IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i12p5499-d1679047.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Prioritizing Sustainability Innovation in Machinery Manufacturing: A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Muzeyyen Burcu Hidimoglu

    (Department of Mechanical Engineering, Institute of Pure and Applied Sciences, Marmara University, 34722 Istanbul, Türkiye)

  • Ahmet Feyzioglu

    (Department of Mechanical Engineering, Institute of Pure and Applied Sciences, Marmara University, 34722 Istanbul, Türkiye)

  • Huseyin Haliloglu

    (Department of Mechanical Engineering, Institute of Pure and Applied Sciences, Marmara University, 34722 Istanbul, Türkiye)

  • Akın Emrecan Gok

    (Department of Environmental Engineering, Istanbul University-Cerrahpaşa, 34320 Istanbul, Türkiye)

Abstract

Sustainability is a key focus for the machinery manufacturing industry, aiming to align innovation with environmental and economic goals. This research proposes an Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)-based framework to evaluate and rank sustainability-focused innovation criteria. The model was validated using 54,054 projects from CORDIS and TÜBİTAK and a survey of 46 experts from academia, industry, and the public sector. According to AHP results, Economic Criteria ranked highest (46%), followed by Product-Related Environmental (18%), Market (16%), Process-Related Environmental (13%), and Social Criteria (7%). Product Cost (45%), Elimination of Hazardous Substances (30%), and Occupational Health and Safety (29%) ranked highest among sub-criteria, reflecting the dominance of financial and regulatory priorities. Social and process-related criteria were less prioritized unless linked to regulatory compliance. The framework provides a practical tool for innovation leaders and policymakers aiming to embed sustainability in strategic planning. It aligns with global initiatives like the Paris Agreement and the European Green Deal, contributing to both theory and practice in industrial sustainability.

Suggested Citation

  • Muzeyyen Burcu Hidimoglu & Ahmet Feyzioglu & Huseyin Haliloglu & Akın Emrecan Gok, 2025. "Prioritizing Sustainability Innovation in Machinery Manufacturing: A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-33, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:12:p:5499-:d:1679047
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/12/5499/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/12/5499/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vargas, Luis G., 1990. "An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 2-8, September.
    2. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    3. Forman, Ernest & Peniwati, Kirti, 1998. "Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 165-169, July.
    4. Giacomo Falcone & Anna Irene De Luca & Teodora Stillitano & Alfio Strano & Giuseppa Romeo & Giovanni Gulisano, 2016. "Assessment of Environmental and Economic Impacts of Vine-Growing Combining Life Cycle Assessment, Life Cycle Costing and Multicriterial Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-34, August.
    5. Vaidya, Omkarprasad S. & Kumar, Sushil, 2006. "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 1-29, February.
    6. Weber, K. Matthias & Schaper-Rinkel, Petra, 2017. "European sectoral innovation foresight: Identifying emerging cross-sectoral patterns and policy issues," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 240-250.
    7. 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).
    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. Ferenc Bognár & Petra Benedek, 2022. "A Novel AHP-PRISM Risk Assessment Method—An Empirical Case Study in a Nuclear Power Plant," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-15, September.
    2. Yeh, Chung-Hsing & Chang, Yu-Hern, 2009. "Modeling subjective evaluation for fuzzy group multicriteria decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 194(2), pages 464-473, April.
    3. Marios Tsioufis & Antonios Fytopoulos & Dimitra Kalaitzi & Thomas A. Alexopoulos, 2024. "Discovering maritime-piracy hotspots: a study based on AHP and spatio-temporal analysis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 335(2), pages 861-883, April.
    4. Ormerod, Richard J. & Ulrich, Werner, 2013. "Operational research and ethics: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 291-307.
    5. Bartłomiej Kizielewicz & Jarosław Wątróbski & Wojciech Sałabun, 2020. "Identification of Relevant Criteria Set in the MCDA Process—Wind Farm Location Case Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-40, December.
    6. Olga Porro & Francesc Pardo-Bosch & Núria Agell & Mónica Sánchez, 2020. "Understanding Location Decisions of Energy Multinational Enterprises within the European Smart Cities’ Context: An Integrated AHP and Extended Fuzzy Linguistic TOPSIS Method," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-29, May.
    7. Lucas, Rochelle Irene & Promentilla, Michael Angelo & Ubando, Aristotle & Tan, Raymond Girard & Aviso, Kathleen & Yu, Krista Danielle, 2017. "An AHP-based evaluation method for teacher training workshop on information and communication technology," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 93-100.
    8. Siraj, Sajid & Mikhailov, Ludmil & Keane, John A., 2015. "Contribution of individual judgments toward inconsistency in pairwise comparisons," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(2), pages 557-567.
    9. Fuat Sekmen & Isa Demirkol & Haşmet Gökırmak, 2024. "Evaluation of urban transportation preferences with analytical hierarchy process method," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 58(3), pages 2087-2101, June.
    10. Aleksandra Król-Badziak & Jerzy Kozyra & Stelios Rozakis, 2024. "Evaluation of Climate Suitability for Maize Production in Poland under Climate Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-21, August.
    11. Zsuzsanna Katalin Szabo & Zsombor Szádoczki & Sándor Bozóki & Gabriela C. Stănciulescu & Dalma Szabo, 2021. "An Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach for Prioritisation of Strategic Objectives of Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-26, February.
    12. Yao, Yue & Sun, Deqiang & Xu, Jin-Hua & Wang, Bin & Peng, Guohong & Sun, Bingmei, 2023. "Evaluation of enhanced oil recovery methods for mature continental heavy oil fields in China based on geology, technology and sustainability criteria," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 278(PB).
    13. Dong, Yucheng & Xu, Yinfeng & Li, Hongyi & Dai, Min, 2008. "A comparative study of the numerical scales and the prioritization methods in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(1), pages 229-242, April.
    14. Tohid Atashbar, 2013. "Iranian Disease: Why a Developing Country's Government Did Not Listen to Economists' Advices," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(3), pages 732-760, July.
    15. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Analytic hierarchy process-hesitant group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(3), pages 794-801.
    16. Francesco Ciardiello & Andrea Genovese, 2023. "A comparison between TOPSIS and SAW methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 967-994, June.
    17. Alessio Ishizaka & Enrique Mu, 2023. "What is so special about the analytic hierarchy and network process?," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(2), pages 625-634, July.
    18. Milan Ranđelović & Jelena Stanković & Kristijan Kuk & Gordana Savić & Dragan Ranđelović, 2018. "An Approach to Determining the Importance of Model Criteria in Certifying a City as Business-Friendly," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 48(2), pages 156-165, April.
    19. Lee, Hakyeon & Geum, Youngjung, 2017. "Development of the scenario-based technology roadmap considering layer heterogeneity: An approach using CIA and AHP," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 12-24.
    20. de Luca, Stefano, 2014. "Public engagement in strategic transportation planning: An analytic hierarchy process based approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 110-124.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:12:p:5499-:d:1679047. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.