Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Building composite indicators using multicriteria methods: a review

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Composite indicators are increasingly recognised as a useful tool in policy analysis and public communication. They provide simple comparisons of units that can be used to illustrate the complexity of our dynamic environment in wide-ranging fields, such as competitiveness, governance, environment, press, development, peacefulness, tourism, economy, universities, etc. Their construction has been dealt with from several angles. Some authors claim that MCDM techniques are highly suitable in multidimensional frameworks when aggregating single indicators into a composite one, since this process involves making choices when combining criteria of different natures, and it requires a number of steps in which decisions must be made. In this paper, we conduct a literature review of papers published after 2002 in leading international journals indexed in a recognised database (JCR), in order to identify the different MCDM methods used for aggregating single indicators into composite ones. They have been classified in five categories: the elementary methods, the value and utility based methods, the outranking relation approach, the data envelopment analysis based methods and the distance functions based methods. In general, our review has shown a clear tendency towards an increasing number of papers that use MCDM methods to construct composite indicators since 2014.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The UTASTAR method is an improved version of the original UTA model and it was proposed by Siskos (1985).

  2. According to Gabus and Fontela (1973), the DEMATEL method is one of the tools used for multiple criteria decision making and it is able to transform qualitative issues into quantitative tasks for analysis.

References

  • Amado CAF, São-José JMS, Santos SP (2016) Measuring active ageing: a data envelopment analysis approach. Eur J Oper Res 255:207–223

    Google Scholar 

  • Antanasijevic D, Pocajt V, Ristic M, Peric-Grujic A (2017) A differential multi-criteria analysis for the assessment of sustainability performance of European countries: beyond country ranking. J Clean Prod 165:213–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Arbolino R, De-Simone L, Carlucci F, Yigitcanlar T (2018) Towards a sustainable industrial ecology: implementation of a novel approach in the performance evaluation of Italian regions. J Clean Prod 178:220–236

    Google Scholar 

  • Asadzadeh A, Kötter T, Salehi P, Birkmann J (2017) Operationalizing a concept: the systematic review of composite indicator building for measuring community disaster resilience. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 25:147–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Attardi R, Cerreta M, Sannicandro V, Torre CM (2018) Non-compensatory composite indicators for the evaluation of urban planning policy: the land-use policy efficiency index (LUPEI). Eur J Oper Res 264(2):491–507

    Google Scholar 

  • Azapagic A, Perdan S (2005) An integrated sustainability decision-support framework part II: problem analysis. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 12(2):112–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo SG, Govindan K, Carvalho H, Cruz-Machado V (2012) An integrated model to assess the leanness and agility of the automotive industry. Resour Conserv Recycl 66:84–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Bana-e-Costa CA, Vansnick JC (1994) MACBETH—an interactive path towards the construction of cardinal value functions. Int Trans Oper Res 1(4):489–500

    Google Scholar 

  • Bao Q, Ruan D, Shen Y, Hermans E, Janssens D (2012) Improved hierarchical fuzzy TOPSIS for road safety performance evaluation. Knowl Based Syst 32:84–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker W, Paruolo P, Saisana M, Saltelli A (2016) Weights and importance in composite indicators: mind the gap. In: Ghanem R, Higdon D, Owhadi H (eds) Handbook of uncertainty quantification. Springer International Publishing, Berlin, pp 1–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Belton V, Stewart T (2002) Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Kluwer Academic, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Berrah L, Clivillé C (2007) Towards an aggregation performance measurement system model in a supply chain context. Comput Ind 58:709–719

    Google Scholar 

  • Bezama A, Szarka N, Wolfbauer J, Lorber KE (2007) Application of a balanced scorecard system for supporting decision-making in contaminated sites remediation. Water Air Soil Pollut 181:3–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Billaut JC, Bouyssou D, Vincke P (2010) Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking? Scientometrics 84:237–263

    Google Scholar 

  • Blancas FJ, Caballero R, González M, Lozano-Oyola M, Pérez F (2010) Goal programming synthetic indicators: an application for sustainable tourism in Andalusian coastal counties. Ecol Econ 69(11):2158–2172

    Google Scholar 

  • Blancas FJ, Lozano-Oyola M, González M, Guerrero FM, Caballero R (2011) How to use sustainability indicators for tourism planning: the case of rural tourism in Andalusia (Spain). Sci Total Environ 412–413:28–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Boggia A, Massei G, Pace E, Rocchia L, Paolottia L, Attard M (2018) Spatial multicriteria analysis for sustainability assessment: a new model for decision making. Land Use Policy 71:281–292

    Google Scholar 

  • Brans JP, Vincke P, Mareschal B (1986) How to select and how to rank projects: the PROMETHEE methods. Eur J Oper Res 24:228–238

    Google Scholar 

  • Cabello JM, Navarro E, Prieto F, Rodríguez B, Ruiz F (2014a) Multicriteria development of synthetic indicators of the environmental profile of the Spanish regions. Ecol Indic 39:10–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Cabello JM, Ruiz F, Pérez-Gladish B, Méndez-Rodríguez P (2014b) Synthetic indicators of mutual funds’ environmental responsibility: an application of the reference point method. Eur J Oper Res 236:313–325

    Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis EG, Grigoroudis E, Goletsis Y (2016) A multilevel and multistage efficiency evaluation of innovation systems: a multiobjective DEA approach. Expert Syst Appl 62:63–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrillo M, Jorge JM (2017) Multidimensional analysis of regional tourism sustainability in Spain. Ecol Econ 140:89–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes EL (1978) Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 2:429–444

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen F, Wang J, Deng Y (2015) Road safety risk evaluation by means of improved entropy TOPSIS-RSR. J Clean Prod 79:39–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherchye L, Kuosmanen T (2004) Benchmarking sustainable development: a synthetic meta-index approach. Working paper 24. World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER)

  • Cherchye L, Moesen W, van Puyenbroeck T (2004) Legitimately diverse, yet comparable: on synthesizing social inclusion performance in the EU. J Common Mark Stud 42:919–955

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherchye L, Lovell CAK, Moesen W, van Puyenbroeck T (2007) One market, one number? A composite indicator assessment of EU internal market dynamics. Eur Econ Rev 51(3):749–779

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherchye L, Moesen W, Rogge N, van Puyenbroeck T, Saisana M, Saltelli A, Liska R, Tarantola S (2008) Creating composite indicators with DEA and robustness analysis: the case of the technology achievement index. J Oper Res Soc 59:239–251

    Google Scholar 

  • Cinelli M, Coles SR, Kirwan K (2014) Analysis of the potentials of multicriteria decision analysis methods to conduct sustainabiliy assessment. Ecol Indic 46:138–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Clivillé C, Berrah L, Mauris G (2007) Quantitative expression and aggregation of performance measurements based on the MACBETH multi-criteria method. Int J Prod Econ 105:171–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper WW (2005) Origins, uses of, and relations between goal programming and data envelopment analysis. J Multi Criteria Decis Anal 13:3–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Cracolici MF, Nijkamp P (2008) The attractiveness and competitiveness of tourist destinations: a study of Southern Italian regions. Tour Manag 30:336–344

    Google Scholar 

  • Dantsis T, Douma C, Giourga C, Loumou A, Polychronaki EA (2010) A methodological approach to assess and compare the sustainability level of agricultural plant production systems. Ecol Indic 10:256–263

    Google Scholar 

  • Díaz-Balteiro L, Romero C (2004) In search of a natural systems sustainability index. Ecol Econ 49:401–405

    Google Scholar 

  • De-Mare G, Granata MF, Nesticò A (2015) Weak and strong compensation for the prioritization of public investments: multidimensional analysis for pools. Sustainability 7:16022–16038

    Google Scholar 

  • Deng JL (1989) Introduction to grey system theory. J Grey Syst 1:1–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Despotis DK (2005) Measuring human development via data envelopment analysis: the case of Asia and the Pacific. Omega 33(5):385–390

    Google Scholar 

  • Díaz-Balteiro L, González-Pachón J, Romero C (2017) Measuring systems sustainability with multicriteria methods: a critical review. Eur J Oper Res 258:607–616

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobos I, Vörösmarty G (2014) Green supplier selection and evaluation using DEA-type composite indicators. Int J Prod Econ 157:273–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards W (1977) How to use multi-attribute utility measurement for social decision making. IEEE Trans Syst ManCybern 7(5):326–340

    Google Scholar 

  • Escrig-Olmedo E, Rivera-Lirio JM, Muñoz-Torres M, Fernández-Izquierdo MA (2017) Integrating multiple ESG investors’ preferences into sustainable investment: a fuzzy multicriteria methodological approach. J Clean Prod 162:1334–1345

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank AG, Molle ND, Gerstlberger W, Bonzanini-Bernardi JA, Cuzzuol-Pedrini D (2016) An integrative environmental performance index for benchmarking in oil and gas industry. J Clean Prod 133:1190–1203

    Google Scholar 

  • Färe R, Zelenyuk V (2003) On aggregate farrell efficiencies. Eur J Oper Res 146(3):615–620

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedom House (2017) Freedom of the press 2017. Technical report, Freedom House, Washington

  • Freudenberg M (2003) Composite indicators of country performance: a critical assessment. https://doi.org/10.1787/405566708255

  • Gabus A, Fontela E (1973) Perceptions of the world problematique: communication procedure, communicating with those bearing collective responsibility (DEMATEL report no. 1). Battelle Geneva Research Centre, Geneva, Switzerland

  • Gan X, Fernandez I, Guo J, Wilson M, Zhao Y, Zhou B, Wu J (2017) When to use what: methods for weighting and aggregating sustainability indicators. Ecol Indic 81:491–502

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia S, Cintra Y, Torres R, Lima F (2016) Corporate sustainability management: a proposed multi-criteria model to support balanced decision-making. J Clean Prod 136:181–196

    Google Scholar 

  • Giannetti BF, Bonilla SH, Silva CC, Almeida C (2009) The reliability of experts’ opinions in constructing a composite environmental index: the case of ESI 2005. J Environ Manag 90:2448–2459

    Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Limón JA, Riesgo L (2009) Alternative approaches to the construction of a composite indicator of agricultural sustainability: an application to irrigated agriculture in the Duero basin in Spain. J Environ Manag 90:3345–3362

    Google Scholar 

  • Grigoroudis E, Orfanoudaki E, Zopounidis C (2012) Strategic performance measurement in a healthcare organisation: a multiple criteria approach based on balanced scorecard. Omega 40:104–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Gu DX, Liang CY, Bichindaritz I, Zuo CR, Wang J (2012) A case-based knowledge system for safety evaluation decision making of thermal power plants. Knowl Based Syst 26:185–195

    Google Scholar 

  • Haider H, Hewage K, Umer A, Ruparathna R, Chhipi-Shresthab G, Culver K, Holland M, Kay J, Sadiq R (2018) Sustainability assessment framework for small-sized urban neighbourhoods: an application of fuzzy synthetic evaluation. Sustain Cities Soc 36:21–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajkowicz S (2006) Multi-attributed environmental index construction. Ecol Econ 57(1):122–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatefi SM, Torabi SA (2010) A common weight MCDA-DEA approach to construct composite indicators. Ecol Econ 70:114–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Hernandez-Perdomo EA, Mun J, Rocco CM (2017) Active management in state-owned energy companies: integrating a real options approach into multicriteria analysis to make companies sustainable. Appl Energy 195:487–502

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrera F, Martinez L (2000) A 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model for computing with words. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 8(6):746–752

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu YJ, Li XY, Tang BJ (2017) Assessing the operational performance and maturity of the carbon trading pilot program: the case study of Beijing’s carbon market. J Clean Prod 161:1263–1274

    Google Scholar 

  • Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ignizio JP (1976) Goal programming and extensions. Lexington Books, Lexington

    Google Scholar 

  • Ijiri Y (1965) Management goals and accounting for control. North-Holland, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Institute For Economics & Peace (2017) Global peace index 2017: Measuring peace in a complex world. Technical report, IEP, Sydney

  • Jacobs R, Smith P, Goddard M (2004) Measuring performance: an examination of composite performance indicators. Technical report, The University of York and Centre for Health Economics, United Kingdom

  • Jacquet-Lagrèze E, Siskos Y (1982) Assessing a set of additive utility functions for multicriteria decision making: the UTA method. Eur J Oper Res 10:151–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Jadidi O, Cavalieri S, Zolfaghari S (2015) An improved multi-choice goal programming approach for supplier selection problems. Appl Math Model 39:4213–4222

    Google Scholar 

  • Joro T, Korhonen P, Wallenius J (1998) Structural comparison of data envelopment analysis and multiple objective linear programing. Manag Sci 44:962–970

    Google Scholar 

  • Jun KS, Chung ES, Sung JY, Lee KS (2011) Development of spatial water resources vulnerability index considering climate change impacts. Sci Total Environ 409:5228–5242

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang SM, Kim MS, Lee M (2002) The trends of composite environmental indices in Korea. J Environ Manag 64:199–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Kao C (2010) Weight determination for consistently ranking alternatives in multiple criteria decision analysis. Appl Math Model 34:1779–1787

    Google Scholar 

  • Kao C, Hung H (2007) Management performance: an empirical study of the manufacturing companies in Taiwan. Omega 35:152–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Kao C, Hung H (2008) Efficiency analysis of university departments: an empirical study. Int J Manag Sci Omega 36:653–664

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney R, Raiffa H (1976) Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim Y, Chung ES (2014) An index-based robust decision making framework for watershed management in a changing climate. Sci Total Environ 473–474:88–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Krajnc D, Glavic P (2005) How to compare companies on relevant dimensions of sustainability. Ecol Econ 55:551–563

    Google Scholar 

  • Kropp WW, Lein JK (2012) Assessing the geographic expression of urban sustainability: a scenario based approach incorporating spatial multicriteria decision analysis. Sustainability 4:2348–2365

    Google Scholar 

  • Lai E, Lundie S, Ashbolt NJ (2008) Review of multi-criteria decision aid for integrated sustainability assessment of urban water systems. Urban Water J 5(4):315–327

    Google Scholar 

  • Langhans SD, Reichert P, Schuwirth N (2014) The method matters: a guide for indicator aggregation in ecological assessments. Ecol Indic 45:494–507

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauras M, Marques G, Gourc D (2010) Towards a multi-dimensional project performance measurement system. Decis Support Syst 48:342–353

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavoie R, Deslandes J, Proulx C (2016) Assessing the ecological value of wetlands using the MACBETH approach in Quebec city. J Nat Conser 30:67–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Li W, Yu S, Pei H, Zhao C, Tian B (2017) A hybrid approach based on fuzzy AHP and 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic method for evaluation in-flight service quality. J Air Transp Manag 60:49–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Madeira-Junior AG, Cardoso-Junior MM, Neyra-Belderrain MC, Ribeiro-Correia A, Schwanz SH (2012) Multicriteria and multivariate analysis for port performance evaluation. Int J Prod Econ 140:450–456

    Google Scholar 

  • Marques G, Gourc D, Lauras M (2010) Multi-criteria performance analysis for decision making in project management. Int J Proj Manag 29:1057–1069

    Google Scholar 

  • Martí L, Martín JC, Puertas R (2017) A DEA-logistics performance index. J Appl Econ 20(1):169–192

    Google Scholar 

  • Melyn, W. and Moesen, W. (1991). Towards a synthetic indicator of macroeconomic performance: unequal weighting when limited information is available. Public economics research paper, 17. CES KU Leuven, Leuven

  • Mi ZF, Wei YM, He CQ, Li HN, Yuan XC, Liao H (2015) Regional efforts to mitigate climate change in China: a multi-criteria assessment approach. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 22(1):45–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Molinos-Senante M, Gómez T, Garrido-Baserba M, Caballero R, Sala-Garrido R (2014) Assessing the sustainability of small wastewater treatment systems: a composite indicator approach. Sci Total Environ 497–498:607–617

    Google Scholar 

  • Molinos-Senante M, Marques RC, Pérez F, Gómez T, Sala-Garrido R, Caballero R (2016) Assessing the sustainability of water companies: a synthetic indicator approach. Ecol Indic 61(2):577–587

    Google Scholar 

  • Morais P, Camanho AS (2011) Evaluation of performance of European cities with the aim to promote quality of life improvements. Omega 39:398–409

    Google Scholar 

  • Munda G (2005) Measuring sustainability: a multi-criterion framework. Environ Dev Sustain 7(1):117–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Munda G (2008) Social multi-criteria evaluation for a sustainable economy. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Munda G, Nardo M (2009) Noncompensatory/nonlinear composite indicators for ranking countries: a defensible setting. Appl Econ 841(12):1513–1523

    Google Scholar 

  • Murias P, de Miguel JC, Rodríguez D (2008) A composite indicator for university quality assessment: the case of Spanish higher education system. Soc Indic Res 89:129–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Nardo M, Saisana M, Saltelli A, Tarantola S (2005) Tools for composite indicators building. Technical report, European Commission, Ispra, Italy

  • Nardo M, Saisana M, Saltelli A, Tarantola S, Giovannini E, Hoffman A (2008) Handbook on constructing composite indicators. Methodology and user guide, Technical report, OECD, Paris

  • Navarro E, Tejada M, Almeida F, Cabello J, Cortés R, Delgado J, Fernández F, Gutiérrez G, Luque M, Málvarez G, Marcenaro O, Navas F, Ruiz F, Ruiz J, Solís F (2012) Carrying capacity assessment for tourist destinations. Methodology for the creation of synthetic indicators applied in a coastal area. Tour Manag 33:1337–1346

    Google Scholar 

  • Oltean-Dumbrava C, Watts G, Miah A (2016) Towards a more sustainable surface transport infrastructure: a case study of applying multi criteria analysis techniques to assess the sustainability of transport noise reducing devices. J Clean Prod 112:2922–2934

    Google Scholar 

  • Papapostolou A, Karakosta C, Nikas A, Psarras J (2017) Exploring opportunities and risks for RES-E deployment under cooperation mechanisms between EU and Western Balkans: a multi-criteria assessment. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 80:519–530

    Google Scholar 

  • Paruolo P, Saisana M, Saltelli A (2013) Ratings and rankings: voodoo or science. J R Stat Soc 176:609–634

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrovic M, Bojkovic N, Anic I, Stamenkovic M, Tarle SP (2014) An ELECTRE-based decision aid tool for stepwise benchmarking: an application over EU digital agenda targets. Decis Support Syst 59:230–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Plakas KV, Georgiadis AA, Karabelas AJ (2016) Sustainability assessment of tertiary wastewater processes: a multi-criteria analysis. Water Sci Technol 73(7):1532–1540

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues TC, Montibeller G, Oliveira MD, Bana e Costa CA (2017) Modelling multicriteria value interactions with reasoning maps. Eur J Oper Res 258:1054–1071

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogge N (2018) On aggregating benefit of the doubt composite indicators. Eur J Oper Res 164:164–369

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosic M, Pesic D, Kukic D, Antic B, Bozovic M (2017) Method for selection of optimal road safety composite index with examples from DEA and TOPSIS method. Accid Anal Prev 98:277–286

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy B (1968) Classement et choix en présence de points de vue multiples. R.I.R.O. 2(8):57–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy B (1991) The outranking approach and the foundations of ELECTRE methods. Theory Decis 31(1):49–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz F, Cabello JM, Luque M (2011) An application of reference point techniques to the calculation of synthetic sustainability indicators. J Oper Res Soc 62:189–197

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz F, Cabello JM, Pérez B (2017) Building ease-of-doing-business synthetic indicators using a double reference point approach. Technol Forecast Soc Change. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.06.005

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol 15:234–281

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Saisana M, Tarantola S (2002) State-of-the-art report on current methodologies and practices for composite indicator development. Technical report, Joint Research Centre, European Commission, Ispra, Italy

  • Saltelli A (2008) Composite indicators between analysis and advocacy. Soc Indic Res 81(1):65–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh RK, Murty HT, Gupta SK, Dikshit AK (2007) Development of composite sustainability performance index for steel industry. Ecol Indic 7:565–588

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh RK, Murty HT, Gupta SK, Dikshit AK (2009) An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecol Indic 9:189–212

    Google Scholar 

  • Siskos E, Askounis D, Psarras J (2014) Multicriteria decision support for global e-government evaluation. Omega 46:51–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Siskos J (1985) Analyses de régression et programmation linéaire. Révue de Statistique Appliquée 23(2):41–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart TJ (1996) Relationships between data envelopment analysis and multiple criteria decision analysis. J Oper Res Soc 47:654–665

    Google Scholar 

  • The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2016) Human development report 2016. Technical report, UNDP, New York

  • Torres-Sibille AC, Cloquell-Ballester VA, Cloquell-Ballester VA, Darton R (2009) Development and validation of a multicriteria indicator for the assessment of objective aesthetic impact of wind farms. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 13(1):40–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Trenado M, Romero M, Cuadrado ML, Romero C (2014) Corporate social responsibility in portfolio selection: a “goal games” against nature approach. Comput Ind Eng 75:260–265

    Google Scholar 

  • van Calker KJ, Berentsen PBM, Romero C, Giesen GWJ, Huirne RBM (2006) Development and application of a multi-attribute sustainability function for dutch dairy farming systems. Ecol Econ 57:640–658

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Puyenbroeck T, Rogge N (2017) Geometric mean quantity index numbers with benefit-of-the-doubt weights. Eur J Oper Res 256:1004–1014

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbunt P, Rogge N (2018) Geometric composite indicators with compromise benefit-of-the-doubt weights. Eur J Oper Res 164:388–401

    Google Scholar 

  • Voces R, Díaz-Balteiro L, Romero C (2012) Characterization and explanation of the sustainability of the European wood manufacturing industries: a quantitative approach. Expert Syst Appl 39:6618–6627

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang D, Wan K, Song X (2018) Coal miners’ livelihood vulnerability to economic shock: multi-criteria assessment and policy implications. Energy Policy 114:301–314

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang J, Wang Z, Yang C, Wang N, Yu X (2012) Optimization of the number of components in the mixed model using multi-criteria decision-making. Appl Math Model 36:4227–4240

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang Q, Dai HN, Wang H (2017) A smart MCDM framework to evaluate the impact of air pollution on city sustainability: a case study from China. Sustainability 9(6):911

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang YM, Luo Y (2010) Integration of correlations with standard deviations for determining attribute weights in multiple attribute decision making. Math Comput Model 51:1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Wierzbicki AP (1980) The use of reference objectives in multiobjective optimization. In: Fandel G, Gal T (eds) Multiple criteria decision making theory and application, Lecture notes in economics and mathematical systems, vol 177. Springer, Berlin, pp 468–486

    Google Scholar 

  • World Development Indicators: The World Bank (2017) Gross domestic product GDP 2017. Technical report, The World Bank, Washington

  • World Economic Forum (2017) The global competitiveness report 2017–2018. Technical report, WEF, Geneva

  • World Economic Forum (2017) The travel & tourism competitiveness report 2017. Technical report, WEF, Geneva

  • World Justice Project (2016) The world justice project rule of law index 2016. Technical report, WJP, Washington

  • Würtenberger L, Koellner T, Binder CR (2006) Virtual land use and agricultural trade: estimating environmental and socio-economic impacts. Ecol Econ 57:679–697

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu PL (1973) A class of solutions for group decision problems. Manag Sci 19:936–946

    Google Scholar 

  • Yunna W, Jinying Z, Jianping Y, Shuai G, Habobo Z (2016) Study of decision framework of offshore wind power station site selection based on ELECTRE-III under intuitionistic fuzzy environment: a case of China. Energy Convers Manag 113:66–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeleny M (1974) A concept of compromise solutions and the method of the displaced ideal. Comput Oper Res 1:479–496

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeng S, Streimikiene D, Balezentis T (2017) Review of and comparative assessment of energy security in Baltic states. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 76:185–192

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang H, Peng Y, Tian G, Wang D, Xie P (2017) Green material selection for sustainability: a hybrid MCDM approach. PLoS One 12(5):1–26. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177578

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou P, Ang BW, Poh KL (2006) Comparing aggregating methods for constructing the composite environmental index: an objective measure. Ecol Econ 59(3):305–311

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou P, Ang BW, Poh KL (2007) A mathematical programming approach to constructing composite indicators. Ecol Econ 62:291–297

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou P, Fan LW, Zhou DQ (2010) Data aggregation in constructing composite indicators: a perspective of information loss. Expert Syst Appl 37:360–365

    Google Scholar 

  • Zinatizadeh S, Azmi A, Monavari SM, Sobhanardakani S (2017) Evaluation and prediction of sustainability of urban areas: a case study for Kermanshah city, Iran. Cities 66:1–9

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the support received from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (Project ECO2016-76567-C4-4-R) and from the Regional Government of Andalucía (research group PAI-SEJ-417).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Programa de Doctorado en Economía y Empresa, Universidad de Málaga, Málaga, Spain

    Samira El Gibari

  2. Department of Applied Economics (Mathematics), Universidad de Málaga, Málaga, Spain

    Trinidad Gómez & Francisco Ruiz

Authors
  1. Samira El Gibari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Trinidad Gómez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Francisco Ruiz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francisco Ruiz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

El Gibari, S., Gómez, T. & Ruiz, F. Building composite indicators using multicriteria methods: a review. J Bus Econ 89, 1–24 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-018-0902-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-018-0902-z

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation