Multi-criteria analysis and the resolution of sustainable development dilemmas: A stakeholder management approach
We demonstrate that stakeholder-oriented multi-criteria analysis (MCA) can adequately address a variety of sustainable development dilemmas in decision-making, especially when applied to complex project evaluations involving multiple objectives and multiple stakeholder groups. Such evaluations are typically geared towards satisfying simultaneously private economic goals, broader social objectives and environmental targets. We show that, under specific conditions, a variety of stakeholder-oriented MCA approaches may be able to contribute substantively to the resolution or improved governance of societal conflicts and the pursuit of the public good in the form of sustainable development. We contrast the potential usefulness of these stakeholder-oriented approaches – in terms of their ability to contribute to sustainable development – with more conventional MCA approaches and social cost–benefit analysis.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Brans, J. P. & Vincke, Ph. & Mareschal, B., 1986. "How to select and how to rank projects: The method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 228-238, February.
- Brugha, Cathal M., 2004. "Phased multicriteria preference finding," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(2), pages 308-316, October.
- Sen, Amartya, 2000. "The Discipline of Cost-Benefit Analysis," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29(2), pages 931-52, June.
- Brugha, Cathal M., 2000. "Relative measurement and the power function," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 121(3), pages 627-640, March.
- Bana e Costa, Carlos A. & Ensslin, Leonardo & Correa, Emerson C. & Vansnick, Jean-Claude, 1999. "Decision Support Systems in action: Integrated application in a multicriteria decision aid process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 113(2), pages 315-335, March.
- Frank, Robert H, 1985. "The Demand for Unobservable and Other Nonpositional Goods," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(1), pages 101-16, March.
- Bertrand Mareschal & Jean Pierre Brans & Philippe Vincke, 1986. "How to select and how to rank projects: the Prométhée method," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9307, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
- Thomas L. Saaty, 1986. "Axiomatic Foundation of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(7), pages 841-855, July.
- Sen, Amartya Kumar, 2000. "The Discipline of Costâ€Benefit Analysis," Scholarly Articles 3444801, Harvard University Department of Economics.
- Thaler, Richard, 1980. "Toward a positive theory of consumer choice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 39-60, March.
- Macharis, Cathy & Springael, Johan & De Brucker, Klaas & Verbeke, Alain, 2004. "PROMETHEE and AHP: The design of operational synergies in multicriteria analysis.: Strengthening PROMETHEE with ideas of AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 153(2), pages 307-317, March.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:224:y:2013:i:1:p:122-131. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.