Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

An Innovative Indicator System and Group Decision Framework for Assessing Sustainable Development Enterprises

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Empirical research suggests that companies pursuing sustainable development have higher credit ratings and lower equity costs. However, a review of the literature shows that no consensus has been reached regarding sustainable development indicators or appropriate decision-making methods for investment in sustainable development enterprises (SDEs). To address this gap, we build a set of sustainable development indicators to guide investors in assessing SDEs, allowing for more informed investment decisions regarding these potential opportunities. Next, to account for the subjectivity of the indicators and the relative weight of investors in group decision-making, we combine a q-rung orthopair fuzzy set with the multiplicative multi-objective optimization by ratio analysis method and introduce an optimization-based consensus model. Finally, we verify the validity of the proposed framework using a practical example. This framework has practical significance for real-world SDE investment and contributes to the literature by introducing a new approach to multi-attribute group decision-making problems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abteen I, Arta I, Amir M, Timon R, Edmundas K (2018) Renewable energy technology selection problem using integrated H-SWARA-MULTIMOORA approach. Sustainability 10(12):4481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahi P, Searcy C (2013) Comparative literature analysis of definitions for green and sustainable supply chain management. J Clean Prod 52:329–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albuquerque R, Koskinen Y, Zhang C (2018) Corporate social responsibility and firm risk: theory and empirical evidence. Manag Sci 11:1–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Alm J, Martinez-Vazquez J, McClellan C (2016) Corruption and firm tax evasion. J Econ Behav Organ 124:146–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashbaugh-Skaife H, Collins D, LaFond R (2006) The effects of corporate governance on firms’ credit ratings. J Account Econ 42(1–2):203–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balachandran B, Nguyen J (2018) Does carbon risk matter in firm dividend policy? Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment in an imputation environment. J Bank Finance 96:249–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer R, Hann D (2010) Corporate environmental management and credit risk. SSRN1660470

  • Brauers W, Zavadskas E (2006) The MOORA method and its application to privatization in a transition economy. Control Cybern 35:445–469

    Google Scholar 

  • Brauers W, Zavadskas E (2010) Project management by MULTIMOORA as an instrument for transition economies. Technol Econ Dev Eco 16(1):5–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brauers W, Zavadskas E (2011) MULTIMOORA optimization used to decide on a bank loan to buy property. Technol Econ Dev Eco 17(1):174–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cao F, Peng S, Ye K (2019) Multiple large shareholders and corporate social responsibility reporting. Emerg Mark Rev 38:287–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chakraborty S (2011) Applications of the MOORA method for decision-making in manufacturing environment. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 54(9–12):1155–1166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang Y, Li X, Masanet E, Zhang L, Huang Z, Ries R (2018) Unlocking the green opportunity for prefabricated buildings and construction in China. Resour Conserv Recycl 139:259–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chava S (2014) Environmental externalities and cost of capital. Manage Sci 60(9):2223–2247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng P, Chiou W (2008) Framing effects in group investment decision-making: the role of group polarization. Psychol Rep 102(1):283–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng B, Ioannou I, Serafeim G (2014) Corporate social responsibility and access to Finance. Strateg Manage J 35(1):1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng X, Gu J, Xu Z (2018) Venture capital group decision-making with interaction under probabilistic linguistic environment. Knowl-Based Syst 140:82–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho D, Lee Y, Ahn S, Hwang M (2012) A framework for measuring the performance of service supply chain management. Comput Ind Eng 62(3):801–818

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Climent F, Soriano P (2011) Green and good? The investment performance of US environmental mutual funds. J Bus Ethics 103(2):275–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coll M, Libralato S, Pitcher T, Solidoro C, Tudela S (2013) Sustainability implications of honoring the code of conduct for responsible fisheries. Glob Environ Change 23(1):157–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Contreras I (2010) A distance-based consensus model with flexible choice of rank-position weights. Group Decis Negot 19(5):441–456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook WD (2006) Distance-based and ad hoc consensus models in ordinal preference ranking. Eur J Oper Res 172(2):369–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danso A, Adomako S, Lartey T, Amankwah-Amoah J, Owusu-Yirenkyi D (2019) Stakeholder integration, environmental sustainability orientation and financial performance. J Bus Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.02.038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derwall J, Verwijmeren P (2007) Corporate governance and the cost of equity capital: evidence from Gmi’s governance rating. Eur Centre Corp Engagem Res Note 6(1):1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhaliwal D, Li O, Tsang A, Yang Y (2011) Voluntary nonfinancial disclosure and the cost of equity capital: the initiation of corporate social responsibility reporting. Account Rev 86(1):59–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • El Ghoul S, Guedhami O, Kim Y (2017) Country-level institutions, firm value, and the role of corporate social responsibility initiatives. J Int Bus Stud 48(3):360–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Escrig-Olmedo E, Muñoz-Torres M, Fernandez-Izquierdo M (2010) Socially responsible investing: sustainability indices, ESG rating and information provider agencies. Int J Sustain Econ 2(4):442–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fried V, Hisrich R (1994) Toward a model of venture capital investment decision-making. Financ Manage 23(3):28–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gao J, Liang Z, Shang J, Xu Z (2018) Continuities, derivatives and differentials of q-rung orthopair fuzzy functions. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2018.2887187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia X, Pargament D (2015) Reusing wastewater to cope with water scarcity: economic, social and environmental considerations for decision-making. Resour Conserv Recycl 101:154–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gompers P, Lerner J (2001) The venture capital revolution. J Econ Perspect 15(2):145–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goss A, Roberts G (2011) The impact of corporate social responsibility on the cost of bank loans. J Bank Financ 35(7):1794–1810

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gu W, Qian X, Lu J (2018) Venture capital and entrepreneurship: a conceptual model and research suggestions. Int Entrep Manag J 14(1):35–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanousek J, Kochanova A (2016) Bribery environments and firm performance: evidence from CEE countries. Eur J Polit Econ 43:14–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henriksson R, Livnat J, Pfeifer P, Stumpp M (2019) Integrating ESG in portfolio construction. J Portfolio Manage 45(4):67–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu Z, Zhang X, Zhang Z (2017) Venture capital development in China 2017. Economic Management Press

  • Huber B, Comstock M, Polk D, LLP W (2017) ESG Reports and Ratings: What They Are, Why They Matter. Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation 2017, 44. Available online: https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2017/07/27/esg-reports-and-ratings-what-they-are-why-they-matter

  • Inderst G, Kaminker C, Stewart F (2012) Defining and measuring green investments. OECD Working Papers on Finance, Insurance and Private Pensions, No. 24. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2742085

  • Jeong B, Oguz E, Wang H, Zhou P (2018) Multi-criteria secession-making for marine propulsion: hybrid, diesel electric and diesel mechanical systems from cost-environment-risk perspectives. Appl Energy 230:1065–1081

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaya I (2016) The mandatory social and environmental reporting: evidence from France. Proced Soc Behav Sci 229:206–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kempf A, Osthoff P (2007) The effect of socially responsible investing on portfolio performance. Eur Financ Manag 13(5):908–922

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kocmanová A, Dočekalová M (2013) Construction of the economic indicators of performance in relation to environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) factors. Acta Univ Agric Silvic Mendel Brun 60(4):195–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozierkiewicz-Hetmanska A (2017) The analysis of expert opinions’ consensus quality. Inf Fusion 34:80–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee G, Cho S, Arthurs J, Lee E (2019) CEO pay inequity, CEO-TMT pay gap, and acquisition premiums. J Bus Res 98:105–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu P, Wang P (2018) Some q-rung orthopair fuzzy aggregation operators and their applications to multiple-attribute decision-making. Int J Intell Syst 33(2):259–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manello A (2017) Productivity growth, environmental regulation and win–win opportunities: the case of chemical industry in Italy and Germany. Eur J Oper Res 262(2):733–743

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paraskevas A, Quek M (2019) When castro seized the Hilton: risk and crisis management lessons from the past. Tour Manage 70:419–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce D, Barbier M (1989) Blueprint for a green economy. Earth scan Publication, London UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Qiu M, Yin H (2019) An analysis of enterprises’ financing cost with ESG performance under the background of ecological civilization construction. J Quant Tech Econ 3:108–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Read M, Gear T, Minkes L, Irving A (2013) Using a group decision support system to make investment prioritisation decisions. In: Technology management in the it-driven services pp 375–381

  • Schneider T (2011) Is environmental performance a determinant of bond pricing? Evidence from the US pulp and paper and chemical industries. Contemp Account Res 28(5):1537–1561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharfman M, Fernando C (2008) Environmental risk management and the cost of capital. Strateg Manage J 29(6):569–592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sieti N, Rivera X, Stamford L, Azapagic A (2019) Environmental impacts of baby food: ready-made porridge products. J Clean Prod 212:1554–1567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silva F, Cortez M (2016) The performance of US and European green funds in different market conditions. J Clean Prod 135:558–566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Späth L, Scolobig A (2017) Stakeholder empowerment through participatory planning practices: the case of electricity transmission lines in France and Norway. Energy Res Soc Sci 23:189–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stucki T (2019) Which firms benefit from investments in green energy technologies? –The effect of energy costs. Res Policy 48(3):546–555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang Y, Beynon M (2009) Group decision-making within capital investment: a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process approach with developments. Int J Oper Res 4(1):75–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tian X, Xu Z, Gu J, Herrera-Viedma E (2018) How to select a promising enterprise for venture capitalists with prospect theory under intuitionistic fuzzy circumstance? Appl Soft Comput 67:756–763

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tseng M, Wu K, Hu J, Wang C (2018) Decision-making model for sustainable supply chain finance under uncertainties. Int J Prod Econ 205:30–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNEP (2011) Towards a green economy: pathways to sustainable development and poverty eradication–a synthesis for policy makers. www.unep.org/greeneconomy

  • Utz S, Wimmer M, Hirschberger M, Steuer R (2014) Tri-criterion inverse portfolio optimization with application to socially responsible mutual funds. Eur J Oper Res 234(2):491–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiesmeth H (2018) Stakeholder engagement for environmental innovations. J Bus Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.12.054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woo J, Moon D, Lam J (2018) The impact of environmental policy on ports and the associated economic opportunities. Transport Res A Pol 110:234–242

    Google Scholar 

  • World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987). Report of the world commission on environment and development: our common future. http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf

  • Wu C, Hsu H (2018) Founders and board structure: evidence from UK IPO firms. Int Rev Financ Anal 56:19–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu K, Liao C, Tseng M, Chiu K (2016) Multi-attribute approach to sustainable supply chain management under uncertainty. Ind Manag Data Syst 116(4):777–800

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xian Y, Yang K, Wang K, Wei Y, Huang Z (2019) Cost-environment efficiency analysis of construction industry in China: a materials balance approach. J Clean Prod 221:457–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu M, Kong G, Kong D (2017) Does wage justice hamper creativity? Pay gap and firm innovation in China. China Econ Rev 44:186–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu Z, He Y, Wang X (2018) An Overview of probabilistic-based expressions for qualitative decision-making: techniques, comparisons and developments. Int J Mach Learn Cyb 1–16

  • Yager R (2017) Generalized orthopair fuzzy sets. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 25(5):1222–1230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeung W, Lento C (2018) Ownership structure, audit quality, board structure, and stock price crash risk: evidence from China. Glob Finance J 37:1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu M, Vaagaasar A, Müller R, Wang L, Zhu F (2018) Empowerment: the key to horizontal leadership in projects. Int J Proj Manag 36(7):992–1006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang B, Dong Y, Herrera-Viedma E (2019) Group decision-making with heterogeneous preference structures: an automatic mechanism to support consensus reaching. Group Decis Negot 28:585–617

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Nos. 71742004, 71673194 for Xiang Deng, No. 71401116 for Jing Gu; No. 71771155 for Zeshui Xu; and the Graduate Student’s Research and Innovation Fund of Sichuan University, No. 2018YJSY001 for Xiang Cheng.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Economics, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610064, Sichuan, China

    Xiang Deng, Xiang Cheng & Jing Gu

  2. Business School, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610064, Sichuan, China

    Zeshui Xu

Authors
  1. Xiang Deng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xiang Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jing Gu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zeshui Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jing Gu.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix A

See Tables 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.

Table 10 Evaluation sheet using q-ROFNs of V1
Full size table
Table 11 Evaluation sheet using q-ROFNs of V2
Full size table
Table 12 Evaluation sheet using q-ROFNs of V3
Full size table
Table 13 Evaluation sheet using q-ROFNs of V4
Full size table
Table 14 Evaluation sheet using q-ROFNs of V5
Full size table

Appendix B

See Tables 15, 16, 17, 18, 19.

Table 15 Score sheet of V1
Full size table
Table 16 Score sheet of V2
Full size table
Table 17 Score sheet of V3
Full size table
Table 18 Score sheet of V4
Full size table
Table 19 Score sheet of V5
Full size table

Appendix C

See Tables 20, 21, 22, 23, 24.

Table 20 Weight sheet of V1
Full size table
Table 21 Weight sheet of V2
Full size table
Table 22 Weight sheet of V3
Full size table
Table 23 Weight sheet of V4
Full size table
Table 24 Weight sheet of V5
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Deng, X., Cheng, X., Gu, J. et al. An Innovative Indicator System and Group Decision Framework for Assessing Sustainable Development Enterprises. Group Decis Negot 30, 1201–1238 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-019-09647-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-019-09647-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation