Comparative innovative logistics performance analysis of G7–BRICS countries using SWARA–MEREC based EDAS methodology
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61089/aot2025.sxzx6j49Keywords:
logistics, innovation, swara, merec, edasAbstract
In today's world, where globalization and digitalization are accelerating, the logistics sector has become a strategic element in determining countries' economic competitiveness. The increasing complexity of logistics and the rapid evolution of trade networks require innovative, adaptive logistics structures. In this process, innovation stands out as a key factor that increases the efficiency and sustainability of logistics systems. In particular, broad innovation capacity and supportive institutional environments significantly shape the development of modern logistics systems. A logistics infrastructure strengthened by innovative approaches both increases operational efficiency and supports environmental sustainability. This study proposes a new index measuring countries' Innovative Logistics Performance (ILP) by integrating data from the Global Innovation Index (GII) and the Logistics Performance Index (LPI). By combining these two widely recognized indices, the study offers a multidimensional perspective on the innovation–logistics nexus. The index provides a systematic tool to assess how innovation dynamics translate into logistics competitiveness at the national level. In this respect, the study introduces a new conceptual framework in the literature and presents a measurable structure for analyzing this relationship. The study's unique feature is its hybrid methodological approach, combining SWARA, MEREC, and EDAS for the first time. This multi-method approach allows for a more comprehensive evaluation compared to traditional single-method analyses. The proposed model integrates both subjective and objective weighting techniques, ensuring balance and reliability in the evaluation process. The findings indicate that the "Institutions" criterion is the most influential determinant of ILP, followed by "Customs" and "International Shipments." The United States, Germany, and Canada stood out as the top-performing countries. Furthermore, a sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess the model's reliability, confirming its robustness and consistency in the evaluation results.
References
1. Abduvaliyev, A. A. (2022). Development trend of science and technology clusters in the world by the global ranking innovation index. Scientific And Technical Information Processing, 49(4), 211–219. https://doi.org/10.3103/S0147688222040025
2. Ali, T., Chiu, Y. R., Aghaloo, K., Nahian, A. J., & Ma, H. (2020). Prioritizing the existing power generation technologies in Bangladesh’s clean energy scheme using a hybrid multi-criteria decision making model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 267, 121901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121901
3. Alinezhad, A., & Khalili, J. (2019). New methods and applications in multiple attribute decision making (MADM). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15009-9
4. Anser, M. K., Khan, M. A., Awan, U., Batool, R., Zaman, K., Imran, M., Sasmoko, Indrianti, Y., Khan, A., & Bakar, Z. A. (2020). The Role of technological innovation in a dynamic model of the environmental supply chain curve: evidence from a panel of 102 countries. Processes, 8(9), 1033. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr8091033
5. Arvis, J. F., Ojala, L., Wiederer, C., Shepherd, B., Raj, A., Dairabayeva, K., & Kiiski, T. (2018). Connecting to compete 2018: Trade logistics in the global economy - The Logistics Performance Index and its indicators. World Bank.
6. Assabane, I., & El imrani, O. (2022). The Impact of logistics capacities on the logistics performance of lsps: results of an empirical study. Acta Logistica, 9(2), 141–149. https://doi.org/10.22306/al.v9i2.284
7. Ayadi, H., Hamani, N., Kermad, L., & Benaissa, M. (2021). Novel fuzzy composite indicators for locating a logistics platform under sustainability perspectives. Sustainability, 13(7), 3891. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073891
8. Brás, G. R. (2023). Pillars of the Global Innovation Index by income level of economies: longitudinal data (2011-2022) for researchers’ use. Data in Brief, 46, 108818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2022.108818
9. Bugarčić, F. Ž., Mijušković, V. M., & Aćimović, S. (2024). Innovation and new technologies as determinants of logistics 4.0. Politická Ekonomie, 72(1), 102–121. https://doi.org/10.18267/j.polek.1422
10. Chejarla, K.C., & Vaidya, O.S. (2024). A hybrid multi-criteria decision-making approach for longitudinal data. OPSEARCH, 61, 1013–1060. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12597-023-00736-y
11. Coşkun, A. E., & Erturgut, R. (2025). Does institutionalization enhance logistics performance in international businesses? A moderated and mediated model. Operations Management Research, 18(3), 1045–1066. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-025-00542-3
12. Demir, G., Chatterjee, P., & Pamucar, D. (2024). Sensitivity analysis in multi-criteria decision making: A state-of-the-art research perspective using bibliometric analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, 237, 121660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.121660
13. Dempere, J., Qamar, M., Allam, H., & Malik, S. (2023). The Impact of innovation on economic growth, foreign direct investment, and self-employment: a global perspective. Economies, 11(7), 182. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies11070182
14. Dimitrov, I., Antonova, E., & Dimitrova, A. (2024). Exploring the importance of logistics in the strategic business decisions of Bulgarian SMEs. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 12(2), 225–242. https://doi.org/10.9770/p6775548395
15. Dritsaki, M., & Dritsaki, C. (2023). R&D expenditures on innovation: a panel cointegration study of the E.U. countries. Sustainability, 15(8), 6637. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086637
16. Duan, Y., Stević, Ž., Novarlić, B., Hashemkhani Zolfani, S., Görçün, Ö. F., & Subotić, M. (2025). Application of the fuzzy MCDM model for the selection of a multifunctional machine for sustainable waste management. Sustainability, 17(6), 2723. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062723
17. García-Arca, J., Comesaña-Benavides, J. A., González-Portela Garrido, A. T., & Prado-Prado, J. C. (2020). Rethinking the box for sustainable logistics. Sustainability, 12(5), 1870. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051870
18. Ghorabaee, M., Amiri, M., Kazimieras Zavadskas, E., & Antuchevičienė, J. (2017). Assessment of third-party logistics providers using a CRITIC–WASPAS approach with interval type-2 fuzzy sets. Transport, 32(1), 66–78. https://doi.org/10.3846/16484142.2017.1282381
19. GII, Global Innovation Index, https://www.wipo.int/web/videos/w/global-innovation-index-2025-innovation-at-a-crossroads, Access date: September 2025
20. Gong, J. W., Liu, H. C., You, X. Y., & Yin, L. (2021). An integrated multi-criteria decision making approach with linguistic hesitant fuzzy sets for E-learning website evaluation and selection. Applied Soft Computing, 102, 107118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2021.107118
21. Halaszovich, T. F., & Kinra, A. (2020). The impact of distance, national transportation systems and logistics performance on FDI and international trade patterns: Results from Asian global value chains. Transport Policy, 98, 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.09.003
22. Hardi, I., Idroes, G. M., Márquez-Ramos, L., Noviandy, T. R., & Idroes, R. (2025). Inclusive innovation and green growth in advanced economies. Sustainable Futures, 9, 100540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2025.100540
23. Ibrahim, M. D., Pereira, M. A., & Caldas, P. (2024). Efficiency analysis of the innovation-driven sustainable logistics industry. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 96, 102050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2024.102050
24. Ighravwe, D. E., & Mashao, D. (2023). Application of a fuzzy multi-criteria decision framework for safety-critical maritime infrastructure evaluation. Heliyon, 9(7), e17782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17782
25. Ighravwe, D., & Babatunde, M. (2018). Selection of a mini-grid business model for developing countries using CRITIC–TOPSIS with interval type-2 fuzzy sets. Decision Science Letters, 7(4), 427–442. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.dsl.2018.1.004
26. Ippolitova, I., Komandrovska, V., Darid, A.-H., Andreitsev, V., & Symonenko, O. (2024). The impact of innovation support on the sustainable development of enterprises. Financial And Credit Activity Problems of Theory and Practice, 1(54), 392–402. https://doi.org/10.55643/fcaptp.1.54.2024.4260
27. Kabashkin, I. (2012). Freight Transport logistics in the Baltic Sea region. Regional aspects. Transport and Telecommunication Journal, 13(1), 33–50. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10244-012-0004-x
28. Kálmán, B., & Tóth, A. (2021). Links between the economy competitiveness and logistics performance in the Visegrád Group countries: Empirical evidence for the years 2007-2018. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 9(3), 169–190. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2021.090311
29. Kara, K., Yalçın G.C. & Kaygısız E.G. (2022). Determination of logistics innovation performance index with entropy and combined compromise solution techniques. Symmetry: Culture and Science, 33(4), 387-408. https://doi.org/10.26830/symmetry_2022_4_387
30. Kara, K., Yalçın, G. C., Acar, A. Z., Simic, V., Konya, S., & Pamucar, D. (2024). The MEREC-AROMAN method for determining sustainable competitiveness levels: A case study for Turkey. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 91, 101762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2023.101762
31. Kazemzadeh, E., Salehnia, N., Yu, Y., & Radulescu, M. (2025). Drivers of green growth: roles of innovation and fragility. Sustainability, 17(2), 735. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17020735
32. Keršulienė, V., Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2010). Selection of rational dispute resolution method by applying new step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA). Journal of Business Economics and Management, 11(2), 243–258. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2010.12
33. Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M. (2021). Assessment of distribution center locations using a multi-expert subjective–objective decision-making approach. Scientific Reports, 11, 19461. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-98698-y
34. Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M., Amiri, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Antuchevičienė, J. (2021). Determination of objective weights using a new method based on the removal effects of criteria (MEREC). Symmetry, 13(4), 525. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13040525
35. Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Olfat, L., & Turskis, Z. (2015). Multi-criteria inventory classification using a new method of evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS). Informatica, 26(3), 435–451. https://doi.org/10.15388/Informatica.2015.57
36. Kilibarda, M., Andrejić, M., & Popović, V. (2017, May). Efficiency of logistics processes in customs procedures. In Proceedings of the 3rd Logistics International Conference (Vol. 14, No. 17, pp. 45–51). Belgrade, Serbia.
37. Kurmanov, N., Aliev, U., & Suleimenova, S. (2019). Analysis of the Efficiency of Innovation Management in the Countries of the Eurasian Economic Union. Polish Journal of Management Studies, 19(1), 204–214. https://doi.org/10.17512/pjms.2019.19.1.15
38. Lee, C., & Ha, Y.-K. (2025). Impact of Disruptive Innovations on supply chain coordination, robustness, and logistics performance: A study of Korean automotive industry. Operations and Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 113–122. https://doi.org/10.31387/oscm0600459
39. Li, Y., & Guangwen, Z. (2025). Balancing innovation and accountability: AI’s transformative influence on logistics in G20 nations. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1), 750. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05090-6
40. Loucanova, E., Kaputa, V., Nosalova, M., & Olsiakova, M. (2024). The logistics and sustainability in the European Union. Acta Logistica, 11(02), 317–323. https://doi.org/10.22306/al.v11i2.515
41. Loucanova, E., Olsiakova, M., & Palus, H. (2022). The relationship of innovation and the performance of business logistics in the EU. Acta Logistica, 09(04), 479–485. https://doi.org/10.22306/al.v9i4.355
42. LPI, Logistics Performance Index, https://lpi.worldbank.org. Access date: September 2025
43. Magazzino, C., Alola, A. A., & Schneider, N. (2021). The trilemma of innovation, logistics performance, and environmental quality in 25 topmost logistics countries: A quantile regression evidence. Journal of Cleaner Production, 322, 129050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129050
44. Meliana, Yusrizal, Mesra, T., & Fitra. (2021). The Role of Human Resource Competency in Improving Logistic Performance. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 709(1), 012047. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/709/1/012047
45. Nepytaliuk, A., Osipova, L., Krasnyak, O., Kulhanik, O., Poliakov, M., & Kryvonos, D. (2024). Dominants for the national economies’ competitiveness. Financial and Credit Activity Problems of Theory and Practice, 5(58), 278–289. https://doi.org/10.55643/fcaptp.5.58.2024.4478
46. Nguyen, T. C., & Le, T. H. (2024). Financial crises and the national logistics performance: Evidence from emerging and developing countries. International Journal of Finance & Economics, 29(2), 1834–1855. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijfe.2768
47. Özekenci, E. K. (2023). Assessing the logistics market performance of developing countries by SWARA-CRITIC based CoCoSo methods. LogForum, 19(3), 375-394. https://doi.org/10.17270/J.LOG.2023.857
48. Rakauskienė, O. G., & Petkevičiūtė-Stručko, M. (2022). Determinants of logistics performance: A new approach towards analysis of economic corridors and institutional quality impact. Transport Problems, 17(4), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.9770/ird.2022.4.3(1)
49. Rezaei, J., van Roekel, W. S., & Tavasszy, L. (2018). Measuring the relative importance of the logistics performance index indicators using Best Worst Method. Transport Policy, 68, 158–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.05.007
50. Roy, P. K., & Shaw, K. (2021). A multicriteria credit scoring model for SMEs using hybrid BWM and TOPSIS. Financial Innovation, 7(1), 77. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-021-00295-5
51. Sahoo, D., Parida, P. K., & Pati, B. (2024). Efficient fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making for optimal college location selection: A comparative study of min–max fuzzy TOPSIS approach. Results in Control and Optimization, 15, 100422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rico.2024.100422
52. Saini, M., & Hrušecká, D. (2021). Comparative impact of logistics performance index, ease of doing business and logistics cost on economic development: A Fuzzy Qca analysis. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 22(6), 1577–1592. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2021.15586
53. Šarić, J., & Abramović, B. (2025). Using SWARA for the evaluation criteria of connecting airports with railway networks. Systems, 13(6), 428. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems13060428
54. Shikur, Z. H. (2022). The role of logistics performance in international trade: A developing country perspective. World Review of Intermodal Transportation Research, 11(1), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1504/WRITR.2022.123100
55. Soh, K. L., Wong, W. P., & Tang, C. F. (2021). The role of institutions at the nexus of logistic performance and foreign direct investment in Asia. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 37(2), 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2021.02.001
56. Tang, Y. (2024). The role of logistics innovation in enhancing supply chain efficiency: A case study analysis. Innovation in Science and Technology, 3(5), 64–74. Retrieved from https://www.paradigmpress.org/ist/article/view/1299
57. Udeagha, M. C., & Ngepah, N. (2023). Achieving decarbonization goals in BRICS economies: Revisiting the joint role of composite risk index, green innovation, and environmental policy stringency. Cogent Social Sciences, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2234230
58. Ulutaş, A. (2017). EDAS yöntemi kullanılarak bir tekstil atölyesi için dikiş makinesi seçimi. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(2), 169-183.
59. Wan, B., Wan, W., Hanif, N., & Ahmed, Z. (2022). Logistics performance and environmental sustainability: Do green innovation, renewable energy, and economic globalization matter? Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.996341
60. Wang, M., Kumar, M., & Tsolakis, N. (2025). Exploring the role of job satisfaction in enhancing logistics performance in the era of Industry 5.0. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2025.2486645
61. Więckowski, J., & Sałabun, W. (2023). Sensitivity analysis approaches in multi-criteria decision analysis: A systematic review. Applied Soft Computing, 148, 110915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2023.110915
62. Wiederer, C. K., Arvis, J.-F., Ojala, L. M., & Kiiski, T. M. M. (2021). The World Bank’s Logistics Performance Index. In international encyclopedia of transportation, 94–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102671-7.10226-X
63. Yildirim, B.F., Adiguzel Mercangoz, B. (2020). Evaluating the logistics performance of OECD countries by using fuzzy AHP and ARAS-G. Eurasian Econ Rev, 10, 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40822-019-00131-3
64. Yingfei, Y., Mengze, Z., Zeyu, L., Ki-Hyung, B., Andriandafiarisoa Ralison Ny Avotra, A., & Nawaz, A. (2022). Green logistics performance and infrastructure on service trade and environment-Measuring firm’s performance and service quality. Journal of King Saud University - Science, 34(1), 101683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksus.2021.101683
Downloads
Published
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are publicly available from official databases such as the World Bank (Logistics Performance Index), the Global Innovation Index. All data used in this study are open-access and can be obtained from their respective websites.
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Archives of Transport journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
