Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

dc.contributor.authorLombardi Netto, Antoniospa
dc.contributor.authorSalomon, Valeriospa
dc.contributor.authorOrtiz Barrios, Miguel Angelspa
dc.contributor.authorFlorek-Paszkowska, Annaspa
dc.contributor.authorPetrillo, Antonellaspa
dc.contributor.authorOliveira, Otaviospa
dc.date.accessioned2021-03-12T15:53:54Z
dc.date.available2021-03-12T15:53:54Z
dc.date.issued2020-08-27
dc.identifier.issn09696016spa
dc.identifier.issn14753995spa
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11323/7991spa
dc.description.abstractTo survive in the long term, business needs to profit, controlling environmental impacts with social responsibility. Sustainability programs involve the integration of social and environmental issues in business models and organizational processes. The assessment of sustainability programs is a problem of multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA). This work presents applications of MCDA for the assessment of sustainability programs in the textile industry. Applied methods for MCDA are analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and the technique for the order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS). The reasons to apply AHP and TOPSIS include providing an assessment index, ranging from 0 to 1, and that the MCDA model is expected to have more criteria than alternatives. Therefore, an application of other methods, such as data envelopment analysis, could be prejudiced. Concepts from the triple bottom line, economic, social as well as environmental criteria were inserted in the proposed model. Sustainability programs of six leading companies from the Brazilian textile industry were evaluated. The main finding of the research is that AHP and TOPSIS resulted in similar evaluations for sustainability programs. Both methods resulted in the same rank of alternatives. However, with TOPSIS, companies’ sustainability indices were more disperse, varying from 0.10 to 0.92 against a range from 0.23 to 0.69 with AHP.spa
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfspa
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherCorporación Universidad de la Costaspa
dc.rightsCC0 1.0 Universalspa
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/spa
dc.sourceInternational Transactions in Operational Researchspa
dc.subjectAnalytic hierarchy processspa
dc.subjectMultiple criteria decision analysisspa
dc.subjectSustainabilityspa
dc.subjectTechnique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solutionspa
dc.subjectTextile industryspa
dc.titleMultiple criteria assessment of sustainability programs in the textile industryspa
dc.typeArtículo de revistaspa
dc.source.urlhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/itor.12871spa
dc.rights.accessrightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessspa
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1111/itor.12871spa
dc.identifier.instnameCorporación Universidad de la Costaspa
dc.identifier.reponameREDICUC - Repositorio CUCspa
dc.identifier.repourlhttps://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/spa
dc.relation.referencesABIT, 2019. Brazilian Association of Textile and Apparel Industry. Available at https://www.abit.org.br/cont/perfildo-setor (accessed May 29, 2020).spa
dc.relation.referencesAcar, E., Kiliç, M., Güner, M., 2015. Measurement of sustainability performance in textile industry by using a multicriteria decision making method. Textile and Apparel 25, 3–9.spa
dc.relation.referencesAppel, M., 2019. Life cycle assessment of production of cotton knits [in Brazilian Portuguese]. Senior Project on Environmental Engineering, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Santa Catarina.spa
dc.relation.referencesBal, H., Orkcu, H.H., Celebioglu, S., 2010. Improving the discrimination power and weights dispersion in the data envelopment analysis. Computers & Operations Research 37, 99–107.spa
dc.relation.referencesBana e Costa, C.A., Vansnick, J., 1994. MACBETH—an interactive path towards the construction of cardinal value functions. International Transactions in Operational Research 1, 4, 489–500spa
dc.relation.referencesBansal, P., Des Jardine, M.R., 2014. Business sustainability: it is about time. Strategic Organization 12, 1, 70–78.spa
dc.relation.referencesBarzilai, J., 1998. On the decomposition of value functions. Operations Research Letters 22, 4–5, 159–170.spa
dc.relation.referencesBelton, V., Gear, T., 1983. On a shortcoming of Saaty’s method of analytic hierarchies. Omega 11, 3, 228–230spa
dc.relation.referencesBertrand, J.W.M., Fransoo, J.C., 2002. Operations management research methodologies using quantitative modeling. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 22, 2, 241–264spa
dc.relation.referencesBorowy, I., 2014. Defining Sustainable Development for Our Common Future: a history of the World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Commission). Routledge, New York, Nspa
dc.relation.referencesBrans, J.P., Vincke, P., 1985. NOTE—a preference ranking organisation method. Management Science 31, 6, 647–656.spa
dc.relation.referencesCagniuc, P.A., 2017. Markov Chains: From Theory to Implementation and Experimentation. Wiley, Hoboken, NJspa
dc.relation.referencesCharnes, A., Cooper, W.W., Rhodes, E., 1978. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research 2, 6, 429–444spa
dc.relation.referencesCreswell, J.W., 2013. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAspa
dc.relation.referencesCruz-Moreira, J.R., 2002. New strategies and internet use in Brazilian apparel productive chains. Proceedings of the POMS Annual Conference. Production and Operations Management Society, San Francisco, CA, p. 94.spa
dc.relation.referencesDe Felice, F., Petrillo, A., 2013. Absolute measurement with analytic hierarchy process: a case study for Italian racecourse. International Journal of Applied Decision Sciences 6, 3, 209–227.spa
dc.relation.referencesDo Amaral, M.C., Zonatti, W.F., Da Silva, K.L., Karam Júnior, D., Amato Neto, J., Baruque-Ramos, J., 2018. Industrial textile recycling and reuse in Brazil: case study and considerations concerning the circular economy. Gestão & Produção 25, 3, 431–443.spa
dc.relation.referencesDong, Q., Saaty, T.L., 2014. An analytic hierarchy process model of group consensus. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering 23, 3, 362–374.spa
dc.relation.referencesDrucker, P.F., Maciariello, J.A., 2005. The Effective Executive in Action: A Journal for Getting the Right Things Done. HarperCollins, New York, NYspa
dc.relation.referencesDyer, J.S., 1990. Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process. Management Science 36, 3, 247–258spa
dc.relation.referencesEccles, R.G., Ioannou, I., Serafeim, G., 2014. The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Management Science 60, 11, 2835–2857spa
dc.relation.referencesElkington, J., 1999. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Capstone, North Mankato, MN.spa
dc.relation.referencesFontaine, M., 2013. Corporate social responsibility and sustainability: the new bottom line? International Journal of Business and Social Science 4, 4, 110–119spa
dc.relation.referencesGeissdoerfer, M., Morioka, S.N., De Carvalho, M.M., Evans, S., 2018. Business models and supply chains for the circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production 190, 712–721spa
dc.relation.referencesGRI, 2019. Global reporting initiative. Technical Report. Available at https://www.globalreporting.org (accessed May 29, 2020).spa
dc.relation.referencesHarker, P.T., 1987. Incomplete pairwise comparisons in the analytic hierarchy process. Mathematical Modelling 9, 11, 837–848.spa
dc.relation.referencesHutchins, M.J., Richter, J.S., Henry, M.L., Sutherland, J.W., 2019. Development of indicators for the social dimension of sustainability in a U.S. business context. Journal of Cleaner Production 212, 687–697.spa
dc.relation.referencesHwang, C.L., Yoon, K., 1981. Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods and Applications: A State-of-the-Art Survey. Springer, New York, NYspa
dc.relation.referencesIlangkumaran, M., Kumanan, S., 2009. Selection of maintenance policy for textile industry using hybrid multi-criteria decision making approach. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 20, 7, 1009–1022.spa
dc.relation.referencesInternational Monetary Fund, 2020. World Economic Outlook. Available at https://www.imf.org/en/publications/weo (accessed May 29, 2020)spa
dc.relation.referencesIshizaka, A., Lusti, M., 2004. An expert module to improve the consistency of AHP matrices. International Transactions in Operational Research 11, 1, 97–105.spa
dc.relation.referencesIshizaka, A., Nemery, P., 2013. Multi-criteria Decision Analysis: Methods and Software. Wiley, Chichester.spa
dc.relation.referencesJensen, M., 2001. Value maximisation, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. European Financial Management 7, 3, 297–317spa
dc.relation.referencesJoshi, R., Banwet, D.K., Shankar, R., 2011. A Delphi-AHP-TOPSIS based benchmarking framework for performance improvement of a cold chain. Expert Systems with Applications 38, 8, 10170–10182.spa
dc.relation.referencesKaebernick, H., Kara, S., Sun, M., 2003. Sustainable product development and manufacturing by considering environmental requirements. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 19, 6, 461–468.spa
dc.relation.referencesKaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P., 1992. The balanced scorecard—measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review 70, 1, 71–79.spa
dc.relation.referencesKeeney, R.L., Raiffa, H., 1976. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs. Wiley, New York, NYspa
dc.relation.referencesKennerley, M., Neely, A., 2002. Performance measurement frameworks: a review. In Neely, A. (ed.) Business Performance Measurement: Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 145–155.spa
dc.relation.referencesKhan, S.A., Chaabane, A., Dweiri, F.T., 2015. Multi-criteria decision-making methods application in supply chain management: a systematic literature review. In Salomon, V. (ed.) Multi-Criteria Methods and Techniques Applied to Supply Chain Management. InTech Open, London, pp. 3–31.spa
dc.relation.referencesKoksalan, M., Wallenius, J., Zionts, S., 2011. Multiple Criteria Decision Making: From Early History to the 21st Century. World Scientific, Singapore.spa
dc.relation.referencesKono, N., 2014. Brundtland Commission (World Commission on Environment and Development). In Michalos, A.C. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 450–452spa
dc.relation.referencesLai, Y.J., Liu, T.Y., Hwang, C.L., 1994. TOPSIS for MODM. European Journal of Operational Research 76, 3, 486– 500spa
dc.relation.referencesLi, X.B., Reeves, G.R., 1999. A multiple criteria approach to data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research 115, 507–517spa
dc.relation.referencesLin, M.C., Wang, C.C., Chen, M., Chang, C.A., 2008. Using AHP and TOPSIS approaches in customer-driven product design process. Computers in Industry 59, 1, 17–31spa
dc.relation.referencesLinkov, I., Moberg, E., 2012. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: Environmental Applications and Case Studies. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FLspa
dc.relation.referencesLootsma, F.A., 1993. Scale sensitivity in the multiplicative AHP and SMART. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 2, 2, 87–110spa
dc.relation.referencesMarimon, F., Alonso-Almeida, M.D.M., Rodríguez, M.D.P., Alejandro, K.A.C., 2012. The worldwide diffusion of the Global Reporting Initiative: What is the point? Journal of Cleaner Production 33, 132–144spa
dc.relation.referencesMcCord, M., De Neufville, R., 1983. Empirical demonstration that expected utility decision analysis is not operational. In Stigum, B.P., Wenstøp, F. (eds) Foundations of Utility and Risk Theory with Applications. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 181–199spa
dc.relation.referencesMedel-González., F., García-Ávila, L.F., Salomon, V.A.P., Marx-Goméz, J., Hernandéz, C.T., 2016. Sustainability performance measurement with analytic network process and balanced scorecard: Cuban practical case. Production 26, 3, 527–539spa
dc.relation.referencesMedel-González, F., Salomon, V.A.P., García-Ávila, L., 2015. Multi-criteria sustainability performance measurement: an application in Cuba. International Journal of Business and Systems Research 9, 4, 394–411spa
dc.relation.referencesMetaxas, I.N., Koulouriotis, D.E., Spartalis, S.H., 2013. Business excellence index of a firm with fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS. Benchmarking: An International Journal 23, 6, 1522–1557spa
dc.relation.referencesMillet, I., Saaty, T.L., 2000. On the relativity of relative measures—accommodating both rank preservation and rank reversals in the AHP. European Journal of Operational Research 121, 1, 205–212spa
dc.relation.referencesMontabon, F., Pagell, M., Wu, Z., 2016. Making sustainability sustainable. Journal of Supply Chain Management 52, 2, 11–27spa
dc.relation.referencesNadaban, S., Dzitac, S., Dzitac, I., 2016. Fuzzy TOPSIS: a general view. Procedia Computer Science 91, 823–831.spa
dc.relation.referencesNazam, M., Xu, J., Tao, Z., Ahmad, J., Hashim, M., 2015. A fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for the risk assessment of green supply chain implementation in the textile industry. International Journal of Supply and Operations Management 2, 1, 548–568spa
dc.relation.referencesOliveira, M., Fontes, D.B.M.M., Pereira, T., 2018. Evaluating vehicle painting plans in an automobile assembly plant using an integrated AHP-PROMETHEE approach. International Transactions in Operational Research 25, 4, 1383– 1406.spa
dc.relation.referencesOliveira, V.A.R., Salomon, V.A.P., Soares, L.S., Monticelli, F.M., Atílio, I., 2016. Análise multicritério com DEA e AHP da seleção de equipamentos de ar-condicionado. Anais do Encontro Nacional de Engenharia de Produção. Brazilian Association of Industrial Engineering, João Pessoa, pp. 1–9spa
dc.relation.referencesOrtiz-Barrios, M.A., Herrera-Fontalvo, Z., Rúa-Muñoz, J., Ojeda-Gutiérrez, S., De Felice, F., Petrillo, A., 2018. An integrated approach to evaluate the risk of adverse events in hospital sector: from theory to practice. Management Decision 56, 10, 2187–2224spa
dc.relation.referencesOrtiz-Barrios, M., Miranda-De La Hoz, C., López-Meza, P., Petrillo, A., De Felice, F., 2020. A case of food supply chain management with AHP, DEMATEL, and TOPSIS. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 27, 1–2, 104–128.spa
dc.relation.referencesRodrigues, L.V.S., Casado, R.S.G.R., De Carvalho, E.N., Silva, M.M., E Silva, L.C., 2020. Using FITRADEOFF in a ranking problem for supplier selection under TBL performance evaluation: an application in the textile sector. Production 30. 10.1590/0103-6513.20190032.spa
dc.relation.referencesRoy, B., 1968. Classement et choix en présence de points de vue multiples (la méthode ELECTRE). Revue française d’informatique et de recherche opérationnelle 2, 8, 57–75spa
dc.relation.referencesRycroft, T., Wood, M., Zemba, V., Kennedy, A., Weiss, C., Desmet, D., Ali, R., Linkov, I., 2019. Assessing the sustainability of advanced materials using multi criteria decision analysis and the triple bottom line. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 15, 6, 1021–1028.spa
dc.relation.referencesSaaty, T.L., 1974. Measuring the fuzziness of sets. Journal of Cybernetics 4, 4, 53–61spa
dc.relation.referencesSaaty, T.L., 1977. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15, 3, 234–281.spa
dc.relation.referencesSaaty, T.L., 1986. Absolute and relative measurement with the AHP. The most livable cities in the United States. SocioEconomic Planning Sciences 20, 6, 327–331.spa
dc.relation.referencesSaaty, T.L., 1996. Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: The Analytic Network Process (1st edn). RWS, Pittsburgh, PAspa
dc.relation.referencesSaaty, T.L., 2005. Theory and Applications of the Analytic Network Process: Decision Making with Benefits, Opportunities, Costs, and Risks. RWS, Pittsburgh, PAspa
dc.relation.referencesSaaty, T.L., 2010. Principia Mathematica Decernendi: Mathematical Principles of Decision Making. RWS, Pittsburgh, PAspa
dc.relation.referencesSaaty, T.L., Ozdemir, M., 2003. Why the magic number seven plus or minus two. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 38, 3–4, 233–244.spa
dc.relation.referencesSaaty, T.L., Rogers, P.C., 1976. Higher education in the United States (1985–2000): Scenario construction using a hierarchical framework with eigenvector weighting. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 10, 6, 251–263spa
dc.relation.referencesSaaty, T.L., Vargas, L.G., Whitaker, R., 2009. Addressing with brevity criticisms of the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 1, 2, 121–134spa
dc.relation.referencesSalgado, E.G., Salomon, V.A.P., Mello, C.H.P., 2012. Analytic hierarchy prioritisation of new product development activities for electronics manufacturing. International Journal of Production Research 50, 17, 4860–4866spa
dc.relation.referencesSalomon, V.A.P., 2016. Absolute measurement and ideal synthesis on AHP. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 8, 3, 538–545.spa
dc.relation.referencesSalomon, V.A.P., Tramarico, C.L., Marins, F.A.S., 2016. Analytic hierarchy process applied to supply chain management. In De Felice, F., Saaty, T.L., Petrillo, A. (eds) Applications and Theory of Analytic Hierarchy Process: Decision Making for Strategic Decisions. InTech Open, London, pp. 1–16.spa
dc.relation.referencesSato, Y., 2004. Comparison between multiple-choice and analytic hierarchy process: measuring human perception. International Transactions in Operational Research 11, 1, 77–86.spa
dc.relation.referencesShiu, J.Y., Lu, S.T., Chang, D.S., Wu, K.W., 2019. Fuzzy multicriteria decision-making tools for selecting a professional property management company. International Transactions in Operational Research 26, 4, 1527–1557spa
dc.relation.referencesShyjith, K., Ilangkumaran, M., Kumanan, S., 2008. Multi-criteria decision-making approach to evaluate optimum maintenance strategy in textile industry. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 14, 4, 375–386.spa
dc.relation.referencesSiew, R.Y., 2015. A review of corporate sustainability reporting tools (SRTs). Journal of Environmental Management 164, 180–195.spa
dc.relation.referencesStoycheva, S., Marchese, D., Paul, C., Padoan, S., Juhmani, A.S., Linkov, I., 2018. Multi-criteria decision analysis framework for sustainable manufacturing in automotive industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 187, 257–272spa
dc.relation.referencesSubramanian, V., Semenzin, E., Hristozov, D., Marcomini, A., Linkov, I., 2014. Sustainable nanotechnology: defining, measuring and teaching. Nano Today 9, 1, 6–9spa
dc.relation.referencesSvensson, G., Ferro, C., Høgevold, N., Padin, C., Varela, J.C.S., Sarstedt, M., 2018. Framing the triple bottom line approach: direct and mediation effects between economic, social and environmental elements. Journal of Cleaner Production 197, 1, 972–991.spa
dc.relation.referencesSvensson, G., Wagner, B., 2015. Implementing and managing economic, social and environmental efforts of business sustainability: propositions for measurement and structural models. Management of Environmental Quality 26, 2, 195–213.spa
dc.relation.referencesTramarico, C.L., Mizuno, D., Salomon, V.A.P., Marins, F.A.S., 2015. Analytic hierarchy process and supply chain management: a bibliometric study. Procedia Computer Science 55, 441–450.spa
dc.relation.referencesTriantaphyllou, E., 2000. Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study. Springer, Dordrechspa
dc.relation.referencesTyagi, M., Kumar, P., Kumar, D., 2014. A hybrid approach using AHP-TOPSIS for analyzing e-SCM performance. Procedia Engineering 97, 2195–2203spa
dc.relation.referencesWallenius, J., Dyer, J.S., Fishburn, P.C., Steuer, R.E., Zionts, S., Deb, K., 2008. Multiple criteria decision making, multiattribute utility theory: recent accomplishments and what lies ahead. Management Science 54, 7, 1336–134spa
dc.relation.referencesWatróbski, J., Jankowski, J., Ziemba, P., Karczmarczyk, A., Zioło, M., 2019. Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection. Omega 86, 107–124.spa
dc.relation.referencesWCED, 1987. Our common future. Available at https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987ourcommon-future.pdf (accessed May 29, 2020).spa
dc.relation.referencesWhitaker, R., 2007a. Criticisms of the analytic hierarchy process: why they often make no sense. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 46, 7–8, 948–961.spa
dc.relation.referencesWhitaker, R., 2007b. Validation examples of the analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 46, 7–8, 840–859spa
dc.relation.referencesWu, J., Pap, E., Szakal, A., 2018. Two kinds of explicit preference information oriented capacity identification methods in the context of multicriteria decision analysis. International Transactions in Operational Research 25, 3, 807–830.spa
dc.relation.referencesYatsalo, B.I., Kiker, G.A., Kim, J., Bridges, T.S., Seager, T.P., Gardner, K., Satterstrom, F.K., Linkov, I., 2007. Application of multicriteria decision analysis tools to two contaminated sediment case studies. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 3, 2, 223–233.spa
dc.relation.referencesYeh, C.H., 2002. A problem-based selection of multi-attribute decision-making methods. International Transactions in Operational Research 9, 2, 807–830.spa
dc.relation.referencesYin, R.K., 2017. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.spa
dc.relation.referencesZavadskas, E.K., Turskis, Z., Kildiene, S., 2014. State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM/MADM methods. Technological and Economic Development of Economy 20, 1, 165–179spa
dc.relation.referencesZionts, S., 1979. MCDM—if not a Roman numeral, then what? INFORMS Journal on Applied Analytics 9, 4, 94–101spa
dc.type.coarhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501spa
dc.type.contentTextspa
dc.type.driverinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlespa
dc.type.redcolhttp://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ARTspa
dc.type.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersionspa
dc.type.coarversionhttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_ab4af688f83e57aaspa
dc.rights.coarhttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2spa


Ficheros en el ítem

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

  • Artículos científicos [3154]
    Artículos de investigación publicados por miembros de la comunidad universitaria.

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

CC0 1.0 Universal
Excepto si se señala otra cosa, la licencia del ítem se describe como CC0 1.0 Universal