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
b
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

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This study presents a comprehensive analytical framework for evaluating the similarity between organizations’
Criteria importance through intercriteria specific strategic directions and the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The proposed
correlation framework uses a multi-attribute decision-making method (MADM) in which organizations are evaluated
Evaluation based on distance from average
concerning the SDGs. In particular, we use the Integrated Criteria Importance through Intercriteria Correlation
solution
(CRITIC) and Evaluation based on the Distance from Average Solution Method (EDAS) because of their
United Nations
Sustainable development goals
computational efficiency. Based on a pre-defined algorithm, we find decision matrices that contain relatedness
Semantic similarity 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 stimu-
late 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 develop-
ment’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 informa-
tion 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. George-
son 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 em-
phasized 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 high-
lighted 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 primar-
ily 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.
sustainable, innovative, and people-oriented economies [14]. In the
industrial sector, SDGs related to production and technological mod-
ernization 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 indus-
try 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 empha-
sizing 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 pre-
cise direction, sharper focus, and improved understanding. Moreover,
strategic management is pivotal to the success of the SDGs [17]. Ac-
cording to Zeemering [18], strategic planning allows decision-makers
to critically consider how sustainability and sustainable development
concepts upend preconceived notions regarding their strategy, priori-
ties, 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 establish-
ment of strategic management processes [19]. To develop efficient
strategic directions, a mission statement is a powerful tool [20]. Nu-
merous 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 con-
tribute 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 instru-
ments, 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], transdisci-
plinary 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
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 goal-
attribute-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 eval-
uates 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 emerg-
ing 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 meth-
ods 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 CRITIC-
EDAS approach. Section 4 presents a comparative analysis of the pro-
posed approach and other comparable methods. Section 5 presents the
implications of the findings. Finally, Section 6 concludes the paper.
2. Preliminaries
2.1. The CRITIC method
Diakoulaki et al. [36] developed the CRITIC method, a computa-
tional 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
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 2.2. The EDAS method
entropy. The pairwise linear correlation coefficients among the criteria
are utilized to capture their conflicting relationships. Thus, the CRITIC The EDAS method, developed by Ghorabaee et al. [40], uses an
method provides an efficient technique for generating priority weights average solution to appraise the alternatives. In this method, two
of criteria/attributes from a decision matrix when compared with other measures are considered when addressing the desirability of the al-
priority weight allocation methods. Additionally, it collects all of the ternatives: (1) positive distance from the average matrix  and (2)
information obtained from the evaluation criteria based on the results negative distance from the average matrix  [52]. These two measures
of the evaluation matrix [50]. The degree of robustness of CRITIC has determine the difference between each solution (alternative) and the
been empirically examined in previous studies (e.g., [51]). Its compu- average solution. Other MADM methods, such as the VlseKriteriżka
tational results clearly depict its advantage in obtaining an objective Optimizacija I Komoromisno Resenje (VIKOR) and Technique for Or-
resolution when using the MADM method to analyze a problem. der Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), determine
the optimal alternative by computing the distance between the ideal
Definition 1. Here, following Diakoulaki et al. [36], let 𝑚 alternatives and negative ideal solutions. However, the optimal alternative in this
and 𝑛 evaluation criteria 𝑐𝑗 (𝑗 = 1, … , 𝑛) comprise an MADM problem. method is obtained from the distance average solution [40]. However,
Thereafter, the problem in its general form is presented as follows: the evaluation of alternatives evolved according to higher values of 
{ } and  . This implies that lower values of  and higher values of 
max 𝑐1 (𝑎) , 𝑐2 (𝑎) , … , 𝑐𝑛 (𝑎) |𝑎 ∈ 𝐴 (1)
indicate that the alternative is better than the average solution. The
for any finite set of alternatives 𝐴. computational steps for EDAS are discussed as follows:
Based on the concept of an ideal point, each criterion 𝑐𝑗 can be Step 1. Choose the most important 𝑗 criteria (𝑗 = 1, … , 𝑛) that describe
defined by a membership function 𝑥𝑗 where 𝑥𝑗 ∶ 𝑐𝑗 (𝑎) ⟶ [0, 1]. Thus, 𝑖 alternatives (𝑖 = 1, … , 𝑚) for a specific decision problem.
in criterion 𝑗, a value close to the ideal 𝑐𝑗∗ represents the optimal per- ( )
formance, whereas a value far from the anti-ideal value 𝑐𝑗 ∗ represents Step 2. Compute the decision-making matrix 𝑋 = 𝑥𝑖𝑗 𝑚×𝑛 , where
the worst performance. The steps in determining the criteria weights 𝑥𝑖𝑗 denotes the performance value of the 𝑖th alternative on the 𝑗th
using the CRITIC method are as follows: criterion.
( )
Step 1: Construct the MADM problem with 𝑚 alternatives and 𝑛 evalu- Step 3. Determine the average solution 𝑉 = 𝑣𝑗 1×𝑛 with respect to all
ation criteria. criteria as follows:
( ) ∑𝑚
Step 2: Develop the decision-making matrix 𝑋 = 𝑥𝑖𝑗 𝑚×𝑛 , where 𝑥𝑖𝑗 𝑖=1 𝑥𝑖𝑗
𝑣𝑗 = ∀𝑗 (8)
represents the evaluation score of alternative 𝑖 (𝑖 = 1, … , 𝑚) with respect 𝑚
to criterion 𝑗 (𝑗 = 1, … , 𝑛).
( ) Step 4. Compute the positive distance from the average matrix  =
( )
Step 3: Compute the normalized matrix 𝑁 = 𝑛𝑖𝑗 𝑚×𝑛 , where the p and the negative distance from the average matrix  =
( 𝑖𝑗 )𝑚×𝑛
normalized score 𝑛𝑖𝑗 describes a linear normalization of 𝑥𝑖𝑗 . It is given n𝑖𝑗 𝑚×𝑛 , according to the type of criteria (i.e., benefit and cost) as
by follows.
𝑥𝑖𝑗 − 𝑥𝑗 ∗ If 𝑗th criterion is a benefit (maximizing) criterion,
𝑛𝑖𝑗 = ∗ ∀𝑖, 𝑗 (2) ( ( ))
𝑥𝑗 − 𝑥𝑗 ∗ max 0, 𝑥𝑖𝑗 − 𝑣𝑗
p𝑖𝑗 = ∀𝑖, 𝑗 (9)
where 𝑥∗𝑗 = max𝑖 𝑥𝑖𝑗 and 𝑥𝑗 ∗ = min𝑖 𝑥𝑖𝑗 for 𝑗 = 1, … , 𝑛. 𝑣𝑗
( ( ))
Step 4: Generate vectors 𝑛𝑗 denoting the normalized scores of all 𝑚 max 0, 𝑣𝑗 − 𝑥𝑖𝑗
n𝑖𝑗 = ∀𝑖, 𝑗 (10)
alternatives. 𝑣𝑗
( )
𝑛𝑗 = 𝑛1𝑗 , 𝑛2𝑗 , … , 𝑛𝑚𝑗 ∀𝑗 (3) Otherwise, if the 𝑗th criterion is a cost (minimizing) criterion,
( ( ))
max 0, 𝑣𝑗 − 𝑥𝑖𝑗
Step 5: Compute the standard deviation of each 𝑛𝑗 using the following p𝑖𝑗 = ∀𝑖, 𝑗 (11)
𝑣𝑗
routine calculations: ( ( ))
√ max 0, 𝑥𝑖𝑗 − 𝑣𝑗
∑𝑚 ( )2
n𝑖𝑗 = ∀𝑖, 𝑗 (12)
𝑖=1 𝑛𝑖𝑗 − 𝑛𝑗 𝑣𝑗
𝜎𝑗 = ∀𝑗 (4)
𝑚
∑𝑚 where p𝑖𝑗 and n𝑖𝑗 denote the positive and negative distances of alter-
𝑖=1 𝑛𝑖𝑗
where 𝑛𝑗 = 𝑚
native 𝑖 from the average solution, respectively, in terms of criterion
( ) 𝑗.
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 Step 5. Determine the weighted sums p𝑖 and n𝑖 for alternative 𝑖 as
formula: follows:
∑𝑚
𝑖=1 (𝑛𝑖𝑗− 𝑛𝑗 )(𝑛𝑖𝑘− 𝑛𝑘 ) ∑
𝑛
𝑟𝑗𝑘 = √ ∀𝑗, 𝑘 ∈ {1, … , 𝑛} (5) p𝑖 = 𝑤𝑗 p𝑖𝑗 ∀𝑖 (13)
∑𝑚 ( )2 ∑𝑚 ( )2
𝑖=1 𝑛 𝑖𝑗 − 𝑛 𝑗 𝑖=1 𝑛𝑖𝑘 − 𝑛𝑘
𝑗=1
∑𝑛
where 𝑟𝑗𝑘 ∈ [−1, 1]. Evidently, when 𝑗 = 𝑘, 𝑟𝑗𝑘 = 1. n𝑖 = 𝑤𝑗 n𝑖𝑗 ∀𝑖 (14)
𝑗=1
Step 7: Compute the amount of information 𝑧𝑗 as follows:
∑𝑛
where 𝑤𝑗 is the priority weight of the 𝑗th criterion and 𝑤𝑗 = 1.
∑
𝑛 𝑗=1
𝑧𝑗 = 𝜎𝑗 (1 − 𝑟𝑗𝑘 ) ∀𝑗 (6) Step 6. Construct the normalized scores of all 𝑖 alternatives p
̂ 𝑖 and n
̂𝑖
𝑘=1
through the following:
where the higher value of 𝑧𝑗 implies that the criterion 𝑗 contains more
information. p𝑖
̂𝑖 =
p ( ) ∀𝑖 (15)
maxi p𝑖
Step 8: Determine the priority weights of criteria using the following:
n𝑖
𝑧𝑗 ̂𝑖 = 1−
n ( ) ∀𝑖 (16)
𝑤𝑗 = ∑ 𝑛 ∀𝑗 (7) maxi n𝑖
𝑘=1 𝑧𝑘

3
R.M. Encenzo, R. Asoque, R. Arceño et al.
Step 7. Calculate the appraisal score 𝑎𝑖 for all alternatives, as follows:
1( )
𝑎𝑖 = ̂ +n
p ̂𝑖 ∀𝑖 (17)
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.
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 na-
tion, the Philippines signed the partnership framework for sustainable
development together with the UN Country Team. This framework sup-
ported 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 organi-
zational 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 world-
wide based on their scientific activities, impact, openness, and excel-
lence 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 multi-
attribute 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.
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
Decision Analytics Journal 6 (2023) 100176
Table 1
United Nations 17 sustainable development goals.
Code Description
SDG1 End poverty in all its forms everywhere.
SDG2 End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and
promote sustainable agriculture.
SDG3 Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all.
SDG4 Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote
lifelong learning opportunities for all.
SDG5 Achieve gender equality and female empowerment.
SDG6 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 Reduce income inequality within and among countries.
SDG11 Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and
sustainable.
SDG12 Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns.
SDG13 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.
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 alterna-
tives (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 follow-
ing 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.
R.M. Encenzo, R. Asoque, R. Arceño et al.
Fig. 1. Proposed methodological framework for the integrated CRITIC-EDAS approach.
Algorithm 1. Process flow of the semantic similarity algorithm
Start
Step 1. Normalization: Transforming the text into lowercase and
removing all special characters to create a uniform text format.
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. Stemming: The process of obtaining the root words. Some-
times 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. 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
Decision Analytics Journal 6 (2023) 100176
Step 6. Evaluation of embeddings: The similarity of preprocessed
words is tested from a word library to generate a relatedness score.
End
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 4. Construct the normalized decision matrix.
Using the evaluation matrix 𝑋, the normalized decision matrix 𝑁 is
computed using Eq. (2).
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
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 Table 3
Priority weights of attributes. Average solution of all attributes.
Attributes 𝑧𝑗 𝑤𝑗 Attributes 𝑧𝑗 𝑤𝑗 Attributes 𝑣𝑗 Attributes 𝑣𝑗 Attributes 𝑣𝑗
SDG1 2.1437 0.0637 SDG10 2.4340 0.0723 SDG1 6.8545 SDG7 7.5904 SDG13 3.0295
SDG2 2.0737 0.0616 SDG11 1.7225 0.0512 SDG2 13.5948 SDG8 15.3119 SDG14 10.1548
SDG3 2.0950 0.0623 SDG12 1.8875 0.0561 SDG3 7.9691 SDG9 13.0303 SDG15 8.3243
SDG4 1.8631 0.0554 SDG13 2.6324 0.0782 SDG4 22.5218 SDG10 3.6789 SDG16 18.6148
SDG5 2.2290 0.0662 SDG14 2.2360 0.0664 SDG5 9.1265 SDG11 7.2314 SDG17 14.4893
SDG6 1.7032 0.0506 SDG15 2.3254 0.0691 SDG6 5.9505 SDG12 6.9337
SDG7 1.8316 0.0544 SDG16 1.4158 0.0421
SDG8 1.6226 0.0482 SDG17 2.0237 0.0601
SDG9 1.4116 0.0419
( )
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
The symmetric matrix 𝑅 is generated using Eq. (5), where 𝑟𝑗𝑘 ( )
from the average matrix  = n𝑖𝑗 𝑚×𝑛 is computed using Eq. (10) if the
denotes the linear correlation coefficient of two vectors 𝑛𝑗 and 𝑛𝑘 ,
𝑗, 𝑘 ∈ {1, … , 𝑛}. 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  =
Step 7. Obtain the amount of information 𝑧𝑗 . ( )
The amount of information 𝑧𝑗 for all attributes 𝑗 is computed n𝑖 𝑚×1 .
using Eq. (6). For all 𝑚 HEIs, Eqs. (13) and (14) are utilized to generate p𝑖 and
n𝑖 , respectively.
Step 8. Determine the priority weights 𝑤𝑗 . ( )
Using Eq. (7), the priority weights 𝑤𝑗 of all 𝑛 attributes are gener- Step 12. Construct the normalized score matrix ̂ = p ̂ 𝑖 𝑚×1 and
( )
ated; these are presented in Table 2. ̂ = n ̂ 𝑖 𝑚×1 .
The results of the CRITIC method are presented in Table 2. Ap- Eqs. (15) and (16) are used to calculate p ̂ 𝑖 and n
̂ 𝑖 for each alterna-
parently, SDG13 (climate action) yields the highest priority weight, tive 𝑖.
followed by SDG10 (reduced inequalities) and SDG15 (life on land).
SDG9 (industry, innovation, and infrastructure) exhibits the least pri- Step 13. Determine the priority ranking of HEIs.
ority weight. Therefore, HEIs vary in their views on actions related to The appraisal score 𝑎𝑖 for all HEIs, generated using Eq. (17), is
climate change; they can also be discriminated against based on the utilized to obtain the HEIs’ priority rank. The HEI with the highest 𝑎𝑖
aspect of uplifting the socioeconomic status of different stakeholders is considered as having the highest priority rank.
and promoting skills-based programs that help increase the human The priority rankings are listed in Table 4.
capital of some rural communities. Prioritizing SDG15 is crucial in view Table 4 presents HEIs’ priority ranks. As observed, on top of the
of the impending climate-related dilemmas. Interestingly, they have list is the Mariano Marcos State University, and San Sebastian College
limited interest in SDG9, which may be due to their low innovation Recoletos de Cavite is at the bottom.
potential.
Phase (3). Ranking the HEIs via the EDAS method 4. Comparative analysis
Steps 9 to 11 illustrate the application of the EDAS method in
ranking HEIs based on their alignment with the SDGs. A comparative analysis was completed to examine how the in-
( ) tegrated approach used in this study compares with other MADM
Step 9. Determine the average solution 𝑉 = 𝑣𝑗 1×𝑛 . methods and ensure that the results are not achieved using a whimsical
Eq. (8) is utilized to compute the average solution 𝑣𝑗 with respect approach. In choosing a subset of methods among an array of MADM
to all 𝑗 SDGs. The resulting matrices are presented in Table 3.
methods, we proposed two primary qualifications: (1) the method
Step 10. Calculate the positive distance from the average and negative is based on an 𝑚 × 𝑛 decision matrix and (2) the algorithm of the
distance from the average. method contains limited parameters, unlike some popular methods

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 Mariano Marcos State University 123 Urdaneta City University
2 University of Nueva Caceres 124 Cebu Institute of Technology-University
3 De La Salle Lipa 125 University of Rizal System
4 Zamboanga State College of Marine Sciences and Technology 126 President Ramon Magsaysay State University
5 Camarines Sur Polytechnic Colleges 127 Palompon Institute of Technology
6 Eastern Visayas State University 128 FEATI University
7 Central Bicol State University of Agriculture 129 Centro Escolar University Manila
8 Bukidnon State University 130 University of Batangas
9 Mindanao State University at Naawan 131 Philippine Women’s University
10 Abe International Business College 132 Eulogio Amang Rodríguez Institute of Science and Technology
11 Iligan Medical Center College 133 Saint Jude College
12 Information and Communications Technology Academy 134 Iligan Computer Institute
13 Southern Philippines Agri-Business and Marine and Aquatic School of Technology 135 Chiang Kai Shek College
14 Aurora State College of Technology 136 Pangasinan State University
15 Nueva Vizcaya State University 137 Palawan State University
16 University of the East Ramon Magsaysay 138 Bataan Peninsula State University
17 University of Caloocan City 139 Holy Trinity University Philippines
18 Caraga State University 140 Asian Theological Seminary Philippines
19 University of the Philippines Visayas 141 Romblon State University
20 Bestlink College of the Philippines 142 Cebu Normal University
21 Surigao State College of Technology 143 Southern Leyte State University
22 San Carlos College 144 Occidental Mindoro State College
23 De La Salle University-Manila 145 Philippine College of Criminology
24 University of Northeastern Philippines 146 Southern Luzon State University
25 Leyte Normal University 147 Philippine School of Business Administration
26 University of Northern Philippines 148 Saint Louis College
27 Iloilo Doctors’ College 149 University of Antique
28 University of Southern Mindanao 150 St. Paul University Quezon City
29 University of Southeastern Philippines 151 Kalayaan College
30 Sorsogon State College 152 Cagayan State University
31 Central Mindanao University 153 Camarines Norte State College
32 Catanduanes State University 154 FEU Cavite
33 Davao del Norte State College 155 Saint Joseph Institute of Technology
34 Iloilo Science and Technology University 156 National Defense College of the Philippines
35 Biliran Province State University 157 Jose Maria College
36 Center for Industrial Technology and Enterprise 158 FAITH Colleges
37 La Salle University 159 Northwest Samar State University
38 Davao Doctors College 160 Colegio de Dagupan
39 Lyceum Northwestern University 161 Cebu Technological University
40 Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology 162 Dipolog Medical Center College Foundation
41 Western Philippines University 163 National College of Science & Technology
42 Philippine Christian University 164 Capiz State University
43 Cebu Doctors’ University 165 Saint Paul University Philippines
44 Mapua University 166 Bicol State College of Applied Sciences and Technology
45 New Era University 167 Saint Paul University Pasig
46 Visayas State Universities 168 Southwestern University
47 Rizal Technological University 169 Naga College Foundation
48 Manila Business College 170 St. Augustine School of Nursing
49 De La Salle College of Saint Benilde 171 Wesleyan University- Philippines
50 Malayan Colleges Laguna 172 Comteq Computer and Business College
51 Misamis University 173 University of San Agustin
52 Holy Angel University 174 Foundation University
53 Surigao del Sur State University 175 Father Saturnino Urios University
54 Partido State University 176 System Technology Institute
55 Aklan State University 177 Samar State University
56 Far Eastern University Philippines 178 Negros Oriental State University
57 Guimaras State College 179 FEU Institute of Technology
58 University of Mindanao 180 Quirino State University
59 Batangas State University 181 Miriam College
60 Araullo University 182 University of the Philippines Cebu
61 University of Pangasinan 183 Central Philippine Adventist College
62 Far Eastern University Dr. Nicanor Reyes Medical Foundation 184 University of Makati
63 University of Bohol 185 College of Development Communication
64 Arellano University 186 Sultan Kudarat State University
65 Don Mariano Marcos Memorial State University 187 Universidad de Zamboanga
66 University of Eastern Philippines 188 University of Cebu
67 Isabela State University 189 University of Cebu
68 Pampanga State Agricultural University 190 Liceo de Cagayan University
69 Carlos Hilado Memorial State College 191 University of Saint La Salle Bacolod
70 PATTS College of Aeronautics 192 Manuel S. Enverga University
71 University of Science and Technology of Southern Philippines 193 Southeast Asia Interdisciplinary Development Institute
72 Northern Negros State College of Science and Technology 194 Universidad de Sta. Isabel
73 Mindanao State University 195 AMA Computer University
74 Alliance Graduate School 196 Capitol University
75 San Pedro College of Business Administration 197 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 Bicol Christian College of Medicine 198 Informatics Computer Institute
77 Bulacan State University 199 Jose Rizal Memorial State University
78 Philippine Military Academy 200 Jose Rizal University
79 John B. Lacson Foundation Maritime University 201 ICCT Colleges
80 Lorma Colleges 202 National College of Business and Arts
81 Ifugao State University 203 International Graduate School of Leadership
82 Laguna State Polytechnic University 204 University of La Salette
83 Cavite State University 205 Saint Michael’s College of Laguna
84 Don Honorio Ventura State University 206 University of Santo Thomas
85 West Visayas State University 207 Virgen Milagrosa University Foundation
86 Cebu Institute of Medicine 208 Bicol University
87 De La Salle Araneta University 209 University of Cagayan Valley
88 Philippine Normal University 210 Aldersgate College
89 PanPacific University 211 Asian Institute of Journalism and Communication
90 Don Bosco College 212 University of Saint Anthony
91 Tarlac Agricultural University 213 University of Saint Louis Tuguegarao
92 Salazar Colleges of Science and Institute of Technology 214 St Scholastica’s College
93 Ilocos Sur Polytechnic State College 215 Northwestern University
94 Mindanao State University General Santos 216 Mountain View College Philippines
95 Notre Dame University Cotabato 217 Maritime Academy of Asia
96 Mindanao State University Iligan Institute of Technology 218 Manila Central University
97 Bulacan Agricultural State College 219 NYK-TDG Maritime Academy
98 Technological Research for Ad ComEd College 220 MHAM College of Medicine
99 La Consolacion College Bacolod 221 Fatima University
100 Adventist University of the Philippines 222 Central Philippine University
101 University of the East 223 University of the City of Manila
102 Western Mindanao State University 224 University of Luzon
103 Bohol Island State University 225 Colegio San Agustin Bacolod
104 AMA Computer College Tuguegarao 226 University of Baguio
105 Lyceum of the Philippines University Batangas 227 Emilio Aguinaldo College
106 Philippine National Police Academy 228 BIT International College
107 Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies 229 University of the San Jose-Recoletos
108 Filamer Christian University 230 Columban College
109 San Sebastian College Manila 231 University of the Philippines Baguio
110 University of Manila 232 Ateneo de Zamboanga University
111 Sacred Heart College Lucena City 233 Notre Dame of Dadiangas University
112 Technological Institute of the Philippines 234 San Beda University
113 Western Institute of Technology 235 Saint Luke’s College of Medicine
114 Philippine Merchant Marine Academy 236 Saint Paul University Dumaguete
115 Benguet State University 237 Central Luzon State University
116 National Teachers College 238 University of Negros Occidental Recoletos
117 Asian College of Technology 239 University of the Assumption
118 Cotabato Foundation College of Science and Technology 240 Northern Luzon Adventist College
119 Asian Institute of Management 241 Siena College of Taytay
120 Tarlac Agricultural University 242 Colegio de San Juan de Letran
121 Calayan Educational Foundation 243 Holy Name University
122 Divine Word College of Legazpi 244 San Sebastian College Recoletos de Cavite

(e.g., Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evalu- Table 5

Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients among comparable methods.
ations (PROMETHEE) and ELimination Et Choix Traduisant la REalité
EDAS TOPSIS CODAS COCOSO RAFSI
(ELECTRE)). These qualifications were set to appropriately compare the
performance of EDAS with other closely available MADM methods. EDAS 1 0.9839 0.9695 0.9931 0.9897
TOPSIS 0.9839 1 0.9852 0.9865 0.9866
For this analysis, the following four MADM methods were com- CODAS 0.9695 0.9852 1 0.9825 0.9846
pared: (1) Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal COCOSO 0.9931 0.9865 0.9825 1 0.9990
Solution (TOPSIS; [57]); (2) Combinative Distance-Based Assessment RAFSI 0.9897 0.9866 0.9846 0.9990 1

(CODAS; [58]); (3) Combined Compromise Solution (CoCoSo; [59]);

and (4) Ranking of Alternatives through Functional Mapping of Cri-
terion 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 in-
tegrated 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.
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.
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 multi-
ple 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’ so-
cioeconomic 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., Singa-
pore). 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 Univer-
sity 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 high-
level discussion in university governance to strengthen their strategic
9
Decision Analytics Journal 6 (2023) 100176
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’ knowl-
edge 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 computa-
tionally efficient hybrid MADM methods capable of solving complex,
large-scale, multi-attribute evaluation problems with less mathemat-
ical or computational proficiency requirements from analysts. When
applied to problems demanding subjective judgments, the integrated
approach merely requires minimal cognitive workload from decision-
makers 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’’ state-
ments 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 im-
plication 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 equiv-
alent to the sustainability level of HEI governance. Although, some may
contend that whenever coherence with the SDGs becomes more ob-
servable, 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.
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 De La Salle University Manila 155 Asian Institute of Journalism and Communication
4 University of Santo Thomas 156 Biliran Province State University
5 Mindanao State University Iligan Institute of Technology 157 San Carlos College
7 Mapua University 158 Informatics Computer Institute
8 Visayas State University 159 University of Makati
10 Central Mindanao University 160 Aldersgate College
11 Cebu Technological University 161 Misamis University
12 Central Luzon State University 162 Chiang Kai Shek College
13 Far Eastern University 163 Mindanao State University at Naawan
15 Batangas State University 164 Philippine Merchant Marine Academy
16 University of Southern Mindanao 165 Manuel S. Enverga University Foundation
17 West Visayas State University 166 National Teachers College
19 University of the Philippines Visayas 167 Capitol University
21 Centro Escolar University Manila 168 Lyceum Northwestern University
24 University of the East 170 La Consolacion College Bacolod
27 University of Science and Technology of Southern Philippines 171 La Salle University
28 Pangasinan State University 172 Wesleyan University-Philippines
29 University of the San Jose-Recoletos 173 Universidad de Sta. Isabel
30 Western Mindanao State University 174 Saint Joseph Institute of Technology
31 Isabela State University 175 Jose Rizal Memorial State University
32 Asian Institute of Management 176 Colegio de San Juan de Letran
33 Cavite State University 177 Maritime Academy of Asia
34 Jose Rizal University 181 Surigao del Sur State University
35 Holy Angel University 182 Western Philippines University
36 Our Lady of Fatima University 183 Philippine School of Business Administration
38 University of the Philippines Mindanao 184 FEATI University
39 Benguet State University 185 Virgen Milagrosa University Foundation
40 Bulacan State University 186 Urdaneta City University
42 Caraga State University 187 University of Cebu
44 Cebu Normal University 188 Quirino State University
45 Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology 189 Jose Maria College
48 Cagayan State University 190 Cebu Institute of Medicine
49 University of the Philippines Cebu 191 Notre Dame of Dadiangas University
50 Emilio Aguinaldo College 193 Tarlac Agricultural University
51 Don Mariano Marcos Memorial State University 194 St. Paul University Quezon City
52 University of Mindanao 196 Iloilo Science and Technology University
54 Adventist University of the Philippines 197 Davao Doctors College
55 Cebu Institute of Technology-University 198 Divine Word College of Legazpi
56 Samar State University 199 Saint Paul University Pasig
57 Bicol University 200 Cotabato Foundation College of Science and Technology
58 Mariano Marcos State University 201 Philippine National Police Academy
60 Bataan Peninsula State University 202 Asian College of Technology
61 University of the Philippines Baguio 203 FAITH Colleges
62 Manila Central University 204 Partido State University
63 Mindanao State University General Santos 205 Father Saturnino Urios University
64 University of Southeastern Philippines 206 National College of Business and Arts
65 Philippine Normal University 207 Camarines Norte State College
66 Ateneo de Zamboanga University 208 Abe International Business College
67 San Beda University 210 Saint Michael’s College of Laguna
68 Leyte Normal University 211 Ilocos Sur Polytechnic State College
70 Lyceum of the Philippines University Batangas 212 Mountain View College Philippines
72 Central Philippine University 213 Filamer Christian University
73 FEU Institute of Technology 214 Colegio San Agustin Bacolod
75 Universidad de Zamboanga 215 University of Manila
76 Occidental Mindoro State College 216 Saint Louis College
77 Malayan Colleges Laguna 217 College of Development Communication
78 Eastern Visayas State University 218 Saint Paul University Dumaguete
79 Sacred Heart College of Lucena City 220 Asian Theological Seminary Philippines
80 System Technology Institute 221 Sorsogon State College
81 Technological Institute of the Philippines 224 FEU Cavite
84 Far Eastern University Dr. Nicanor Reyes Medical Foundation 225 Central Philippine Adventist College
86 Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies 227 PATTS College of Aeronautics
87 Arellano University 228 ICCT Colleges
88 University of Batangas 229 Sultan Kudarat State University
89 University of San Agustin 232 Capiz State University
90 Southern Luzon State University 234 Don Honorio Ventura State University
91 De La Salle Lipa 235 Zamboanga State College of Marine Sciences and Technology
92 Rizal Technological University 236 Guimaras State College
94 Aklan State University 239 Mindanao State University
95 Philippine Christian University 241 Pampanga State Agricultural University
96 De La Salle College of Saint Benilde 243 Center for Industrial Technology and Enterprise
97 University of Bohol 245 Aurora State College of Technology
98 Miriam College 246 Colegio de Dagupan
99 De La Salle Araneta University 247 Tarlac Agricultural University
100 University of Eastern Philippines 248 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 San Sebastian College-Recoletos de Cavite 249 Manila Business College
103 St Scholastica’s College 250 Northwest Samar State University
104 Bicol Christian College of Medicine 251 International Graduate School of Leadership
105 Romblon State University 252 Iloilo Doctors’ College
106 University of Saint Louis Tuguegarao 253 University of Antique
107 University of the City of Manila 254 Calayan Educational Foundation
108 University of Baguio 255 SEA Interdisciplinary Development Institute
109 University of Saint La Salle Bacolod 256 Technological Research for Ad ComEd College
110 Southern Leyte State University 257 University of Pangasinan
111 Surigao State College of Technology 258 Philippine College of Criminology
112 University of Negros Occidental-Recoletos 259 Saint Luke’s College of Medicine
113 Philippine Women’s University 260 Carlos Hilado Memorial State University
115 AMA Computer College Tuguegarao 261 BIT International College
116 Palawan State University 262 Notre Dame University Cotabato
117 Liceo de Cagayan University 263 Saint Jude College
118 National Defense College of the Philippines 265 University of Cagayan Valley
119 University of Northern Philippines 266 Iligan Computer Institute
120 Central Bicol State University of Agriculture 267 Palompon Institute of Technology
121 Nueva Vizcaya State University 268 Bicol State College of Applied Sciences and Technology
122 AMA Computer University 269 Bulacan Agricultural State College
123 University of Cebu 270 National College of Science & Technology
124 University of the East Ramon Magsaysay 271 Naga College Foundation
125 Ifugao State University 273 Northern Luzon Adventist College
126 Laguna State Polytechnic University 274 University of Saint Anthony
127 Cebu Doctors’ University 275 NYK-TDG Maritime Academy
128 Bukidnon State University 276 PanPacific University
130 Information and Communications Technology Academy 277 Alliance Graduate School
131 Holy Name University 278 St. Augustine School of Nursing
132 New Era University 279 Araullo University
133 University of Nueva Caceres 281 Southern Philippines Agri-Business, Marine and Aquatic School of Technology
134 Eulogio Amang Rodríguez Institute of Science and Technology 282 MHAM College of Medicine
135 Northwestern University 283 Northern Negros State College of Science and Technology
136 University of Rizal System 284 Bestlink College of the Philippines
137 Saint Paul University Philippines 285 University of La Salette
138 University of the Assumption 286 Western Institute of Technology
139 University of Luzon 287 University of Northeastern Philippines
140 Kalayaan College 288 Holy Trinity University Philippines
141 Philippine Military Academy 289 Iligan Medical Center College
143 John B. Lacson Foundation Maritime University 290 Don Bosco College
146 Bohol Island State University 292 University of Caloocan City
147 Southwestern University 293 Columban College
148 Foundation University 294 Siena College of Taytay
149 Camarines Sur Polytechnic Colleges 295 Catanduanes State University
150 Davao del Norte State College 296 San Pedro College of Business Administration
152 San Sebastian College Manila 298 President Ramon Magsaysay State University
153 Negros Oriental State University 299 Dipolog Medical Center College Foundation
154 Salazar Colleges of Science and Institute of Technology 300 Comteq Computer and Business College

6. Conclusion and future works
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 coun-
tries 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 lim-
ited 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
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 prior-
ity 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.

11
R.M. Encenzo, R. Asoque, R. Arceño et al.
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 direc-
tions 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.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial 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
Decision Analytics Journal 6 (2023) 100176
[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 de-
velopment 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, Envi-
ronmental 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 Work-
shop: 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.
R.M. Encenzo, R. Asoque, R. Arceño et al.
[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 ed-
ucation 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 TOPSIS-
CRITIC 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 com-
munity 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
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/10.1007/978-3-
642-48318-9_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 com-
promise 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.