Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 2619
10of 16
Table4. Aggregated results (geometric means) of criteria and subcriteria weights with respect to the professional background (finance/controlling: n = 6, production: n = 8, research/development: n =7).
Calculability and Interpr.
Physical System
System Stability
Ability toBear
Market Env.
Economic Flexibility
C.R.
Finance and C. ( n =6)
18.66% 33.55% 8.29% 9.80% 29.69% 0.0308
53.52% 46.48%
Production ( n =8)
22.21% 11.92% 16.75% 28.80% 20.32% 0.0067
60.16% 39.84%
R&D ( n =7)
18.43% 24.09% 12.17% 19.10% 26.21% 0.0307
81.72% 18.28%
Concerning the weightings of the subcriteria with respect to the criterion economic (ability to bear and market environment), 21 consistent pairwise comparisons were obtained. The subcriterion ability to bear (ability of a method to use market prices, thus reflecting the ability of products to bear certain costs or environmental impacts, i.e., products with higher market prices also bear higher costs/environmental impacts) was rated higher than market environment (methods that are able to include changes in the market outside the production system) (overall n = 21), and using geometric means (ability to bear, 66.74%; market environment, 33.26%). As seen for the criteria, differences in the subcriteria weightings are also minor with regard to the different kinds of allocation (cost or environmental impact allocation; lignin or fines), but, again, are larger when comparing the different professional backgrounds. The latter aspect is illustrated in Figure 5, and the geometric means are given in Table 4. People with backgrounds in the fields of finance or controlling tended to rate both subcriteria as almost equally important, but production employees tended to weigh the importance of ability to bear more highly (60.16% vs. 39.84%), and research and development employees much more highly than market environment (81.72% vs. 18.28%). 3.4. Choice of Allocation Method Regarding the final results for the 21 full AHPs, the final weightings of the respective alternatives are fairly balanced (illustrated in Figure S2), with a slightly higher weight assigned to the alternative physical partitioning (using geometric means: 38.31%), followed by economic partitioning (33.33%) and, finally, system expansion (28.37%). As the results for the (sub-)criteria weightings show, only minor differences could be observed when comparing either the byproducts lignin and fines or the cost and envi- ronmental impact allocation (aggregated, all four would result in the choice of physical partitioning). However, differences become more evident regarding the professional back- grounds (illustrated in Figure 6).
Figure6. Final weights of the allocation alternatives with respect to different professional backgrounds of the interviewees (finance/controlling: n = 6, production: n = 8, research/development: n =7).
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker