IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/epw/ejeng0/v4y2019i10id61551.html

Improving Company's Environmental Performance Through Measurement Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Method

Author

Listed:
  • Abdelhay Haddach
  • Mouna BENFSSAHI

Abstract

Currently environmental performance is a burner topic for researchers and is also one of the major concerns of business leaders. To evaluate this performance, more and more of these leaders are putting in place some management tools recommended by ISO 14000 standards, such as audits and environmental indicators. For decades, several companies have become aware the need to develop tools for evaluating their environmental performance: "it is difficult to manage what is not measured". These companies have difficulty to setting up a suitable method to evaluate their environmental performance. Several tools have been developed recently to help companies in the development of their panel of environmental performance indicators. The main objective of this paper is to present an integrated methodology to perform this evaluation, based on issues which significantly affect the environment. So, through this work, we purpose a tool which will allow the assessment of this performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Abdelhay Haddach & Mouna BENFSSAHI, 2019. "Improving Company's Environmental Performance Through Measurement Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Method," European Journal of Engineering and Technology Research, European Open Science, vol. 4(10), pages 93-97, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:epw:ejeng0:v:4:y:2019:i:10:id:61551
    DOI: 10.24018/ejeng.2019.4.10.1551
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://eu-opensci.org/index.php/ejeng/article/view/61551
    File Function: Abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://eu-opensci.org/index.php/ejeng/article/download/61551/12254
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.24018/ejeng.2019.4.10.1551?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James S. Dyer, 1990. "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 249-258, March.
    2. Hammami, Ramzi & Frein, Yannick & Hadj-Alouane, Atidel B., 2009. "A strategic-tactical model for the supply chain design in the delocalization context: Mathematical formulation and a case study," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 351-365, November.
    3. Lakhal, Salem & Martel, Alain & Kettani, Ossama & Oral, Muhittin, 2001. "On the optimization of supply chain networking decisions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(2), pages 259-270, March.
    4. James S. Dyer, 1990. "A Clarification of "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process"," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 274-275, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Schniederjans, Marc J. & Garvin, Tim, 1997. "Using the analytic hierarchy process and multi-objective programming for the selection of cost drivers in activity-based costing," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 100(1), pages 72-80, July.
    2. Shanshan Hu & Xiangjun Cheng & Demin Zhou & Hong Zhang, 2017. "GIS-based flood risk assessment in suburban areas: a case study of the Fangshan District, Beijing," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 87(3), pages 1525-1543, July.
    3. Cinelli, Marco & Kadziński, Miłosz & Gonzalez, Michael & Słowiński, Roman, 2020. "How to support the application of multiple criteria decision analysis? Let us start with a comprehensive taxonomy," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    4. Linares, Pedro, 2009. "Are inconsistent decisions better? An experiment with pairwise comparisons," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 193(2), pages 492-498, March.
    5. Mikhailov, L., 2004. "A fuzzy approach to deriving priorities from interval pairwise comparison judgements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 159(3), pages 687-704, December.
    6. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Solomon, Anthony & Wishart, Nicole & Dublish, Sandipa, 1998. "Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 507-529, June.
    7. Kun Chen & Gang Kou & J. Michael Tarn & Yan Song, 2015. "Bridging the gap between missing and inconsistent values in eliciting preference from pairwise comparison matrices," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 235(1), pages 155-175, December.
    8. Suwignjo, P. & Bititci, U. S & Carrie, A. S, 2000. "Quantitative models for performance measurement system," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1-3), pages 231-241, March.
    9. Gomez-Limon, J.A. & Atance, I., 2004. "Identification of public objectives related to agricultural sector support," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 26(8-9), pages 1045-1071, December.
    10. Margaret H. Kurth & Sabrina Larkin & Jeffrey M. Keisler & Igor Linkov, 2017. "Trends and applications of multi-criteria decision analysis: use in government agencies," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 134-143, June.
    11. Madjid Tavana & Mariya Sodenkamp & Leena Suhl, 2010. "A soft multi-criteria decision analysis model with application to the European Union enlargement," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 393-421, December.
    12. Huang, Samuel H. & Keskar, Harshal, 2007. "Comprehensive and configurable metrics for supplier selection," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(2), pages 510-523, February.
    13. Ahti Salo & Antti Punkka, 2011. "Ranking Intervals and Dominance Relations for Ratio-Based Efficiency Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(1), pages 200-214, January.
    14. Hoene, Andreas & Jawale, Mandar & Neukirchen, Thomas & Bednorz, Nicole & Schulz, Holger & Hauser, Simon, 2019. "Bewertung von Technologielösungen für Automatisierung und Ergonomieunterstützung der Intralogistik," ild Schriftenreihe 64, FOM Hochschule für Oekonomie & Management, Institut für Logistik- & Dienstleistungsmanagement (ild).
    15. Mubashir Hayat & Herwig Winkler, 2022. "An Analytic Hierarchy Process for Selection of Blockchain-Based Platform for Product Lifecycle Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-20, October.
    16. Amina Ibrahim Inkani & Sani Abubakar Mashi & Safirat Sani, 2025. "Towards enhanced climate change adaptation: using traditional ecological knowledge to understand the environmental effects of urban growth in Abuja, Nigeria," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 27(11), pages 26973-27007, November.
    17. Carland, Corinne & Goentzel, Jarrod & Montibeller, Gilberto, 2018. "Modeling the values of private sector agents in multi-echelon humanitarian supply chains," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 269(2), pages 532-543.
    18. Alphan, Hakan, 2024. "Incorporating visibility information into multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) for wind turbine deployment," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 353(PB).
    19. Tomislav Sunko & Marko Mladineo & Mirjana Kovačić & Toni Mišković, 2024. "Multi-Criteria Analysis of Coast Guard Resource Deployment for Improvement of Maritime Safety and Environmental Protection: Case Study of Eastern Adriatic Sea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-17, August.
    20. Tomashevskii, I.L., 2015. "Eigenvector ranking method as a measuring tool: Formulas for errors," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 240(3), pages 774-780.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:epw:ejeng0:v:4:y:2019:i:10:id:61551. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://eu-opensci.org/index.php/ejeng .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.