Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
mathematics
Article
Evaluating the Application of CSR in the High-Tech Industry
during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Shih-Chia Chang 1, Ming-Tsang Lu 1, *, Mei-Jen Chen 1and Li-Hua Huang 2
Citation: Chang, S.-C.; Lu, M.-T.;
Chen, M.-J.; Huang, L.-H. Evaluating
the Application of CSR in the
High-Tech Industry during the
COVID-19 Pandemic. Mathematics
2021,9, 1715. https://doi.org/
10.3390/math9151715
Academic Editor: Mar Arenas-Parra
Received: 31 May 2021
Accepted: 20 July 2021
Published: 21 July 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
1Department of Business Administration, National Taipei University of Business, Taipei 10051, Taiwan;
chang@ntub.edu.tw (S.-C.C.); grace@ntub.edu.tw (M.-J.C.)
2Department of Accounting Information, National Taipei University of Business, Taipei 10051, Taiwan;
dbacpa@ntub.edu.tw
*Correspondence: mingtsang@ntub.edu.tw; Tel.: +886-2-2322-6325
Abstract:
Since its conception, corporate social responsibility (CSR) has seen continuous growth and
become a highly discussed issue. In this paper, we propose an evaluation of how the COVID-19
pandemic could impact CSR applications. The pandemic has provided an opportunity for commerce
to move on to being more authentic, to offer genuine CSR applications and to contribute toward
dealing with pressing environmental and social issues. Hence, this purpose of the research is to obtain
a better understanding of whether the integration of environment, social, corporate governance and
economic (ESGE) aspects into CSR strategies can support sustainable development toward more
sustainable growth during the COVID-19 pandemic. To meet this challenge, we offer a mixture
multiple-criteria decision making (MCDM) model. Very few empirical studies have discussed CSR in
the high-tech industry and proposed strategies and planning for ESGE efficiency. Using interviews
with experts and a literature review, we identify the elements related to actual practices of the high-
tech industry’s appraisal and the integrated MCDM techniques to suggest efficient enhancement
models. The best worst method (BWM) and modified VIKOR are implemented to estimate the
strategic weights and the gaps of the aspiration value. The results are valuable for classifying the
priorities of CSR and are therefore helpful for those who are associated with high-tech industry
management, practices and implementation.
Keywords:
corporate social responsibility (CSR); COVID-19 pandemic; MCDM (multiple-criteria
decision making); best worst method (BWM); modified VIKOR method
1. Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the most important changes in the current industrial
development environment and could have a profound effect on the fundamental philoso-
phies of administration and corporate social responsibility (CSR). The acute influence of
COVID-19 was felt immediately, owing to the extensive social distancing and lockdown
measures enforced worldwide. While the crisis phase of the COVID-19 pandemic will even-
tually end, it will have enduring profound environmental, social, corporate governance
and economic influences. The governments of the world have built economic aid packages,
mostly to mitigate the pressure placed upon the weakest industries (e.g., hospitality, travel,
tourism and small businesses). These measures need to encourage companies to fulfill their
CSR commitments and maintain ethical business practices for their numerous stakeholders.
Twitter has pledged to donate USD 1 billion to tackle the pandemic [
1
]. Hence, there is
an excellent opportunity to investigate how the pandemic impacts industry CSR and its
estimated factors.
CSR has its very foundation in the environment and ecosystems and has the capability
to adjust or change environments [
2
]. CSR is a significant subject for the stakeholders,
administrators, consumers and practitioners of current industries or companies [
3
]. The
issues of vertical integration and globalization have enhanced the concentration on CSR
Mathematics 2021,9, 1715. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9151715 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/mathematics
Mathematics 2021,9, 1715 2 of 16
applications during the COVID-19 pandemic. It has been established that CSR can en-
hance the competitive advantages of industries or companies. The principles of CSR are
implemented in many industries, which has led to the emergence of many conceptions of
CSR [
4
]. In the past several decades, the CSR literature has demonstrated a tremendous
improvement in the number of quantitative and qualitative works dealing with various
subjects, such as improving green flexibility with advanced manufacturing technology,
green supply chain management or environmental production and sustainability [
5
–
7
].
The goals of corporate CSR development involve a triple bottom line of research, mixing
economic, environmental and social topics in the procedures. Moreover, corporate gov-
ernance is also an important issue for CSR. These aspects (environment, social, corporate
governance and economic) are indicators of the CSR performances of companies, such as
the performances in terms of risk management and management capability in the COVID-
19 pandemic [
8
–
10
]. The need to decrease human-induced environmental change in order
to prevent the diminishing growth of economies is critical for maintaining sustainable
growth. Studies on CSR flourished before the pandemic and could reasonably be claimed
to be one of the most widely cited and read management fields.
Owing to the breakout of the COVID-19 pandemic, the rate of unemployment has
increased and many areas of commerce have shut down. The World Health Organization
(WHO) has stated that COVID-19 has become a major global crisis challenging the industrial
environment, which could ultimately have a negative influence on business practices
and CSR [
11
,
12
]. Until now, the high-tech industry has not had to plan for a pandemic.
Furthermore, CSR has been marginalized due to governments, society and organizations
struggling to survive during the pandemic. The pandemic is creating novel challenges
for CSR, primarily because many companies are facing negative effects such as company
bankruptcy, market downturn, revenue loss, employee resignations, etc. However, the
high-tech industry has been less impacted during the COVID-19 pandemic in Taiwan;
some big companies such as TSMC and Foxconn have offered to purchase and import the
BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines to Taiwan’s people for CSR. Hence, we see COVID-19 era
as an opportunity for the high-tech industry to rethink their CSR practices concerning a
shift in their sustainable development and CSR strategies. Therefore, the objective of our
research is to extend our understanding of CSR by exploring the more current influences of
the COVID-19 pandemic in the high-tech industry.
Here, we state some preliminary ideas about how the COVID-19 pandemic could
impact the CSR field. In terms of CSR application, we evaluate the decision-making
procedure of CSR in the high-tech industry. We focus on the potential consequences on
key CSR viewpoints and the framework for a strategy addressing environment, social,
corporate governance and economic (ESGE) aspects. The other main subject of this work
is risk management and management capability. There has been limited attention in the
CSR literature to similar risks and pandemics in the high-tech industry. Nevertheless, the
COVID-19 pandemic has emphasized the role of high-tech industry as an actor that is
extremely exposed to such needs and risks.
This paper aims to overcome these challenges by developing a technique for CSR
application making use of MCDM (multiple-criteria decision making). The output attained
from the proposed approach will provide valuable input for CSR strategic procedures
in the high-tech industry during the COVID-19 pandemic. This approach can overcome
the problems of group opinion in specialists’ responses by adopting the most consistent
agreement regarding observations about the assessment factors [
13
]. The application of
CSR assessments for the industry includes multiple elements of MCDM during the COVID-
19 pandemic. Many approaches have been put forth aiming to address organizational
performance, such as DEMATEL (Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory) [
14
],
AHP (analytic hierarchy process) [
15
] and DEA (data envelopment analysis) [
16
]. However,
these CSR studies have numerous limitations. Since they focus on only one element,
they cannot fuse several elements of performance. Likewise, they are insufficient for
understanding the effective weights of these factors and important aspects, and hence do
Mathematics 2021,9, 1715 3 of 16
not accurately assess gaps in performance. To resolve these shortcomings, we apply BWM
(best worst method) and the modified VIKOR method to assess all performances [
17
–
19
].
This MCDM approach has two phases. First, the BWM technique is applied to analyze
and prioritize the choice factor according to the CSR application, and VIKOR is used to
rank and evaluate the best CSR performance. BWM is an innovative MCDM approach that
offers better performance than ANP or AHP [
17
–
19
]. Next, to prevent the shortcomings
of the conventional VIKOR method, we used a modified VIKOR method, replacing the
relatively good through the aspirated levels in order to prevent the “stop-gap piecemeal”
complication. Modified VIKOR is an effective method applied in numerous research
works to prioritize the alternatives with respective factors. Numerous studies have utilized
integrated methods for choosing the best alternatives.
The chief contributions of this work are briefly stated below. Primarily, the study ana-
lyzes the influence weight of CSR’s effects on the high-tech industry during the
COVID-19
pandemic and studies how and to what extent CSR is connected with economic aspects
affecting the high-tech industry. Second, this study integrates BWM and modified VIKOR
approaches to enhance an estimation technique that ranks the comparative influential
weights in combination with these aspects and elements. Lastly, the outcomes of this
study offer pragmatic guidance for planning CSR implementation in the high-tech industry
during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2presents the findings of
a literature review examining the elements that influence CSR issues. Section 3provides
the details of the proposed combined MCDM approach. A case study is presented, and an
investigation of the outcomes is provided in Section 4. Section 5draws conclusions from
the work.
2. Literature Review
This section covers a selection of the CSR literature and the measures proposed
in this paper.
2.1. Related Literature on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
The improved consideration for CSR as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic led to
market changes and demonstrates how CSR protects the values of companies in a crisis.
The thought was caused in the theory of CSR, involving institutional, legitimacy and
stakeholder theory, among others. The theory describes that the form of CSR engagement
is determined through a business’ relationships with its stakeholders, and it allows the
company to legitimize and assist in the relationships with its stakeholders, and with the
environment, social, corporate governance and economic aspects within the corporation’s
sphere of influence. [
20
–
22
]. Put distinctly, for a company to grow and survive, it must
legitimize its actions as congruent with the objectives of society and the company, and as
aligned with the interests of its numerous stakeholders [
20
,
23
]. These implications of the
theory are that CSR actions are improving as they are congruent through the environment
and these requirements of stakeholders.
The applications and consequences of CSR affect stakeholders and are scrutinized
via numerous dissimilar parties. The important problem is whether companies influence
their aims via improving sustainable development and promoting the necessary aspects
(environment, social, corporate governance and economic aspects) in their CSR programs.
According to the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, corporate
social responsibility is a business’ responsibility to operate constantly via an ethics code,
to contribute to the development of the economy and to improve the quality of life of its
employees, as well as that of society at large and the local community. Hence, corporations
need to maximize their profits and prompt the cares regarding stakeholders, socially
vulnerable groups and the conservation environment [
24
,
25
]. At present, an increasing
number of corporations are declaring CSR guarantees, as CSR has developed a significant
role in business governance [
25
,
26
]. Additionally, corporations are likely to maximize
Mathematics 2021,9, 1715 4 of 16
business performance in consideration of their responsibility to the environment and
society. CSR has recently become a main concern [25,27].
With the growing knowledge economy and the COVID-19 pandemic, businesses
are no longer just tracking proceeds. The value and competitiveness of firms now pri-
marily come through the applications of CSR, namely, the CSR of intelligent capital, the
administration of client relationships and the responsibilities to society. The high-tech
industry is knowledge-centric. The continuous consideration of CSR in terms of production
equipment, innovation strategy and other capital is needed. As a result of these activities,
products have high added value, which increases profits for corporations. The profits of
innovation produced through CSR activities are the driving force for businesses to sustain
a competitive advantage [28–30].
Previous studies do not deal with interrelations and do not include market conditions
in their evaluation. These studies indicate that there are interrelationships among environ-
mental management, social impacts, corporate governance and economic performance,
but have failed to investigate the influence of these interrelations. Previous research also
neglects qualitative information and linguistic preferences [
31
–
33
]. For example, statistical
approaches and panel data have helped in the investigation of this combination of ESGE
strategies for a CSR strategy of sustainable development. Linear regressions through a
panel of data can investigate data from listed companies and existing superior perfor-
mance while controlling for companies’ scope [
31
]. The technique for order preferences via
comparison to ideal situations (TOPSIS) deals with the combination of CSR aspects into
this assessment procedure [
32
]. A corporate sustainability strategy can use an illustrative
statistical technique to understand how the approach impacts this corporate model in an
effort to improve effectiveness [34,35].
2.2. Related Literature on the Elements Influencing CSR in High-Tech Industry
CSR is a strategic process with a latent positive effect on sustainability via the mixture
of environment, social, corporate governance and economic aspects into CSR strategies.
The description of these elements and aspects of the proposed measurement model are
provided in Table 1.
Table 1. CSR measurement model.
Aspect Element Description
Environment aspect (A1)
Resource reduction (RR) Minimizing the resources used to produce
a product
Product innovation (PI) Firm innovation performance
Emissions reduction (ER) Emissions produced by a firm
Social aspect (A2)
Product responsibility (PR) Provide services and products by green concepts
Community (CO) The role of the company in the community
Human rights (HR) The staff are qualified per the law
Employment quality (EQ) The quality of employment required for living
standards is obtained through the company
Corporate governance aspect (A3)
Compensation policy (CP) The ratio to pay the compensation and
executive strategy
Board functions (BF) The functions of the trustee board in the company
Vision and strategy (VS) Vision and strategy in the company
Shareholder rights (SR) The rights of the shareholders in the firm
Economic aspect (A4)
Shareholder loyalty (SL) The loyalty of shareholders to CSR
Firm performance (FP) The economic performance of the company
each month
Client loyalty (CL) Clients’ loyalty to the investors
Environment aspect (A
1
): the environment aspect is a practical and systematic ap-
proach to finding water and saving energy, which can decrease negative influences of
business practices on the environment in order to minimalize any irreparable ecological
Mathematics 2021,9, 1715 5 of 16
damage while aiding in emissions and resources [
36
]. For example, the high-tech industry
constantly considers its energy efficiency, which is applied for improving production inno-
vation and procedures. This aspect also classifies attributes which increase the protection
of resources. Consequently, proactive environmental management is an important issue
because it helps to protect and preserve distinct CSR destinations and attain recognition
for environmental stewardship [
37
]. Resource reduction (RR), product innovation (PI) and
emission reduction (ER) are the most important sub-factors in the environment aspect.
Social aspect (A
2
): undertaking social initiatives is an important CSR activity and
appeals to the social awareness of employees and consumers. This social influence is
stated as the quality of employee alive values made from the industry through building
up social changes with profits, practices and goals. The role of these industries is to
benefit the stakeholder community and offer green services and products through green
responsibility. Industry practices its social influence through providing resources such
as services, products, or money to social causes [
34
]. Generally, bigger companies have
more resources that can provide assistance to local community stakeholders and charities.
Industries must still improve the percentage allocated for philanthropic contributions.
Workers are the qualified actors under the regulations and laws, and have a positive
influence on this stakeholder community. Hence, product responsibility (PR), community
(CO), human rights (HR) and employment quality (EQ) are the most important sub-factors
in the social aspect.
Corporate governance aspect (A
3
): corporate governance identifies the distribution
of responsibilities and rights amongst stakeholders such as shareholders, managers, regu-
lators, creditors, boards of directors and others, and comprises the procedures and rules
for making choices in company matters [
34
]. All of the stakeholders are topic to comprise
procedures by compensation policy (CP), board functions (BF), vision and strategy (VS)
and shareholder rights (SR), and the objects are pursued and set in the background of the
market regulatory and social environment.
Economic aspect (A
4
): the economic aspect exists as there is the opportunity for the
industry to experience losses owing to risks which impact the performance of the entire
marketplace [
38
]. Specific risk and market risk are determined as shareholder loyalty
(SL), firm performance (FP) and client loyalty (CL), and are also the important factors of
economic aspect. Nevertheless, the risks of market are according to the performance of
corporate governance.
3. Establishing This CSR Application Based on an Integrated MCDM Model
This section presents the procedure and summarizes the proposed approach to the
evaluation of CSR elements using the MCDM model. There is a set of CSR activities for
a company to implement green concepts, but because of constraints in financial capital,
human resources, etc., numerous alternatives (i.e., CSR portfolios) might be implemented
in this phase. Multiple methods have been used to consider environment, social, corporate
governance and economic aspects, owing to their multidimensionality as a resolution to the
issues experienced via administrators as challenging this compound conception [31–33].
Supervisors in the high-tech industry in Taiwan during the COVID-19 pandemic have
faced many challenges. When the industry’s CSR application triggers greater attention,
most studies focus on the ability of players involved in the adoption of CSR instead
of the compatibility of management with the related operational context. We therefore
propose an MCDM that assesses the degree of element preferences to judge the weights
of the effects of numerous elements, and to classify the most influential factors in CSR
implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Empirical research is employed to
exemplify these applications of the proposed mixture MCDM approach for selecting and
estimating this optimal improvement approach. This approach will also support managers
in understanding how to develop their assessment of CSR applications, through this object
of realizing the aspersion value to CSR performance in relation to dissimilar elements
and aspects during the COVID-19 pandemic. Given that CSR application development
Mathematics 2021,9, 1715 6 of 16
frequently happens well before there are enough points to precisely assess CSR alternatives,
an expert questionnaire is introduced to grade each perspective. The data collected from
these CSR expert appraisers are analyzed by integrated MCDM models. First, BWM is
applied to construct the ranking. The modified VIKOR (m-VIKOR) model is used to find
these performance values at the target level. Finally, the outcomes are presented in useful
models for decision-making.
MCDM is an approach that can study multiple elements simultaneously and supports
administrators in evaluating a better situation according to these features, but it is limited
by available circumstances [
17
–
19
]. This study uses an application of MCDM that is fit
for evaluating CSR because it enables the measurement of multidimensional concepts
such as CSR, applying both quantitative and qualitative elements while considering expert
knowledge. Integrated MCDM investigative tools are applied in this study, including
BWM and the modified VIKOR approach.
First, experts (including industry academicians and professionals) finalized and iden-
tified the assessment factors with the support of discussions and the recent literature. Next,
the chosen factors were assessed and the respective weights of the factors and sub-factors
were determined by applying BWM; next, ranking of the CSR application was carried
out by applying the m-VIKOR method. Even though factor assessment and alternative
choice can be accomplished via other MCDM approaches (TOPSIS, AHP, DANP, etc.),
these methods include numerous pairwise comparisons that need frequent consistency
checks and huge amounts of data [
39
–
41
]. To solve this matter the best worst method was
used here [
42
,
43
]. This method offers more consistent outcomes as compared to AHP, and
requires less data [
42
,
43
]. Moreover, numerous researchers have used the BWM method
in many applications, such as sustainable outsourcing partner selection, service quality,
etc. [
41
,
44
]. Moreover, the m-VIKOR method has been broadly applied for the evaluation
of alternatives [
17
–
19
]. It works on a compromise program design that leads to superior
outcomes in comparison to other methods. M-VIKOR is preferred in alternatives evaluation
as compared to other approaches (ELECTRE, TOPSIS, etc.), since it measures closeness to
positive ideal points, which decreases the gap in decisions and improves managers’ deci-
sion making [
17
–
19
]. The m-VIKOR technique optimizes the consequences and selects the
best alternative with high accuracy. The evaluation of CSR application can be accomplished
by a single approach [
45
] but mixing one approach with other decision support systems
can enhance the decision quality. This led us to apply these methods in the present work.
A flow diagram of the research process is illustrated in Figure 1.
Mathematics 2021,9, 1715 7 of 16
Figure 1. Procedure of the current study.
3.1. Establishing the Ranking and Significant Weight with the BWM
The BWM method proposed by Rezaei [
42
,
43
] is one of the numerous ways to apply
MCDM in order to define the weights of elements. Compared with an AHP survey, the
users of BWM need to answer fewer questions and therefore need to study the consistency
of these outcomes for longer. This approach has been broadly applied in strategic issues
in numerous fields, including the food supply chain context [
46
], machinery manufactur-
ing [
47
], education [
48
], environmental protection and CSR [
49
], government policy [
50
],
energy [
51
], aviation [
52
], etc. The frequency with which the method is applied is dramati-
cally increasing over time. BWM develops the weights by best pairwise comparison and
the worst elements according to other elements [42,43]. The BWM method is described in
the following.
Phase 1. Define a series of estimation factors.
Let there be nseparate estimation elements
{b1,b2, . . . , bn}
as determined by review
of the related literature and expert experience. These elements for estimating alternatives
are critical, and they meaningfully influence the outcome of decisions.
Phase 2. Define the best and worst elements.
The managers choose the elements which they consider to be the best. The worst
elements are also defined. In this phase, only the elements are considered, not their weights.
Phase 3. Conduct comparisons to find the best element.
Mathematics 2021,9, 1715 8 of 16
The administrators identify the best element bover the other factors jon a 1 to 9
ranking scale. This subsequent best-to-others (BO) vector is
DC=(dC1,dBC2, . . . , dCn),
where dBj is the favor of the best element bover elements j. Obviously, dCC =1.
Phase 4. Conduct the favor comparisons for the worst element.
The correlative significance of the other factors jto the worst factor Wis given by
these managers on a 1 to 9 ranking scale. This subsequent others-to-worst (OW) vector is
DW=(d1W,d2W, . . . , dnW )E
where djW is the favor of element jover the worst element W. Obviously,dWW =1.
Phase 5. Find the optimal weights: w∗
1,w∗
2, . . . , w∗
n
The optimal weights are achieved when the maximum absolute dissimilarities
wC
wj−dCj
and
wj
wW−djW
for all jare minimized, as interpreted in the following min–max model, as
expressed in Equation (1):
minmax
jwC−dCj wj,wj−djW wW
s. t.
∑
j
wj=1,
wj≥0, for all j. (1)
Model (1) is equal to next typical, as expressed in Equation (2):
min z;
s. t.
wC−dCj wj≤y, for all j,
wj−djW wW≤y, for all j,
∑
j
wj=1,
wj≥0, for all j. (2)
For any level of z, increasing these initial series of the limitations of model (2) via w
j
and the next series of limitations by w
W
, the result space of model (2) is an intersection of
4n
−
5 linear limitations (2 (2n
−
3) assessment limitations and 1 limitation for these sums
of weights); therefore, assuming an adequately large z, this resolution space is nonempty.
Resolving model (2), the weights of optimum
w∗
1,w∗
2, . . . , w∗
n
and z
*
can be obtained. The
sum of elements’ weights is 1 and this criterion weight is greater than or equal to 0.
3.2. Establishing the Weighted-Gap Levels by Modified VIKOR
Modified VIKOR is applied to solve discrete data MCDM problems. The method’s
purpose is to determine the compromise solution which is the nearest to this ideal point.
According to the review article published by Lu et al. [17], VIKOR has been implemented
for many years, in applications such as sustainable performance evaluation for Industry
4.0 [
19
], green performance [
53
] and mobile banking implementation [
54
]. We offer a
modified VIKOR model to define the weighted gaps of performance under each element
to realize the improved space. This study utilizes the “target quality” to substitute the
concept of “relative good” used in the modified VIKOR through investigation of weighted
gaps [55–58].
Phase 1. Decide the best and worst performance values under each element
(hj*and hj−)
.
Mathematics 2021,9, 1715 9 of 16
The types of evaluation factors can be separated into cost and benefit; if the jth
factor represents a benefit,
h−
j=min
ihij
and
h∗
j=max
ihij
. Conversely, if the jth criterion
constitutes a cost, h∗
j=min
ihij and h−
j=max
ihij .
Phase 2. Find the gap-ratio values
This concept of applying VIKOR to define these weighted-gap values was followed
by Opricovic and Tzeng [
59
]. Hence, we modified the conventional VIKOR to replace the
relative good notion with the target values. In this way, each alternative can acquire more
objective and meaningful gap-ratio values. The decision system consisted of jelements
and galternatives, each of which had a performance value denoted as
hgj
. This weight
of element jis expressed as w
j
, which is defined through this BWM. The development of
this VIKOR technique began with the next conventional plus-modus of this L
v
metric, as
expressed in Equation (3).
Lv
g=(n
∑
j=1
[wj(h∗
j−hgj )/(h∗
j−h−
j)]
v)1/v
(3)
where nis the number of factors, 1
≤
v
≤∞
and g= 1, 2,
. . .
,m. Formulating these
weighted gaps and ranking, the measurements
Lv=1
g
and
Lv=∞
g
are applied in this VIKOR
technique, as expressed in Equations (4) and (5) [60,61].
Lv=1
g=Qi=
n
∑
j=1
[wj(h∗
j−hgj )/(h∗
j−h−
j)] (4)
Lv=∞
g=Si=max
jn(h∗
j−hgj )/(h∗
j−h−
j)|j=1, 2, . . . , no(5)
and they can be defined as
rgj =h∗
j−hgj /h∗
j−h−
j
to indicate the alternative’s gap
ratio kfor element jas a gap. This compromise resolution min
kLv
k
illustrates this integrates
the ratio of the gap to be minimized via the adjunct by Equation (4), as
Lv=∞
g
illustrates
this precedence to enhance the maximal gap ratio for the factors in each aspect, or for all
elements (Equation (5)). The best
h∗
j
levels are then built to be the target value and the
worst
h−
j
levels as the tolerable value for all elements, j= 1, 2,
. . .
,n. In this research, we
build
h∗
j
= 5 as the target value and
h−
j
= 0 as the worst level, with all levels presented as
gaps to better reflect ambiguity, which differs from the conventional method. These last
weighted gaps can be considered via Equation (6).
Ri=α(Qi−Q∗)/(Q−−Q∗) + (1−α)(Si−S∗)/(S−−S∗)(6)
where
α
and
(
1
−α)
represent the comparative weights of Q
i
and S
i
, and
α
is usually set
to 0.5.
Phase 3: Offering an overall factor of individual choice
Finally, this comprehensive score of each alternative
Fg
is combined via Equation (7).
We can detect how each alternative can be improved to reduce these gaps in elements in
sequence to realize the ideal level.
Fg=vQg−Qaspired
Qworst −Qaspired + (1−v)Ug−Uaspired
Uworst −Uaspired (7)
where
Qaspired =
0 (attaining the ideal level),
Qworst =
1 (the worst status);
Uaspired =
0
(attaining the ideal level) and
Uworst =
1 (the worst status). Therefore, Equation (7) can be
modified as: Fg=vQg+ (1−v)Ug, where vis the weight for this decision-making task.
Mathematics 2021,9, 1715 10 of 16
4. Case Analysis
This section assesses CSR practices overall to propose strategies for more efficient CSR
by using an empirical case in Taiwan’s high-tech industry during the COVID-19 pandemic.
4.1. Data Collection
For this study, we recruited six high-tech proprietors, three government officials in
charge of the high-tech industry, and three scholars of the high-tech industry to complete
a questionnaire during the COVID-19 pandemic. First, from the perspective of the ESGE
measurement model (Table 1), the specialists were questioned to evaluate the effects of the
elements on a 9-point Likert scale ranging from very strong impact (9) to no impact (1).
The consensus rate of significant confidence was 97.38%, exceeding the 95% confidence
level (the gap-error rate was 2.62% which is less than 5%).
4.2. The Weight of Elements in CSR Application
BWM was used to define the weights of elements in this assessment system and
to examine 14 elements in order to evaluate the strategy’s performance within four as-
pects of the CSR application. Based on the results from the BWM surveys by 15 experts,
Equations (1) and (2)
generated 14 series of elements’ weight, and the final optimal weights
were integrated via the arithmetic average method [
42
,
43
]. Each consistency ratio (CR) of
the 15 BWM surveys was less than 0.01, and the average CR was 0.009, indicating that the
questionnaires had credibility [
42
,
43
]. Since the assessment elements are assumed to be
independent in our approach, aspects or elements do not affect each other. As can be seen
from Table 2, the economic aspect (A
4
) had a higher weight (w
A
= 0.359) than the other
aspects, and the ranking of aspects under it were also in the top four. The top four aspects’
rankings were focused on environment, corporate governance, social and economic aspects:
firm performance (FP), vision and strategy (VS), shareholder loyalty (SL), employment
quality (EQ), resource reduction (RR) and client loyalty (CL). The weight of each aspect is
equal to the total weight of its corresponding elements. For example, the economic aspect
includes shareholder loyalty (SL), firm performance (FP) and client loyalty (CL), and the
total weight of the three elements was 0.359. Next, we used the modified VIKOR model
to consolidate the performance value and weighted gaps of elements for CSR application
evaluation during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Table 2. The weights evaluation of CSR application in Taiwan during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Aspects/Elements Local Weight Local Rank Global Weight Global Rank
Environment aspect (A1) 0.147
Resource reduction (RR) 0.569 1 0.084 5
Product innovation (PI) 0.222 2 0.033 11
Emissions reduction (ER) 0.209 3 0.031 13
Social aspect (A2) 0.206
Product responsibility (PR) 0.182 2 0.037 10
Community (CO) 0.089 3 0.018 14
Human rights (HR) 0.291 2 0.060 7
Employment quality (EQ) 0.438 1 0.090 4
Corporate governance aspect (A3) 0.288
Compensation policy (CP) 0.204 2 0.059 8
Board functions (BF) 0.162 3 0.047 9
Vision and strategy (VS) 0.526 1 0.152 2
Shareholder rights (SR) 0.108 4 0.031 12
Economic aspect (A4) 0.359
Shareholder loyalty (SL) 0.354 2 0.127 3
Firm performance (FP) 0.427 1 0.153 1
Client loyalty (CL) 0.219 3 0.079 6
Mathematics 2021,9, 1715 11 of 16
4.3. Estimating and Mixing These Gaps in Performance with Modified VIKOR
Gap performance values we obtained through the second survey. To explore the
elements, we divided them into the gaps among the risk management and management
capability. A scale from 1 to 9 was used to represent the degrees of importance from “not
important” to “extremely important” in natural language, using the initial decision matrix
data. Modified VIKOR was then employed to the weights derived by the BWM to assess
each element’s weighted gap. In this study, the target value was set to the highest level of
assessment scale (9).
According to Equations (3)–(7), the weighted gaps for each element from risk man-
agement and management capability were obtained, as shown in Table 3. The weighted
gap in each element indicates how much space for improvement can be achieved in the
target value. Compared to the traditional VIKOR approach, this study does not discuss the
priorities of alternatives. The proposed model uses different aspects to explore the evalua-
tion performance in each element and to further obtain information on which indicators
have the priority to be enhanced. The results from the risk management performance per-
spective indicate that community (CO) had the largest weighted gap at 0.570, followed by
shareholder rights (SR) at 0.500. From the management capability performance viewpoint,
the element requiring priority improvement was still community (CO) (0.540). In other
words, current decision makers believe that community (CO) is an indicator that needs
urgent review and enhancement. All orders of element enhancement can be identified
from their weighted gap, and the ranking index runs from 1 to 14.
Table 3. Gap performance evaluation of CSR application in Taiwan during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Aspects/Elements Local Weight Global Weight
CSR Performance Gap
Risk Management (S1)Management
Capability (S2)
Environment aspect (A1) 0.147 0.304 0.253
Resource reduction (RR) 0.569 0.084 0.370 0.290
Product innovation (PI) 0.222 0.033 0.120 0.150
Emissions reduction (ER) 0.209 0.031 0.320 0.260
Social aspect (A2) 0.206 0.328 0.321
Product responsibility (PR) 0.182 0.037 0.360 0.290
Community (CO) 0.089 0.018 0.570 0.540
Human rights (HR) 0.291 0.060 0.290 0.260
Employment quality (EQ) 0.438 0.090 0.290 0.330
Corporate governance aspect (A3) 0.288 0.308 0.249
Compensation policy (CP) 0.204 0.059 0.380 0.330
Board functions (BF) 0.162 0.047 0.340 0.300
Vision and strategy (VS) 0.526 0.152 0.230 0.170
Shareholder rights (SR) 0.108 0.031 0.500 0.400
Economic aspect (A4) 0.359 0.253 0.236
Shareholder loyalty (SL) 0.354 0.127 0.240 0.220
Firm performance (FP) 0.427 0.153 0.210 0.200
Client loyalty (CL) 0.219 0.079 0.360 0.330
SATotal gaps 0.279 0.242
The weighted gap for each aspect can be derived by the weighted gap of each element.
Table 3shows the weighted gaps and crisp values generated by the parameters (Q
i
and S
i
)
of VIKOR for four aspects. The ranking of aspects based on risk management performance
was A
2
A
3
A
1
A
4
. The social aspect (A
2
) had the largest weighted gap (0.328)
while the economic aspect (A
4
) had the smallest weighted gap (0.253). This result echoes
part of the criteria’s weighted gaps (Table 3). Correspondingly, we also calculated aspects’
Mathematics 2021,9, 1715 12 of 16
weighted gaps for management capability. The above BWM weight and weighted gap
analysis integrated with BWM and modified VIKOR results provide reliable information
that can assist and support decision makers in formulating strategies to improve CSR
management performance during the COVID-19 pandemic. We explain and discuss some
management implications in Section 4.4, based on different performance perspectives.
4.4. Outcomes and Discussion
We examined an empirical example of our proposed approach to evaluating CSR
application strategy in the high-tech industry in Taiwan during the COVID-19 pandemic.
There are several significant results of our study. First, based on BWM results, firm
performance (FP) was the most significant element for assessing CSR application by its
weight of influence (0.153; Table 3). Similar to other industries’ research results regarding
CSR application, our results indicate that critical firm performance converts CSR application
into main competence and that firm performance (FP) is the most important element when
assessing CSR application in the high-tech industry during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Second, vision and strategy (VS) were the next most significant elements, with an
influential weight of 0.152. The result also agrees with the outcomes attained in previous
research, where vision and strategy (VS) were found to be the main elements in conquering
alternatives produced through CSR application and sustainable development. Therefore,
administrators need to gain solid support and commitment within top management for
effective CSR application in the high-tech industry during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Third, according to recommendations from the experts in the high-tech industry dur-
ing the COVID-19 pandemic, the proposed context includes environment, social, corporate
governance and economic (ESGE) aspects to examine the elements affecting CSR perfor-
mance. These outcomes also determine the elements considered within the individual
aspects. Table 4summarizes the gap performance for elements for each aspect. For the
individual economic aspect (A
1
), firm performance (FP) was the most influential element
and must be improved with priority, followed by via vision and strategy (VS), shareholder
loyalty (SL) and employment quality (EQ). After using the gap performances offered via the
panelists of specialists, the important modes of improvement are considered to be compre-
hensive and unique, in terms of both holistic and separate aspects. For the managers in the
Taiwanese high-tech industry, realizing the improvement priorities for meeting CSR needs
is significant. Most studies focusing on CSR elements and evaluation have not discussed
the assembly among CSR and strategic application. Given the outcomes illustrated in
Table 4, the empirical outcomes relate to the purpose of this study to offer priorities for
enhancement to influence the risk management performance and management capability
performance. For example, in order to decrease the gaps in performance between the
existing state and the target CSR performance, the priorities for improvement are the social
aspect (A
2
), corporate governance (A
3
), environment (A
1
) and economic aspect (A
4
) in risk
management performance (S
1
); aspects are ranked as A
2
A
1
A
3
A
4
in management
capability performance (S
2
). Nevertheless, managers in the high-tech industry need to be
cautious as using the MCDM approach. These findings regarding the 14 elements under
study may differ according to specific circumstances, and administrators must evaluate
these CSR approaches and indicate the performance gaps before making choices.
Mathematics 2021,9, 1715 13 of 16
Table 4. Sequence of improvement priorities for CSR strategy.
Formula Sequence of Improvement Priority
F1: Sequence of aspects to reach target levels in two CSR
performance areas (from high to low, via gap performances)
Risk management performance (S1) (A2) > (A3) > (A1) > (A4)
Management capability performance (S2) (A2) > (A1) > (A3) > (A4)
F2: Sequence of elements to reach the target level within
individual aspects (from high to low, via gap performances)
Risk management performance (S1)
(A1): (RR) > (ER) > (PI)
(A2): (CO) > (PR) > (EQ) > (HR)
(A3): (SR) > (CP) > (BF) > (CS)
(A2): (CL) > (SL) > (FP)
Management capability performance (S2)
(A1): (RR) > (ER) > (PI)
(A2): (CO) > (EQ) > (PR) > (HR)
(A3): (SR) > (CP) > (BF) > (CS)
(A2): (CL) > (SL) > (FP)
Finally, for long-term development, the administrators of CSR applications should
sensibly take note of firm performance, as noted earlier. This work’s inspection of the
proposed CSR application evaluation model can be broadly applied to most of the high-tech
industry during the COVID-19 pandemic.
5. Conclusions
We proposed an integrated MCDM approach integrating BWM and modified VIKOR
to explore the interdependence and feedback among numerous elements influencing CSR
performance in the high-tech industry in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The
proposed structure integrates the environment, social, corporate governance and economic
aspects with the CSR aspects. The outcomes indicate that the economic aspect had the
highest net influence of 0.079 and should be improved first. Firm performance, which had
the highest global weight of 0.153, was the most significant element for evaluating CSR
performance in the high-tech industry. The gap values of total performance representing
the range for enhancement were 0.279 for risk management (S
1
) and 0.242 for management
capability performance (S
2
). The community factor showed the largest gap (0.570) in
risk management performance (S
1
) and the largest gap (0.540) in management capability
performance (S
2
). The social aspect must be the primary priority to be enhanced if the
managers hope to understand the desired levels of performance. Furthermore, these
outcomes suggest that managers should appropriately prioritize elements in their CSR
performance enhancement strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This research’s aspects and elements act as connecting devices, which can help in CSR
estimation in the high-tech industry during the COVID-19 pandemic. The key contributions
of the research are twofold. Primarily, the assessment of CSR application can be a strategic
issue of compound interactions and dependencies during the COVID-19 pandemic. We
executed a review of the literature and interviewed experts to categorize 14 elements
in 4 CSR application aspects to calculate performance estimations of CSR in the high-
tech industry during the pandemic. Second, this study integrated BWM and modified
VIKOR to develop a CSR estimation pattern that focuses on the relation weights of the
implementation perspectives of CSR and its elements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The proposed technique can be applied not only as a method to process the dependence
and interaction contained within a series of elements and aspects, but also as an approach
for creating more useful information to determine the ranking and influence weights for
management strategy estimation. These research findings are valid outcomes with respect
to the estimation. The investigation of the estimation outcomes allows the formulation of
advice for administrations in classifying the main conditions facilitating CSR estimation and
presents outcomes indicating the best approach for enhancing the existing administration
in the high-tech industry during the COVID-19 pandemic.
There are some limitations to the research that require further examination. First, in
this study the estimation elements were designated based on a literature review and dis-
cussed with experts in regards to the estimation of CSR applications as well as reviews that
Mathematics 2021,9, 1715 14 of 16
offered some probable effects on such estimations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Future
research needs to apply different approaches, such as longitudinal analysis, to identify
other elements. Second, the study used high-tech industry in the COVID-19 pandemic
as a case study to develop a CSR estimation model with assistance from management to
realize the important elements when applying CSR assessments. Future research can apply
other multiple-criteria methods (e.g., TOPSIS and outranking approaches) to evaluate these
relative influence weights in CSR estimation. It would be valuable to compare the results of
future research with those presented herein. Lastly, this paper was conducted in a sample
group of experts. A larger sample that confers more explanatory power could be beneficial
for a more sophisticated assessment of the topic at hand. The research findings thus need
to be proved with more samples in order to enhance generalizability.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.-T.L. and L.-H.H.; Data curation, M.-T.L. and L.-H.H.;
Formal analysis, M.-T.L.; Funding acquisition, M.-T.L.; Investigation, M.-T.L.; Methodology, M.-T.L.;
Resources, M.-T.L.; Software, M.-T.L.; Supervision, S.-C.C., M.-T.L. and M.-J.C.; Visualization, M.-T.L.;
Writing—original draft, M.-T.L.; Writing—review and editing, M.-T.L. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
BBC. Coronavirus: Twitter Boss Pledges $1bn for Relief Effort. The BBC. Available online: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/
technology-52209690 (accessed on 18 April 2020).
2.
Seuring, S.; Müller, M. From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean.
Prod. 2008,16, 1699–1710. [CrossRef]
3.
Rajesh, R. Exploring the sustainability performances of firms using environmental, social, and governance scores. J. Clean. Prod.
2020,247, 119600. [CrossRef]
4.
Rajeev, A.; Pati, R.K.; Padhi, S.S.; Govindan, K. Evolution of sustainability in supply chain management: A literature review. J.
Clean. Prod. 2017,162, 299–314. [CrossRef]
5.
Sarkis, J.; Zhu, Q. Environmental sustainability and production: Taking the road less travelled. Int. J. Prod. Res.
2018
,56, 743–759.
[CrossRef]
6.
Bai, C.; Sarkis, J. Improving green flexibility through advanced manufacturing technology investment: Modeling the decision
process. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2017,188, 86–104. [CrossRef]
7. Brandenburg, M.; Govindan, K.; Sarkis, J.; Seuring, S. Quantitative models for sustainable supply chain management: Develop-
ments and directions. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2014,233, 299–312. [CrossRef]
8.
Dubey, R.; Gunasekaran, A.; Papadopoulos, T.; Childe, S.J.; Shibin, K.T.; Wamba, S.F. Sustainable supply chain management:
Framework and further research directions. J. Clean. Prod. 2017,142, 1119–1130. [CrossRef]
9.
Rajesh, R. Social and environmental risk management in resilient supply chains: A periodical study by the Grey-Verhulst model.
Int. J. Prod. Res. 2019,57, 3748–3765. [CrossRef]
10.
Fahimnia, B.; Tang, C.S.; Davarzani, H.; Sarkis, J. Quantitative models for managing supply chain risks: A review. Eur. J. Oper.
Res. 2015,247, 1–15. [CrossRef]
11.
Ikram, M.; Zhang, Q.; Sroufe, R.; Ferasso, M. The Social Dimensions of Corporate Sustainability: An Integrative Framework
Including COVID-19 Insights. Sustainability 2020,12, 8747. [CrossRef]
12. Hakovirta, M.; Denuwara, N. How COVID-19 Redefines the Concept of Sustainability. Sustainability 2020,12, 3727. [CrossRef]
13.
Chang, S.C.; Lu, M.T.; Pan, T.H.; Chen, C.S. Evaluating the E-Health Cloud Computing Systems Adoption in Taiwan’s Healthcare
Industry. Life 2021,11, 310. [CrossRef]
14.
Chen, H.L.; Hu, Y.C.; Lee, M.Y.; Yen, G.F. Importance of Employee Care in Corporate Social Responsibility: An AHP-Based Study
from the Perspective of Corporate Commitment. Sustainability 2020,12, 5885. [CrossRef]
15.
Li, Y.; Pinto, M.C.B.; Diabat, A. Analyzing the critical success factor of CSR for the Chinese textile industry. J. Clean. Prod.
2020
,
260, 120878. [CrossRef]
16.
Tran, N. Applying 2-stage DEA model to evaluate the corporate social responsibility implementing efficiency of FDI firms. Manag.
Sci. Lett. 2020,10, 2491. [CrossRef]
Mathematics 2021,9, 1715 15 of 16
17.
Lu, M.T.; Lin, S.W.; Tzeng, G.H. Improving RFID adoption in Taiwan’s healthcare industry based on a DEMATEL technique with
a hybrid MCDM model. Decis. Support Syst. 2013,56, 259–269. [CrossRef]
18.
Lu, M.T.; Tsai, J.F.; Shen, S.P.; Lin, M.H.; Hu, Y.C. Estimating sustainable development performance in the electrical wire and
cable industry: Applying the integrated fuzzy MADM approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2020,277, 122440. [CrossRef]
19.
Chang, S.C.; Chang, H.H.; Lu, M.T. Evaluating Industry 4.0 Technology Application in SMEs: Using a Hybrid MCDM Approach.
Mathematics 2021,9, 414. [CrossRef]
20.
Bae, K.H.; Ghoul, E.S.; Gong, Z.J.; Guedhami, O. Does CSR matter in times of crisis? Evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic. J.
Corp. Financ. 2021,67, 101876. [CrossRef]
21.
Gray, R.; Kouhy, R.; Lavers, S. Corporate social and environmental reporting. Account. Audit. Account. J.
1995
,8, 47–77. [CrossRef]
22.
Deegan, C. The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures—A theoretical foundation. Account. Audit. Account. J.
2002,15, 282–311. [CrossRef]
23.
Frynas, J.G.; Yamahaki, C. Corporate social responsibility: Review and roadmap of theoretical perspectives. Bus. Ethics Eur. Rev.
2016,25, 258–285. [CrossRef]
24.
Huang, C.L.; Kung, F.H. Drivers of environmental disclosure and stakeholder expectation: Evidence from Taiwan. J. Bus. Ethics
2010,96, 435–451. [CrossRef]
25.
Chen, F.; Tebourbi, I. The relationship between business performance, corporate social responsibility, and innovation capital: A
case study of Taiwan. Manag. Decis. Econ. 2021,42, 360–368. [CrossRef]
26.
Becker-Olsen, K.L.; Cudmore, B.A.; Hill, R.P. The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior. J.
Bus. Res. 2006,59, 46–53. [CrossRef]
27.
Franco, S.; Caroli, M.G.; Cappa, F.; Del Chiappa, G. Are you good enough? CSR, quality management and corporate financial
performance in the hospitality industry. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020,88, 102395. [CrossRef]
28.
Bocquet, R.; Le Bas, C.; Mothe, C.; Poussing, N. CSR, innovation, and firm performance in sluggish growth contexts: A firm-level
empirical analysis. J. Bus. Ethics 2017,146, 241–254. [CrossRef]
29.
Guerrero-Villegas, J.; Sierra-García, L.; Palacios-Florencio, B. The role of sustainable development and innovation on firm
performance. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2018,25, 1350–1362. [CrossRef]
30. Mishra, D.R. Post-innovation CSR performance and firm value. J. Bus. Ethics 2017,140, 285–306. [CrossRef]
31.
Garcia, A.S.; Mendes-Da-Silva, W.; Orsato, R.J. Sensitive Industries Produce Better ESG Performance: Evidence from Emerging
Markets. J. Clean. Prod. 2017,150, 135–147. [CrossRef]
32.
Escrig-Olmedo, E.; Rivera-Lirio, J.M.; Muñoz-Torres, M.J.; Fernández-Izquierdo, M.A. Integrating Multiple ESG Investors’
Preferences into Sustainable Investment: A Fuzzy Multicriteria Methodological Approach. J. Clean. Prod.
2017
,162, 1334–1345.
[CrossRef]
33.
Martí-Ballester, C.P. Can Socially Responsible Investment for Cleaner Production Improve the Financial Performance of Spanish
Pension Plans? J. Clean. Prod. 2015,106, 466–477. [CrossRef]
34.
Tseng, M.L.; Tan, P.A.; Jeng, S.Y.; Negash, Y.T.; Darsono, S.N. Sustainable investment: Interrelated among corporate governance,
economic performance and market risks using investor preference approach. Sustainability 2019,11, 2108. [CrossRef]
35.
Karlsson, N.P.E. Business models and business cases for financial sustainability: Insights on corporate sustainability in the
Swedish farm-based biogas industry. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2019,18, 115–129. [CrossRef]
36.
Guo, L.; Qu, Y.; Tseng, M.L. The interaction effects of environmental regulation and technological innovation on regional green
growth performance. J. Clean. Prod. 2017,162, 894–902. [CrossRef]
37.
Wu, W.-W.; Lee, Y.-T.; Tseng, M.-L.; Chiang, Y.-H. Data mining for exploring hidden patterns between KM and its performance.
Knowl. Based Syst. 2010,23, 397–401. [CrossRef]
38.
Nesticò, A.; He, S.; De Mare, G.; Benintendi, R.; Maselli, G. The ALARP Principle in the Cost-Benefit Analysis for the Acceptability
of Investment Risk. Sustainability 2018,10, 4668. [CrossRef]
39.
Prakash, C.; Barua, M.K. A combined MCDM approach for evaluation and selection of third-party reverse logistics partner for
Indian electronics industry. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2016,7, 66–78. [CrossRef]
40.
Khedrigharibvand, H.; Azadi, H.; Teklemariam, D.; Houshyar, E.; De Maeyer, P.; Witlox, F. Livelihood alternatives model for
sustainable rangeland management: A review of multi-criteria decision-making techniques. Environ. Dev. Sustain.
2017
,21, 11–36.
[CrossRef]
41.
Garg, C.P.; Sharma, A. Sustainable outsourcing partner selection and evaluation using an integrated BWM–VIKOR framework.
Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2020,22, 1529–1557. [CrossRef]
42. Rezaei, J. Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega 2015,53, 49–57. [CrossRef]
43.
Rezaei, J. Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model. Omega
2016
,64, 126–130.
[CrossRef]
44.
Gupta, H. Evaluating service quality of airline industry using hybrid best worst method and VIKOR. J. Air Transp. Manag.
2018
,
68, 35–47. [CrossRef]
45.
Karaman, A.S.; Akman, E. Taking-off corporate social responsibility programs: An AHP application in airline industry. J. Air
Transp. Manag. 2018,68, 187–197. [CrossRef]
46.
Rezaei, J.; Nispeling, T.; Sarkis, J.; Tavasszy, L. A supplier selection life cycle approach integrating traditional and environmental
criteria using the best worst method. J. Clean. Prod. 2016,135, 577–588. [CrossRef]
Mathematics 2021,9, 1715 16 of 16
47.
Rezaei, J.; Wang, J.; Tavasszy, L. Linking supplier development to supplier segmentation using Best Worst Method. Expert Syst.
Appl. 2015,42, 9152–9164. [CrossRef]
48.
Salimi, N.; Rezaei, J. Measuring efficiency of university-industry Ph.D. projects using best worst method. Scientometrics
2016
,
109, 1911–1938. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
49.
Ren, J.; Liang, H.; Chan, F.T. Urban sewage sludge, sustainability, and transition for Eco-City: Multi-Criteria sustainability
assessment of technologies based on best-worst method. Technol. Forecast. Soc. 2017,116, 29–39. [CrossRef]
50.
Gupta, H.; Barua, M.K. Identifying enablers of technological innovation for Indian MSMEs using best–worst multi criteria
decision making method. Technol. Forecast. Soc. 2016,107, 69–79. [CrossRef]
51.
Ahmad, W.N.K.W.; Rezaei, J.; Sadaghiani, S.; Tavasszy, L.A. Evaluation of the external forces affecting the sustainability of oil and
gas supply chain using Best Worst Method. J. Clean. Prod. 2017,153, 242–252. [CrossRef]
52.
Pamuˇcar, D.; Petrovi´c, I.; ´
Cirovi´c, G. Modification of the Best–Worst and MABAC methods: A novel approach based on
interval-valued fuzzy-rough numbers. Expert Syst. Appl. 2018,91, 89–106. [CrossRef]
53.
Kumar, A.; Aswin, A.; Gupta, H. Evaluating green performance of the airports using hybrid BWM and VIKOR methodology.
Tour. Manag. 2020,76, 103941. [CrossRef]
54.
Lu, M.T.; Tzeng, G.H.; Cheng, H.; Hsu, C.C. Exploring mobile banking services for user behavior in intention adoption: Using
new hybrid MADM model. Serv. Bus. 2015,9, 541–565. [CrossRef]
55.
Feng, Y.; Hong, Z.; Tian, G.; Li, Z.; Tan, J.; Hu, H. Environmentally friendly MCDM of reliability-based product optimisation
combining DEMATEL-based ANP, interval uncertainty and Vlse Kriterijumska Optimizacija Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR). Inf.
Sci. 2018,442, 128–144. [CrossRef]
56.
Wu, M.; Li, C.; Fan, J.; Wang, X.; Wu, Z. Assessing the global productive efficiency of Chinese banks using the cross-efficiency
interval and VIKOR. Emerg. Mark. Rev. 2017,34, 77–86. [CrossRef]
57.
Rajesh, R. Measuring the barriers to resilience in manufacturing supply chains using grey clustering and vikor approaches.
Measurement 2018,126, 259–273. [CrossRef]
58.
Wu, Y.; Zhang, B.; Xu, C.; Li, L. Site selection decision framework using fuzzy ANP-VIKOR for large commercial rooftop PV
system based on sustainability perspective. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018,40, 454–470. [CrossRef]
59.
Opricovic, S.; Tzeng, G.H. Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur. J. Oper.
Res. 2004,156, 445–455. [CrossRef]
60.
Lu, M.T.; Hsu, C.C.; Liou, J.J.; Lo, H.W. A hybrid MCDM and sustainability balanced scorecard model to establish sustainable
performance evaluation for international airports. J. Air Transp. Manag. 2018,71, 9–19. [CrossRef]
61.
Lu, M.T.; Tzeng, G.H.; Tang, L.L. Environmental strategic orientations for improving green innovation performance in fuzzy
environment-Using new fuzzy Hybrid MCDM model. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 2013,15, 297–316.
