Multiple criteria assessment of sustainability programs in the textile industry

To survive in the long term, business needs to profit, controlling environmental impacts with social responsibility. Sustainability programs involve the integration of social and environmental issues in business models and organizational processes. The assessment of sustainability programs is a prob...

Full description

Autores:
Lombardi Netto, Antonio
Salomon, Valerio
Ortiz Barrios, Miguel Angel
Florek-Paszkowska, Anna
Petrillo, Antonella
Oliveira, Otavio
Tipo de recurso:
Article of journal
Fecha de publicación:
2020
Institución:
Corporación Universidad de la Costa
Repositorio:
REDICUC - Repositorio CUC
Idioma:
eng
OAI Identifier:
oai:repositorio.cuc.edu.co:11323/7991
Acceso en línea:
https://hdl.handle.net/11323/7991
https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.12871
https://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/
Palabra clave:
Analytic hierarchy process
Multiple criteria decision analysis
Sustainability
Technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution
Textile industry
Rights
openAccess
License
CC0 1.0 Universal
id RCUC2_300b6afe0bcfe9bb204819a1e5ab8f17
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.cuc.edu.co:11323/7991
network_acronym_str RCUC2
network_name_str REDICUC - Repositorio CUC
repository_id_str
dc.title.spa.fl_str_mv Multiple criteria assessment of sustainability programs in the textile industry
title Multiple criteria assessment of sustainability programs in the textile industry
spellingShingle Multiple criteria assessment of sustainability programs in the textile industry
Analytic hierarchy process
Multiple criteria decision analysis
Sustainability
Technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution
Textile industry
title_short Multiple criteria assessment of sustainability programs in the textile industry
title_full Multiple criteria assessment of sustainability programs in the textile industry
title_fullStr Multiple criteria assessment of sustainability programs in the textile industry
title_full_unstemmed Multiple criteria assessment of sustainability programs in the textile industry
title_sort Multiple criteria assessment of sustainability programs in the textile industry
dc.creator.fl_str_mv Lombardi Netto, Antonio
Salomon, Valerio
Ortiz Barrios, Miguel Angel
Florek-Paszkowska, Anna
Petrillo, Antonella
Oliveira, Otavio
dc.contributor.author.spa.fl_str_mv Lombardi Netto, Antonio
Salomon, Valerio
Ortiz Barrios, Miguel Angel
Florek-Paszkowska, Anna
Petrillo, Antonella
Oliveira, Otavio
dc.subject.spa.fl_str_mv Analytic hierarchy process
Multiple criteria decision analysis
Sustainability
Technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution
Textile industry
topic Analytic hierarchy process
Multiple criteria decision analysis
Sustainability
Technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution
Textile industry
description To survive in the long term, business needs to profit, controlling environmental impacts with social responsibility. Sustainability programs involve the integration of social and environmental issues in business models and organizational processes. The assessment of sustainability programs is a problem of multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA). This work presents applications of MCDA for the assessment of sustainability programs in the textile industry. Applied methods for MCDA are analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and the technique for the order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS). The reasons to apply AHP and TOPSIS include providing an assessment index, ranging from 0 to 1, and that the MCDA model is expected to have more criteria than alternatives. Therefore, an application of other methods, such as data envelopment analysis, could be prejudiced. Concepts from the triple bottom line, economic, social as well as environmental criteria were inserted in the proposed model. Sustainability programs of six leading companies from the Brazilian textile industry were evaluated. The main finding of the research is that AHP and TOPSIS resulted in similar evaluations for sustainability programs. Both methods resulted in the same rank of alternatives. However, with TOPSIS, companies’ sustainability indices were more disperse, varying from 0.10 to 0.92 against a range from 0.23 to 0.69 with AHP.
publishDate 2020
dc.date.issued.none.fl_str_mv 2020-08-27
dc.date.accessioned.none.fl_str_mv 2021-03-12T15:53:54Z
dc.date.available.none.fl_str_mv 2021-03-12T15:53:54Z
dc.type.spa.fl_str_mv Artículo de revista
dc.type.coar.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1
dc.type.coar.spa.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
dc.type.content.spa.fl_str_mv Text
dc.type.driver.spa.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.redcol.spa.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ART
dc.type.version.spa.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion
format http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
status_str acceptedVersion
dc.identifier.issn.spa.fl_str_mv 09696016
14753995
dc.identifier.uri.spa.fl_str_mv https://hdl.handle.net/11323/7991
dc.identifier.doi.spa.fl_str_mv https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.12871
dc.identifier.instname.spa.fl_str_mv Corporación Universidad de la Costa
dc.identifier.reponame.spa.fl_str_mv REDICUC - Repositorio CUC
dc.identifier.repourl.spa.fl_str_mv https://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/
identifier_str_mv 09696016
14753995
Corporación Universidad de la Costa
REDICUC - Repositorio CUC
url https://hdl.handle.net/11323/7991
https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.12871
https://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/
dc.language.iso.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.references.spa.fl_str_mv ABIT, 2019. Brazilian Association of Textile and Apparel Industry. Available at https://www.abit.org.br/cont/perfildo-setor (accessed May 29, 2020).
Acar, E., Kiliç, M., Güner, M., 2015. Measurement of sustainability performance in textile industry by using a multicriteria decision making method. Textile and Apparel 25, 3–9.
Appel, M., 2019. Life cycle assessment of production of cotton knits [in Brazilian Portuguese]. Senior Project on Environmental Engineering, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Santa Catarina.
Bal, H., Orkcu, H.H., Celebioglu, S., 2010. Improving the discrimination power and weights dispersion in the data envelopment analysis. Computers & Operations Research 37, 99–107.
Bana e Costa, C.A., Vansnick, J., 1994. MACBETH—an interactive path towards the construction of cardinal value functions. International Transactions in Operational Research 1, 4, 489–500
Bansal, P., Des Jardine, M.R., 2014. Business sustainability: it is about time. Strategic Organization 12, 1, 70–78.
Barzilai, J., 1998. On the decomposition of value functions. Operations Research Letters 22, 4–5, 159–170.
Belton, V., Gear, T., 1983. On a shortcoming of Saaty’s method of analytic hierarchies. Omega 11, 3, 228–230
Bertrand, J.W.M., Fransoo, J.C., 2002. Operations management research methodologies using quantitative modeling. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 22, 2, 241–264
Borowy, I., 2014. Defining Sustainable Development for Our Common Future: a history of the World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Commission). Routledge, New York, N
Brans, J.P., Vincke, P., 1985. NOTE—a preference ranking organisation method. Management Science 31, 6, 647–656.
Cagniuc, P.A., 2017. Markov Chains: From Theory to Implementation and Experimentation. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ
Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., Rhodes, E., 1978. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research 2, 6, 429–444
Creswell, J.W., 2013. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA
Cruz-Moreira, J.R., 2002. New strategies and internet use in Brazilian apparel productive chains. Proceedings of the POMS Annual Conference. Production and Operations Management Society, San Francisco, CA, p. 94.
De Felice, F., Petrillo, A., 2013. Absolute measurement with analytic hierarchy process: a case study for Italian racecourse. International Journal of Applied Decision Sciences 6, 3, 209–227.
Do Amaral, M.C., Zonatti, W.F., Da Silva, K.L., Karam Júnior, D., Amato Neto, J., Baruque-Ramos, J., 2018. Industrial textile recycling and reuse in Brazil: case study and considerations concerning the circular economy. Gestão & Produção 25, 3, 431–443.
Dong, Q., Saaty, T.L., 2014. An analytic hierarchy process model of group consensus. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering 23, 3, 362–374.
Drucker, P.F., Maciariello, J.A., 2005. The Effective Executive in Action: A Journal for Getting the Right Things Done. HarperCollins, New York, NY
Dyer, J.S., 1990. Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process. Management Science 36, 3, 247–258
Eccles, R.G., Ioannou, I., Serafeim, G., 2014. The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Management Science 60, 11, 2835–2857
Elkington, J., 1999. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Capstone, North Mankato, MN.
Fontaine, M., 2013. Corporate social responsibility and sustainability: the new bottom line? International Journal of Business and Social Science 4, 4, 110–119
Geissdoerfer, M., Morioka, S.N., De Carvalho, M.M., Evans, S., 2018. Business models and supply chains for the circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production 190, 712–721
GRI, 2019. Global reporting initiative. Technical Report. Available at https://www.globalreporting.org (accessed May 29, 2020).
Harker, P.T., 1987. Incomplete pairwise comparisons in the analytic hierarchy process. Mathematical Modelling 9, 11, 837–848.
Hutchins, M.J., Richter, J.S., Henry, M.L., Sutherland, J.W., 2019. Development of indicators for the social dimension of sustainability in a U.S. business context. Journal of Cleaner Production 212, 687–697.
Hwang, C.L., Yoon, K., 1981. Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods and Applications: A State-of-the-Art Survey. Springer, New York, NY
Ilangkumaran, M., Kumanan, S., 2009. Selection of maintenance policy for textile industry using hybrid multi-criteria decision making approach. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 20, 7, 1009–1022.
International Monetary Fund, 2020. World Economic Outlook. Available at https://www.imf.org/en/publications/weo (accessed May 29, 2020)
Ishizaka, A., Lusti, M., 2004. An expert module to improve the consistency of AHP matrices. International Transactions in Operational Research 11, 1, 97–105.
Ishizaka, A., Nemery, P., 2013. Multi-criteria Decision Analysis: Methods and Software. Wiley, Chichester.
Jensen, M., 2001. Value maximisation, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. European Financial Management 7, 3, 297–317
Joshi, R., Banwet, D.K., Shankar, R., 2011. A Delphi-AHP-TOPSIS based benchmarking framework for performance improvement of a cold chain. Expert Systems with Applications 38, 8, 10170–10182.
Kaebernick, H., Kara, S., Sun, M., 2003. Sustainable product development and manufacturing by considering environmental requirements. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 19, 6, 461–468.
Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P., 1992. The balanced scorecard—measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review 70, 1, 71–79.
Keeney, R.L., Raiffa, H., 1976. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs. Wiley, New York, NY
Kennerley, M., Neely, A., 2002. Performance measurement frameworks: a review. In Neely, A. (ed.) Business Performance Measurement: Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 145–155.
Khan, S.A., Chaabane, A., Dweiri, F.T., 2015. Multi-criteria decision-making methods application in supply chain management: a systematic literature review. In Salomon, V. (ed.) Multi-Criteria Methods and Techniques Applied to Supply Chain Management. InTech Open, London, pp. 3–31.
Koksalan, M., Wallenius, J., Zionts, S., 2011. Multiple Criteria Decision Making: From Early History to the 21st Century. World Scientific, Singapore.
Kono, N., 2014. Brundtland Commission (World Commission on Environment and Development). In Michalos, A.C. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 450–452
Lai, Y.J., Liu, T.Y., Hwang, C.L., 1994. TOPSIS for MODM. European Journal of Operational Research 76, 3, 486– 500
Li, X.B., Reeves, G.R., 1999. A multiple criteria approach to data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research 115, 507–517
Lin, M.C., Wang, C.C., Chen, M., Chang, C.A., 2008. Using AHP and TOPSIS approaches in customer-driven product design process. Computers in Industry 59, 1, 17–31
Linkov, I., Moberg, E., 2012. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: Environmental Applications and Case Studies. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL
Lootsma, F.A., 1993. Scale sensitivity in the multiplicative AHP and SMART. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 2, 2, 87–110
Marimon, F., Alonso-Almeida, M.D.M., Rodríguez, M.D.P., Alejandro, K.A.C., 2012. The worldwide diffusion of the Global Reporting Initiative: What is the point? Journal of Cleaner Production 33, 132–144
McCord, M., De Neufville, R., 1983. Empirical demonstration that expected utility decision analysis is not operational. In Stigum, B.P., Wenstøp, F. (eds) Foundations of Utility and Risk Theory with Applications. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 181–199
Medel-González., F., García-Ávila, L.F., Salomon, V.A.P., Marx-Goméz, J., Hernandéz, C.T., 2016. Sustainability performance measurement with analytic network process and balanced scorecard: Cuban practical case. Production 26, 3, 527–539
Medel-González, F., Salomon, V.A.P., García-Ávila, L., 2015. Multi-criteria sustainability performance measurement: an application in Cuba. International Journal of Business and Systems Research 9, 4, 394–411
Metaxas, I.N., Koulouriotis, D.E., Spartalis, S.H., 2013. Business excellence index of a firm with fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS. Benchmarking: An International Journal 23, 6, 1522–1557
Millet, I., Saaty, T.L., 2000. On the relativity of relative measures—accommodating both rank preservation and rank reversals in the AHP. European Journal of Operational Research 121, 1, 205–212
Montabon, F., Pagell, M., Wu, Z., 2016. Making sustainability sustainable. Journal of Supply Chain Management 52, 2, 11–27
Nadaban, S., Dzitac, S., Dzitac, I., 2016. Fuzzy TOPSIS: a general view. Procedia Computer Science 91, 823–831.
Nazam, M., Xu, J., Tao, Z., Ahmad, J., Hashim, M., 2015. A fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for the risk assessment of green supply chain implementation in the textile industry. International Journal of Supply and Operations Management 2, 1, 548–568
Oliveira, M., Fontes, D.B.M.M., Pereira, T., 2018. Evaluating vehicle painting plans in an automobile assembly plant using an integrated AHP-PROMETHEE approach. International Transactions in Operational Research 25, 4, 1383– 1406.
Oliveira, V.A.R., Salomon, V.A.P., Soares, L.S., Monticelli, F.M., Atílio, I., 2016. Análise multicritério com DEA e AHP da seleção de equipamentos de ar-condicionado. Anais do Encontro Nacional de Engenharia de Produção. Brazilian Association of Industrial Engineering, João Pessoa, pp. 1–9
Ortiz-Barrios, M.A., Herrera-Fontalvo, Z., Rúa-Muñoz, J., Ojeda-Gutiérrez, S., De Felice, F., Petrillo, A., 2018. An integrated approach to evaluate the risk of adverse events in hospital sector: from theory to practice. Management Decision 56, 10, 2187–2224
Ortiz-Barrios, M., Miranda-De La Hoz, C., López-Meza, P., Petrillo, A., De Felice, F., 2020. A case of food supply chain management with AHP, DEMATEL, and TOPSIS. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 27, 1–2, 104–128.
Rodrigues, L.V.S., Casado, R.S.G.R., De Carvalho, E.N., Silva, M.M., E Silva, L.C., 2020. Using FITRADEOFF in a ranking problem for supplier selection under TBL performance evaluation: an application in the textile sector. Production 30. 10.1590/0103-6513.20190032.
Roy, B., 1968. Classement et choix en présence de points de vue multiples (la méthode ELECTRE). Revue française d’informatique et de recherche opérationnelle 2, 8, 57–75
Rycroft, T., Wood, M., Zemba, V., Kennedy, A., Weiss, C., Desmet, D., Ali, R., Linkov, I., 2019. Assessing the sustainability of advanced materials using multi criteria decision analysis and the triple bottom line. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 15, 6, 1021–1028.
Saaty, T.L., 1974. Measuring the fuzziness of sets. Journal of Cybernetics 4, 4, 53–61
Saaty, T.L., 1977. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15, 3, 234–281.
Saaty, T.L., 1986. Absolute and relative measurement with the AHP. The most livable cities in the United States. SocioEconomic Planning Sciences 20, 6, 327–331.
Saaty, T.L., 1996. Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: The Analytic Network Process (1st edn). RWS, Pittsburgh, PA
Saaty, T.L., 2005. Theory and Applications of the Analytic Network Process: Decision Making with Benefits, Opportunities, Costs, and Risks. RWS, Pittsburgh, PA
Saaty, T.L., 2010. Principia Mathematica Decernendi: Mathematical Principles of Decision Making. RWS, Pittsburgh, PA
Saaty, T.L., Ozdemir, M., 2003. Why the magic number seven plus or minus two. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 38, 3–4, 233–244.
Saaty, T.L., Rogers, P.C., 1976. Higher education in the United States (1985–2000): Scenario construction using a hierarchical framework with eigenvector weighting. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 10, 6, 251–263
Saaty, T.L., Vargas, L.G., Whitaker, R., 2009. Addressing with brevity criticisms of the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 1, 2, 121–134
Salgado, E.G., Salomon, V.A.P., Mello, C.H.P., 2012. Analytic hierarchy prioritisation of new product development activities for electronics manufacturing. International Journal of Production Research 50, 17, 4860–4866
Salomon, V.A.P., 2016. Absolute measurement and ideal synthesis on AHP. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 8, 3, 538–545.
Salomon, V.A.P., Tramarico, C.L., Marins, F.A.S., 2016. Analytic hierarchy process applied to supply chain management. In De Felice, F., Saaty, T.L., Petrillo, A. (eds) Applications and Theory of Analytic Hierarchy Process: Decision Making for Strategic Decisions. InTech Open, London, pp. 1–16.
Sato, Y., 2004. Comparison between multiple-choice and analytic hierarchy process: measuring human perception. International Transactions in Operational Research 11, 1, 77–86.
Shiu, J.Y., Lu, S.T., Chang, D.S., Wu, K.W., 2019. Fuzzy multicriteria decision-making tools for selecting a professional property management company. International Transactions in Operational Research 26, 4, 1527–1557
Shyjith, K., Ilangkumaran, M., Kumanan, S., 2008. Multi-criteria decision-making approach to evaluate optimum maintenance strategy in textile industry. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 14, 4, 375–386.
Siew, R.Y., 2015. A review of corporate sustainability reporting tools (SRTs). Journal of Environmental Management 164, 180–195.
Stoycheva, S., Marchese, D., Paul, C., Padoan, S., Juhmani, A.S., Linkov, I., 2018. Multi-criteria decision analysis framework for sustainable manufacturing in automotive industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 187, 257–272
Subramanian, V., Semenzin, E., Hristozov, D., Marcomini, A., Linkov, I., 2014. Sustainable nanotechnology: defining, measuring and teaching. Nano Today 9, 1, 6–9
Svensson, G., Ferro, C., Høgevold, N., Padin, C., Varela, J.C.S., Sarstedt, M., 2018. Framing the triple bottom line approach: direct and mediation effects between economic, social and environmental elements. Journal of Cleaner Production 197, 1, 972–991.
Svensson, G., Wagner, B., 2015. Implementing and managing economic, social and environmental efforts of business sustainability: propositions for measurement and structural models. Management of Environmental Quality 26, 2, 195–213.
Tramarico, C.L., Mizuno, D., Salomon, V.A.P., Marins, F.A.S., 2015. Analytic hierarchy process and supply chain management: a bibliometric study. Procedia Computer Science 55, 441–450.
Triantaphyllou, E., 2000. Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study. Springer, Dordrech
Tyagi, M., Kumar, P., Kumar, D., 2014. A hybrid approach using AHP-TOPSIS for analyzing e-SCM performance. Procedia Engineering 97, 2195–2203
Wallenius, J., Dyer, J.S., Fishburn, P.C., Steuer, R.E., Zionts, S., Deb, K., 2008. Multiple criteria decision making, multiattribute utility theory: recent accomplishments and what lies ahead. Management Science 54, 7, 1336–134
Watróbski, J., Jankowski, J., Ziemba, P., Karczmarczyk, A., Zioło, M., 2019. Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection. Omega 86, 107–124.
WCED, 1987. Our common future. Available at https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987ourcommon-future.pdf (accessed May 29, 2020).
Whitaker, R., 2007a. Criticisms of the analytic hierarchy process: why they often make no sense. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 46, 7–8, 948–961.
Whitaker, R., 2007b. Validation examples of the analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 46, 7–8, 840–859
Wu, J., Pap, E., Szakal, A., 2018. Two kinds of explicit preference information oriented capacity identification methods in the context of multicriteria decision analysis. International Transactions in Operational Research 25, 3, 807–830.
Yatsalo, B.I., Kiker, G.A., Kim, J., Bridges, T.S., Seager, T.P., Gardner, K., Satterstrom, F.K., Linkov, I., 2007. Application of multicriteria decision analysis tools to two contaminated sediment case studies. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 3, 2, 223–233.
Yeh, C.H., 2002. A problem-based selection of multi-attribute decision-making methods. International Transactions in Operational Research 9, 2, 807–830.
Yin, R.K., 2017. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Zavadskas, E.K., Turskis, Z., Kildiene, S., 2014. State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM/MADM methods. Technological and Economic Development of Economy 20, 1, 165–179
Zionts, S., 1979. MCDM—if not a Roman numeral, then what? INFORMS Journal on Applied Analytics 9, 4, 94–101
dc.rights.spa.fl_str_mv CC0 1.0 Universal
dc.rights.uri.spa.fl_str_mv http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
dc.rights.accessrights.spa.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rights.coar.spa.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
rights_invalid_str_mv CC0 1.0 Universal
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.mimetype.spa.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.spa.fl_str_mv Corporación Universidad de la Costa
dc.source.spa.fl_str_mv International Transactions in Operational Research
institution Corporación Universidad de la Costa
dc.source.url.spa.fl_str_mv https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/itor.12871
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv https://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/bitstreams/066e1dba-e367-47bb-87d5-60ac0d4086c3/download
https://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/bitstreams/56b8b6f9-2537-4f6c-9761-ccc177e528ca/download
https://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/bitstreams/4dab9eb0-9362-45fe-a7c2-fc970fe64f70/download
https://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/bitstreams/6e9ea464-b90d-42d1-a070-297aba980f1e/download
https://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/bitstreams/e3b605c2-8bdd-444a-83db-961ae3bdadd3/download
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv 42fd4ad1e89814f5e4a476b409eb708c
e30e9215131d99561d40d6b0abbe9bad
42f875bbe01ad3214fb9c2a25f4d76e5
eb498e3e733c0446fe108f91abf4debe
dbb48d409ed7880b6fd9a5486c59768f
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv MD5
MD5
MD5
MD5
MD5
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositorio de la Universidad de la Costa CUC
repository.mail.fl_str_mv repdigital@cuc.edu.co
_version_ 1811760726414458880
spelling Lombardi Netto, AntonioSalomon, ValerioOrtiz Barrios, Miguel AngelFlorek-Paszkowska, AnnaPetrillo, AntonellaOliveira, Otavio2021-03-12T15:53:54Z2021-03-12T15:53:54Z2020-08-270969601614753995https://hdl.handle.net/11323/7991https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.12871Corporación Universidad de la CostaREDICUC - Repositorio CUChttps://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/To survive in the long term, business needs to profit, controlling environmental impacts with social responsibility. Sustainability programs involve the integration of social and environmental issues in business models and organizational processes. The assessment of sustainability programs is a problem of multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA). This work presents applications of MCDA for the assessment of sustainability programs in the textile industry. Applied methods for MCDA are analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and the technique for the order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS). The reasons to apply AHP and TOPSIS include providing an assessment index, ranging from 0 to 1, and that the MCDA model is expected to have more criteria than alternatives. Therefore, an application of other methods, such as data envelopment analysis, could be prejudiced. Concepts from the triple bottom line, economic, social as well as environmental criteria were inserted in the proposed model. Sustainability programs of six leading companies from the Brazilian textile industry were evaluated. The main finding of the research is that AHP and TOPSIS resulted in similar evaluations for sustainability programs. Both methods resulted in the same rank of alternatives. However, with TOPSIS, companies’ sustainability indices were more disperse, varying from 0.10 to 0.92 against a range from 0.23 to 0.69 with AHP.Lombardi Netto, Antonio-will be generated-orcid-0000-0001-6593-9818-600Salomon, Valerio-will be generated-orcid-0000-0002-5619-5076-600Ortiz Barrios, Miguel Angel-will be generated-orcid-0000-0001-6890-7547-600Florek-Paszkowska, Anna-will be generated-orcid-0000-0003-2525-9783-600Petrillo, Antonella-will be generated-orcid-0000-0002-5154-5428-600Oliveira, Otavio-will be generated-orcid-0000-0002-5192-3644-600application/pdfengCorporación Universidad de la CostaCC0 1.0 Universalhttp://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2International Transactions in Operational Researchhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/itor.12871Analytic hierarchy processMultiple criteria decision analysisSustainabilityTechnique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solutionTextile industryMultiple criteria assessment of sustainability programs in the textile industryArtículo de revistahttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1Textinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlehttp://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ARTinfo:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersionABIT, 2019. Brazilian Association of Textile and Apparel Industry. Available at https://www.abit.org.br/cont/perfildo-setor (accessed May 29, 2020).Acar, E., Kiliç, M., Güner, M., 2015. Measurement of sustainability performance in textile industry by using a multicriteria decision making method. Textile and Apparel 25, 3–9.Appel, M., 2019. Life cycle assessment of production of cotton knits [in Brazilian Portuguese]. Senior Project on Environmental Engineering, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Santa Catarina.Bal, H., Orkcu, H.H., Celebioglu, S., 2010. Improving the discrimination power and weights dispersion in the data envelopment analysis. Computers & Operations Research 37, 99–107.Bana e Costa, C.A., Vansnick, J., 1994. MACBETH—an interactive path towards the construction of cardinal value functions. International Transactions in Operational Research 1, 4, 489–500Bansal, P., Des Jardine, M.R., 2014. Business sustainability: it is about time. Strategic Organization 12, 1, 70–78.Barzilai, J., 1998. On the decomposition of value functions. Operations Research Letters 22, 4–5, 159–170.Belton, V., Gear, T., 1983. On a shortcoming of Saaty’s method of analytic hierarchies. Omega 11, 3, 228–230Bertrand, J.W.M., Fransoo, J.C., 2002. Operations management research methodologies using quantitative modeling. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 22, 2, 241–264Borowy, I., 2014. Defining Sustainable Development for Our Common Future: a history of the World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Commission). Routledge, New York, NBrans, J.P., Vincke, P., 1985. NOTE—a preference ranking organisation method. Management Science 31, 6, 647–656.Cagniuc, P.A., 2017. Markov Chains: From Theory to Implementation and Experimentation. Wiley, Hoboken, NJCharnes, A., Cooper, W.W., Rhodes, E., 1978. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research 2, 6, 429–444Creswell, J.W., 2013. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CACruz-Moreira, J.R., 2002. New strategies and internet use in Brazilian apparel productive chains. Proceedings of the POMS Annual Conference. Production and Operations Management Society, San Francisco, CA, p. 94.De Felice, F., Petrillo, A., 2013. Absolute measurement with analytic hierarchy process: a case study for Italian racecourse. International Journal of Applied Decision Sciences 6, 3, 209–227.Do Amaral, M.C., Zonatti, W.F., Da Silva, K.L., Karam Júnior, D., Amato Neto, J., Baruque-Ramos, J., 2018. Industrial textile recycling and reuse in Brazil: case study and considerations concerning the circular economy. Gestão & Produção 25, 3, 431–443.Dong, Q., Saaty, T.L., 2014. An analytic hierarchy process model of group consensus. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering 23, 3, 362–374.Drucker, P.F., Maciariello, J.A., 2005. The Effective Executive in Action: A Journal for Getting the Right Things Done. HarperCollins, New York, NYDyer, J.S., 1990. Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process. Management Science 36, 3, 247–258Eccles, R.G., Ioannou, I., Serafeim, G., 2014. The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Management Science 60, 11, 2835–2857Elkington, J., 1999. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Capstone, North Mankato, MN.Fontaine, M., 2013. Corporate social responsibility and sustainability: the new bottom line? International Journal of Business and Social Science 4, 4, 110–119Geissdoerfer, M., Morioka, S.N., De Carvalho, M.M., Evans, S., 2018. Business models and supply chains for the circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production 190, 712–721GRI, 2019. Global reporting initiative. Technical Report. Available at https://www.globalreporting.org (accessed May 29, 2020).Harker, P.T., 1987. Incomplete pairwise comparisons in the analytic hierarchy process. Mathematical Modelling 9, 11, 837–848.Hutchins, M.J., Richter, J.S., Henry, M.L., Sutherland, J.W., 2019. Development of indicators for the social dimension of sustainability in a U.S. business context. Journal of Cleaner Production 212, 687–697.Hwang, C.L., Yoon, K., 1981. Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods and Applications: A State-of-the-Art Survey. Springer, New York, NYIlangkumaran, M., Kumanan, S., 2009. Selection of maintenance policy for textile industry using hybrid multi-criteria decision making approach. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 20, 7, 1009–1022.International Monetary Fund, 2020. World Economic Outlook. Available at https://www.imf.org/en/publications/weo (accessed May 29, 2020)Ishizaka, A., Lusti, M., 2004. An expert module to improve the consistency of AHP matrices. International Transactions in Operational Research 11, 1, 97–105.Ishizaka, A., Nemery, P., 2013. Multi-criteria Decision Analysis: Methods and Software. Wiley, Chichester.Jensen, M., 2001. Value maximisation, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. European Financial Management 7, 3, 297–317Joshi, R., Banwet, D.K., Shankar, R., 2011. A Delphi-AHP-TOPSIS based benchmarking framework for performance improvement of a cold chain. Expert Systems with Applications 38, 8, 10170–10182.Kaebernick, H., Kara, S., Sun, M., 2003. Sustainable product development and manufacturing by considering environmental requirements. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 19, 6, 461–468.Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P., 1992. The balanced scorecard—measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review 70, 1, 71–79.Keeney, R.L., Raiffa, H., 1976. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs. Wiley, New York, NYKennerley, M., Neely, A., 2002. Performance measurement frameworks: a review. In Neely, A. (ed.) Business Performance Measurement: Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 145–155.Khan, S.A., Chaabane, A., Dweiri, F.T., 2015. Multi-criteria decision-making methods application in supply chain management: a systematic literature review. In Salomon, V. (ed.) Multi-Criteria Methods and Techniques Applied to Supply Chain Management. InTech Open, London, pp. 3–31.Koksalan, M., Wallenius, J., Zionts, S., 2011. Multiple Criteria Decision Making: From Early History to the 21st Century. World Scientific, Singapore.Kono, N., 2014. Brundtland Commission (World Commission on Environment and Development). In Michalos, A.C. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 450–452Lai, Y.J., Liu, T.Y., Hwang, C.L., 1994. TOPSIS for MODM. European Journal of Operational Research 76, 3, 486– 500Li, X.B., Reeves, G.R., 1999. A multiple criteria approach to data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research 115, 507–517Lin, M.C., Wang, C.C., Chen, M., Chang, C.A., 2008. Using AHP and TOPSIS approaches in customer-driven product design process. Computers in Industry 59, 1, 17–31Linkov, I., Moberg, E., 2012. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: Environmental Applications and Case Studies. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FLLootsma, F.A., 1993. Scale sensitivity in the multiplicative AHP and SMART. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 2, 2, 87–110Marimon, F., Alonso-Almeida, M.D.M., Rodríguez, M.D.P., Alejandro, K.A.C., 2012. The worldwide diffusion of the Global Reporting Initiative: What is the point? Journal of Cleaner Production 33, 132–144McCord, M., De Neufville, R., 1983. Empirical demonstration that expected utility decision analysis is not operational. In Stigum, B.P., Wenstøp, F. (eds) Foundations of Utility and Risk Theory with Applications. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 181–199Medel-González., F., García-Ávila, L.F., Salomon, V.A.P., Marx-Goméz, J., Hernandéz, C.T., 2016. Sustainability performance measurement with analytic network process and balanced scorecard: Cuban practical case. Production 26, 3, 527–539Medel-González, F., Salomon, V.A.P., García-Ávila, L., 2015. Multi-criteria sustainability performance measurement: an application in Cuba. International Journal of Business and Systems Research 9, 4, 394–411Metaxas, I.N., Koulouriotis, D.E., Spartalis, S.H., 2013. Business excellence index of a firm with fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS. Benchmarking: An International Journal 23, 6, 1522–1557Millet, I., Saaty, T.L., 2000. On the relativity of relative measures—accommodating both rank preservation and rank reversals in the AHP. European Journal of Operational Research 121, 1, 205–212Montabon, F., Pagell, M., Wu, Z., 2016. Making sustainability sustainable. Journal of Supply Chain Management 52, 2, 11–27Nadaban, S., Dzitac, S., Dzitac, I., 2016. Fuzzy TOPSIS: a general view. Procedia Computer Science 91, 823–831.Nazam, M., Xu, J., Tao, Z., Ahmad, J., Hashim, M., 2015. A fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for the risk assessment of green supply chain implementation in the textile industry. International Journal of Supply and Operations Management 2, 1, 548–568Oliveira, M., Fontes, D.B.M.M., Pereira, T., 2018. Evaluating vehicle painting plans in an automobile assembly plant using an integrated AHP-PROMETHEE approach. International Transactions in Operational Research 25, 4, 1383– 1406.Oliveira, V.A.R., Salomon, V.A.P., Soares, L.S., Monticelli, F.M., Atílio, I., 2016. Análise multicritério com DEA e AHP da seleção de equipamentos de ar-condicionado. Anais do Encontro Nacional de Engenharia de Produção. Brazilian Association of Industrial Engineering, João Pessoa, pp. 1–9Ortiz-Barrios, M.A., Herrera-Fontalvo, Z., Rúa-Muñoz, J., Ojeda-Gutiérrez, S., De Felice, F., Petrillo, A., 2018. An integrated approach to evaluate the risk of adverse events in hospital sector: from theory to practice. Management Decision 56, 10, 2187–2224Ortiz-Barrios, M., Miranda-De La Hoz, C., López-Meza, P., Petrillo, A., De Felice, F., 2020. A case of food supply chain management with AHP, DEMATEL, and TOPSIS. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 27, 1–2, 104–128.Rodrigues, L.V.S., Casado, R.S.G.R., De Carvalho, E.N., Silva, M.M., E Silva, L.C., 2020. Using FITRADEOFF in a ranking problem for supplier selection under TBL performance evaluation: an application in the textile sector. Production 30. 10.1590/0103-6513.20190032.Roy, B., 1968. Classement et choix en présence de points de vue multiples (la méthode ELECTRE). Revue française d’informatique et de recherche opérationnelle 2, 8, 57–75Rycroft, T., Wood, M., Zemba, V., Kennedy, A., Weiss, C., Desmet, D., Ali, R., Linkov, I., 2019. Assessing the sustainability of advanced materials using multi criteria decision analysis and the triple bottom line. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 15, 6, 1021–1028.Saaty, T.L., 1974. Measuring the fuzziness of sets. Journal of Cybernetics 4, 4, 53–61Saaty, T.L., 1977. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15, 3, 234–281.Saaty, T.L., 1986. Absolute and relative measurement with the AHP. The most livable cities in the United States. SocioEconomic Planning Sciences 20, 6, 327–331.Saaty, T.L., 1996. Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: The Analytic Network Process (1st edn). RWS, Pittsburgh, PASaaty, T.L., 2005. Theory and Applications of the Analytic Network Process: Decision Making with Benefits, Opportunities, Costs, and Risks. RWS, Pittsburgh, PASaaty, T.L., 2010. Principia Mathematica Decernendi: Mathematical Principles of Decision Making. RWS, Pittsburgh, PASaaty, T.L., Ozdemir, M., 2003. Why the magic number seven plus or minus two. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 38, 3–4, 233–244.Saaty, T.L., Rogers, P.C., 1976. Higher education in the United States (1985–2000): Scenario construction using a hierarchical framework with eigenvector weighting. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 10, 6, 251–263Saaty, T.L., Vargas, L.G., Whitaker, R., 2009. Addressing with brevity criticisms of the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 1, 2, 121–134Salgado, E.G., Salomon, V.A.P., Mello, C.H.P., 2012. Analytic hierarchy prioritisation of new product development activities for electronics manufacturing. International Journal of Production Research 50, 17, 4860–4866Salomon, V.A.P., 2016. Absolute measurement and ideal synthesis on AHP. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 8, 3, 538–545.Salomon, V.A.P., Tramarico, C.L., Marins, F.A.S., 2016. Analytic hierarchy process applied to supply chain management. In De Felice, F., Saaty, T.L., Petrillo, A. (eds) Applications and Theory of Analytic Hierarchy Process: Decision Making for Strategic Decisions. InTech Open, London, pp. 1–16.Sato, Y., 2004. Comparison between multiple-choice and analytic hierarchy process: measuring human perception. International Transactions in Operational Research 11, 1, 77–86.Shiu, J.Y., Lu, S.T., Chang, D.S., Wu, K.W., 2019. Fuzzy multicriteria decision-making tools for selecting a professional property management company. International Transactions in Operational Research 26, 4, 1527–1557Shyjith, K., Ilangkumaran, M., Kumanan, S., 2008. Multi-criteria decision-making approach to evaluate optimum maintenance strategy in textile industry. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 14, 4, 375–386.Siew, R.Y., 2015. A review of corporate sustainability reporting tools (SRTs). Journal of Environmental Management 164, 180–195.Stoycheva, S., Marchese, D., Paul, C., Padoan, S., Juhmani, A.S., Linkov, I., 2018. Multi-criteria decision analysis framework for sustainable manufacturing in automotive industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 187, 257–272Subramanian, V., Semenzin, E., Hristozov, D., Marcomini, A., Linkov, I., 2014. Sustainable nanotechnology: defining, measuring and teaching. Nano Today 9, 1, 6–9Svensson, G., Ferro, C., Høgevold, N., Padin, C., Varela, J.C.S., Sarstedt, M., 2018. Framing the triple bottom line approach: direct and mediation effects between economic, social and environmental elements. Journal of Cleaner Production 197, 1, 972–991.Svensson, G., Wagner, B., 2015. Implementing and managing economic, social and environmental efforts of business sustainability: propositions for measurement and structural models. Management of Environmental Quality 26, 2, 195–213.Tramarico, C.L., Mizuno, D., Salomon, V.A.P., Marins, F.A.S., 2015. Analytic hierarchy process and supply chain management: a bibliometric study. Procedia Computer Science 55, 441–450.Triantaphyllou, E., 2000. Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study. Springer, DordrechTyagi, M., Kumar, P., Kumar, D., 2014. A hybrid approach using AHP-TOPSIS for analyzing e-SCM performance. Procedia Engineering 97, 2195–2203Wallenius, J., Dyer, J.S., Fishburn, P.C., Steuer, R.E., Zionts, S., Deb, K., 2008. Multiple criteria decision making, multiattribute utility theory: recent accomplishments and what lies ahead. Management Science 54, 7, 1336–134Watróbski, J., Jankowski, J., Ziemba, P., Karczmarczyk, A., Zioło, M., 2019. Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection. Omega 86, 107–124.WCED, 1987. Our common future. Available at https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987ourcommon-future.pdf (accessed May 29, 2020).Whitaker, R., 2007a. Criticisms of the analytic hierarchy process: why they often make no sense. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 46, 7–8, 948–961.Whitaker, R., 2007b. Validation examples of the analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 46, 7–8, 840–859Wu, J., Pap, E., Szakal, A., 2018. Two kinds of explicit preference information oriented capacity identification methods in the context of multicriteria decision analysis. International Transactions in Operational Research 25, 3, 807–830.Yatsalo, B.I., Kiker, G.A., Kim, J., Bridges, T.S., Seager, T.P., Gardner, K., Satterstrom, F.K., Linkov, I., 2007. Application of multicriteria decision analysis tools to two contaminated sediment case studies. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 3, 2, 223–233.Yeh, C.H., 2002. A problem-based selection of multi-attribute decision-making methods. International Transactions in Operational Research 9, 2, 807–830.Yin, R.K., 2017. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Zavadskas, E.K., Turskis, Z., Kildiene, S., 2014. State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM/MADM methods. Technological and Economic Development of Economy 20, 1, 165–179Zionts, S., 1979. MCDM—if not a Roman numeral, then what? INFORMS Journal on Applied Analytics 9, 4, 94–101PublicationCC-LICENSElicense_rdflicense_rdfapplication/rdf+xml; charset=utf-8701https://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/bitstreams/066e1dba-e367-47bb-87d5-60ac0d4086c3/download42fd4ad1e89814f5e4a476b409eb708cMD52LICENSElicense.txtlicense.txttext/plain; charset=utf-83196https://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/bitstreams/56b8b6f9-2537-4f6c-9761-ccc177e528ca/downloade30e9215131d99561d40d6b0abbe9badMD53ORIGINALMultiple criteria assessment of sustainability programs in the textile industry.pdfMultiple criteria assessment of sustainability programs in the textile industry.pdfapplication/pdf1141137https://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/bitstreams/4dab9eb0-9362-45fe-a7c2-fc970fe64f70/download42f875bbe01ad3214fb9c2a25f4d76e5MD51THUMBNAILMultiple criteria assessment of sustainability programs in the textile industry.pdf.jpgMultiple criteria assessment of sustainability programs in the textile industry.pdf.jpgimage/jpeg22729https://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/bitstreams/6e9ea464-b90d-42d1-a070-297aba980f1e/downloadeb498e3e733c0446fe108f91abf4debeMD54TEXTMultiple criteria assessment of sustainability programs in the textile industry.pdf.txtMultiple criteria assessment of sustainability programs in the textile industry.pdf.txttext/plain70514https://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/bitstreams/e3b605c2-8bdd-444a-83db-961ae3bdadd3/downloaddbb48d409ed7880b6fd9a5486c59768fMD5511323/7991oai:repositorio.cuc.edu.co:11323/79912024-09-17 10:49:54.05http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/CC0 1.0 Universalopen.accesshttps://repositorio.cuc.edu.coRepositorio de la Universidad de la Costa CUCrepdigital@cuc.edu.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

Publicaciones similares