Evaluating and Prioritizing ESG Decision Factors in Traditional Manufacturing Industries: An Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach
Abstract
This study examines how experts in traditional manufacturing prioritize environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors, and what these perceived priorities imply for sustainable-development strategy. Rather than measuring competitiveness outcomes directly, it captures the relative importance that experienced managers assign to ESG criteria. Drawing on a systematic literature review and two rounds of focus group discussions (FGD) with ten industry and academic experts, a hierarchical framework of three criteria and nineteen sub-criteria was constructed and evaluated through an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) survey of 26 experienced managers in the textile, machine-tool, and hardware-component industries. Aggregating pairwise judgments by the geometric mean, the environmental dimension received the highest weight (0.5657), followed by the social (0.2600) and corporate governance (0.1742) dimensions, with all comparison matrices satisfying the consistency criterion (C.R. ≤ 0.10). At the sub-criterion level, effective energy management (global weight 0.1607), pollution prevention (0.1252), toxic-waste management (0.0860), resource recycling and reuse (0.0840), and employee rights and well-being (0.0741) ranked highest, indicating that experts prioritize energy efficiency, pollution control, regulatory compliance, and workforce stability. A sensitivity analysis confirms that environmental primacy is robust to moderate re-weighting of the three dimensions. A notable divergence between the qualitative emphasis on governance during the FGD and its comparatively low AHP weight is interpreted as a sequencing of managerial attentionfrom urgent environmental compliance and cost efficiency, through workforce resilience, toward longer-term governance optimization rather than as evidence of a causal effect on competitiveness. Grounded in the resource-based and stakeholder perspectives, the study contributes an empirically based, theory-informed prioritization framework for an under-researched sector and offers managers, policymakers, and investors a reference for staged ESG implementation and resource allocation.