Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Environmental corporate responsibility for investments evaluation: an alternative multi-objective programming model

  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Current financial and economic crisis, as well as growing environmental pressures put seriously under question traditional development patterns. The need to develop alternative models able to address current economic situation through the exploitation of sustainable patterns is of crucial importance. The innovation of this current study is the incorporation of energy and environmental corporate responsibility (EECR) in decision making, supporting particularly the development of a new model for investment evaluation. A bi-objective programming model is introduced in order to provide the Pareto optimal portfolios (Pareto set) based on the net present value of projects and the EECR score of firms. A systematic decision making approach using Monte Carlo simulation and multi-objective programming is also developed in order to deal with the inherent uncertainty in the objective functions’ coefficients. The robustness of the Pareto set as a whole, as well as the robustness of the individual Pareto optimal portfolios is also assessed. The proposed approach facilitates banking organizations and institutions to the selection of firms applying for financial support and credit granting, within the frame of their EECR. Finally, an illustrative real-world application of the proposed model is presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Apostolakou, A., & Jackson, G. (2009). Corporate social responsibility in Western Europe: An institutional mirror or substitute?. University of Bath School of Management Working Paper Series, University of Bath, Bath, UK.

  • Barcos, L., Barroso, A., Surroca, J., & Tribo, J. A. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and inventory policy. International Journal of Production Economics, 143, 580–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouyssou, D. (1990). Building criteria: A prerequisite for MCDA. In C. A. Bana e Costa (Ed.), Readings in multiple criteria decision aid (pp. 58–80). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Doukas, H., Marinakis, V., & Psarras, J. (2012). Greening the Hellenic corporate energy policy: An integrated decision support framework. International Journal of Green Energy, 9(6), 487–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doukas, H., Mavrotas, G., Xidonas, P., & Psarras, J. (2013). Incorporating energy and environmental corporate responsibility in capital budgeting: A multiobjective approach. In Proceedings of EURO 2013, Rome, Italy.

  • Doukas, H., Tsiousi, A., Marinakis, V., & Psarras, J. (2014). Linguistic multi-criteria decision making for energy and environmental corporate policy. Information Sciences (Special Issue on “New Challenges of Computing with Words in Decision Making”), 258, 328–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doukas, H., & Psarras, J. (2010). Integrated framework for enterprises energy and environmental policies (ENTREE Policies). Brussels: Enterprise 2020, A strategic initiative by corporate social responsibility (CSR) Europe.

    Google Scholar 

  • GAMS Development Corporation. (2010). General Algebraic Modeling System (GAMS) Release 23.5.2. Washington, DC, USA. www.gams.com

  • Gjølberg, M. (2009a). Measuring the immeasurable? Constructing an index of CSR practices and CSR performance in 20 countries. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25, 10–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gjølberg, M. (2009b). The origin of corporate social responsibility: Global forces or national legacies? Socio-Economic Review, 7(4), 605–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Disclosure Database http://database.globalreporting.org/. Accessed 06 July 2013.

  • Golabi, K., Kirkwood, C. W., & Sicherman, A. (1981). Selecting a portfolio of solar energy projects using multiattribute preference theory. Management Science, 27, 174–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hashemi, S. H., Karimi, A., & Tavana, M. (2014). An integrated green supplier selection approach with analytic network process and improved Grey relational analysis. International Journal of Production Economics. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.09.027.

  • Hassanzadeh, F., Nemati, H., & Sun, M. (2014a). Robust optimization for interactive multiobjective programming with imprecise information applied to R&D project portfolio selection. European Journal of Operational Research, 238, 41–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hassanzadeh, F., Modarres, M., Nemati, H., & Amoako-Gyampah, K. (2014b). A robust R&D project portfolio optimization model for pharmaceutical contract research organizations. International Journal of Production Economics, 158, 18–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs, B. F., & Meier, P. (2000). Energy decisions and the environment: A guide to the use of multicriteria methods. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hsueh, C.-F. (2014). Improving corporate social responsibility in a supply chain through a new revenue sharing contract. International Journal of Production Economics, 151, 214–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, C. L., & Masud, A. S. (1979). Multiple objective decision making, methods and applications: A state-of-the-art survey. Berlin: Springer. 351.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lahdelma, R., Hokkanen, J., & Salminen, P. (1998). SMAA: Stochastic multiobjective acceptability analysis. European Journal Operations Research, 106, 137–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K.-H., & Farzipoor Saen, R. (2012). Measuring corporate sustainability management: A data envelopment analysis approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 140, 219–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liesiö, J., Mild, P., & Salo, A. (2007). Preference programming for robust portfolio modeling and project selection. European Journal Operations Research, 181, 1488–1505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liesiö, J., Mild, P., & Salo, A. (2008). Robust portfolio modeling with incomplete cost information and project interdependencies. European Journal Operations Research, 190, 679–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Costa, C., Mas-Machuca, M., Benedito, E., & Corominas, A. (2014). A review of mathematical programming models for strategic capacity planning in manufacturing. International Journal of Production Economics, 153, 66–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mavrotas, G., Diakoulaki, D., & Capros, P. (2003). Combined MCDA–IP approach for project selection in the electricity market. Annals of Operations Research, 120, 159–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mavrotas, G., Diakoulaki, D., & Kourentzis, A. (2008). Selection among ranked projects under segmentation, policy and logical constraints. European Journal Operations Research, 187, 177–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mavrotas, G., & Florios, K. (2013). An improved version of the augmented \(\upvarepsilon \)-constraint method (AUGMECON2) for finding the exact Pareto set in multi-objective integer programming problems. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 219, 9652–9669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mavrotas, G., & Pechak, O. (2013a). The trichotomic approach for dealing with uncertainty in project portfolio selection: Combining MCDA, mathematical programming and Monte Carlo simulation. International Journal of Multicriteria Decision Making, 3(1), 79–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mavrotas, G., & Pechak, O. (2013b). Combining mathematical programming and Monte Carlo simulation to deal with uncertainty in energy project portfolio selection. In F. Cavallaro (Ed.), Assessment and simulation tools for sustainable energy systems (pp. 333–356). London: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mavrotas, G., & Rozakis, S. (2009). Extensions of the PROMETHEE method to deal with segmentation constraints. Journal of Decision Systems, 18, 203–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salo, A., Keisler, J., & Morton, A. (2011). Portfolio decision analysis: Improved methods for resource allocation. International series in operations research & management science. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Santhanam, R., & Kyparisis, G. J. (1996). A decision model for interdependent information system project selection. European Journal of Operational Research, 89, 380–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tavana, M., Khalili-Damghani, K., & Abtahi, A.-R. (2013). A fuzzy multidimensional multiple-choice knapsack model for project portfolio selection using an evolutionary algorithm. Annals of Operations Research, 206, 449–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vose, D. (1996). Quantitative risk analysis: A guide to Monte Carlo simulation modelling. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yager, R. R. (1988). On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria decision making. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 18, 183–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, L., Wang, S., Wen, F., & Keung Lai, K. (2012). Genetic algorithm-based multi-criteria project portfolio selection. Annals of Operations Research, 197, 71–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zanakis, S. H., Mandakovic, T., Gupta, S. K., Sahay, S., & Hong, S. (1995). A review of program evaluation and fund allocation methods within the service and government sectors. Socio Economic Planning Sciences, 29(1), 59–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the anonymous referees. This research has been co-financed by the European Union (European Social Fund) and Greek national funds through the Operational Program “Education and Lifelong Learning”. Olena Pechak would like to thank the Hellenic State Scholarship Foundation (IKY) for financial support of her PhD studies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ESSCA École de Management, 55 quai Alphonse Le Gallo, 92513, Paris, France

    Panos Xidonas

  2. Decision Support Systems Laboratory, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Zografou Campus, 15780, Athens, Greece

    Haris Doukas

  3. Laboratory of Industrial and Energy Economics, School of Chemical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Zografou Campus, 15780, Athens, Greece

    George Mavrotas & Olena Pechak

Authors
  1. Panos Xidonas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Haris Doukas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. George Mavrotas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Olena Pechak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Haris Doukas.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 4.

Table 4 Projects’ data
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xidonas, P., Doukas, H., Mavrotas, G. et al. Environmental corporate responsibility for investments evaluation: an alternative multi-objective programming model. Ann Oper Res 247, 395–413 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-015-1820-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-015-1820-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation