Skip to main content
Log in

Framework for firm-level performance evaluations using multivariate linear correlation with MCDM methods: application to Japanese firms

  • Article
  • Published:
Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 01 November 2021

This article has been updated

Abstract

Selection of the appropriate firms [industries] for investment or resource allocation has implications for high returns, productivity and overall economic growth. However, numerous evaluation criteria, especially financial performance criteria, that must be examined before reaching this decision sometimes present challenges for decision-makers. This research proposes a framework for firm-level performance evaluations based on two multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods: fuzzy analytical hierarchical process (FAHP) and the technique of order preferences by similarity to ideal solutions (TOPSIS). The proposed framework evaluates the overall performance of individual firms by simultaneously utilizing all available financial performance criteria. Unlike previous research with Fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS methods, the proposed framework does not rely on expert judgements to create a pairwise comparison or to assign criteria weight but relies on the normalized multivariate linear correlation between performance criteria. Using the proposed framework, a sample of Japanese firms was evaluated and ranked based on their overall financial performance. The practical implication is that decision-makers can simultaneously utilize all established financial performance criteria for firm-level performance evaluation without giving priority to any criteria or requiring initial expert judgement to weight performance criteria. Moreover, the proposed framework simplifies the evaluation procedures, making it easy for benchmarking analyses.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

source: author)

Fig. 3

source: author)

Fig. 4

source: author)

Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data used for this research are downloadable from: https://nkbb.nikkei.co.jp/en/service/nikkei-needs/

Code availability

Not applicable.

Change history

Notes

  1. A similar fuzzification process was adopted by Torfi et al. (2010).

  2. A further step might be to check if the weights are appropriately applied using \(\sum_{\mathrm{j}}{\widehat{\stackrel{\sim }{w}}}_{\mathrm{j}}=1\) and the Consistency Ratio,\(\mathrm{CR}\le 0.1.\)

  3. The initial sample size was 24 construction firms. However six construction firms were drop due to data incompleteness.

  4. Available at https://nkbb.nikkei.co.jp/en/service/nikkei-needs/.

  5. It is important to note that there is hardly a consensus definition of profitability and value metrics (in the strict sense) in corporate finance literature. Our definitions are, therefore, presented in agreement with cited sources and, in some cases, in a loose sense.

  6. Only a few and most common metrics are discussed in this preliminary section.

  7. Unlike previous FAHP studies, the pairwise comparison matrix of the performance criteria in this study were the correlation matrices of the performance criteria computed from the pooled data. Noteworthily, the sum of criteria weight was 1 in all cases. However, consistency ratios (CRs) were between -0.15 and -0.20, depending on the criteria grouping (profitability, valued added or overall criteria). The absolute values of these CRs would imply that the CR permissible limit was not violated. The literature on AHP shows that CR depends on the size of the criteria matrix and could range from the traditional value of 0.10 to 0.20. Also, since this study used a novel approach rather than the traditional approach where the pairwise comparison matrix of criteria is computed from expert judgements/opinions, this explains the negative CRs in this study. Either way, the CR permissible limits are not violated.

  8. Table 4 is a 10-year average of the value added criteria for each firm.

  9. Table 7 is a 10-year average of profitability metrics for each firm.

  10. Table 10 is a 10-year average of all performance criteria for each firm.

References

Download references

Funding

This research was supported by Productivity Research Grant of Japan Productivity Centre (JPC). Grant No. 2019PRG.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

This research was entirely designed and implemented by Joseph Junior ADUBA.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joseph Junior Aduba.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

This is to declare that I have no relevant material or financial interests that relate to the research described in this paper.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

Not applicable.

Informed consent

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

The original online version of this article was revised due to the equation 1 and the equation of "Total Factor Productivity" was published incorrectly and corrected in this version.

Appendices

Appendix A

Arithmetic properties of triangular fuzzy numbers

Two triangular fuzzy numbers \(\tilde{A }({\mathrm{a}}_{1},{\mathrm{a}}_{2},{\mathrm{a}}_{3})\) and \(\tilde{B }({\mathrm{b}}_{1},{b}_{2},{\mathrm{b}}_{3})\) represented in Fig. 6 have the following properties:

  1. 1.

    Addition of two TFNs

    $$\tilde{A }\oplus \tilde{B }=\left({\mathrm{a}}_{1}+{b}_{1},{\mathrm{a}}_{2}+{\mathrm{b}}_{2},{\mathrm{a}}_{3}+{\mathrm{b}}_{3}\right), {\mathrm{a}}_{1}\ge 0, {\mathrm{b}}_{1}\ge 0.$$
  2. 2.

    Multiplication of two TFNs

    $$\tilde{A }\otimes \tilde{B }=\left({\mathrm{a}}_{1}\times {b}_{1},{\mathrm{a}}_{2}\times {\mathrm{b}}_{2},{\mathrm{a}}_{3}\times {\mathrm{b}}_{3}\right), {\mathrm{a}}_{1}\ge 0, {\mathrm{b}}_{1}\ge 0.$$
  3. 3.

    Subtraction of two TFNs

    $$\tilde{A }\ominus \tilde{B }=\left({\mathrm{a}}_{1}-{b}_{1},{\mathrm{a}}_{2}-{\mathrm{b}}_{2},{\mathrm{a}}_{3}-{\mathrm{b}}_{3}\right), {\mathrm{a}}_{1}\ge 0, {\mathrm{b}}_{1}\ge 0.$$
  4. 4.

    Division of two TFNs

    $$\tilde{A }\oslash \tilde{B }=\left({\mathrm{a}}_{1}/{b}_{1},{\mathrm{a}}_{2}/{\mathrm{b}}_{2},{\mathrm{a}}_{3}/{\mathrm{b}}_{3}\right), {\mathrm{a}}_{1}\ge 0, {\mathrm{b}}_{1}\ge 0.$$
  5. 5.

    Inverse and symmetry of a TFN

    $${\tilde{A }}^{-1}=\left(1/{\mathrm{a}}_{1},1/{\mathrm{a}}_{2},1/{\mathrm{a}}_{3}\right), {\mathrm{a}}_{1}\ge 0$$
    $$-\tilde{A }=\left({-\mathrm{a}}_{1.}-{a}_{2},-{\mathrm{a}}_{3}\right).$$
  6. 6.

    Distance between two TFNs

    $$d\left(\tilde{A },\tilde{B }\right)=\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}\left[{({\mathrm{a}}_{1}-{b}_{1})}^{2}+{({\mathrm{a}}_{2}-{b}_{2})}^{2}+{({\mathrm{a}}_{3}-{b}_{3})}^{2}\right].}$$
Fig. 6
figure 6

The intersection of two triangular fuzzy numbers

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aduba, J.J. Framework for firm-level performance evaluations using multivariate linear correlation with MCDM methods: application to Japanese firms. Asia-Pac J Reg Sci 6, 1–44 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41685-021-00213-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41685-021-00213-8

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation