Environmental efficiency evaluation of Turkish cement industry: an application of data envelopment analysis

  • Ceren DirikEmail author
  • Serap Şahin
  • Pınar Engin
Original Research


Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main determinant to the process of global warming among other greenhouse gases (GHGs). As being responsible for the largest part of the CO2 emissions from industrial activities, the cement sector has an important position for Turkey on the path to achieving CO2 reduction targets. By referencing the relationship between cement industry and CO2 emissions based upon this sector, we aim to analyze environmental efficiency of the Turkish cement industry at firm level and attempt to reveal a comparison study under both output-oriented and non-oriented approaches with the aid of radial and non-radial Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) models: (i) the output-oriented BCC model; (ii) the output-oriented slack-based measures (SBM) model; (iii) the non-oriented SBM model; and (iv) the non-oriented super-efficiency SBM model. In this context, CO2 emission is considered an undesirable output and relative efficiency of 51 integrated cement factories operating in Turkey for the year 2016 is evaluated. Within the scope of this paper, efficiency scores, reference sets and target values are also determined and a list of measures are proposed. According to the results, only 15.7% of all integrated cement factories are identified as being relatively efficient in all models and a clear imbalance among cement factories in terms of environmental efficiency is determined. Moreover, it is concluded that the output-oriented BCC, output-oriented SBM, and non-oriented SBM models are highly correlated and monotonically related in the presence of undesirable output. The empirical findings also suggest that up to 5.13% CO2 emissions saving can be achieved by taking the necessary precautions.


Cement Data envelopment analysis Slack-based measures Environmental efficiency Undesirable output 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 30(9), 1078–1092.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Baskaya, Z., & Ozturk, B. A. (2012). Measuring financial efficiency of cement firms listed in Istanbul stock exchange via fuzzy data envelopment analysis. Journal of Accounting & Finance, 54, 175–188.Google Scholar
  3. Bayyurt, N., & Sagbansua, L. (2007). Determining the efficiency of concrete companies ranked in top 1000 manufacturing firms trading in use: a multi-criteria data envelopment analysis model. Istanbul University Journal of the School of Business, 36(2), 54–71.Google Scholar
  4. Cenger, H. (2011). İMKB’de işlem gören çimento şirketlerinin performanslarının ölçülmesinde veri zarflama analizi yaklaşımı. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 25(3–4), 31–44.Google Scholar
  5. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429–444.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Coelli, T. J., Rao, D. S. P., O'Donnell, C. J., & Battese, G. E. (2005). An introduction to efficiency and productivity analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Cook, W. D., & Zhu, J. (2014). Data envelopment analysis: a handbook on the modeling of internal structures and networks. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Cooper, W. W., Seiford, L. M., & Zhu, J. (2011). Handbook on data envelopment analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Dumanoglu, S. (2010). İMKB'de işlem gören çimento şirketlerinin mali performanslarının TOPSIS yöntemi ile değerlendirilmesi. İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 29(2), 323–339.Google Scholar
  10. Ekincioglu, O., Gurgun, A. P., Engin, Y., Tarhan, M., & Kumbaracibasi, S. (2013). Approaches for sustainable cement production – a case study from Turkey. Energy and Buildings, 66, 136–142.Google Scholar
  11. Elitas, C., & Eleren, A. (2007). Çimento sektöründe İMKB'ye kayıtlı işletmelerin veri zarflama analizi yöntemi ile etkinlik analizi. Ekonomik Yaklaşım, 18(64), 103–122.Google Scholar
  12. Ertugrul, İ., & Karakasoglu, N. (2009). Performance evaluation of Turkish cement firms with fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and TOPSIS methods. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(1), 702–715.Google Scholar
  13. Geng, Z., Qin, L., Han, Y., & Zhu, Q. (2017a). Energy saving and prediction modeling of petrochemical industries: a novel ELM based on FAHP. Energy, 122, 350–362.Google Scholar
  14. Geng, Z., Dong, J., Han, Y., & Zhu, Q. (2017b). Energy and environment efficiency analysis based on an improved environment DEA cross-model: case study of complex chemical processes. Applied Energy, 205, 465–476.Google Scholar
  15. Golany, B., & Roll, Y. (1989). An application procedure for DEA. Omega, 17(3), 237–250.Google Scholar
  16. Han, Y., Long, C., Geng, Z., & Zhang, K. (2018a). Carbon emission analysis and evaluation of industrial departments in China: an improved environmental DEA cross model based on information entropy. Journal of Environmental Management, 205, 298–307.Google Scholar
  17. Han, Y., Zeng, Q., Geng, Z., & Zhu, Q. (2018b). Energy management and optimization modeling based on a novel fuzzy extreme learning machine: case study of complex petrochemical industries. Energy Conversion and Management, 165, 163–171.Google Scholar
  18. Huang, J., Yang, X., Cheng, G., & Wang, S. (2014). A comprehensive eco-efficiency model and dynamics of regional eco-efficiency in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 67, 228–238.Google Scholar
  19. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2014). Climate change 2013 – the physical science basis: Working group I contribution to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Ji, Y. B., & Lee, C. (2010). Data envelopment analysis. The Stata Journal, 10(2), 267–280.Google Scholar
  21. Karsak, E. E., & Iscan, F. (2000). Çimento sektöründe göreli faaliyet performanslarının ağırlıklı kısıtlamaları ve çapraz etkinlik kullanılarak veri zarflama analizi ile değerlendirilmesi. Endüstri Mühendisliği Dergisi, 11(3), 2–10.Google Scholar
  22. Kayalidere, K., & Kargin, S. (2004). Çimento ve tekstil sektörlerinde etkinlik çalışması ve veri zarflama analizi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6(1), 196–219.Google Scholar
  23. Kocyigit, M. M. (2016). Borsa İstanbul’da işlem gören çimento işletmelerinin etkinliklerinin veri zarflama analizi kullanılarak ölçülmesi. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 15(57), 429–439.Google Scholar
  24. Koopmans, T. C. (1951). An analysis of production as an efficient combination of activities. In T. C. Koopmans (Ed.), Activity analysis of production and allocation (pp. 33–97). New York: Wiley.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Kucukaksoy, I., & Onal, S. (2011). An analysis on reel sector effectiveness: application on cement companies registered to IMKB (Istanbul stock exchange market-ISE) in Turkey in years 2006-2009. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 69, 128–140.Google Scholar
  26. Kula, V., & Ozdemir, L. (2007). Çimento sektöründe göreceli etkinsizlik alanlarının veri zarflama analizi yöntemi ile tespiti. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(1), 55–70.Google Scholar
  27. Kula, V., Kandemir, T., & Ozdemir, L. (2009). VZA malmquist toplam faktör verimlilik ölçüsü: İMKB’ye koteli çimento şirketleri üzerine bir araştırma. Sosyal Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 9(17), 186–202.Google Scholar
  28. Kumar, S., & Gulati, R. (2008). An examination of technical, pure technical, and scale efficiencies in Indian public sector banks using data envelopment analysis. Eurasian Journal of Business and Economics, 1(2), 33–69.Google Scholar
  29. Liu, W. B., Meng, W., Li, X. X., & Zhang, D. Q. (2010). DEA models with undesirable inputs and outputs. Annals of Operations Research, 173(1), 177–194.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Long, X., Zhao, X., & Cheng, F. (2015). The comparison analysis of total factor productivity and eco-efficiency in China’s cement manufactures. Energy Policy, 81, 61–66.Google Scholar
  31. Lu, B., & Wang, S. (2017). DEA conceptual exposition and literature review. In Container port production and management (pp. 7–17). Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  32. Ma’mun, S., Svendsen, H. F., Hoff, K. A., & Juliussen, O. (2007). Selection of new absorbents for carbon dioxide capture. Energy Conversion and Management, 48(1), 251–258.Google Scholar
  33. Madsen, C. M., & Schmaltz, C. (2015). Performance of Danish banks during the financial crisis (Master’s thesis).Google Scholar
  34. Mandal, S. K. (2010). Do undesirable output and environmental regulation matter in energy efficiency analysis? Evidence from Indian cement industry. Energy Policy, 38(10), 6076–6083.Google Scholar
  35. Mandal, S. K., & Madheswaran, S. (2010). Environmental efficiency of the Indian cement industry: an interstate analysis. Energy Policy, 38(2), 1108–1118.Google Scholar
  36. McMichael, A. J., Campbell-Lendrum, D. H., Corvalán, C. F., Ebi, K. L., Githeko, A. K., Scheraga, J. D., & Woodward, A. (2003). Climate change and human health: Risks and responses. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  37. OECD. (2016). OECD economic surveys: Turkey 2016. Accessed 31 Aug 2017.
  38. Oggioni, G., Riccardi, R., & Toninelli, R. (2011). Eco-efficiency of the world cement industry: a data envelopment analysis. Energy Policy, 39(5), 2842–2854.Google Scholar
  39. Ozden, U. H., Basar, O. D., & Kalkan, S. B. (2012). IMKB’de işlem gören çimento sektöründeki şirketlerin finansal performanslarının VIKOR yöntemi ile sıralanması. Ekonometri ve İstatistik e-Dergisi, 17, 23–44.Google Scholar
  40. Ozkan, N. F., & Ulutas, B. H. (2017). Efficiency analysis of cement manufacturing facilities in Turkey considering undesirable outputs. Journal of Cleaner Production, 156, 932–938.Google Scholar
  41. Ozturk, E. (2016). Maliyet performansının ölçümü için göreli etkinlik analizi: BIST çimento sektöründe veri zarflama analizi uygulaması. Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 6(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
  42. Ramli, N. A., Munisamy, S., & Arabi, B. (2013). Scale directional distance function and its application to the measurement of eco-efficiency in the manufacturing sector. Annals of Operations Research, 211(1), 381–398.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. Republic of Turkey Ministry of Environment and Urbanization. (2016). Sixth national communication of Turkey. Ankara: AFS Media.Google Scholar
  44. Riccardi, R., Oggioni, G., & Toninelli, R. (2012). Efficiency analysis of world cement industry in presence of undesirable output: application of data envelopment analysis and directional distance function. Energy Policy, 44, 140–152.Google Scholar
  45. Saygili, S., & Taymaz, E. (2001). Privatization, ownership and technical efficiency a study of the Turkish cement industry. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 72(4), 581–605.Google Scholar
  46. Seiford, L. M., & Zhu, J. (2002). Modeling undesirable factors in efficiency evaluation. European Journal of Operational Research, 142(1), 16–20.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. Spaho, A., Mitre, T., & Shehu, V. (2015). Technical efficiency and super-efficiency of commercial banks in Albania. Paper presented at 5th international conference on humanities and social sciences, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
  48. Stern, N. (2006). What is the economics of climate change? World Economics, 7(2), 1–10.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  49. Sueyoshi, T., & Goto, M. (2011). DEA approach for unified efficiency measurement: Assessment of Japanese fossil fuel power generation. Energy Economics, 33(2), 292–303.Google Scholar
  50. Sueyoshi, T., & Goto, M. (2014). DEA radial measurement for environmental assessment: a comparative study between Japanese chemical and pharmaceutical firms. Applied Energy, 115, 502–513.Google Scholar
  51. Sueyoshi, T., Goto, M., & Ueno, T. (2010). Performance analysis of US coal-fired power plants by measuring three DEA efficiencies. Energy Policy, 38(4), 1675–1688.Google Scholar
  52. Sueyoshi, T., Goto, M., & Sugiyama, M. (2013). DEA window analysis for environmental assessment in a dynamic time shift: Performance assessment of US coal-fired power plants. Energy Economics, 40, 845–857.Google Scholar
  53. The European Cement Association [CEMBUREAU]. (2016). Activity Report 2016. Accessed 10 Sept 2017.
  54. Tone, K. (2001). A slacks-based measure of efficiency in data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 130(3), 498–509.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  55. Tone, K. (2003). Dealing with undesirable outputs in DEA: a slacks-based measure (SBM) approach. GRIPS Research Report Series, 2003. Google Scholar
  56. Turkish Cement Manufacturers Association. (2017). The business models symposium for the use of municipal solid wastes in the cement sector held in Antalya. Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
  57. Turkish Statistical Institute. (2017). Greenhouse gas emissions statistics, 1990–2015. Accessed 31 Aug 2017.
  58. TUSIAD. (2016). Addressing climate change from an economic policy perspective. Accessed 9 Sept 2017.
  59. UNFCCC. (2006). United Nations framework convention on climate change: Handbook. Bonn, Germany: Climate Change Secretariat.Google Scholar
  60. World Energy Council. (2016). Turkish energy market outlook: achievements, overview and opportunities. Accessed 9 Sept 2017.
  61. Xiong, B., Li, Y., Santibanez Gonzalez, E. D., & Song, M. (2017). Eco-efficiency measurement and improvement of Chinese industry using a new closest target method. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 9(5), 666–681.Google Scholar
  62. Yavilioglu, C., & Ozsoy, O. (2009). Productive efficiency of privatized cement plants in Turkey. Hacettepe University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 27(1), 259–277.Google Scholar
  63. Zhang, F., Fang, H., Wu, J., & Ward, D. (2016). Environmental efficiency analysis of listed cement enterprises in China. Sustainability, 8(5), 1–19.Google Scholar
  64. Zhou, P., Ang, B. W., & Poh, K. L. (2006). Slacks-based efficiency measures for modeling environmental performance. Ecological Economics, 60(1), 111–118.Google Scholar
  65. Zhu, J. (2014). Quantitative models for performance evaluation and benchmarking: data envelopment analysis with spreadsheets (3rd ed.). New York: Springer.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  66. Zimková, E. (2014). Technical efficiency and super-efficiency of the banking sector in Slovakia. Procedia Economics and Finance, 12, 780–787.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business AdministrationKırıkkale UniversityKırıkkaleTurkey
  2. 2.Inclusive Sustainable Growth PortfolioUnited Nations Development ProgrammeAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations