Advertisement

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

  • Xiang Deng
  • Xiang Cheng
  • Jing GuEmail author
  • Zeshui Xu
Article
  • 23 Downloads

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.

Keywords

Sustainable development enterprise Green investment Group decision-making Q-rung orthopair fuzzy sets MULTIMOORA 

Notes

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.

References

  1. 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):4481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahi P, Searcy C (2013) Comparative literature analysis of definitions for green and sustainable supply chain management. J Clean Prod 52:329–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Albuquerque R, Koskinen Y, Zhang C (2018) Corporate social responsibility and firm risk: theory and empirical evidence. Manag Sci 11:1–19Google Scholar
  4. Alm J, Martinez-Vazquez J, McClellan C (2016) Corruption and firm tax evasion. J Econ Behav Organ 124:146–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ashbaugh-Skaife H, Collins D, LaFond R (2006) The effects of corporate governance on firms’ credit ratings. J Account Econ 42(1–2):203–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 96:249–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bauer R, Hann D (2010) Corporate environmental management and credit risk. SSRN1660470Google Scholar
  8. Brauers W, Zavadskas E (2006) The MOORA method and its application to privatization in a transition economy. Control Cybern 35:445–469Google Scholar
  9. Brauers W, Zavadskas E (2010) Project management by MULTIMOORA as an instrument for transition economies. Technol Econ Dev Eco 16(1):5–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brauers W, Zavadskas E (2011) MULTIMOORA optimization used to decide on a bank loan to buy property. Technol Econ Dev Eco 17(1):174–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cao F, Peng S, Ye K (2019) Multiple large shareholders and corporate social responsibility reporting. Emerg Mark Rev 38:287–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chakraborty S (2011) Applications of the MOORA method for decision-making in manufacturing environment. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 54(9–12):1155–1166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 139:259–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chava S (2014) Environmental externalities and cost of capital. Manage Sci 60(9):2223–2247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cheng P, Chiou W (2008) Framing effects in group investment decision-making: the role of group polarization. Psychol Rep 102(1):283–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cheng B, Ioannou I, Serafeim G (2014) Corporate social responsibility and access to Finance. Strateg Manage J 35(1):1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cheng X, Gu J, Xu Z (2018) Venture capital group decision-making with interaction under probabilistic linguistic environment. Knowl-Based Syst 140:82–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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):801–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Climent F, Soriano P (2011) Green and good? The investment performance of US environmental mutual funds. J Bus Ethics 103(2):275–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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):157–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Contreras I (2010) A distance-based consensus model with flexible choice of rank-position weights. Group Decis Negot 19(5):441–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cook WD (2006) Distance-based and ad hoc consensus models in ordinal preference ranking. Eur J Oper Res 172(2):369–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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):1–11Google Scholar
  25. 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):59–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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):360–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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):442–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fried V, Hisrich R (1994) Toward a model of venture capital investment decision-making. Financ Manage 23(3):28–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Garcia X, Pargament D (2015) Reusing wastewater to cope with water scarcity: economic, social and environmental considerations for decision-making. Resour Conserv Recycl 101:154–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gompers P, Lerner J (2001) The venture capital revolution. J Econ Perspect 15(2):145–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Goss A, Roberts G (2011) The impact of corporate social responsibility on the cost of bank loans. J Bank Financ 35(7):1794–1810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gu W, Qian X, Lu J (2018) Venture capital and entrepreneurship: a conceptual model and research suggestions. Int Entrep Manag J 14(1):35–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hanousek J, Kochanova A (2016) Bribery environments and firm performance: evidence from CEE countries. Eur J Polit Econ 43:14–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Henriksson R, Livnat J, Pfeifer P, Stumpp M (2019) Integrating ESG in portfolio construction. J Portfolio Manage 45(4):67–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hu Z, Zhang X, Zhang Z (2017) Venture capital development in China 2017. Economic Management PressGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. 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 230:1065–1081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kaya I (2016) The mandatory social and environmental reporting: evidence from France. Proced Soc Behav Sci 229:206–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kempf A, Osthoff P (2007) The effect of socially responsible investing on portfolio performance. Eur Financ Manag 13(5):908–922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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):195–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kozierkiewicz-Hetmanska A (2017) The analysis of expert opinions’ consensus quality. Inf Fusion 34:80–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lee G, Cho S, Arthurs J, Lee E (2019) CEO pay inequity, CEO-TMT pay gap, and acquisition premiums. J Bus Res 98:105–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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):259–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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):733–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Paraskevas A, Quek M (2019) When castro seized the Hilton: risk and crisis management lessons from the past. Tour Manage 70:419–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pearce D, Barbier M (1989) Blueprint for a green economy. Earth scan Publication, London UKGoogle Scholar
  49. 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 3:108–123Google Scholar
  50. 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 375–381Google Scholar
  51. 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):1537–1561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sharfman M, Fernando C (2008) Environmental risk management and the cost of capital. Strateg Manage J 29(6):569–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sieti N, Rivera X, Stamford L, Azapagic A (2019) Environmental impacts of baby food: ready-made porridge products. J Clean Prod 212:1554–1567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Silva F, Cortez M (2016) The performance of US and European green funds in different market conditions. J Clean Prod 135:558–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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 23:189–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stucki T (2019) Which firms benefit from investments in green energy technologies? –The effect of energy costs. Res Policy 48(3):546–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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):75–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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 67:756–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tseng M, Wu K, Hu J, Wang C (2018) Decision-making model for sustainable supply chain finance under uncertainties. Int J Prod Econ 205:30–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. UNEP (2011) Towards a green economy: pathways to sustainable development and poverty eradication–a synthesis for policy makers. www.unep.org/greeneconomy
  61. 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):491–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wiesmeth H (2018) Stakeholder engagement for environmental innovations. J Bus Res.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.12.054 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Woo J, Moon D, Lam J (2018) The impact of environmental policy on ports and the associated economic opportunities. Transport Res A Pol 110:234–242Google Scholar
  64. 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
  65. Wu C, Hsu H (2018) Founders and board structure: evidence from UK IPO firms. Int Rev Financ Anal 56:19–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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):777–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 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 221:457–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Xu M, Kong G, Kong D (2017) Does wage justice hamper creativity? Pay gap and firm innovation in China. China Econ Rev 44:186–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 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 1–16Google Scholar
  70. Yager R (2017) Generalized orthopair fuzzy sets. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 25(5):1222–1230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Yeung W, Lento C (2018) Ownership structure, audit quality, board structure, and stock price crash risk: evidence from China. Glob Finance J 37:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 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):992–1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 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 28:585–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EconomicsSichuan UniversityChengduChina
  2. 2.Business SchoolSichuan UniversityChengduChina

Personalised recommendations