Strategizing sustainability in the banking industry using fuzzy cognitive maps and system dynamics

References

• Abramova N. 2016. The cognitive approach to the problem of identification validity in cognitive mapping. IFAC-PapersOnLine. 49(12):586–591. doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.07.737.
   Google Scholar
• Ackermann F. 2012. Problem structuring methods ‘in the dock’: arguing the case for soft OR. Eur J Oper Res. 219(3):652–658. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2011.11.014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ackermann F, Eden C. 2001. SODA – journey making and mapping in practice. In: Rosenhead J, Mingers J, editors. Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited: problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; p. 43–60.
   Google Scholar
• Ahmadi M, Zarghami M. 2019. Should water supply for megacities depend on outside resources? A monte-carlo system dynamics simulation for Shiraz, Iran. Sustainable Cities Soc. 44:163–170. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2018.10.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aluko A, Ajayi M. 2018. Determinants of banking sector development: evidence from sub-Saharan African countries. Borsa Istanbul Rev. 18(2):122–139. doi:10.1016/j.bir.2017.11.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Angelis A, Kanavos P. 2017. Multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) for evaluating new medicines in health technology assessment and beyond: the advance value framework. Soc Sci Med. 188:137–156. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.06.024.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aras G, Tezcan N, Fortuna O. 2018. Multidimensional comprehensive corporate sustainability performance evaluation model: evidence from an emerging market banking sector. J Clean Prod. 185:600–609. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.175.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Assunção E, Ferreira F, Meidutė-Kavaliauskienė I, Zopounidis C, Pereira L, Correia R. 2020. Rethinking urban sustainability using fuzzy cognitive mapping and system dynamics. Int J Sustainable Dev World Ecol. 27(3):261–275. doi:10.1080/13504509.2020.1722973.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Azadeh A, Ziaei B, Moghaddam M. 2012. A hybrid fuzzy regression-fuzzy cognitive map algorithm for forecasting and optimization of housing market fluctuations. Expert Syst Appl. 39(1):298–315. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.07.020.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Azevedo A, Ferreira F. 2019. Analyzing the dynamics behind ethical banking practices using fuzzy cognitive mapping. Oper Res. 19(3):679–700. doi:10.1007/s12351-017-0333-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barger M, Perez T, Canelas D, Garcia L. 2018. Constructivism and personal epistemology development in undergraduate chemistry students. Learn Individ Differ. 63:89–101. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2018.03.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell S, Morse S. 2013. Groups and facilitators within problem structuring processes. J Oper Res Soc. 64(7):959–972. doi:10.1057/jors.2012.110.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belton V, Stewart T. 2002. multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Dortrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Brito V, Ferreira F, Pérez-Gladish B, Govindan K, Meidutė-Kavaliauskienė I. 2019. Developing a green city assessment system using cognitive maps and the Choquet integral. J Clean Prod. 218:486–497. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.060.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cai Y, Cai J, Xu L, Tan Q, Xu Q. 2019. Integrated risk analysis of water-energy nexus systems based on systems dynamics, orthogonal design and copula analysis. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 99:125–137. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2018.10.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlucci D, Ferreira F, Schiuma G, Jalali M, António N. 2018. A holistic conception of sustainable banking: adding value with fuzzy cognitive mapping. Technol Econ Dev Economy. 24(4):1303–1322. doi:10.3846/20294913.2016.1266412.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castellacci F. 2018. Co-evolutionary growth: A system dynamics model. Econ Model. 70:272–287. doi:10.1016/j.econmod.2017.11.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cinelli M, Coles S, Kirwan K. 2014. Analysis of the potentials of multi criteria decision analysis methods to conduct sustainability assessment. Ecol Indic. 46:138–148. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.06.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Degl’Innocenti M, Grant K, Šević A, Tzeremes N. 2018. Financial stability, competitiveness and banks’ innovation capacity: evidence from the global financial crisis. Int Rev Financial Anal. 59:35–46. doi:10.1016/j.irfa.2018.07.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dungey M, Flavin T, Lagoa-Varela D. 2020. Are banking shocks contagious? Evidence from the eurozone. J Banking Finance. 112:105386. doi:10.1016/j.jbankfin.2018.07.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eden C. 1988. Cognitive mapping. Eur J Oper Res. 36(1):1–13. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(88)90002-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eden C. 2004. Analyzing cognitive maps to help structure issues or problems. Eur J Oper Res. 159(3):673–686. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00431-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eden C, Ackermann F. 2004. Cognitive mapping expert views for policy analysis in the public sector. Eur J Oper Res. 152(3):615–630. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00061-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eden C, Ackermann F. 2018. Theory into practice, practice to theory: action research in method development. Eur J Oper Res. 271(3):1145–1155. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2018.05.061.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engert S, Reuter R, Baumgartner R. 2015. Exploring the integration of corporate sustainability into strategic management: A literature review. J Clean Prod. 112:2833–2850. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.031.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farsari I, Butler R, Szivas E. 2011. Complexity in tourism policies: A cognitive mapping approach. Ann Tourism Res. 38(3):1110–1134. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2011.03.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernandes I, Ferreira F, Bento P, Jalali M, António N. 2018. Assessing sustainable development in urban areas using cognitive mapping and MCDA. Int J Sustainable Dev World Ecol. 25(3):216–226. doi:10.1080/13504509.2017.1358221.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira F. 2016. Are you pleased with your neighborhood? A fuzzy cognitive mapping-based approach for measuring residential neighborhood satisfaction in urban communities. Int J Strategic Property Manage. 20(2):130–141. doi:10.3846/1648715X.2015.1121169.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira F, Esperança J, Xavier M, Costa R, Pérez-Gladish B. 2019. A socio-technical approach to the evaluation of social credit applications. J Oper Res Soc. 70(10):1801–1816. doi:10.1080/01605682.2017.1415650.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira F, Ferreira J, Fernandes C, Meidutė-Kavaliauskienė I, Jalali M. 2017. Enhancing knowledge and strategic planning of bank customer loyalty using fuzzy cognitive maps. Technol Econ Dev Economy. 23(6):860–876. doi:10.3846/20294913.2016.1213200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira F, Meidutė-Kavaliauskienė I. 2019. Toward a sustainable supply chain for social credit: learning by experience using single-valued neutrosophic sets and fuzzy cognitive maps. Ann Oper Res. doi:10.1007/s10479-019-03194-2.
   Google Scholar
• Fethi M, Pasiouras F. 2009. Assessing bank efficiency and performance with operational research and artificial intelligence techniques: A survey. Eur J Oper Res. 204(2):189–198. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2009.08.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fonseca J, Ferreira F, Pereira L, Govindan K, Meidutė-Kavaliauskienė I. 2020. Analyzing determinants of environmental conduct in small and medium-sized enterprises: A sociotechnical approach. J Clean Prod. 256:1–13. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120380.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forrester J. 1961. Industrial Dynamics. Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Froelich W. 2017. Towards improving the efficiency of the fuzzy cognitive map classifier. Neurocomputing. 232:83–93. doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2016.11.059.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geissinger A, Laurell C, Öberg C, Sandström C. 2019. How sustainable is the sharing economy? On the sustainability connotations of sharing economy platforms. J Clean Prod. 206:419–429. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.196.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gomes C, Kneipp J, Kruglianskas I, Rosa L, Bichueti R. 2014. Management for sustainability: an analysis of the key practices according to the business size. Ecol Indic. 52:116–127. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.11.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Häge F. 2007. Constructivism, fuzzy sets and (very) small-N: revisiting the conditions for communicative action. J Bus Res. 60(5):112–121. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.01.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jokar Z, Mokhtar A. 2018. Policy making in the cement industry for CO2 mitigation on the pathway of sustainable development: A system dynamics approach. J Clean Prod. 201:142–155. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.286.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kala S, Isaramalai S, Pohthong A. 2010. Electronic learning and constructivism: A model for nursing education. Nurse Educ Today. 30(1):61–66. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2009.06.002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kang L, Brian S, Ricca B. 2010. Constructivism in pharmacy school. Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2(2):126–130. doi:10.1016/j.cptl.2010.01.005.
   Google Scholar
• Kok K. 2009. The potential of fuzzy cognitive maps for semi-quantitative scenario development, with an example from Brazil. Global Environ Change. 19(1):122–133. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.08.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kosko B. 1986. Fuzzy cognitive maps. Int J Man Mach Stud. 24(1):65–75. doi:10.1016/S0020-7373(86)80040-2.
   Google Scholar
• Ladeira M, Ferreira F, Ferreira J, Fang W, Falcão P, Rosa A. 2019. Exploring the determinants of digital entrepreneurship using fuzzy cognitive maps. Int Entrepreneurship Manage J. 15(4):1077–1101. doi:10.1007/s11365-019-00574-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee S, Han W, Park Y. 2015. Measuring the functional dynamics of product-service system: A system dynamics approach. Comput Ind Eng. 80:159–170. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2014.12.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu X, Zeng M. 2017. Renewable energy investment risk evaluation model based on system dynamics. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 73:782–788. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.02.019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marques F, Ferreira F, Zopounidis C, Banaitis A. 2020. A system dynamics-based approach to determinants of family business growth. Ann Oper Res. doi:10.1007/s10479-020-03524-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oesterreich T, Teuteberg F. 2018. Looking at the big picture of IS investment appraisal through the lens of systems theory: A system dynamics approach for understanding the economic impact of BIM. Comput Ind. 99:262–281. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2018.03.029.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paes de FariaA, FerreiraF, DiasP, Çipi A. 2020. A constructivist model of bank branch front-office employee evaluation: an FCM-SD-based approach. Technol Econ Dev Economy. 26(1):213–239. doi:10.3846/tede.2020.11883.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papachristos G. 2019. System dynamics modelling and simulation for sociotechnical transitions research. Environ Innovation Societal Transitions. 31:248–261. doi:10.1016/j.eist.2018.10.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papageorgiou E, Stylios C, Groumpos P. 2004. Active hebbian learning algorithm to train fuzzy cognitive maps. In J Approximate Reasoning. 37(3):219–249. doi:10.1016/j.ijar.2004.01.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pereira I, Ferreira F, Pereira L, Govindan K, Meidutė-Kavaliauskienė I, Correia R. 2020. A fuzzy cognitive mapping-system dynamics approach to energy-change impacts on the sustainability of small and medium-sized enterprises. J Clean Prod. 256:1–17. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pereira V, Ferreira F, Chang H. 2019. A constructivist multiple criteria framework for mortgage risk analysis. INFOR. 57(3):361–378.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pluchinotta I, Pagano A, Giordano R, Tsoukiàsa A. 2018. A system dynamics model for supporting decision-makers in irrigation water management. J Environ Manage. 223:815–824. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.06.083.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pucci T, Casprini E, Galati A, Zanni L. 2018. The virtuous cycle of stakeholder engagement in developing a sustainability culture: salcheto winery. J Bus Res. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rebai S, Azaiez M, Saidane D. 2015. A multi-attribute utility model for generating a sustainability index in the banking sector. J Clean Prod. 113:835–849. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.129.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rezaee M, Yousefi S, Valipour M, Dehdar M. 2018. Risk analysis of sequential processes in food industry integrating multi-stage fuzzy cognitive map and process failure mode and effects analysis. Comput Ind Eng. 123:325–337. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2018.07.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rich K, Rich M, Dizyee K. 2018. Participatory systems approaches for urban and peri-urban agriculture planning: the role of system dynamics and spatial group model building. Agric Syst. 160:110–123. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2016.09.022.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodrigues J, Ferreira F, Pereira L, Carayannis E, Ferreira J. 2020. Banking digitalization: (Re)thinking strategies and trends using problem structuring methods. IEEE Trans Eng Manage. 1–15. doi:10.1109/TEM.2020.2993171.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenhead J. 2006. Past, present and future of problem structuring methods. J Oper Res Soc. 57(7):759–765. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602206.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salmeron J, Mansouri T, Reza M, Moghadam S, Mardani A. 2019. Learning fuzzy cognitive maps with modified asexual reproduction optimization algorithm. Knowledge Based Syst. 163:723–735. doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2018.09.034.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santos F, Ferreira F, Meidutė-Kavaliauskienė I. 2018. Perceived key determinants of payment instrument usage: A fuzzy cognitive mapping-based approach. Technol Econ Dev Economy. 24(3):950–968. doi:10.3846/20294913.2016.1261374.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seyfang G, Gilbert-Squires A. 2019. Move your money? Sustainability transitions in regimes and practices in the UK retail banking sector. Ecol Econ. 156:224–235. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.09.014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shire M, Jun G, Robinson S. 2018. The application of system dynamics modelling to system safety improvement: present use and future potential. Saf Sci. 106:104–120. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2018.03.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silvestre B, Tîrca D. 2019. Innovations for sustainable development: moving toward a sustainable future. J Clean Prod. 208:325–332. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.244.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith C, Shaw D. 2019. The characteristics of problem structuring methods: A literature review. Eur J Oper Res. 274(2):403–416. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2018.05.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song J, Tang B, Zhang J, Dou X, Liu Q, Shen W. 2018. System dynamics simulation for optimal stream flow regulations under consideration of coordinated development of ecology and socio-economy in the Weihe River Basin, China. Ecol Eng. 124:51–68. doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.09.024.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sterman J. 2000. Business dynamics: systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Massachusetts: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
   Google Scholar
• Sterman J, Oliva R, Lindermanm K, Bendoly E. 2015. System dynamics perspectives and modeling opportunities for research in operations management. J Oper Manage. 39/40:1–5. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2015.07.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stroufe R. 2017. Integration and organizational change towards sustainability. J Clean Prod. 162:315–329. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.180.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Subramanian J, Karmegam A, Papageourgiou E, Papandrianos N, Vasukie A. 2015. An integrated breast cancer risk assessment and management model based on fuzzy cognitive maps. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 118(3):280–297. doi:10.1016/j.cmpb.2015.01.001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svensson G, Ferro C, Høgevold N, Padin C, Varela J, Sarstedt M. 2018. Framing the triple bottom line approach: direct and mediation effects between economic, social and environmental elements. J Clean Prod. 197:972–991. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.226.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tan Y, Jiao L, Shuai C, Shen L. 2018. A system dynamics model for simulating urban sustainability performance: A China case study. J Clean Prod. 199:1107–1115. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tongurai J, Vithessonthi C. 2018. The impact of the banking sector on economic structure and growth. Int Rev Financial Anal. 56:193–207. doi:10.1016/j.irfa.2018.01.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tura N, Keränen J, Patala S. 2019. The darker side of sustainability: tensions from sustainable business practices in business networks. Ind Marketing Manage. 77:221–231. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.09.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vergini E, Groumpos P. 2016. A new conception on the fuzzy cognitive maps method. IFAC-PapersOnLine. 49(29):300–304. doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.11.083.
   Google Scholar
• Vliet M, Kok K, Veldkamp T. 2010. Linking stakeholders and modellers in scenario studies: the use of fuzzy cognitive maps as a communication and learning tool. Futures. 42(1):1–14. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2009.08.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walters J, Archer D, Sassenrath G, Hendrickson J, Hanson J, Halloran J, Vadas P, Alarcon V. 2016. Exploring agricultural production systems and their fundamental components with system dynamics modelling. Ecol Modell. 333:51–65. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2016.04.015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang M, Wu B, Kirschner P, Spector J. 2018. Using cognitive mapping to foster deeper learning with complex problems in a computer-based environment. Comput Human Behav. 87:450–458. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.024.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WCED – World Commission on Environment and Development 1987, Report of the world commission on environment and development: our common future. [September 2018]. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Woo Y, Reeves T. 2007. Meaningful interaction in web-based learning: A social constructivist interpretation. Internet Higher Educ. 10(1):15–25. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.10.005.
   Google Scholar
• Wu K, Liu J, Chi Y. 2017. Wavelet fuzzy cognitive maps. Neurocomputing. 232:94–103. doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2016.10.071.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xavier M, Ferreira F, Esperança J. 2018. An intuition-based evaluation framework for social credit applications. Ann Oper Res. doi:10.1007/s10479-018-2995-8.
   Google Scholar
• Yaman D, Polat S. 2009. A fuzzy cognitive map approach for effect-based operations: an illustrative case. Inf Sci (Ny). 179(4):382–403. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2008.10.013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yip A, Bocken N. 2017. Sustainable business model archetypes for the banking industry. J Clean Prod. 174:150–169. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.190.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao R, Xi B, Liu Y, Su J, Liu S. 2017. Economic potential of leachate evaporation by using landfill gas: A system dynamics approach. Resour Conserv Recycl. 124:74–84. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.04.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou X, Xu Z, Chai J, Yao L, Wang S, Lev B. 2018. Efficiency evaluation for banking systems under uncertainty: A multi-period three-stage DEA model. Omega – Int J Manage Sci. 85:68–82. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2018.05.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zomorodian M, Lai S, Homayounfar M, Ibrahim S, Fatemi S, El-Shafie A. 2018. The state-of-the-art system dynamics application in integrated water resources modeling. J Environ Manage. 227:294–304. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.08.097.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar