Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Critical sustainability indicators identification and cause–effect relationships analysis for sustainable organization strategy based on fuzzy DEMATEL

  • Published:
Environment, Development and Sustainability Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Traditionally, there was a common belief that the main role of successful organizations, especially in business, was to make profit. However, over the past decades, this belief proved to be wrong, since many organizations that had been making a lot of profit went bankrupt, while others persisted, and the main reasons were their adaptability and sustainability. In this research, we wanted to find out the indicators on the strategy level that leaders should take into account in order to make their organization sustainable in the most adaptive way. Our research was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, we handpicked 150 indicators and conducted a survey where decision makers were asked to rank them. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Varimax rotation were used on the chosen data to find if there was any correlation between the indicators and if they formed any groups. It was found that there were eight perspectives which described 69.38% of the entire sample. Therefore, we chose the indicators that best represented the perspectives. In the second phase, Fuzzy Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (Fuzzy DEMATEL) was used to calculate if there were any cause–effect relationships between the indicators. The results show that in order to have a sustainable strategy, organizations need to consider eight perspectives, where the biggest weight belongs to the perspective of Learning. The perspective of Leadership is the second, and Finance perspective has the lowest weight. In conclusion, it is pointed out that the survival of organizations depends on their ability to learn, adapt to changes, and be more sustainable.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbott. (2015). Annual & Sustainability Report 2015. Retrieved from http://www.abbottinvestor.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=94004&p=irol-proxy.

  • Abbott, W. F., & Monsen, R. J. (1979). On the measurement of corporate social responsibility: Self-reported disclosures as a method of measuring corporate social involvement. Academy of Management Journal, 22(3), 501–515. https://doi.org/10.2307/255740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abdi, H., & Williams, L. J. (2010). Principal component analysis. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics, 2(4), 433–459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Air France – KLM. (2017). Annual Report 2017. Retrieved from http://annualreport.airfranceklm.com/af2016-content/uploads/2017/04/RA2016_AIR_FRANCE_EN.pdf

  • Andersen, H., Cobbold, I., & Lawrie, G. (2001). Balanced scorecard implementation in SMEs: Reflection on literature and practice. In 4th SME international conference, Allborg University, Denmark.

  • Atkinson, A. A., Waterhouse, J. H., & Wells, R. B. (1997). A stakeholder approach to strategic performance measurement. MIT Sloan Management Review, 38(3), 25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atos. (2015). Annual & Sustainability Report 2015. Retrieved from https://cz.atos.net/content/dam/global/reports-2015/assets/pdf/atos-annual-report-2015.pdf

  • Aupperle, K. E., Carroll, A. B., & Hatfield, J. D. (1985). An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 28(2), 446–463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Azapagic, A. (2003). Systems approach to corporate sustainability. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 81(5), 303–316.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Balanchandran, K. R., Li, S. H., & Radhakrishnan, S. (2007). A framework for unused capacity: Theory and empirical analysis. Journal of Applied Management Accounting Research, 5(1), 21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P. (2005). Evolving sustainably: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic Management Journal, 26(3), 197–218.

  • Bansal, P., & DesJardine, M. R. (2014). Business sustainability: It is about time. Strategic Organization, 12(1), 70–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bititci, U. S., & Carrie, A. S. (1998). Integrated performance measurement systems: Structures and relationships. EPSCR Research Grant Final Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bititci, U. S., Turner, U., & Begemann, C. (2000). Dynamics of performance measurement systems. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 20(6), 692–704.

    Google Scholar 

  • BMW. (2016). Annual Report 2015. Retrieved from https://www.bmwgroup.com/content/dam/bmw-group-websites/bmwgroup_com/ir/downloads/en/2016/Annual_Report_2015.pdf

  • Willard, B. (2005). The next sustainability wave: Building boardroom buy-in. . New Society Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobillo, F., Delgado, M., & Gómez-Rom, J. (2009). A semantic fuzzy expert system for fuzzy balanced scorecard. Expert Systems with Application, 36, 423–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohoris, G. A. (1995). A comparative assessment of some major quality awards. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 12(9), 30–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brouthers, K. D., Andriessen, F., & Nicolaes, I. (1998). Driving blind: Strategic decisionmaking in small companies. Long Range Planning, 31(1), 130–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(97)00099-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M. G. (1996). Keeping score: Using the right metrics to drive world-class performance. . Amacom.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brynjolfsson, E., Hammerbacher, J., & Stevens, B. (2011). Competing through data: Three experts offer their game plans. McKinsey Quarterly, 4, 36–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan Kim, W., Mauborgne, R. (2005). Blue ocean strategy. Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts

  • Coca-Cola. (2015). Annual & Sustainability Report 2015. Retrieved from http://coca-colahellenic.com/media/2390/coca-cola-hbc_2015-integrated-annual-report.pdf , https://www.coca-colacompany.com/content/dam/journey/us/en/private/fileassets/pdf/2015/07/2014-2015-sustainability-report.15_080415.pdf

  • Cochran, D. S., & Dobbs, D. C. (2001). Evaluating manufacturing system design and performance using the manufacturing system design decomposition approach. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 20(6), 390–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochran, P. L., & Wood, R. A. (1984). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 27(1), 42–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R., & Kaplan, R. S. (1988). Measure costs right: Make the right decisions. Harvard Business Review, 66(5), 96–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, K. F., & Lynch, R. L. (1988). The “SMART” way to define and sustain success. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 8(1), 23–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crittenden, V. L., Crittenden, W. F., Ferrell, L. K., Ferrell, O. C., & Pinney, C. C. (2011). Market-oriented sustainability: A conceptual framework and propositions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 71–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delta Holding. (2015). Izveštaj o održivom razvoju 2015. Retrieved from http://www.deltaholding.rs/upload/documents/dokumenta/csr/CSR%20Delta%20Holding_2015_srp.pdf.

  • Dunbar, R. I. (1993). Coevolution of neocortical size, group size and language in humans. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16(4), 681–694.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(2), 130–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • EFQM. (1999). Self-assessment guidelines for companies. . European foundation for quality management. Belgium.

    Google Scholar 

  • El-mongy, A. M. A., Hamouda, A. E. D., Nounou, N., & Abdel-moneim, A. W. (2013). Design of prediction system for key performance indicators in balanced scorecard. International Journal of Computer Applications, 72(8), 10.

    Google Scholar 

  • EPS. (2015). Godišnji izveštaj za 2015. godinu, Retrieved from http://eps.rs/SiteAssets/Lists/Sitemap/EditForm/izvestajioposlovanju/godisnjiizvestaji/Godisnji%20izvestaj%202015_%20srpski.pdf.

  • Epstein, M. J., & Manzoni, J. F. (1997). The balanced scorecard and tableau de bord: Translating strategy into action. Strategic Finance, 79(2), 28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, M. J., & Roy, M. J. (2001). Sustainability in action: Identifying and measuring the key performance drivers. Long Range Planning, 34(5), 585–604.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, M. J., & Westbrook, R. A. (2001). Linking actions to profits in strategic decision making. MIT Sloan Management Review, 42(3), 39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, M. J., & Wisner, P. S. (2001). Using a balanced scorecard to implement sustainability. Environmental quality management, 11(2), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ernest-Jones, T. (2005). Business continuity strategy—The life line. Network Security, 2005(8), 5–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1353-4858(05)70268-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J. (2004). Enter the triple bottom line. In A. Henriques & J. Richardson (Eds.), The triple bottom line, does it all add up?: Assessing the sustainability of business and CSR. (pp. 1–16). Earthscan Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernandes, K. J., Rajab, V., & Whalley, A. (2006). Lessons from implementing the balanced scorecard in a small and medium size manufacturing organization. Technovation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2005.03.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Figge, F., Hahn, T., Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2002). The sustainability balanced scorecard–linking sustainability management to business strategy. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(5), 269–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, L., Brignall, T. J., Johnston, R., & Silvestro, R. (1991). Performance measurement in service businesses. Management Accounting, 69(10), 34–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fontela, E., & Gabus, A. (1976). The DEMATEL observer.

  • Franceschini, F., Galetto, M., & Maisano, D. (2007). Management by measurement: Designing key indicators and performance measurement systems. . Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, C. (1984). Long waves in the world economy. . F. Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fryxell, G. E., & Wang, J. (1994). The fortune corporate’reputation’index: Reputation for what? Journal of Management, 20(1), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grunig, J. E. (1979). A new measure of public opinion on corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Journal, 22(4), 738–764.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haase, V. H. (2000). Computer models for strategic business process optimization, In Proceedings of the 26th Euromicro conference (Vol. 2, pp. str. 254–260).

  • Hart, S. L., & Milstein, M. B. (2003). Creating sustainable value. Academy of Management Perspectives, 17(2), 56–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • HP. (2015). Annual & Sustainability Report 2015. Retrieved from http://h30261.www3.hp.com/financial/annual-reports-and-proxies/2015.aspx

  • Hvolby, H. H., & Thorstenson, A. (2000). Performance measurement in small and medium-sized enterprises. In The third SMESME international conference, Coventry, UK.

  • Hill, J. (2001). Thinking about a more sustainable business—An indicators approach. Corporate Environmental Strategy, 8(1), 30–38.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, A. J. (2018). The next phase of business sustainability. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 16(2), 34–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Organization for Standardization. (2009). ISO 31000: Risk Management: Principles and Guidelines. ISO.

  • International Organization for Standardization. (2010). ISO 26000: Guidance on social responsibility. ISO

  • International Organization for Standardization. (2012). ISO 22301: Societal security—Business continuity management systems—Requirements. ISO

  • International Organization for Standardization. (2015). ISO 18404: Quantitative methods in process improvement—Six Sigma—Competencies for key personnel and their organizations in relation to Six Sigma and Lean implementation. ISO

  • Jassbi, J., Mohamadnejad, F., & Nasrollahzadeh, H. (2011). A Fuzzy DEMATEL framework for modelling cause and effect relationships of strategy map. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(5), 5967–5973.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, H. T., & Broms, A. (2000). Profit beyond measure: Extraordinary results through attention to work and people. Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jollands, N., Lermit, J., Patterson, M., (2003). The usefulness of aggregate indicators in policy making and evaluation: A discussion with application to eco-efficiency indicators in New Zealand

  • Kaiser, H. F. (1958). The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 23(3), 187–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanji, G. K. (1998). Measurement of business excellence. Total Quality Management, 9(7), 633–643.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The Balanced Scorecard: Translating strategy into action. Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001). The strategy-focused organization: How balanced scorecard companies thrive in the new business environment. . Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2008a). Mastering the management system. Harvard Business Review, 86(1), 62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2008b). The execution premium; linking strategy to operations for competitive advantage. Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R. S., Kaplan, R. E., Norton, D. P., Davenport, T. H., & Norton, D. P. (2004). Strategy maps: Converting intangible assets into tangible outcomes. Harvard Business Press.

  • Kaplan, R. V. N., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard: Measures that drive performance. Harward Business Review, 83, 172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kardaras, D., & Mentzas, G. (1997). Using fuzzy cognitive maps to model and analyze business performance assessment. Advances in Industrial Engineering Applications and Practice, II, 63–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karels, G. V., & Prakash, A. J. (1987). Multivariate normality and forecasting of business bankruptcy. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 14(4), 573–593.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeble, J. J., Topiol, S., & Berkeley, S. (2003). Using indicators to measure sustainability performance at a corporate and project level. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2–3), 149–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keegan, D. P., Eiler, R. G., & Jones, C. R. (1989). Are your performance measures obsolete? Strategic Finance, 70(12), 45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennerley, M., & Neely, A. (2003). Measuring performance in a changing business environment. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 23(2):213–229.

  • Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R .(2005). Blue ocean strategy, Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts.

  • Lee, H., Lee, S., & Park, Y. (2009). Selection of technology acquisition mode using the analytic network process. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 49(5–6), 1274–1282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, C. L., & Wu, W. W. (2004). A fuzzy extension of the DEMATEL method for group decision making. European Journal of Operational Research, 156, 445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linard, K., & Yoon, J., (2000). The dynamics of organizational performance development of a dynamic balanced scorecard. In The first international conference of system thinking in management (pp. str.359–364).

  • Liou, J. J., Tzeng, G. H., & Chang, H. C. (2007). Airline safety measurement using a hybrid model. Journal of Air Transport Management, 13(4), 243–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopez, M., Garcia, A., & Rodriguez, L. (2007). Sustainable development and corporate performance: A study based on the Dow Jones Sustainability Index. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(3), 285–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • LG Electronics. (2013). LG Annual Report 2012. Retrieved from http://www.lg.com/global/investor-relations/reports/annual-reports

  • Maltz, A. C., Shenhar, A. J., & Reilly, R. R. (2003). Beyond the balanced scorecard: Refining the search for organizational success measures. Long Range Planning, 36(2), 187–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margulies, W. P. (1977). Make most of your corporate identity. Harvard Business Review, 55(4), 66–74.

  • Marr, B., & Gray, D. (2012). Strategic performance management. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martins, R. A., & Salerno, M. S., (1999). Use of new performance measurement system, some empirical findings. In Managing Operations Networks—VI international EurOMA conference, Venice, Italy.

  • Maslow, A. (1968). Some educational implications of the humanistic psychologies. Harvard Educational Review, 38(4), 685–696.

    Google Scholar 

  • MBNQA. (1997). Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award 1997 Award Criteria Milwaukee. The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Consortium, Inc.

  • McAdam, R. (2000). Quality models in an SME context: A critical perspective using a grounded approach. The International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/02656710010306166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, J. B., Sundgren, A., & Schneeweis, T. (1988). Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), 854–872.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metro Group. (2015). Annual & Sustainbility Report 2015. Retrieved from http://reports.metrogroup.de/2014-2015/annual-report/

  • Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Montiel, I. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and corporate sustainability: Separate pasts, common futures. Organization & Environment, 21(3), 245–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nardo, M., et al. (2005). Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide. OECD Statistics Working Papers, 2005/03, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/533411815016

  • Neely, A. (2005). The evolution of performance measurement research: Development in the last decade and a research agenda for the next. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 25(12), 1264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neely, A., Adams, C., & Crowe, P. (2001). The performance prism in practice. Measuring business excellence, 5(2), 6–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neely, A., Mills, J., Gregory, M., Richards, H., Platts, K., & Bourne, M. (1996). Getting the measure of your business. . University of Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nestle. (2015). Annual Report 2015. Retrieved from https://www.nestle.com/asset-library/documents/library/documents/annual_reports/2015-annual-review-en.pdf.

  • NIS Srbija. (2015). Annual Report 2015. Retrieved from http://ir.nis.eu/en/reporting-centre/annual-and-quarterly-reports/.

  • Nissen, V. (2006). Modelling corporate strategy with the fuzzy balanced scorecard. In E Hüllermeier, R Kruse, A Nürnberger, & J Strackeljan (Eds.), Proceedings Symposium on Fuzzy Systems in Computer Science FSCS (pp. str. 121–138).

  • Niven, P. R. (2002). Balanced scorecard step-by-step: Maximizing performance and maintaining results. . Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noci, G. (1995). Accounting and non-accounting based measures of quality-based performances in small firms. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 15, 78–106. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443579510090435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norreklit, H. (2000). The balance on the balanced scorecard—a critical analysis of some of its assumptions. (p. 11). Management Accounting Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., Von Krogh, G., & Voelpel, S. (2006). Organizational knowledge creation theory: Evolutionary paths and future advances. Organization Studies, 27(8), 1179–1208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nudurupati, S. S., Bititci, U. S., Kumar, V., & Chan, F. T. (2011). State of the art literature review on performance measurement. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 60(2), 279–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • P&G. (2015). Annual & Sustainability Report 2015. Retrieved from http://www.pginvestor.com/CustomPage/Index?keyGenPage=1073748359.

  • Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual. . McGraw-Hill Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Philips. (2015a). Annual Report 2015. Retrieved from https://2015.annualreport.philips.com/downloads/pdf/en/PhilipsFullAnnualReport2015_English.pdf

  • Philips. (2015b). Sustainability Report 2015. Retrieved from https://2015.annualreport.philips.com/#!/sustainability-statements

  • Pochert, B. (2005). Konzeption einer unscharfen balanced scorecard. . Möglichkeiten der Fuzzyfizierung einer Balanced Scorecard zur Unterstützung des Strategischen Managements.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1980). Industry structure and competitive strategy: Keys to profitability. Financial Analysts Journal, 36(4), 30–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • PostNL. (2016). Annual Report 2015 (pp. 1–198). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1994). Strategy as a field of study: Why search for a new paradigm? Strategic Management Journal, 15(S2), 5–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rezaee, Z. (2016). Business sustainability research: A theoretical and integrated perspective. Journal of Accounting literature, 36, 48–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rillo, M. (2004). Limitations of balanced scorecard. In Proceedings of the 2nd scientific and educational conference, business administration: Business in a Globalizing Economy (Vol. 155, p. 161) Parnu.

  • Roca, L. C., & Searcy, C. (2012). An analysis of indicators disclosed in corporate sustainability reports. Journal of Cleaner Production, 20(1), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.08.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roche. (2015). Annual & Sustainability Report 2015. Retrieved from http://www.roche.com/dam/jcr:546063d5-351f-42b5-9f63-dc90482f903d/en/gb15e.pdf

  • Rompho, N. (2011). Why the balanced scorecard fails in SMEs: A case study. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(11), 39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rother, M. (2009). Toyota kata. . McGraw-Hill Professional Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabry, A. (2014). Factors critical to the success of Six-Sigma quality program and their influence on performance indicators in some of Lebanese hospitals. Arab Economic and Business Journal, 9(2), 93–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samsung. (2014). Annual & Sustainability Report 2014. Retrieved from http://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsung/investor_relations/financial_information/annual_reports.html

  • Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (1996). Toward a typological theory of project management. Research policy, 25(4), 607–632.

    Google Scholar 

  • SGS. (2015). Annual Report 2015. Retrieved from http://www.sgs.com/en/news/2016/02/sgs-2015-annual-report

  • Shieh, J. I., Wu, H. H., & Huang, K. K. (2010). A DEMATEL method in identifying key success factors of hospital service quality. Knowledge-Based Systems, 23(3), 277–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrnhur, A. J., Levy, O., & Dvir, D. (1997). Mapping the dimensions of project success. Project Management Journal, 28(2), 5–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons, R. (2000). Performance management and control systems for implementing strategy. . Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinek, S. (2009). Start with why: How great leaders inspire everyone to take action. . Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinek, S. (2014). Leaders eat last: Why some teams pull together and others don’t. . Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sivarajah, U., Irani, Z., Gupta, S., & Mahroof, K. (2020). Role of big data and social media analytics for business to business sustainability: A participatory web context. Industrial Marketing Management, 86, 163–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • St-Pierre, J., & Delisle, S. (2006). An expert diagnosis system for the benchmarking of SMEs’ performance. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 13(1/2), 106–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taticchi, P., Tonelli, F., Botarelli, M., & Sameh, M. (2008). Performance Measurement and Management: What is Next? Wseas Transactions on Business and Economics, 5(11), 497.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taticchi, P., Tonelli, F., & Cagnazzo, L. (2010). Performance measurement and management: A literature review and a research agenda. Measuring Business Excellence, 14(1), 4–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Telekom Italia. (2015). Annual & Sustainability Report 2015. Retrieved from http://www.telecomitalia.com/content/dam/telecomitalia/en/archive/documents/investors/Annual_Reports/2015/Annual-Report2015.pdf

  • Tur-Porcar, A., Roig-Tierno, N., & Llorca Mestre, A. (2018). Factors affecting entrepreneurship and business sustainability. Sustainability, 10(2), 452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Telekom Srbija. (2015). Godišnji izveštaj 2015. Retrieved from http://static.mts.rs/pdf/poslovanje/konacni-izvestaj-2015.pdf?d=False&h=636039318327200000

  • ThaiOil. (2015). Annual Report 2015. Retrieved from https://top.listedcompany.com/misc/ar/20160315-top-ar2015-en.pdf

  • Toyota. (2017). Annual Report 2017 (pp. 1–51). Retrieved from http://www.toyota-global.com/pages/contents/investors/ir_library/annual/pdf/2017/annual_report_2017_fie.pdf

  • Tseng, M. L. (2010). Implementation and performance evaluation using the fuzzy network balanced scorecard. Computers & Education, 55(1), str.188-201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tzeng, G. H., Chiang, C. H., & Li, C. W. (2007). Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning programs: A novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL. Expert Systems with Applications, 32(4), 1028–1044.

    Google Scholar 

  • Unilever. (2015). Annual Report 2015. Retrieved from https://www.unilever.com/Images/annual_report_and_accounts_ar15_tcm244-478426_en.pdf.

  • Unilever. (2016). Annual Report 2016. Retrieved from https://www.unilever.com/Images/unilever-annual-report-and-accounts-2016_tcm244-498744_en.pdf.

  • Veleva, V., & Ellenbecker, M. (2000). A proposal for measuring business sustainability. Greener Management International, 31(3), 101–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veleva, V., & Ellenbecker, M. (2001). Indicators of sustainable production: Framework and methodology. Journal of Cleaner Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(01)00010-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waas, T., Verbruggen, A., & Wright, T. (2010). University research for sustainable development: Definition and characteristics explored. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18, str.632-636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.09.0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance–financial performance link. Strategic Management journal, 18(4), 303–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westpac group. (2016). Annual Report 2016. Retrieved from https://www.westpac.com.au/content/dam/public/wbc/documents/pdf/aw/ic/2016_Westpac_Annual_Report

  • Weber, M. (2008). The business case for corporate social responsibility: A company-level measurement approach for CSR. European Management Journal, 26(4), 247–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2008.01.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, H. Y. (2012). Constructing a strategy map for banking institutions with key performance indicators of the balanced scorecard. Evaluation and Program Planning, 35(3), 303–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, H. Y., Tzeng, G. H., & Chen, Y. H. (2009). A fuzzy MCDM approach for evaluating banking performance based on Balanced Scorecard. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(6), 10135–10147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, Y. P., Shieh, H. M., Leu, J. D., & Tzeng, G. H. (2008). A novel hybrid MCDM model combined with DEMATEL and ANP with applications. International Journal Operational Research, 5(3), 160–168.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Organizational Sciences, University of Belgrade, Jove Ilića 154, 11000, Belgrade, Serbia

    Ivan Pribićević & Boris Delibašić

Authors
  1. Ivan Pribićević
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Boris Delibašić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ivan Pribićević.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Appendices

Appendix 1

See Table 9.

Table 9 Results of research phase I
Full size table

Appendix 2: Results of PCA analysis with Varimax rotation: Five indicators that best describe/correlate with perspectives

See Table 10.

Appendix 3: Framework for sustainable strategy decision-making

See Table 11 and Fig. 4.

Table 10 Factorial cluster analysis, five indicators that best describe the perspectives
Full size table
Table 11 Framework for sustainable strategy decision-making
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pribićević, I., Delibašić, B. Critical sustainability indicators identification and cause–effect relationships analysis for sustainable organization strategy based on fuzzy DEMATEL. Environ Dev Sustain 23, 17263–17304 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01360-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01360-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation