Decision Analytics Journal 6 (2023) 100176
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Decision Analytics Journal
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/dajour
A comprehensive analytical framework for evaluating the similarity between
organizations’ strategic directions and the United Nations’ sustainable
development goals
Ruby Mary Encenzo a , Romil Asoque a , Rose Arceño b , Janeth Aclao a , Edwin Ramones a ,
Janet Orioque a , Charldy Wenceslao c , Nadine May Atibing c , Lanndon Ocampo c ,∗
a
College of Technology and Engineering, Palompon Institute of Technology, Evangelista St., 6538, Palompon, Leyte, Philippines
Office of the Research Services, Palompon Institute of Technology, Palompon 6538, Leyte, Philippines
c
Center for Applied Mathematics and Operations Research, Cebu Technological University, Corner M.J., Cuenco Ave. & R. Palma St., Cebu City, 6000, Philippines
b
ARTICLE
INFO
Keywords:
Criteria importance through intercriteria
correlation
Evaluation based on distance from average
solution
United Nations
Sustainable development goals
Semantic similarity
ABSTRACT
This study presents a comprehensive analytical framework for evaluating the similarity between organizations’
specific strategic directions and the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The proposed
framework uses a multi-attribute decision-making method (MADM) in which organizations are evaluated
concerning the SDGs. In particular, we use the Integrated Criteria Importance through Intercriteria Correlation
(CRITIC) and Evaluation based on the Distance from Average Solution Method (EDAS) because of their
computational efficiency. Based on a pre-defined algorithm, we find decision matrices that contain relatedness
scores between each organization’s mission statements and the SDGs. This framework evaluates 244 top 300
Philippine higher education institutions (HEIs). The findings reveal that HEIs’ mission statements are related to
SDGs concerning climate action, reduced inequalities, and life on land; meanwhile, there were limited mission
statements relating to industry, innovation, and infrastructure. The evaluation is used to rank the HEIs. This
study can be considered a benchmark for future related studies and an effective tool to help design mission
statements that effectively convey organizations’ commitment to SDGs.
1. Introduction
In 2015, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly presented the
‘‘2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (SDG)’’, aiming to stimulate the proactive participation of countries in various areas of critical
importance over the subsequent 15 years. The agenda comprised 17
SDGs, with 169 sub-targets. These goals reflect sustainable development’s economic, social, and environmental pillars. Moreover, several
scholars advocate that SDGs must be implemented in an integrated
fashion rather than a segmented knowledge and regulatory framework
[1]. Since its publication, integrative reports have been made available
to monitor the progress and to link the targets to manageable information granules that were palatable to global organizations. Hák et al.
[2] proposed a set of indicators to monitor the progress of SDGs at
various reporting levels. Allen et al. [3] reviewed feasible models or
pathways for national governments to implement the SDGs. Georgeson and Maslin [4] also examined certain approaches to integrating
the SDGs into actual practice. Due to the complexities of achieving
the SDGs, Caiado et al. [5] outlined some potentials and constraints,
and Salvia et al. [6] examined how the academic community could
address some pressing concerns. The countries’ initial progress was first
reported by Allen et al. [7], followed by a more recent progress report
published by Halkos and Gkampoura [8]. These revealed significant
achievements in some SDGs (e.g., SDG8, SDG9, and SDG12) and emphasized the necessary efforts to leapfrog in the areas of education
(SDG 4), sustainable cities and communities (SDG11), and climate
change (SDG13). Indubitably, achieving these SDGs by 2030 will be
challenging; however, successfully achieving them would significantly
improve the sustainability of life on the planet [9].
The commitment of organizations to SDGs is consistently highlighted in practice (e.g., [10]) and scholarly literature (e.g., [11]).
Companies integrate SDGs to strengthen their social legitimacy and
reputation [12,13]. Different markets and sectors are expected to have
diverse perceptions in addressing and implementing SDGs. From a
marketing industry perspective, they are concerned about SDGs primarily as a means to improve employment opportunities by establishing
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: rubymary.encenzo@pit.edu.ph (R.M. Encenzo), rla_0208@yahoo.com (R. Asoque), rose_arceno@yahoo.com (R. Arceño),
janeth.aclao@pit.edu.ph (J. Aclao), edwinramones@yahoo.com (E. Ramones), janet.orioque@pit.edu.ph (J. Orioque), charldypeloniowenceslao@gmail.com
(C. Wenceslao), nadinemayatibing@gmail.com (N.M. Atibing), lanndonocampo@gmail.com (L. Ocampo).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dajour.2023.100176
Received 24 September 2022; Received in revised form 21 January 2023; Accepted 24 January 2023
Available online 30 January 2023
2772-6622/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
R.M. Encenzo, R. Asoque, R. Arceño et al.
Decision Analytics Journal 6 (2023) 100176
multi-attribute decision-making (MADM) method. The 17 SDGs are
considered the attributes, and the HEIs are the alternatives in a goalattribute-alternative hierarchy, which is commonly represented in most
MADM methods.
Several reports have been published on the development and
progress of MADM methods and hybrids [32–34], with a particular
focus on sustainability issues [35]. The strengths and weaknesses of
each method have been widely studied, and comparative analyses of
various methods are presented in most cases. In view of the proposed
topic to be addressed by the MADM method, the integration of CRiteria
importance through inter-criteria correlation (CRITIC) and Evaluation
Based on Distance from Average Solution (EDAS) methods are adopted.
CRITIC assigns priority weights of attributes (i.e., SDGs); EDAS evaluates the mission statements of HEIs. Proposed by Diakoulaki et al.
[36], CRITIC offers a more efficient technique for generating attribute
weights than comparable methods (e.g., analytic hierarchy process,
best-worst method, full consistency method, and others) as evident
in some of its more recent applications [37–39]. Conversely, EDAS
was developed by Ghorabaee et al. [40] to address conflicting criteria
issues with the MADM method; its basis of evaluation is the distance
of alternatives to an ‘‘average solution’’. Recent innovative applications
of EDAS have been reported in the literature (e.g., [41–43]).
Text analytics was proposed to construct the decision matrix for the
CRITIC-EDAS application. It systematically represents the similarity of
the mission statements with the SDGs. In this approach, a similarity
measure is obtained via a pre-defined natural language processing
algorithm that shows the similarity of the mission statements with the
SDGs. Evaluating this similarity across all SDGs offers a comprehensive
view of how an HEI mission statement embodies the SDGs. Several
studies (e.g., [44–47]) have employed more recent and modern tools,
such as text similarity techniques, embeddings, and natural language
processing, to extract similarity measures. These tools are also emerging in research management [47], the biomedical domain [48], and
harmonization of laws [49].
This innovative technique of generating a decision matrix using
the MADM method via text analytics is still considered novel. To
illustrate the proposed integrated approach, a case study evaluating the
mission statements of the top 300 HEIs in the Philippines (listed in the
database of Webometrics—a webpage that utilizes quantitative methods to assist in ranking universities throughout the world) is reported.
An online semantic similarity tool, which can generate relatedness
scores, is used to analyze the relationship between two phrase patterns,
proximity of words, and relevance of texts. Then, the decision matrix
was constructed using the generated relatedness scores. The integrated
CRITIC-EDAS approach determined the similarity between the mission
statements and the 17 SDGs. This systematic approach offers a viable
tool for comprehensively evaluating how SDGs are embedded in the
strategic direction of HEIs, which can provide inputs with respect to
their long-term planning agenda.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2
presents preliminary concepts of the CRITIC and EDAS methods, while
Section 3 details the methodology and the proposed integrated CRITICEDAS approach. Section 4 presents a comparative analysis of the proposed approach and other comparable methods. Section 5 presents the
implications of the findings. Finally, Section 6 concludes the paper.
sustainable, innovative, and people-oriented economies [14]. In the
industrial sector, SDGs related to production and technological modernization are more popular (e.g., the inclusion of young people in
the labor market, enhancement of resource efficiency, and mitigation
of environmental degradation; [15]). Meanwhile, the chemical industry focuses on the adverse effects of its operational activities on the
environment (e.g., pollutants or operational exhaust generated; [16]).
The SDGs champion opportunities for environmental protection. That
is, they affect the process implemented by various industries by emphasizing the urgent need to adjust consumption and production patterns
and adhering to the ‘‘call to battle’’ against climate change and other
global concerns.
When SDGs are integrated into organizational processes, a careful
evaluation of sustainability is warranted. This provides a more precise direction, sharper focus, and improved understanding. Moreover,
strategic management is pivotal to the success of the SDGs [17]. According to Zeemering [18], strategic planning allows decision-makers
to critically consider how sustainability and sustainable development
concepts upend preconceived notions regarding their strategy, priorities, and service delivery models with respect to social, economic, and
environmental benefits. The process of fostering sustainability actions
and decisions at all organizational levels begins with the establishment of strategic management processes [19]. To develop efficient
strategic directions, a mission statement is a powerful tool [20]. Numerous studies have demonstrated the necessity of a well-articulated
mission statement that communicates essential information regarding
organizational goals to obtain favorable outcomes [19,21,22].
Beyond industrial settings, higher education institutions (HEIs) also
integrate SDGs into their strategic directions. In support of the SDGs,
the Copernicus Agreement was signed by almost 300 HEIs in Europe,
and together with the Higher Education Sustainability Initiative, the
commitment of HEIs to global objectives has been strengthened [23].
HEIs are essential actors in fostering lifelong learning and are key
agents in the education of future leaders; thus, they are expected to contribute to the successful realization and implementation of SDGs [24].
As each HEI has a unique goal, they carefully adopted certain aspects of
other institutions’ optimal practices. According to the Global University
Network for Innovation [25], there were missed opportunities and
advances in the education sector. Consequently, the UN high-level
political forum encourages HEIs to release an annual report on how
they encapsulate SDGs [26]. The report details how they address and
teach leaders to incorporate SDGs into their practices, policies, and
curricula. However, they are not adequately coordinated to promote
social or environmental sustainability or strategically supported by the
institution’s encompassing strategy [27]. Although they actively pursue
certain SDGs by leveraging opportunities for teaching, research, and
collaboration with society and other external partners, some objectives
require greater action, which results in some institutions falling behind
[26]. As a solution, they can better evaluate the alignment of the overall
organizational strategy and the SDGs embedded in identity instruments, such as the mission statement. Aligning organizations’ strategic
direction with the SDGs ensures coherence at various organizational
levels. Such coherence promotes efficiency in organizational planning,
resource allocation, and strategy development.
Recent advances have been made in integrating sustainability
within HEIs, following a range of aspects, including learning processes
[28], synergistic initiatives across layers of functions [29], transdisciplinary approaches in curriculum design [30], funding requirements
[31], and an expanded set of aspects examined in the domain literature.
Despite these current initiatives in embedding the sustainability agenda
in higher education, holistically exploring how organizational direction
is aligned with SDGs remains an area that must be addressed. Thus, this
study bridges that gap by explicitly evaluating the mission statements
of HEIs in terms of how they fit with the 17 SDGs. Such an agenda
informs HEIs in crafting an improved strategic direction that conforms
with the requirements of the SDGs. The proposed evaluation is a
2. Preliminaries
2.1. The CRITIC method
Diakoulaki et al. [36] developed the CRITIC method, a computational platform that obtains priority weights of attributes/criteria in
an MADM problem via the initial decision matrix. It obtains priority
weights from the contrast intensity of a criterion and the conflict
concentration among criteria in a given set [36,50]. The contrast
intensity and degree of variability among scores within each criterion
2
R.M. Encenzo, R. Asoque, R. Arceño et al.
Decision Analytics Journal 6 (2023) 100176
[36] can be determined using several methods, including variance and
entropy. The pairwise linear correlation coefficients among the criteria
are utilized to capture their conflicting relationships. Thus, the CRITIC
method provides an efficient technique for generating priority weights
of criteria/attributes from a decision matrix when compared with other
priority weight allocation methods. Additionally, it collects all of the
information obtained from the evaluation criteria based on the results
of the evaluation matrix [50]. The degree of robustness of CRITIC has
been empirically examined in previous studies (e.g., [51]). Its computational results clearly depict its advantage in obtaining an objective
resolution when using the MADM method to analyze a problem.
2.2. The EDAS method
The EDAS method, developed by Ghorabaee et al. [40], uses an
average solution to appraise the alternatives. In this method, two
measures are considered when addressing the desirability of the alternatives: (1) positive distance from the average matrix  and (2)
negative distance from the average matrix  [52]. These two measures
determine the difference between each solution (alternative) and the
average solution. Other MADM methods, such as the VlseKriteriżka
Optimizacija I Komoromisno Resenje (VIKOR) and Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), determine
the optimal alternative by computing the distance between the ideal
and negative ideal solutions. However, the optimal alternative in this
method is obtained from the distance average solution [40]. However,
the evaluation of alternatives evolved according to higher values of 
and  . This implies that lower values of  and higher values of 
indicate that the alternative is better than the average solution. The
computational steps for EDAS are discussed as follows:
Definition 1. Here, following Diakoulaki et al. [36], let 𝑚 alternatives
and 𝑛 evaluation criteria 𝑐𝑗 (𝑗 = 1, … , 𝑛) comprise an MADM problem.
Thereafter, the problem in its general form is presented as follows:
{
}
max 𝑐1 (𝑎) , 𝑐2 (𝑎) , … , 𝑐𝑛 (𝑎) |𝑎 ∈ 𝐴
(1)
for any finite set of alternatives 𝐴.
Based on the concept of an ideal point, each criterion 𝑐𝑗 can be
defined by a membership function 𝑥𝑗 where 𝑥𝑗 ∶ 𝑐𝑗 (𝑎) ⟶ [0, 1]. Thus,
in criterion 𝑗, a value close to the ideal 𝑐𝑗∗ represents the optimal performance, whereas a value far from the anti-ideal value 𝑐𝑗 ∗ represents
the worst performance. The steps in determining the criteria weights
using the CRITIC method are as follows:
Step 1. Choose the most important 𝑗 criteria (𝑗 = 1, … , 𝑛) that describe
𝑖 alternatives (𝑖 = 1, … , 𝑚) for a specific decision problem.
( )
Step 2. Compute the decision-making matrix 𝑋 = 𝑥𝑖𝑗 𝑚×𝑛 , where
𝑥𝑖𝑗 denotes the performance value of the 𝑖th alternative on the 𝑗th
criterion.
( )
Step 3. Determine the average solution 𝑉 = 𝑣𝑗 1×𝑛 with respect to all
criteria as follows:
∑𝑚
𝑖=1 𝑥𝑖𝑗
∀𝑗
(8)
𝑣𝑗 =
𝑚
Step 1: Construct the MADM problem with 𝑚 alternatives and 𝑛 evaluation criteria.
( )
Step 2: Develop the decision-making matrix 𝑋 = 𝑥𝑖𝑗 𝑚×𝑛 , where 𝑥𝑖𝑗
represents the evaluation score of alternative 𝑖 (𝑖 = 1, … , 𝑚) with respect
to criterion 𝑗 (𝑗 = 1, … , 𝑛).
( )
Step 3: Compute the normalized matrix 𝑁 = 𝑛𝑖𝑗 𝑚×𝑛 , where the
normalized score 𝑛𝑖𝑗 describes a linear normalization of 𝑥𝑖𝑗 . It is given
by
𝑥𝑖𝑗 − 𝑥𝑗 ∗
𝑛𝑖𝑗 = ∗
∀𝑖, 𝑗
(2)
𝑥𝑗 − 𝑥𝑗 ∗
Step 4. Compute the positive distance from the average matrix  =
( )
and the negative distance from the average matrix  =
p
( 𝑖𝑗 )𝑚×𝑛
n𝑖𝑗 𝑚×𝑛 , according to the type of criteria (i.e., benefit and cost) as
follows.
If 𝑗th criterion is a benefit (maximizing) criterion,
( (
))
max 0, 𝑥𝑖𝑗 − 𝑣𝑗
p𝑖𝑗 =
∀𝑖, 𝑗
(9)
𝑣𝑗
( (
))
max 0, 𝑣𝑗 − 𝑥𝑖𝑗
n𝑖𝑗 =
∀𝑖, 𝑗
(10)
𝑣𝑗
where 𝑥∗𝑗 = max𝑖 𝑥𝑖𝑗 and 𝑥𝑗 ∗ = min𝑖 𝑥𝑖𝑗 for 𝑗 = 1, … , 𝑛.
Step 4: Generate vectors 𝑛𝑗 denoting the normalized scores of all 𝑚
alternatives.
(
)
𝑛𝑗 = 𝑛1𝑗 , 𝑛2𝑗 , … , 𝑛𝑚𝑗
∀𝑗
(3)
Otherwise, if the 𝑗th criterion is a cost (minimizing) criterion,
( (
))
max 0, 𝑣𝑗 − 𝑥𝑖𝑗
∀𝑖, 𝑗
(11)
p𝑖𝑗 =
𝑣𝑗
( (
))
max 0, 𝑥𝑖𝑗 − 𝑣𝑗
n𝑖𝑗 =
∀𝑖, 𝑗
(12)
𝑣𝑗
Step 5: Compute the standard deviation of each 𝑛𝑗 using the following
routine calculations:
√
)2
∑𝑚 (
𝑖=1 𝑛𝑖𝑗 − 𝑛𝑗
𝜎𝑗 =
∀𝑗
(4)
𝑚
where p𝑖𝑗 and n𝑖𝑗 denote the positive and negative distances of alternative 𝑖 from the average solution, respectively, in terms of criterion
𝑗.
∑𝑚
where 𝑛𝑗 =
𝑖=1 𝑛𝑖𝑗
𝑚
( )
Step 6: Construct the symmetric matrix 𝑅 = 𝑟𝑗𝑘 𝑛×𝑛 where 𝑟𝑗𝑘 denotes
the linear correlation coefficient of two vectors 𝑛𝑗 and 𝑛𝑘 using the
formula:
∑𝑚
𝑖=1 (𝑛𝑖𝑗− 𝑛𝑗 )(𝑛𝑖𝑘− 𝑛𝑘 )
𝑟𝑗𝑘 = √
∀𝑗, 𝑘 ∈ {1, … , 𝑛}
(5)
(
)2 ∑𝑚 (
)2
∑𝑚
𝑛
−
𝑛
𝑛
−
𝑛
𝑖𝑗
𝑗
𝑖𝑘
𝑘
𝑖=1
𝑖=1
Step 5. Determine the weighted sums p𝑖 and n𝑖 for alternative 𝑖 as
follows:
p𝑖 =
where 𝑟𝑗𝑘 ∈ [−1, 1]. Evidently, when 𝑗 = 𝑘, 𝑟𝑗𝑘 = 1.
n𝑖 =
𝑧𝑗 = 𝜎𝑗
𝑗=1
𝑛
∑
𝑤𝑗 p𝑖𝑗
∀𝑖
(13)
𝑤𝑗 n𝑖𝑗
∀𝑖
(14)
𝑗=1
Step 7: Compute the amount of information 𝑧𝑗 as follows:
𝑛
∑
𝑛
∑
where 𝑤𝑗 is the priority weight of the 𝑗th criterion and
(1 − 𝑟𝑗𝑘 )
∀𝑗
(6)
∑𝑛
𝑗=1
𝑤𝑗 = 1.
Step 6. Construct the normalized scores of all 𝑖 alternatives p
̂ 𝑖 and n
̂𝑖
through the following:
𝑘=1
where the higher value of 𝑧𝑗 implies that the criterion 𝑗 contains more
information.
p
̂𝑖 =
Step 8: Determine the priority weights of criteria using the following:
𝑧𝑗
𝑤𝑗 = ∑ 𝑛
∀𝑗
(7)
𝑘=1 𝑧𝑘
p𝑖
( )
maxi p𝑖
n
̂𝑖 = 1−
3
n𝑖
( )
maxi n𝑖
(15)
∀𝑖
∀𝑖
(16)
R.M. Encenzo, R. Asoque, R. Arceño et al.
Decision Analytics Journal 6 (2023) 100176
Table 1
United Nations 17 sustainable development goals.
Step 7. Calculate the appraisal score 𝑎𝑖 for all alternatives, as follows:
)
1(
∀𝑖
(17)
𝑎𝑖 =
p
̂ +n
̂𝑖
2 𝑖
where 0 ≤ 𝑎𝑖 ≤ 1.
Step 8. Rank the alternatives according to decreasing values of the
appraisal score 𝑎𝑖 . The alternative with the highest 𝑎𝑖 is the best
alternative.
Code
Description
SDG1
SDG2
End poverty in all its forms everywhere.
End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and
promote sustainable agriculture.
SDG3
SDG4
Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all.
Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote
lifelong learning opportunities for all.
SDG5
SDG6
Achieve gender equality and female empowerment.
Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and
sanitation for all.
SDG7
Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern
energy for all.
SDG8
Promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth,
full and productive employment, and decent work for all.
SDG9
Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable
industrialization, and foster innovation.
SDG10
SDG11
Reduce income inequality within and among countries.
Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and
sustainable.
SDG12
SDG13
Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns.
Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts by
regulating emissions and promoting renewable energy
development.
SDG14
Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas, and marine
resources.
SDG15
Protect, restore, and promote sustainable use of terrestrial
ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification,
and halt and reverse land degradation and biodiversity loss.
SDG16
Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable
development, provide access to justice for all, and build
effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.
SDG17
Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the
global partnership for sustainable development.
3. Methodology
3.1. Data gathering
Establishing mission statements is a component of organizations’
strategic process. Amidst competing interests, HEIs make declarations
to mark a focal point, forge overarching directions, and guide their
stakeholders to act toward a common purpose. In 2015, the UN released
a blueprint to achieve a sustainable future through SDGs. As one of the
original 51 charter members of the UN and a current participating nation, the Philippines signed the partnership framework for sustainable
development together with the UN Country Team. This framework supported a stronghold for strategic partnerships through the collaboration
of member countries. Eight years after the publication of the UN SDGs,
several nations still desired synergistic efforts among organizations—a
recognized pathway for achieving sustainability; however, they were
disappointed with the results [53]. A call for a systems approach was
needed, especially in infrastructure represented by interdependencies
[54], such as HEIs. Explicitly integrating the SDGs within organizational strategic statements could lead directly to collective efforts
within and between HEIs, with the goal of achieving SDGs.
This study uses a systematic approach to evaluate the degree to
which UN SDGs are embedded within the mission statements of HEIs
using a case study of the top 300 HEIs in the Philippines according
to Webometrics (a web page run by the research group Cybermetrics
Lab, which utilizes quantitative methods to rank universities worldwide based on their scientific activities, impact, openness, and excellence rank). A mission statement sets an organizational direction and
roadmap of how an organization can achieve its vision. The UN SDGs,
which are statements of ‘‘how to’’, are more similar to the mission than
those vision statements. Thus, it is more appropriate to evaluate the
similarity with the SDGs using mission than vision statements.
Each mission statement obtained for the study was derived from
the HEI’s institutional website. The application of the proposed multiattribute evaluation based on an integrated CRITIC-EDAS approach
requires the decision matrix 𝑥𝑖𝑗 . In the proposed approach, each 𝑥𝑖𝑗 is
obtained through a semantic similarity tool (a feature available for free
on the Bytesview website); it is a data analysis tool with two input cells
capable of extracting insights from unstructured text or data. Inputting
the mission statement of HEI (alternative) 𝑖 on the first input cell and
SDG (criterion) 𝑗 on the other input cell on the semantic similarity tool
will detect the correspondence of the two documents and produce a
‘‘relatedness’’ score in the form of a percentage. This ‘‘relatedness’’ score
is hereby considered as the similarity of a specific mission statement
and a specific SDG. Fifty-six of the 300 HEIs mentioned previously
were discarded because of fused vision and mission statements, lack
of available data, unsecured webpages, or inaccessible institutional
websites, resulting in 244 HEIs in the final analysis.
Phase (3). Fig. 1 illustrates the proposed procedure of the CRITIC-EDAS
approach.
Phase (1). Constructing the decision matrix.
Step 1. Determine the list of decision criteria (UN SDGs) and alternatives (HEIs).
The 17 SDGs formulated by the UN were considered the decision
attributes 𝑗, 𝑗 = 1, … , 𝑛. These attributes were utilized to evaluate
the HEIs—specifically, the top 300 Philippine HEIs—based on the
Webometrics Ranking of World Universities (for the Philippines; [55]).
Step 2. The mission statements of the identified HEIs are obtained and
the SDGs are described.
From the original list of 300 HEIs, 56 were eliminated for the following reasons: (a) combined vision and mission statements, and (b) lack
of available data owing to unsecured pages or inaccessible institutional
websites. Consequently, only 244 institutions were included in this
study. Thus, the decision matrix comprises 244 HEIs as alternatives
and 17 SDGs as criteria, forming a 244 × 17 matrix. The list of HEIs is
presented in Appendix A and the list of SDGs is shown in Table 1.
Table 1 presents the UN SDGs, which have advanced the concept of
sustainability and provides a framework for organizations to integrate
sustainability agendas into their operations.
Step 3. Obtain the relatedness scores 𝑥𝑖𝑗 .
The relatedness scores were generated using the Bytesview semantic
similarity tool [56]. They are presented in a decision matrix, which can
be found in the Supplementary Material section. The score 𝑥𝑖𝑗 of the
𝑖th HEI
( to
) the 𝑗th SDG is utilized to construct the evaluation matrix
𝑋 = 𝑥𝑖𝑗 𝑚×𝑛 . Fig. 2 presents the user interface and the steps involved
in generating the scores using the BytesView semantic similarity tool.
Algorithm 1 presents the technical steps followed to test the similarity
of texts.
3.2. Proposed methodological framework for the integrated CRITIC-EDAS
approach
The proposed methodological framework comprises the following
three phases: (1) constructing the decision matrix; (2) implementing the
CRITIC method; and (3) ranking the HEIs via the EDAS method. In this
framework, the weights generated from Phase (2) are integrated into
4
R.M. Encenzo, R. Asoque, R. Arceño et al.
Decision Analytics Journal 6 (2023) 100176
Fig. 1. Proposed methodological framework for the integrated CRITIC-EDAS approach.
Step 6. Evaluation of embeddings: The similarity of preprocessed
words is tested from a word library to generate a relatedness score.
Algorithm 1. Process flow of the semantic similarity algorithm
Start
End
Step 1. Normalization: Transforming the text into lowercase and
removing all special characters to create a uniform text format.
Phase (2). Implementing the CRITIC method
Steps 4 and 5 discuss the implementation of the CRITIC method for
assigning priority weights to the SDGs.
Step 2. Tokenization: Splitting text (primarily made up of words or
phrases) into different tokens.
Step 3. Removal of stop words and punctuations: Stop words are
most commonly used in a language, along with punctuations; they do
not add value to the text.
Step 4. Construct the normalized decision matrix.
Using the evaluation matrix 𝑋, the normalized decision matrix 𝑁 is
computed using Eq. (2).
Step 4. Stemming: The process of obtaining the root words. Sometimes this root is not equal to the morphological root of the word;
however, this step aims to map related words to the same stem.
Step 5. Compute the standard deviation.
The vector 𝑛𝑗 is generated through the normalized scores of all 𝑚
HEIs. Vector 𝑛𝑗 is obtained using Eq. (3), and the standard deviations
for all 𝑛𝑗 is calculated using Eq. (4).
( )
Step 6. Construct the symmetric matrix 𝑅 = 𝑟𝑗𝑘 𝑛×𝑛
Step 5. Lemmatization: This is the process of obtaining the same
word for a group of inflected word forms. The simplest way to do this
is to use a dictionary.
5
R.M. Encenzo, R. Asoque, R. Arceño et al.
Decision Analytics Journal 6 (2023) 100176
Fig. 2. Illustration of the user interface of the online tool and step-by-step guide on navigating the semantic similarity tool.
Table 2
Priority weights of attributes.
Table 3
Average solution of all attributes.
Attributes
𝑧𝑗
𝑤𝑗
Attributes
𝑧𝑗
𝑤𝑗
Attributes
𝑣𝑗
Attributes
𝑣𝑗
Attributes
𝑣𝑗
SDG1
SDG2
SDG3
SDG4
SDG5
SDG6
SDG7
SDG8
SDG9
2.1437
2.0737
2.0950
1.8631
2.2290
1.7032
1.8316
1.6226
1.4116
0.0637
0.0616
0.0623
0.0554
0.0662
0.0506
0.0544
0.0482
0.0419
SDG10
SDG11
SDG12
SDG13
SDG14
SDG15
SDG16
SDG17
2.4340
1.7225
1.8875
2.6324
2.2360
2.3254
1.4158
2.0237
0.0723
0.0512
0.0561
0.0782
0.0664
0.0691
0.0421
0.0601
SDG1
SDG2
SDG3
SDG4
SDG5
SDG6
6.8545
13.5948
7.9691
22.5218
9.1265
5.9505
SDG7
SDG8
SDG9
SDG10
SDG11
SDG12
7.5904
15.3119
13.0303
3.6789
7.2314
6.9337
SDG13
SDG14
SDG15
SDG16
SDG17
3.0295
10.1548
8.3243
18.6148
14.4893
( )
The positive distance from the average matrix  = p𝑖𝑗 𝑚×𝑛 is
obtained using Eq. (9) if the 𝑗th SDG is beneficial, and using Eq. (11)
if the 𝑗th SDG is non-beneficial. On the contrary, the negative distance
( )
from the average matrix  = n𝑖𝑗 𝑚×𝑛 is computed using Eq. (10) if the
𝑗th SDG is beneficial, and using Eq. (12) if the 𝑗th SDG is non-beneficial.
( )
Step 11. Determine the weighted sum matrix  = p𝑖 𝑚×1 and  =
( )
n𝑖 𝑚×1 .
For all 𝑚 HEIs, Eqs. (13) and (14) are utilized to generate p𝑖 and
n𝑖 , respectively.
( )
Step 12. Construct the normalized score matrix ̂ = p
̂ 𝑖 𝑚×1 and
(
)
̂ = n
̂ 𝑖 𝑚×1 .
Eqs. (15) and (16) are used to calculate p
̂ 𝑖 and n
̂ 𝑖 for each alternative 𝑖.
The symmetric matrix 𝑅 is generated using Eq. (5), where 𝑟𝑗𝑘
denotes the linear correlation coefficient of two vectors 𝑛𝑗 and 𝑛𝑘 ,
𝑗, 𝑘 ∈ {1, … , 𝑛}.
Step 7. Obtain the amount of information 𝑧𝑗 .
The amount of information 𝑧𝑗 for all attributes 𝑗 is computed
using Eq. (6).
Step 8. Determine the priority weights 𝑤𝑗 .
Using Eq. (7), the priority weights 𝑤𝑗 of all 𝑛 attributes are generated; these are presented in Table 2.
The results of the CRITIC method are presented in Table 2. Apparently, SDG13 (climate action) yields the highest priority weight,
followed by SDG10 (reduced inequalities) and SDG15 (life on land).
SDG9 (industry, innovation, and infrastructure) exhibits the least priority weight. Therefore, HEIs vary in their views on actions related to
climate change; they can also be discriminated against based on the
aspect of uplifting the socioeconomic status of different stakeholders
and promoting skills-based programs that help increase the human
capital of some rural communities. Prioritizing SDG15 is crucial in view
of the impending climate-related dilemmas. Interestingly, they have
limited interest in SDG9, which may be due to their low innovation
potential.
Step 13. Determine the priority ranking of HEIs.
The appraisal score 𝑎𝑖 for all HEIs, generated using Eq. (17), is
utilized to obtain the HEIs’ priority rank. The HEI with the highest 𝑎𝑖
is considered as having the highest priority rank.
The priority rankings are listed in Table 4.
Table 4 presents HEIs’ priority ranks. As observed, on top of the
list is the Mariano Marcos State University, and San Sebastian College
Recoletos de Cavite is at the bottom.
4. Comparative analysis
Phase (3). Ranking the HEIs via the EDAS method
Steps 9 to 11 illustrate the application of the EDAS method in
ranking HEIs based on their alignment with the SDGs.
( )
Step 9. Determine the average solution 𝑉 = 𝑣𝑗 1×𝑛 .
Eq. (8) is utilized to compute the average solution 𝑣𝑗 with respect
to all 𝑗 SDGs. The resulting matrices are presented in Table 3.
A comparative analysis was completed to examine how the integrated approach used in this study compares with other MADM
methods and ensure that the results are not achieved using a whimsical
approach. In choosing a subset of methods among an array of MADM
methods, we proposed two primary qualifications: (1) the method
is based on an 𝑚 × 𝑛 decision matrix and (2) the algorithm of the
method contains limited parameters, unlike some popular methods
Step 10. Calculate the positive distance from the average and negative
distance from the average.
6
R.M. Encenzo, R. Asoque, R. Arceño et al.
Decision Analytics Journal 6 (2023) 100176
Table 4
Priority ranking of HEIs based on integrated CRITIC-EDAS method.
Rank
HEI
Rank
HEI
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
Mariano Marcos State University
University of Nueva Caceres
De La Salle Lipa
Zamboanga State College of Marine Sciences and Technology
Camarines Sur Polytechnic Colleges
Eastern Visayas State University
Central Bicol State University of Agriculture
Bukidnon State University
Mindanao State University at Naawan
Abe International Business College
Iligan Medical Center College
Information and Communications Technology Academy
Southern Philippines Agri-Business and Marine and Aquatic School of Technology
Aurora State College of Technology
Nueva Vizcaya State University
University of the East Ramon Magsaysay
University of Caloocan City
Caraga State University
University of the Philippines Visayas
Bestlink College of the Philippines
Surigao State College of Technology
San Carlos College
De La Salle University-Manila
University of Northeastern Philippines
Leyte Normal University
University of Northern Philippines
Iloilo Doctors’ College
University of Southern Mindanao
University of Southeastern Philippines
Sorsogon State College
Central Mindanao University
Catanduanes State University
Davao del Norte State College
Iloilo Science and Technology University
Biliran Province State University
Center for Industrial Technology and Enterprise
La Salle University
Davao Doctors College
Lyceum Northwestern University
Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology
Western Philippines University
Philippine Christian University
Cebu Doctors’ University
Mapua University
New Era University
Visayas State Universities
Rizal Technological University
Manila Business College
De La Salle College of Saint Benilde
Malayan Colleges Laguna
Misamis University
Holy Angel University
Surigao del Sur State University
Partido State University
Aklan State University
Far Eastern University Philippines
Guimaras State College
University of Mindanao
Batangas State University
Araullo University
University of Pangasinan
Far Eastern University Dr. Nicanor Reyes Medical Foundation
University of Bohol
Arellano University
Don Mariano Marcos Memorial State University
University of Eastern Philippines
Isabela State University
Pampanga State Agricultural University
Carlos Hilado Memorial State College
PATTS College of Aeronautics
University of Science and Technology of Southern Philippines
Northern Negros State College of Science and Technology
Mindanao State University
Alliance Graduate School
San Pedro College of Business Administration
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
Urdaneta City University
Cebu Institute of Technology-University
University of Rizal System
President Ramon Magsaysay State University
Palompon Institute of Technology
FEATI University
Centro Escolar University Manila
University of Batangas
Philippine Women’s University
Eulogio Amang Rodríguez Institute of Science and Technology
Saint Jude College
Iligan Computer Institute
Chiang Kai Shek College
Pangasinan State University
Palawan State University
Bataan Peninsula State University
Holy Trinity University Philippines
Asian Theological Seminary Philippines
Romblon State University
Cebu Normal University
Southern Leyte State University
Occidental Mindoro State College
Philippine College of Criminology
Southern Luzon State University
Philippine School of Business Administration
Saint Louis College
University of Antique
St. Paul University Quezon City
Kalayaan College
Cagayan State University
Camarines Norte State College
FEU Cavite
Saint Joseph Institute of Technology
National Defense College of the Philippines
Jose Maria College
FAITH Colleges
Northwest Samar State University
Colegio de Dagupan
Cebu Technological University
Dipolog Medical Center College Foundation
National College of Science & Technology
Capiz State University
Saint Paul University Philippines
Bicol State College of Applied Sciences and Technology
Saint Paul University Pasig
Southwestern University
Naga College Foundation
St. Augustine School of Nursing
Wesleyan University- Philippines
Comteq Computer and Business College
University of San Agustin
Foundation University
Father Saturnino Urios University
System Technology Institute
Samar State University
Negros Oriental State University
FEU Institute of Technology
Quirino State University
Miriam College
University of the Philippines Cebu
Central Philippine Adventist College
University of Makati
College of Development Communication
Sultan Kudarat State University
Universidad de Zamboanga
University of Cebu
University of Cebu
Liceo de Cagayan University
University of Saint La Salle Bacolod
Manuel S. Enverga University
Southeast Asia Interdisciplinary Development Institute
Universidad de Sta. Isabel
AMA Computer University
Capitol University
University of the Philippines Mindanao
(continued on next page)
7
R.M. Encenzo, R. Asoque, R. Arceño et al.
Decision Analytics Journal 6 (2023) 100176
Table 4 (continued).
Rank
HEI
Rank
HEI
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
Bicol Christian College of Medicine
Bulacan State University
Philippine Military Academy
John B. Lacson Foundation Maritime University
Lorma Colleges
Ifugao State University
Laguna State Polytechnic University
Cavite State University
Don Honorio Ventura State University
West Visayas State University
Cebu Institute of Medicine
De La Salle Araneta University
Philippine Normal University
PanPacific University
Don Bosco College
Tarlac Agricultural University
Salazar Colleges of Science and Institute of Technology
Ilocos Sur Polytechnic State College
Mindanao State University General Santos
Notre Dame University Cotabato
Mindanao State University Iligan Institute of Technology
Bulacan Agricultural State College
Technological Research for Ad ComEd College
La Consolacion College Bacolod
Adventist University of the Philippines
University of the East
Western Mindanao State University
Bohol Island State University
AMA Computer College Tuguegarao
Lyceum of the Philippines University Batangas
Philippine National Police Academy
Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies
Filamer Christian University
San Sebastian College Manila
University of Manila
Sacred Heart College Lucena City
Technological Institute of the Philippines
Western Institute of Technology
Philippine Merchant Marine Academy
Benguet State University
National Teachers College
Asian College of Technology
Cotabato Foundation College of Science and Technology
Asian Institute of Management
Tarlac Agricultural University
Calayan Educational Foundation
Divine Word College of Legazpi
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
Informatics Computer Institute
Jose Rizal Memorial State University
Jose Rizal University
ICCT Colleges
National College of Business and Arts
International Graduate School of Leadership
University of La Salette
Saint Michael’s College of Laguna
University of Santo Thomas
Virgen Milagrosa University Foundation
Bicol University
University of Cagayan Valley
Aldersgate College
Asian Institute of Journalism and Communication
University of Saint Anthony
University of Saint Louis Tuguegarao
St Scholastica’s College
Northwestern University
Mountain View College Philippines
Maritime Academy of Asia
Manila Central University
NYK-TDG Maritime Academy
MHAM College of Medicine
Fatima University
Central Philippine University
University of the City of Manila
University of Luzon
Colegio San Agustin Bacolod
University of Baguio
Emilio Aguinaldo College
BIT International College
University of the San Jose-Recoletos
Columban College
University of the Philippines Baguio
Ateneo de Zamboanga University
Notre Dame of Dadiangas University
San Beda University
Saint Luke’s College of Medicine
Saint Paul University Dumaguete
Central Luzon State University
University of Negros Occidental Recoletos
University of the Assumption
Northern Luzon Adventist College
Siena College of Taytay
Colegio de San Juan de Letran
Holy Name University
San Sebastian College Recoletos de Cavite
Table 5
Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients among comparable methods.
(e.g., Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluations (PROMETHEE) and ELimination Et Choix Traduisant la REalité
(ELECTRE)). These qualifications were set to appropriately compare the
performance of EDAS with other closely available MADM methods.
For this analysis, the following four MADM methods were compared: (1) Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal
Solution (TOPSIS; [57]); (2) Combinative Distance-Based Assessment
(CODAS; [58]); (3) Combined Compromise Solution (CoCoSo; [59]);
and (4) Ranking of Alternatives through Functional Mapping of Criterion Sub-Intervals into a Single Interval (RAFSI; [60]). For brevity,
the details of these methods are not discussed here. Like the integrated
CRITIC-EDAS approach, the CRITIC method was used to obtain the
priority weights of the attributes/criteria (i.e., SDGs) for the TOPSIS,
CODAS, CoCoSo, and RAFSI methods. The results from the five integrated methods, including EDAS, result in the priority rankings of
the alternatives (i.e., HEIs). Fig. 3 presents the differentiating priority
ranking of HEIs with respect to the five integrated methods. Fig. 3
reveals only minimal differences in the ranking of the HEIs among
the five methods. Thus, the integrated CRITIC-EDAS approach does not
yield conflicting results with other known MADM methodologies. To
further verify the validity and consistency of the relationship between
the priority rankings from the five methodologies, pairwise Spearman’s
rank correlation coefficients were obtained, as presented in Table 5.
EDAS
TOPSIS
CODAS
COCOSO
RAFSI
EDAS
TOPSIS
CODAS
COCOSO
RAFSI
1
0.9839
0.9695
0.9931
0.9897
0.9839
1
0.9852
0.9865
0.9866
0.9695
0.9852
1
0.9825
0.9846
0.9931
0.9865
0.9825
1
0.9990
0.9897
0.9866
0.9846
0.9990
1
Evidently, a strong relationship exists between the priority ranking
results of the five methodologies, where 𝜌 = 0.9695 is the minimum
correlation coefficient value. This analysis indicates that the results
from the proposed integrated CRITIC-EDAS approach exhibit strong
consistency with those of other MADM methods.
5. Discussion and insights
This study evaluated how well the strategic directions (represented
by the mission statements) of HEIs were aligned with the 17 UN
SDGs. By viewing the evaluation process as an MADM problem, the
similarities of the mission statements and the SDGs were quantified
using a ‘‘relatedness’’ score generated from text analytics or semantic
similarity. An integrated CRITIC-EDAS method was utilized owing to
8
R.M. Encenzo, R. Asoque, R. Arceño et al.
Decision Analytics Journal 6 (2023) 100176
Fig. 3. Illustrative presentation of the ranking of HEIs among comparable methods.
the CRITIC’s efficacy in generating the SDGs’ priority weights and EDAS
method’s efficacy in evaluating alternatives (i.e., HEIs) under multiple criteria. The proposed evaluation framework was demonstrated
using a case study of the top 300 Philippian HEIs (obtained from the
Webometrics ranking). Overall, 244 HEIs were included in the final
analysis.
As presented in Table 2, SDG13 (climate action) yields the highest
priority weight, followed by SDG10 (reduced inequalities), and SDG15
(life on land). SDG9 (industry, innovation, and infrastructure) has the
lowest priority weight. Therefore, HEIs place greater strategic emphasis
on climate change by highlighting risk reduction strategies, mitigation
actions, or adaptation initiatives. This insight may be brought about by
idiosyncrasies in the Philippines, which is one of the countries greatly
affected by climate change impacts in the region. Being a developing
economy where income inequalities are prevalent, HEIs tend to focus
on strategic directions that uplift the students’ or stakeholders’ socioeconomic status. Additionally, they focus on promoting skills-based
academic programs that eventually help diversify income, particularly
in rural communities where half of the country’s population resides.
Accordingly, as an archipelagic country in the Pacific, natural resource
is a critical point of interest among HEIs in view of the looming
climate crisis; thus, prioritizing SDG15 would be critical. Interestingly,
SDG9 (build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable
industrialization, and foster innovation) receives low interest among
HEIs; this is evident in the widening gap in innovation capabilities in
comparison to the more developed countries in the region (e.g., Singapore). The findings regarding the priority weights of the SDGs reflect
the pressing problems in the Philippines over the last several years.
According to the findings, the mission statements of the top-ranked
HEIs do not have high relatedness scores in all SDGs; however, most
SDGs have been incorporated into the mission statements. For instance,
while the Bukidnon State University and the Central Bicol State University of Agriculture (both in the top ten) have incorporated almost all of
the SDGs into their mission statements, their mission statements have
zero to low similarity scores with SDG 10 (reducing inequalities). It can
also be observed that private and non-religious HEIs are more likely
to include incorporate SDGs in their mission statements than public
and religious universities. Indeed, the bottom tier of the ranking list
in Table 4 contains HEIs managed by religious orders or organizations,
consistent with the insights of Lopez and Martin [61].
The ranking of HEIs in Table 4 provides two systems perspective
on how similar the mission statements of HEIs are with the SDGs.
First, the resulting ranking can serve as a reference for other HEIs
in case they intend to align their strategic planning with comparable
HEIs on the list. Second, it provides motivations to revisit their mission
statements in view of the different SDGs. This may result in a highlevel discussion in university governance to strengthen their strategic
directions, consistent with the intentions of the SDGs, with particular
emphasis on those areas where they perform poorly.
Methodologically, the proposed evaluation approach contributes to
the domain literature on MADM and sustainability in higher education.
Evaluation based on objective data via semantic similarity scores offers
a new outlook in the relevant literature on multi-attribute evaluation.
Instead of producing subjective data based on decision-makers’ knowledge and expertise, the decision matrix is systematically generated from
a commercially available text analytics algorithm capable of generating
the desired evaluation in terms of the similarity between two texts.
The conceptual framework is similar to plagiarism detection software
(e.g., Turnitin). The quality of the dataset now depends on the power
of the associated algorithm and not on some biases of decision-makers.
The proposed integration of CRITIC-EDAS adds to the list of computationally efficient hybrid MADM methods capable of solving complex,
large-scale, multi-attribute evaluation problems with less mathematical or computational proficiency requirements from analysts. When
applied to problems demanding subjective judgments, the integrated
approach merely requires minimal cognitive workload from decisionmakers compared to other methods, such as the analytic hierarchy
process, best-worst method, or outranking methods (e.g., PROMETHEE
and ELECTRE).
However, it must be emphasized that the ranking of HEIs reported
in this study must be treated with utmost caution for two reasons. First,
this study is not directly considered a sustainability evaluation of HEIs.
It provides no information on the degree to which top-ranked HEIs
translate their mission statements into actual, tangible, and verifiable
initiatives that effectively impact SDGs. Translating these ‘‘fancy’’ statements into actual sustainability initiatives remains a challenge to HEI
governance. Additionally, the study offers no guidelines on how these
mission statements must be translated into strategies to improve the
sustainability performance of HEIs. As emphasized earlier, the ranking
only reflects the similarity between the mission statements and SDGs;
the specific actions are beyond the scope of this study. The only implication of this study is associated with designing mission statements
to effectively portray the SDGs. Second, the ranking does not intend
to describe the ‘‘sustainability’’ level of HEIs’ mission statements. The
similarity between mission statements and the SDGs may not be equivalent to the sustainability level of HEI governance. Although, some may
contend that whenever coherence with the SDGs becomes more observable, HEIs can successfully plan and implement initiatives derived
from well-designed mission statements. The complexity of the concept
of sustainability (perhaps illustrated via sustainability indicators) is
beyond the scope of this study. Finally, the evaluation resulting from
the decision matrix was highly dependent on the performance of the
semantic similarity algorithm. Algorithms that are more powerful can
provide more meaningful results. Nevertheless, the proposed evaluation
framework offers proof of the concept of this research direction.
9
R.M. Encenzo, R. Asoque, R. Arceño et al.
Decision Analytics Journal 6 (2023) 100176
Table A.1
Ranks of Philippine HEIs in the Webometrics database, excluding those eliminated from the analysis.
Rank
Higher education institutions
Rank
Higher education institutions
2
4
5
7
8
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
19
21
24
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
38
39
40
42
44
45
48
49
50
51
52
54
55
56
57
58
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
70
72
73
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
84
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
De La Salle University Manila
University of Santo Thomas
Mindanao State University Iligan Institute of Technology
Mapua University
Visayas State University
Central Mindanao University
Cebu Technological University
Central Luzon State University
Far Eastern University
Batangas State University
University of Southern Mindanao
West Visayas State University
University of the Philippines Visayas
Centro Escolar University Manila
University of the East
University of Science and Technology of Southern Philippines
Pangasinan State University
University of the San Jose-Recoletos
Western Mindanao State University
Isabela State University
Asian Institute of Management
Cavite State University
Jose Rizal University
Holy Angel University
Our Lady of Fatima University
University of the Philippines Mindanao
Benguet State University
Bulacan State University
Caraga State University
Cebu Normal University
Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology
Cagayan State University
University of the Philippines Cebu
Emilio Aguinaldo College
Don Mariano Marcos Memorial State University
University of Mindanao
Adventist University of the Philippines
Cebu Institute of Technology-University
Samar State University
Bicol University
Mariano Marcos State University
Bataan Peninsula State University
University of the Philippines Baguio
Manila Central University
Mindanao State University General Santos
University of Southeastern Philippines
Philippine Normal University
Ateneo de Zamboanga University
San Beda University
Leyte Normal University
Lyceum of the Philippines University Batangas
Central Philippine University
FEU Institute of Technology
Universidad de Zamboanga
Occidental Mindoro State College
Malayan Colleges Laguna
Eastern Visayas State University
Sacred Heart College of Lucena City
System Technology Institute
Technological Institute of the Philippines
Far Eastern University Dr. Nicanor Reyes Medical Foundation
Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies
Arellano University
University of Batangas
University of San Agustin
Southern Luzon State University
De La Salle Lipa
Rizal Technological University
Aklan State University
Philippine Christian University
De La Salle College of Saint Benilde
University of Bohol
Miriam College
De La Salle Araneta University
University of Eastern Philippines
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
193
194
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
220
221
224
225
227
228
229
232
234
235
236
239
241
243
245
246
247
248
Asian Institute of Journalism and Communication
Biliran Province State University
San Carlos College
Informatics Computer Institute
University of Makati
Aldersgate College
Misamis University
Chiang Kai Shek College
Mindanao State University at Naawan
Philippine Merchant Marine Academy
Manuel S. Enverga University Foundation
National Teachers College
Capitol University
Lyceum Northwestern University
La Consolacion College Bacolod
La Salle University
Wesleyan University-Philippines
Universidad de Sta. Isabel
Saint Joseph Institute of Technology
Jose Rizal Memorial State University
Colegio de San Juan de Letran
Maritime Academy of Asia
Surigao del Sur State University
Western Philippines University
Philippine School of Business Administration
FEATI University
Virgen Milagrosa University Foundation
Urdaneta City University
University of Cebu
Quirino State University
Jose Maria College
Cebu Institute of Medicine
Notre Dame of Dadiangas University
Tarlac Agricultural University
St. Paul University Quezon City
Iloilo Science and Technology University
Davao Doctors College
Divine Word College of Legazpi
Saint Paul University Pasig
Cotabato Foundation College of Science and Technology
Philippine National Police Academy
Asian College of Technology
FAITH Colleges
Partido State University
Father Saturnino Urios University
National College of Business and Arts
Camarines Norte State College
Abe International Business College
Saint Michael’s College of Laguna
Ilocos Sur Polytechnic State College
Mountain View College Philippines
Filamer Christian University
Colegio San Agustin Bacolod
University of Manila
Saint Louis College
College of Development Communication
Saint Paul University Dumaguete
Asian Theological Seminary Philippines
Sorsogon State College
FEU Cavite
Central Philippine Adventist College
PATTS College of Aeronautics
ICCT Colleges
Sultan Kudarat State University
Capiz State University
Don Honorio Ventura State University
Zamboanga State College of Marine Sciences and Technology
Guimaras State College
Mindanao State University
Pampanga State Agricultural University
Center for Industrial Technology and Enterprise
Aurora State College of Technology
Colegio de Dagupan
Tarlac Agricultural University
Lorma Colleges
(continued on next page)
10
R.M. Encenzo, R. Asoque, R. Arceño et al.
Decision Analytics Journal 6 (2023) 100176
Table A.1 (continued).
Rank
Higher education institutions
Rank
Higher education institutions
101
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
143
146
147
148
149
150
152
153
154
San Sebastian College-Recoletos de Cavite
St Scholastica’s College
Bicol Christian College of Medicine
Romblon State University
University of Saint Louis Tuguegarao
University of the City of Manila
University of Baguio
University of Saint La Salle Bacolod
Southern Leyte State University
Surigao State College of Technology
University of Negros Occidental-Recoletos
Philippine Women’s University
AMA Computer College Tuguegarao
Palawan State University
Liceo de Cagayan University
National Defense College of the Philippines
University of Northern Philippines
Central Bicol State University of Agriculture
Nueva Vizcaya State University
AMA Computer University
University of Cebu
University of the East Ramon Magsaysay
Ifugao State University
Laguna State Polytechnic University
Cebu Doctors’ University
Bukidnon State University
Information and Communications Technology Academy
Holy Name University
New Era University
University of Nueva Caceres
Eulogio Amang Rodríguez Institute of Science and Technology
Northwestern University
University of Rizal System
Saint Paul University Philippines
University of the Assumption
University of Luzon
Kalayaan College
Philippine Military Academy
John B. Lacson Foundation Maritime University
Bohol Island State University
Southwestern University
Foundation University
Camarines Sur Polytechnic Colleges
Davao del Norte State College
San Sebastian College Manila
Negros Oriental State University
Salazar Colleges of Science and Institute of Technology
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
292
293
294
295
296
298
299
300
Manila Business College
Northwest Samar State University
International Graduate School of Leadership
Iloilo Doctors’ College
University of Antique
Calayan Educational Foundation
SEA Interdisciplinary Development Institute
Technological Research for Ad ComEd College
University of Pangasinan
Philippine College of Criminology
Saint Luke’s College of Medicine
Carlos Hilado Memorial State University
BIT International College
Notre Dame University Cotabato
Saint Jude College
University of Cagayan Valley
Iligan Computer Institute
Palompon Institute of Technology
Bicol State College of Applied Sciences and Technology
Bulacan Agricultural State College
National College of Science & Technology
Naga College Foundation
Northern Luzon Adventist College
University of Saint Anthony
NYK-TDG Maritime Academy
PanPacific University
Alliance Graduate School
St. Augustine School of Nursing
Araullo University
Southern Philippines Agri-Business, Marine and Aquatic School of Technology
MHAM College of Medicine
Northern Negros State College of Science and Technology
Bestlink College of the Philippines
University of La Salette
Western Institute of Technology
University of Northeastern Philippines
Holy Trinity University Philippines
Iligan Medical Center College
Don Bosco College
University of Caloocan City
Columban College
Siena College of Taytay
Catanduanes State University
San Pedro College of Business Administration
President Ramon Magsaysay State University
Dipolog Medical Center College Foundation
Comteq Computer and Business College
6. Conclusion and future works
framework, a case study of the top 300 HEIs in the Philippines based
on the Webometrics database was reported in this study.
The findings indicate that HEIs lend the highest priority to SDG13
(climate action), SDG10 (reduced inequalities), and SDG15 (life on
land) in that particular order. Meanwhile, they lend the lowest priority to SDG9 (industry, innovation, and infrastructure). These insights
reflect some pressing concerns regarding Philippine HEIs. The results
of the evaluation based on CRITIC-EDAS present a ranking of HEIs
that can be utilized by HEI governance as a reference in aligning
their strategic direction with comparable HEIs. They will also motivate
discussions pertaining to improving mission statements considering
the SDGs. Nevertheless, the evaluation results must be interpreted
cautiously, as they neither intend to reflect the sustainability status
of HEIs nor provide guidelines on translating the mission statements
into tangible initiatives that would effectively portray the SDGs. The
results must be construed solely as the similarity between the strategic
directions of HEIs and the SDGs. Such similarities may serve as an
indication of the core of the HEIs’ mission statements relative to the
SDGs. Additionally, we implemented a comparative analysis with other
MADM tools and found a strong similarity in the results despite the
computational efficiency of the proposed CRITIC-EDAS approach.
However, this study has limitations that should be addressed in the
future. In particular, the quality of the information displayed in the
decision matrix depends highly on the semantic similarity algorithm.
The deployment of the UN SDGs has provided organizations with
a blueprint on how to integrate a sustainability agenda into their core
processes and decision-making. Despite the concerted efforts of countries to contribute to specific goals, some are lagging, especially with
respect to education, thus making sustainability in higher education
more concerning. While salient advances have occurred, holistically
aligning the strategic directions of HEIs with SDGs has garnered limited attention in the domain literature. In this study, we filled this
gap by offering a comprehensive evaluation approach that measures
the similarity of strategic statements of HEIs, particularly focusing on
the mission statements and the SDGs. The evaluation framework is
viewed as an MADM problem, wherein multiple HEIs were gauged
under multiple attributes in terms of the SDGs. We leveraged the
computational efficiency of the CRITIC method in assigning priority
weights of decision attributes and the EDAS method for evaluating the
alternatives (i.e., HEIs) in large-scale problems, and combined them
into an integrated CRITIC-EDAS approach. The decision matrix, which
serves as the initial platform of the proposed CRITIC-EDAS evaluation,
was generated from a semantic similarity tool that assigns a degree of
relatedness between the mission statements and the SDGs based on a
pre-defined algorithm. As a proof of concept of the proposed evaluation
11
R.M. Encenzo, R. Asoque, R. Arceño et al.
Decision Analytics Journal 6 (2023) 100176
Future work can focus on designing a more robust algorithm that
accurately reflects the similarity between the mission statements and
the SDGs. Moreover, a more robust approach can incorporate the
uncertainty resulting from text analytics inefficacy. The use of fuzzy
set theory and its extensions—such as intuitionistic fuzzy, Pythagorean
fuzzy, spherical fuzzy, and Fermatean fuzzy sets—may augment the
quality of the information in the decision matrix. Furthermore, future
work may explore other strategic statements, such as vision statements,
goals, and objectives, to comprehensively capture the strategic directions of HEIs. Some strategic directions that HEIs intend to undergo
may not be conveyed in their mission statements; they might also be
reflected in their goals and objectives. Generally, examining how to
translate mission statements into concrete initiatives that effectively
address SDGs would be an interesting future research direction for
practitioners.
[7] C. Allen, G. Metternicht, T. Wiedmann, Initial progress in implementing the
sustainable development goals (SDGs): A review of evidence from countries,
Sustain. Sci. 13 (5) (2018) 1453–1467.
[8] G. Halkos, E.C. Gkampoura, Where do we stand on the 17 sustainable development goals? An overview on progress, Econ. Anal. Policy 70 (2021)
94–122.
[9] N.K. Arora, I. Mishra, United nations sustainable development goals 2030 and
environmental sustainability: Race against time, Environ. Sustain. 2 (4) (2019)
339–342.
[10] L. Giddens, L.C. Amo, D. Cichocki, Gender bias and the impact on managerial
evaluation of insider security threats, Comput. Secur. 99 (2020) 102066.
[11] S.M. Cold-Ravnkilde, L. Engberg-Pedersen, A.M. Fejerskov, Global norms and
heterogeneous development organizations: Introduction to special issue on new
actors, old donors and gender equality norms in international development
cooperation, Progr. Dev. Stud. 18 (2) (2018) 77–94.
[12] M. Macellari, A. Yuriev, F. Testa, O. Boiral, Exploring bluewashing practices
of alleged sustainability leaders through a counter-accounting analysis, Environ.
Impact Assess. Rev. 86 (2021) 106489.
[13] J.W. Van der Waal, T. Thijssens, Corporate involvement in sustainable
development goals: Exploring the territory, J. Clean. Prod. 252 (2020) 119625.
[14] N. Chams, J. García-Blandón, On the importance of sustainable human resource
management for the adoption of sustainable development goals, Resour. Conserv.
Recy. 141 (2019) 109–122.
[15] V.W.B. Martins, I.S. Rampasso, P.F. Siltori, G.T. Cazeri, R. Anholon, O.L.G.
Quelhas, W. Leal Filho, Contributions from the Brazilian industrial sector to
sustainable development, J. Clean. Prod. 272 (2020) 122762.
[16] A.S. Makarova, X. Jia, E.B. Kruchina, E.I. Kudryavtseva, I.G. Kukushkin, Environmental performance assessment of the chemical industries involved in the
responsible care® program: Case study of the Russian federation, J. Clean. Prod.
222 (2019) 971–985.
[17] J.M. Bryson, Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations: A Guide
to Strengthening and Sustaining Organizational Achievement, John Wiley & Sons,
2018.
[18] E.S. Zeemering, Sustainability management, strategy and reform in local
government, Public Manag. Rev. 20 (1) (2018) 136–153.
[19] T. Galpin, J.L. Whitttington, G. Bell, Is your sustainability strategy sustainable?
Creating a culture of sustainability, Corp. Gov. 15 (1) (2015) 1–17.
[20] I. Alegre Tort-Martorell, J. Berbegal-Mirabent, A. Guerrero, M. Mas Machuca,
Mission statement: A systematic review of the literature, in: 3rd Research Workshop: Missions, leadership and sustainability, UIC 2018-Barcelona, OmniaScience
Publisher, 2018.
[21] C.K. Bart, N. Bontis, S. Taggar, A model of the impact of mission statements on
firm performance, Manag. Decis. 39 (1) (2001) 19–35.
[22] G. Johnson, R. Whittington, P. Regnér, D. Angwin, K. Scholes, Exploring Strategy,
Pearson UK, 2020.
[23] T. Ferguson, C.G. Roofe, SDG 4 in higher education: Challenges and
opportunities, Int. J. Sustain. Higher Educ. 21 (5) (2020) 959–975.
[24] I. Žaleniene, P. Pereira, Higher education for sustainability: A global perspective,
Geogr. Sustain. 2 (2) (2021) 99–106.
[25] GUNi, Higher Education in the World 6. Towards a Socially Responsible
University: Balancing the Global with the Local, Author, Girona, Spain, 2017.
[26] W. Leal Filho, C. Shiel, A. Paço, M. Mifsud, L.V. Ávila, L.L. Brandli, et al.,
Sustainable development goals and sustainability teaching at universities: Falling
behind or getting ahead of the pack? J. Clean. Prod. 232 (2019) 285–294.
[27] I. Franco, O. Saito, P. Vaughter, J. Whereat, N. Kanie, K. Takemoto, Higher
education for sustainable development: Actioning the global goals in policy,
curriculum and practice, Sustain. Sci. 14 (6) (2019) 1621–1642.
[28] A.E. Wals, Sustainability in higher education in the context of the UN DESD: A
review of learning and institutionalization processes, J. Clean. Prod. 62 (2014)
8–15.
[29] S. Menon, M. Suresh, Synergizing education, research, campus operations, and
community engagements towards sustainability in higher education: A literature
review, Int. J. Sustain. Higher Educ. 21 (5) (2020) 1015–1051.
[30] C. Tasdemir, R. Gazo, Integrating sustainability into higher education curriculum
through a transdisciplinary perspective, J. Clean. Prod. 265 (2020) 121759.
[31] C.R.M. de Lima, T.C. Soares, M.A. de Lima, M.O. Veras, J.B.S.O. de Andrade,
A. Guerra, Sustainability funding in higher education: A literature-based review,
Int. J. Sustain. Higher Educ. 21 (3) (2020) 441–464.
[32] R.C. Purshouse, K. Deb, M.M. Mansor, S. Mostaghim, R. Wang, A review of
hybrid evolutionary multiple criteria decision making methods, in: 2014 IEEE
Congress on Evolutionary Computation, CEC, IEEE, 2014, pp. 1147–1154.
[33] A. Mardani, A. Jusoh, K. Nor, Z. Khalifah, N. Zakwan, A. Valipour, Multiple
criteria decision-making techniques and their applications–a review of the
literature from 2000 to 2014, Econ. Res.-Ekonomska IstraŽivanja 28 (1) (2015)
516–571.
[34] J. Pena, G. Nápoles, Y. Salgueiro, Explicit methods for attribute weighting in
multi-attribute decision-making: A review study, Artif. Intell. Rev. 53 (5) (2020)
3127–3152.
[35] E.K. Zavadskas, K. Govindan, J. Antucheviciene, Z. Turskis, Hybrid multiple
criteria decision-making methods: A review of applications for sustainability
issues, Econ. Res.-Ekonomska IstraŽivanja 29 (1) (2016) 857–887.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgment
This research is part of the project entitled ‘‘Strengthening the
Research and Development Capabilities of the Faculty and Researchers
of the Palompon Institute of Technology (PIT) on Engineering and
Technology Research and Development’’. The authors are grateful to
the National Research Council of the Philippines, the RDLead Program,
and the Palompon Institute of Technology for collaboratively funding
the project.
Appendix A. Ranks of Philippine HEIs in the Webometrics
database, excluding those eliminated from the analysis
See Table A.1.
Appendix B. Supplementary data
For reference and verification of data generated and used in this
paper, a supplementary material can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.dajour.2023.100176.
References
[1] M. Elder, M. Bengtsson, L. Akenji, An optimistic analysis of the means of
implementation for sustainable development goals: Thinking about goals as
means, Sustainability 8 (9) (2016) 962.
[2] T. Hák, S. Janoušková, B. Moldan, Sustainable development goals: A need for
relevant indicators, Ecol. Indic. 60 (2016) 565–573.
[3] C. Allen, G. Metternicht, T. Wiedmann, National pathways to the sustainable
development goals (SDGs): A comparative review of scenario modelling tools,
Environ. Sci. Policy 66 (2016) 199–207.
[4] L. Georgeson, M. Maslin, Putting the united nations sustainable development
goals into practice: A review of implementation, monitoring, and finance, Geo:
Geogr. Environ. 5 (1) (2018) e00049.
[5] R.G.G. Caiado, W. Leal Filho, O.L.G. Quelhas, D.L. de Mattos Nascimento,
L.V. Ávila, A literature-based review on potentials and constraints in the
implementation of the sustainable development goals, J. Clean. Prod. 198 (2018)
1276–1288.
[6] A.L. Salvia, W. Leal Filho, L.L. Brandli, J.S. Griebeler, Assessing research trends
related to sustainable development goals: Local and global issues, J. Clean. Prod.
208 (2019) 841–849.
12
R.M. Encenzo, R. Asoque, R. Arceño et al.
Decision Analytics Journal 6 (2023) 100176
[48] F. Alam, M. Afzal, K.M. Malik, Comparative analysis of semantic similarity
techniques for medical text, in: 2020 International Conference on Information
Networking, ICOIN, IEEE, 2020, pp. 106–109.
[49] E. Sulis, L.B. Humphreys, D. Audrito, L. Di Caro, Exploiting textual similarity
techniques in harmonization of laws, in: International Conference of the Italian
Association for Artificial Intelligence, 2022, pp. 185–197, 978-3-031-08421-8.
[50] X. Peng, X. Zhang, Z. Luo, Pythagorean fuzzy MCDM method based on CoCoSo
and CRITIC with score function for 5G industry evaluation, Artif. Intell. Rev. 53
(5) (2020) 3813–3847.
[51] L. Ocampo, J.L. Aro, S.S. Evangelista, F. Maturan, L. Casinillo, K. Yamagishi,
E. Selerio Jr., Composite Ecotourism Potential Index Based on an Integrated
Stochastic CRITIC-Weighted Sum Method, Current Issues in Tourism, 2022,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2022.2090906.
[52] F. Kutlu Gündoğdu, C. Kahraman, H.N. Civan, A novel hesitant fuzzy EDAS
method and its application to hospital selection, J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 35 (6)
(2018) 6353–6365.
[53] M. Bogers, F. Biermann, A. Kalfagianni, R.E. Kim, J. Treep, M.G. de Vos, The
impact of the sustainable development goals on a network of 276 international
organizations, Global Environ. Change 76 (2022) 102567.
[54] X. Bai, A. Surveyer, T. Elmqvist, F.W. Gatzweiler, B. Güneralp, S. Parnell, et al.,
Defining and advancing a systems approach for sustainable cities, Curr. Opin.
Environ. Sustain. 23 (2016) 69–78.
[55] Webometrics, Ranking web of universities (Philippines), 2022, Available online:
https://www.webometrics.info/en/asia/philippines (Accessed on 23 2022).
[56] Bytesview, Text analysis, 2022, Available online: https://www.bytesview.com/
semantic-similarity (Accessed on 23 September).
[57] C.L. Hwang, K. Yoon, Methods for multiple attribute decision making, in:
Multiple Attribute Decision Making, 1981, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3642-48318-9_3.
[58] M.K. Ghorabaee, E.K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, J. Antucheviciene, A new
combinative distance-based assessment (CODAS) method for multi-criteria
decision-making, Econ. Comput. Econ. Cybern. Stud. Res. 50 (3) (2016) 25–44.
[59] M. Yazdani, P. Zarate, E. Kazimieras Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, A combined compromise solution (CoCoSo) method for multi-criteria decision-making problems,
Manag. Decis. 57 (9) (2018) 2501–2519.
[60] M. Žižović, D. Pamučar, M. Albijanić, P. Chatterjee, I. Pribićević, Eliminating
rank reversal problem using a new multi-attribute model—The RAFSI method,
Mathematics 8 (6) (2020) 1015.
[61] Y.P. Lopez, W.F. Martin, University mission statements and sustainability
performance, Bus. Soc. Rev. 123 (2) (2018) 341–368.
[36] D. Diakoulaki, G. Mavrotas, L. Papayannakis, Determining objective weights
in multiple criteria problems: The CRITIC method, Comput. Oper. Res. 22 (7)
(1995) 763–770.
[37] R. Gonzales, R.M. Almacen, G. Gonzales, F. Costan, D. Suladay, L. Enriquez, et
al., Priority roles of stakeholders for overcoming the barriers to implementing education 4.0: An integrated fermatean fuzzy entropy-based CRITIC-CODAS-SORT
approach, Complexity 2022 (2022) 7436256.
[38] J. Polcyn, Determining value added intellectual capital (VAIC) using the TOPSISCRITIC method in small and medium-sized farms in selected European countries,
Sustainability 14 (6) (2022) 3672.
[39] J.L. Aro, E. Selerio Jr., S.S. Evangelista, F. Maturan, N.M. Atibing, L. Ocampo,
Fermatean fuzzy CRITIC-CODAS-SORT for characterizing the challenges of
circular public sector supply chains, Oper. Res. Perspect. 9 (2022) 100246.
[40] M.K. Ghorabaee, E.K. Zavadskas, L. Olfat, Z. Turskis, Multi-criteria inventory
classification using a new method of evaluation based on distance from average
solution-EDAS, Informatica 26 (3) (2015) 435–451.
[41] N. Zhang, W. Su, C. Zhang, S. Zeng, Evaluation and selection model of community group purchase platform based on WEPLPA-CPT-EDAS method, Comput.
Ind. Eng. 172 (2022) 108573.
[42] B. Bhabani, J. Mahapatro, ReUse: Reliable and efficient RSU-enabled relay
vehicle selection using harmony search and EDAS for message dissemination
in VANETs, Ad Hoc Netw. 137 (2022) 102985.
[43] R. Krishankumar, D. Pamucar, M. Deveci, K.S. Ravichandran, Prioritization of
zero-carbon measures for sustainable urban mobility using integrated double
hierarchy decision framework and EDAS approach, Sci. Total Environ. 797
(2021) 149068.
[44] C. De Boom, S. Van Canneyt, S. Bohez, T. Demeester, B. Dhoedt, Learning
semantic similarity for very short texts, in: 2015 IEEE International Conference
on Data Mining Workshop, ICDMW, IEEE, 2015, pp. 1229–1234.
[45] P. Sitikhu, K. Pahi, P. Thapa, S. Shakya, A comparison of semantic similarity
methods for maximum human interpretability, in: 2019 Artificial Intelligence
for Transforming Business and Societ, Vol. 1, AITB, IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–4.
[46] L. Ross, C.M. Danforth, M.J. Eppstein, L.A. Clarfeld, B.N. Durieux, C.J. Gramling,
et al., Story arcs in serious illness: Natural language processing features of
palliative care conversations, Patient Educ. Couns. 103 (4) (2020) 826–832.
[47] Y. Kang, Z. Cai, C.W. Tan, Q. Huang, H. Liu, Natural language processing (NLP)
in management research: A literature review, J. Manag. Anal. 7 (2) (2020)
139–172.
13