2003). Urban Centers: An Assessment of Sustainability,
Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 28, 243-274.
Mendoza, G.A. & Dalton, W.J. (2005). Multi-stakeholder assessment of forest sustainability:
multi-criteria analysis and the case of the Ontario forest assessment system. Forestry
Chronicle, 81(2): 222–228.
Mori, K., Christodoulou, A., (2012). Review of sustainability indices and indicators: Towards
a new City Sustainability index (CSI), Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 32,
-106.
Munda, G., (2004). Social multi-criteria eveloation: methodological foundations and
operational consequences. European Journal of Operational Research, 128 (3), 662-
Ness, B., Urbel-Piirsalu, E., Anderberg, S., & Olsson, L., 2007. Categorizing tools for
sustainability assessment. Ecological Economics, 60, 498–508.
Pope J., Annandale D., Morrison-Saunders A., (2004). Conceptualising sustainability
assessment, Environment Impact Assess Review, 24, 595–616.
Shannon, C.E., (1948)., A mathematical theory of communication, Bell System Technical
Journal, 27, 379–423.
Singh, R.K., Murty, H.R., Gupta, S.K., & Dikshit, A.K. (2007). Development of composite
sustainability performance index for steel industry, Ecological Indicators, 7, 556 –
Sood, A., Ritter, W.F., (2011). Developing a Framework to Measure Watershed
Sustainabilitiy by Using Hydrological/Water Quality Model, Journal of Water
Resource and Protection, 3, 788-804.
Sustainability Report (2011).
http://www.henkel.com/com/content_data/258000_2012.03.08_2011_sustainabilityrep
ort_en.pdf. 27/09/2012.
Sürdürülebilirlik Raporu, (2011)., Türk Đş Dünyası’nda Sürdürülebilirlik Uygulamaları ve
Değerlendirme Raporu, Đstanbul Menkul Kıymetler Borsası Sürdürülebilirlik Endeksi.
Tortajada, C., (2005). Sustainable Development: A Critical Assessment of Past and Present
Views, Edt., Biswas, A.K., and Tortajada, C., Appraising Sustainable Development:
Water Management and Environmental Challenges, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Torum, O., Yılmaz, A.K., (.009), Havacılıkta Sürdürülebilirlik Yönetimi: Türkiye’deki Hava
Limanları için Sürdürülebilirlik Uygulamaları Araştırması, Havacılık ve Uzay
Teknolojileri Dergisi, Cilt: 4, Sayı: 2, 47-58.
Vacik, H., Wolfslehner, B., Seidl, R. & Lexer, M.J. (2007). Integrating the DPSIR approach
and the Analytic Network Process for the assessment of forest management strategies.
Içinden: Reynolds, K.M., Thomson, A.J., Köhl, M., Shannon, M.A., Ray, D. &
Rennolls, K. (eds.). Sustainable forestry: from monitoring and modelling to knowledge
management and policy science. CABI, Wallingford, UK. p. 393–411.
Wang, T.C., Lee, H.D., (2009). Developing a fuzzy TOPSIS approach based on subjective
weights and objective weights, Expert Systems with Applications, 36, 8980–8985.
Zarghami, M., & Szidarovszky, F. (2010), On the relation between compromise programming
and ordered weighted averagin operatör, Information Sciences, 180, 2239-2248.
Zeleny, M., (1974). A concept of compromise solutions and the method of the displaced ideal,
Computational Operational Research, 1, 479–496.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
All papers licensed under Creative Commons 4.0 CC-BY.- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
