Environmental efficiency evaluation of Turkish cement industry: an application of data envelopment analysis
- 134 Downloads
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main determinant to the process of global warming among other greenhouse gases (GHGs). As being responsible for the largest part of the CO2 emissions from industrial activities, the cement sector has an important position for Turkey on the path to achieving CO2 reduction targets. By referencing the relationship between cement industry and CO2 emissions based upon this sector, we aim to analyze environmental efficiency of the Turkish cement industry at firm level and attempt to reveal a comparison study under both output-oriented and non-oriented approaches with the aid of radial and non-radial Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) models: (i) the output-oriented BCC model; (ii) the output-oriented slack-based measures (SBM) model; (iii) the non-oriented SBM model; and (iv) the non-oriented super-efficiency SBM model. In this context, CO2 emission is considered an undesirable output and relative efficiency of 51 integrated cement factories operating in Turkey for the year 2016 is evaluated. Within the scope of this paper, efficiency scores, reference sets and target values are also determined and a list of measures are proposed. According to the results, only 15.7% of all integrated cement factories are identified as being relatively efficient in all models and a clear imbalance among cement factories in terms of environmental efficiency is determined. Moreover, it is concluded that the output-oriented BCC, output-oriented SBM, and non-oriented SBM models are highly correlated and monotonically related in the presence of undesirable output. The empirical findings also suggest that up to 5.13% CO2 emissions saving can be achieved by taking the necessary precautions.
KeywordsCement Data envelopment analysis Slack-based measures Environmental efficiency Undesirable output
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Baskaya, Z., & Ozturk, B. A. (2012). Measuring financial efficiency of cement firms listed in Istanbul stock exchange via fuzzy data envelopment analysis. Journal of Accounting & Finance, 54, 175–188.Google Scholar
- Bayyurt, N., & Sagbansua, L. (2007). Determining the efficiency of concrete companies ranked in top 1000 manufacturing firms trading in use: a multi-criteria data envelopment analysis model. Istanbul University Journal of the School of Business, 36(2), 54–71.Google Scholar
- Cenger, H. (2011). İMKB’de işlem gören çimento şirketlerinin performanslarının ölçülmesinde veri zarflama analizi yaklaşımı. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 25(3–4), 31–44.Google Scholar
- Cook, W. D., & Zhu, J. (2014). Data envelopment analysis: a handbook on the modeling of internal structures and networks. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Dumanoglu, S. (2010). İMKB'de işlem gören çimento şirketlerinin mali performanslarının TOPSIS yöntemi ile değerlendirilmesi. İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 29(2), 323–339.Google Scholar
- Ekincioglu, O., Gurgun, A. P., Engin, Y., Tarhan, M., & Kumbaracibasi, S. (2013). Approaches for sustainable cement production – a case study from Turkey. Energy and Buildings, 66, 136–142.Google Scholar
- Elitas, C., & Eleren, A. (2007). Çimento sektöründe İMKB'ye kayıtlı işletmelerin veri zarflama analizi yöntemi ile etkinlik analizi. Ekonomik Yaklaşım, 18(64), 103–122.Google Scholar
- Ertugrul, İ., & Karakasoglu, N. (2009). Performance evaluation of Turkish cement firms with fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and TOPSIS methods. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(1), 702–715.Google Scholar
- Geng, Z., Qin, L., Han, Y., & Zhu, Q. (2017a). Energy saving and prediction modeling of petrochemical industries: a novel ELM based on FAHP. Energy, 122, 350–362.Google Scholar
- Geng, Z., Dong, J., Han, Y., & Zhu, Q. (2017b). Energy and environment efficiency analysis based on an improved environment DEA cross-model: case study of complex chemical processes. Applied Energy, 205, 465–476.Google Scholar
- Golany, B., & Roll, Y. (1989). An application procedure for DEA. Omega, 17(3), 237–250.Google Scholar
- Han, Y., Long, C., Geng, Z., & Zhang, K. (2018a). Carbon emission analysis and evaluation of industrial departments in China: an improved environmental DEA cross model based on information entropy. Journal of Environmental Management, 205, 298–307.Google Scholar
- Han, Y., Zeng, Q., Geng, Z., & Zhu, Q. (2018b). Energy management and optimization modeling based on a novel fuzzy extreme learning machine: case study of complex petrochemical industries. Energy Conversion and Management, 165, 163–171.Google Scholar
- Huang, J., Yang, X., Cheng, G., & Wang, S. (2014). A comprehensive eco-efficiency model and dynamics of regional eco-efficiency in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 67, 228–238.Google Scholar
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2014). Climate change 2013 – the physical science basis: Working group I contribution to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Ji, Y. B., & Lee, C. (2010). Data envelopment analysis. The Stata Journal, 10(2), 267–280.Google Scholar
- Karsak, E. E., & Iscan, F. (2000). Çimento sektöründe göreli faaliyet performanslarının ağırlıklı kısıtlamaları ve çapraz etkinlik kullanılarak veri zarflama analizi ile değerlendirilmesi. Endüstri Mühendisliği Dergisi, 11(3), 2–10.Google Scholar
- Kayalidere, K., & Kargin, S. (2004). Çimento ve tekstil sektörlerinde etkinlik çalışması ve veri zarflama analizi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6(1), 196–219.Google Scholar
- Kocyigit, M. M. (2016). Borsa İstanbul’da işlem gören çimento işletmelerinin etkinliklerinin veri zarflama analizi kullanılarak ölçülmesi. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 15(57), 429–439.Google Scholar
- Kucukaksoy, I., & Onal, S. (2011). An analysis on reel sector effectiveness: application on cement companies registered to IMKB (Istanbul stock exchange market-ISE) in Turkey in years 2006-2009. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 69, 128–140.Google Scholar
- Kula, V., & Ozdemir, L. (2007). Çimento sektöründe göreceli etkinsizlik alanlarının veri zarflama analizi yöntemi ile tespiti. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(1), 55–70.Google Scholar
- Kula, V., Kandemir, T., & Ozdemir, L. (2009). VZA malmquist toplam faktör verimlilik ölçüsü: İMKB’ye koteli çimento şirketleri üzerine bir araştırma. Sosyal Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 9(17), 186–202.Google Scholar
- Kumar, S., & Gulati, R. (2008). An examination of technical, pure technical, and scale efficiencies in Indian public sector banks using data envelopment analysis. Eurasian Journal of Business and Economics, 1(2), 33–69.Google Scholar
- Long, X., Zhao, X., & Cheng, F. (2015). The comparison analysis of total factor productivity and eco-efficiency in China’s cement manufactures. Energy Policy, 81, 61–66.Google Scholar
- Lu, B., & Wang, S. (2017). DEA conceptual exposition and literature review. In Container port production and management (pp. 7–17). Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
- Ma’mun, S., Svendsen, H. F., Hoff, K. A., & Juliussen, O. (2007). Selection of new absorbents for carbon dioxide capture. Energy Conversion and Management, 48(1), 251–258.Google Scholar
- Madsen, C. M., & Schmaltz, C. (2015). Performance of Danish banks during the financial crisis (Master’s thesis).Google Scholar
- Mandal, S. K. (2010). Do undesirable output and environmental regulation matter in energy efficiency analysis? Evidence from Indian cement industry. Energy Policy, 38(10), 6076–6083.Google Scholar
- Mandal, S. K., & Madheswaran, S. (2010). Environmental efficiency of the Indian cement industry: an interstate analysis. Energy Policy, 38(2), 1108–1118.Google Scholar
- McMichael, A. J., Campbell-Lendrum, D. H., Corvalán, C. F., Ebi, K. L., Githeko, A. K., Scheraga, J. D., & Woodward, A. (2003). Climate change and human health: Risks and responses. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
- OECD. (2016). OECD economic surveys: Turkey 2016. https://www.oecd.org/eco/surveys/turkey-2016-OECD-economic-survey-overview.pdf. Accessed 31 Aug 2017.
- Oggioni, G., Riccardi, R., & Toninelli, R. (2011). Eco-efficiency of the world cement industry: a data envelopment analysis. Energy Policy, 39(5), 2842–2854.Google Scholar
- Ozden, U. H., Basar, O. D., & Kalkan, S. B. (2012). IMKB’de işlem gören çimento sektöründeki şirketlerin finansal performanslarının VIKOR yöntemi ile sıralanması. Ekonometri ve İstatistik e-Dergisi, 17, 23–44.Google Scholar
- Ozkan, N. F., & Ulutas, B. H. (2017). Efficiency analysis of cement manufacturing facilities in Turkey considering undesirable outputs. Journal of Cleaner Production, 156, 932–938.Google Scholar
- Ozturk, E. (2016). Maliyet performansının ölçümü için göreli etkinlik analizi: BIST çimento sektöründe veri zarflama analizi uygulaması. Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 6(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
- Republic of Turkey Ministry of Environment and Urbanization. (2016). Sixth national communication of Turkey. Ankara: AFS Media.Google Scholar
- Riccardi, R., Oggioni, G., & Toninelli, R. (2012). Efficiency analysis of world cement industry in presence of undesirable output: application of data envelopment analysis and directional distance function. Energy Policy, 44, 140–152.Google Scholar
- Saygili, S., & Taymaz, E. (2001). Privatization, ownership and technical efficiency a study of the Turkish cement industry. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 72(4), 581–605.Google Scholar
- Spaho, A., Mitre, T., & Shehu, V. (2015). Technical efficiency and super-efficiency of commercial banks in Albania. Paper presented at 5th international conference on humanities and social sciences, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
- Sueyoshi, T., & Goto, M. (2011). DEA approach for unified efficiency measurement: Assessment of Japanese fossil fuel power generation. Energy Economics, 33(2), 292–303.Google Scholar
- Sueyoshi, T., & Goto, M. (2014). DEA radial measurement for environmental assessment: a comparative study between Japanese chemical and pharmaceutical firms. Applied Energy, 115, 502–513.Google Scholar
- Sueyoshi, T., Goto, M., & Ueno, T. (2010). Performance analysis of US coal-fired power plants by measuring three DEA efficiencies. Energy Policy, 38(4), 1675–1688.Google Scholar
- Sueyoshi, T., Goto, M., & Sugiyama, M. (2013). DEA window analysis for environmental assessment in a dynamic time shift: Performance assessment of US coal-fired power plants. Energy Economics, 40, 845–857.Google Scholar
- The European Cement Association [CEMBUREAU]. (2016). Activity Report 2016. https://cembureau.eu/media/1635/activity-report-2016.pdf. Accessed 10 Sept 2017.
- Tone, K. (2003). Dealing with undesirable outputs in DEA: a slacks-based measure (SBM) approach. GRIPS Research Report Series, 2003. Google Scholar
- Turkish Cement Manufacturers Association. (2017). The business models symposium for the use of municipal solid wastes in the cement sector held in Antalya. http://www.tcma.org.tr/ENG/index.php?page=habergoster&hbrID=115. Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
- Turkish Statistical Institute. (2017). Greenhouse gas emissions statistics, 1990–2015. http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=24588. Accessed 31 Aug 2017.
- TUSIAD. (2016). Addressing climate change from an economic policy perspective. http://tusiad.org/tr/yayinlar/raporlar/item/9388-ekonomi-politikalari-perspektifinden-iklim-degisikligi-ile-mucadele. Accessed 9 Sept 2017.
- UNFCCC. (2006). United Nations framework convention on climate change: Handbook. Bonn, Germany: Climate Change Secretariat.Google Scholar
- World Energy Council. (2016). Turkish energy market outlook: achievements, overview and opportunities. http://dektmk.org.tr/upresimler/turkish-energy-market-outlook.pdf. Accessed 9 Sept 2017.
- Xiong, B., Li, Y., Santibanez Gonzalez, E. D., & Song, M. (2017). Eco-efficiency measurement and improvement of Chinese industry using a new closest target method. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 9(5), 666–681.Google Scholar
- Yavilioglu, C., & Ozsoy, O. (2009). Productive efficiency of privatized cement plants in Turkey. Hacettepe University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 27(1), 259–277.Google Scholar
- Zhang, F., Fang, H., Wu, J., & Ward, D. (2016). Environmental efficiency analysis of listed cement enterprises in China. Sustainability, 8(5), 1–19.Google Scholar
- Zhou, P., Ang, B. W., & Poh, K. L. (2006). Slacks-based efficiency measures for modeling environmental performance. Ecological Economics, 60(1), 111–118.Google Scholar
- Zimková, E. (2014). Technical efficiency and super-efficiency of the banking sector in Slovakia. Procedia Economics and Finance, 12, 780–787.Google Scholar