sustainability

Article
Evaluating the Business Performance of Seaport Enterprises
in Vietnam
Thi Kim Lien Nguyen * , Hoang Nga Le, Bach Dang Ha, Quoc Ngu Nguyen, Van Phi Pham * and Van Dan Dinh

Department of Economics-Business Administration, Thanh Dong University, Tu Minh,

Hai Duong 171960, Vietnam
* Correspondence: [email protected] (T.K.L.N.); [email protected] (V.P.P.);
Tel.: +84-366-440-688 (T.K.L.N.); +84-944-181-000 (V.P.P.)

Abstract: International economic trade plays a crucial role in global merchandise supply chains;
as such, the development of industries is critical to enhance the expansion and growth of marine
transportation services. In Vietnam, commercial activities are rapidly expanding, and there is a
strong foundation for developing seaport enterprises. This research aims to evaluate and rank the
business performance of seaport enterprises in Vietnam by analyzing the ratio of various variables
in the financial statements from 2019 to 2023 via an integration of the Criteria Importance Through
Intercriteria Correlation (CRITIC) and Combined Compromise Solution (COCOSO) methods. First,
the weight of each variable will be determined by the CRITIC method. Second, the efficiency and
rank of each alternative will be identified by the COCOSO method. These empirical results revealed
the business performance and position of each seaport enterprise based on the efficiency scores,
providing valuable insights into their financial operations. Additionally, the findings described a
comprehensive overview of maritime transport and recommended actionable solutions to improve
the business performance of seaport enterprises in the future.

Keywords: criteria importance through intercriteria correlation (CRITIC); combined compromise

solution (COCOSO) method; business performance; seaport enterprise

Citation: Nguyen, T.K.L.; Le, H.N.;

Ha, B.D.; Nguyen, Q.N.; Pham, V.P.; 1. Introduction
Dinh, V.D. Evaluating the Business A seaport is a harbor that yields infrastructures and equipment setups on the sea,
Performance of Seaport Enterprises in such as quaysides, jetties, cranes, etc., to store and ship products. A cargo boat can arrive
Vietnam. Sustainability 2024, 16, 8576. and leave these harbors to load and unload the goods between sea and land [1]. Ocean
https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198576
transportation is typically leveraged to promote the development of international trade [2].
Academic Editor: Stratos In recent years, maritime transportation in Vietnam has been developed to meet the process
Papadimitriou of transporting goods; further, the construction of seaport systems has created favorable
conditions for the production and business activities of port enterprises. Hence, they now
Received: 28 July 2024
receive the world’s largest tonnage ships. The establishment of international gateway ports
Revised: 29 September 2024
in the northern and southern regions is a crucial success factor for accommodating large
Accepted: 30 September 2024
container ships. Moreover, transportation infrastructure such as highway systems, local
Published: 2 October 2024
roads, and railway lines connecting with special seaports is prioritized to support economic
zones and corridor development. According to the General Statistic Office [3], although the
COVID-19 pandemic had a major impact on the global economy, the Vietnamese seaport
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. system still invested in the current scale and technology to approach the standard of an
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. internal seaport system. The volume of cargo across seaports from 2019 to 2023 consistently
This article is an open access article increased continuously from 664.61 million tons to 756.8 million tons, as shown in Figure 1.
distributed under the terms and The total amount of goods through Vietnam’s seaports in 2023 reached 756.8 million tons
conditions of the Creative Commons and increased by 5% compared with 2022. Consequently, the volume of goods in recent
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// years at Vietnamese seaports has increased, which could reveal growth potential and its
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
role in the commodity supply chain.
4.0/).

Sustainability 2024, 16, 8576. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198576 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

 Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 21

Sustainability 2024, 16, 8576 2 of 21

volume of goods in recent years at Vietnamese seaports has increased, which could reveal
growth potential and its role in the commodity supply chain.

Figure 1. Goods
Figure 1. through the
Goods through theseaports
seaportsfrom
from2019
2019toto2023
2023 (Million
(Million tons).
tons). Source:
Source: General
General Statistic
Statistic
Office[3].
Office [3].

Macroeconomics [4],
Macroeconomics [4],industry
industry 4.04.0
[5,6], andand
[5,6], transportation
transportation capacities [7] have
capacities [7]a have
directa di-
impact on maritime performance. Yang et al. [8] evaluated Chinese
rect impact on maritime performance. Yang et al. [8] evaluated Chinese ports’ efficiency ports’ efficiency based
on an on
based analysis of input
an analysis offactors, including
input factors, berth length,
including berthequipment assets, number
length, equipment assets,of number
em-
ofployees, and cost
employees, and and
and cost output factors;
output they they
factors; included desirable
included output
desirable factors
output suchsuch
factors as as
throughput and
throughput and profit
profit and
andundesirable
undesirableoutput output factors
factorssuch
suchas emission
as emission amountamountand and
NOxNOx
using the
using the proposed
proposed inverse
inversedata dataenvelopment
envelopment analysis
analysis model.
model. Norlinda
Norlinda et al.et[9]
al.deter-
[9] deter-
mined the
mined the lowest
lowest andand highest
highestperformance
performance ofofports
portsin in
Malaysia
Malaysia utilizing
utilizingthe the
hierarchical
hierarchical
clusterframework
cluster framework to to analyze
analyzeinput inputand andoutput
output variables
variablessuch as port
such cost,cost,
as port portport
infrastruc-
infrastruc-
tures, operational efficiency, port service quality, loading
tures, operational efficiency, port service quality, loading and unloading cost and unloading cost reduction,
reduction,
service quality improvement, and so on. Vaggelas et al. [10] explored the drawbacks of the
service quality improvement, and so on. Vaggelas et al. [10] explored the drawbacks of
container port market, dry bulk port market, Ro-Ro port market, and break-bulk port mar-
the container port market, dry bulk port market, Ro-Ro port market, and break-bulk port
ket by completing an evaluated performance based on elements of new processes, infra-
market by completing an evaluated performance based on elements of new processes,
structure, etc., in ports. Sadri et al. [11] measured the efficiency of 11 Iranian ports via
infrastructure, etc., in ports. Sadri et al. [11] measured the efficiency of 11 Iranian ports via
network data envelopment analysis to determine the standard percentage of intelligence
network data envelopment analysis to determine the standard percentage of intelligence
and greenness. Caldas et al. [12] analyzed factors, including total quay cranes, terminal
and
area,greenness.
quay length, Caldas et al. [12]
operational analyzed
expresses, factors, including
and container, by applying total quaybenchmarking
robust cranes, terminal
area, quay length, operational expresses, and container,
analysis methods and the nonparametric order-α model to conduct the European by applying robust benchmarking
A in
analysis methods and the nonparametric order-α model to
2019. Different methods were also used to measure seaport performance, which revealedconduct the European A in 2019.
Different
that diversemethods
variableswerewith also
otherused to measure
observations seaportseaport
impacted performance,
efficiency. which revealed that
diverse variables with other observations impacted seaport
Figure 1 indicates the expansion of goods transported through seaports in Vietnamefficiency.
fromFigure
2019 to1 2023.
indicates the expansion
Although the maritime of goods
industry transported
has achieved through seaports
consistent success,in each
Vietnam
from
seaport enterprise in Vietnam faces challenges such as fuel price volatility, the interna-each
2019 to 2023. Although the maritime industry has achieved consistent success,
seaport enterprisethe
tional economy, in global
Vietnam faceschain,
supply challenges such as
innovative fuel price and
technology, volatility, the international
port location. This
economy, the global
research explores thesupply
factorschain, innovative
influencing technology,
the operational and port
process location. This
of Vietnamese research
seaport
explores the utilizing
enterprises, factors influencing
the CRITICthe andoperational
COCOSO models process inof Vietnamesedecision-making
multi-criteria seaport enterprises,
(MCDM)the
utilizing to evaluate
CRITIC business
and COCOSO performance.
models in multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) to
According
evaluate business to performance.
Decree No. 37/2017/ND-CP [13], a seaport enterprise is an enterprise
that According
executes seaport operations
to Decree and needs to have
No. 37/2017/ND-CP adequate
[13], a seaportfacilities, warehouses,
enterprise stor-
is an enterprise
age executes
that yards, floating
seaport terminals,
operations transshipment
and needs to areas,
haveoffshore
adequate oil facilities,
terminals,warehouses,
and anchorage. storage
A seaport
yards, enterprise
floating must also
terminals, have enoughareas,
transshipment humanoffshore
resources, oilplan to ensure
terminals, occupational
and anchorage. A
seaport enterprise must also have enough human resources, plan to ensure occupational
safety and hygiene, have adequate safety conditions of fire protection and prevention,
and have means of receiving and collecting waste from ships. Various previous studies of
seaport enterprises include Salem et al., for example, who implemented an evaluation of
efficiency for 22 cargo seaports in the regions of East Africa and the Middle East via the
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8576 3 of 21

window analysis model [14]. Wang et al. utilized the additive Holt Winters method and
epsilon-based measure to explore the efficiency of the seaport companies in Vietnam [15].
Nguyen et al. used the Malmquist model in data envelopment analysis to analyze gross
crane productivity, crane intensity, berth length, berth depth, call, moves, and elapsed
time of container terminals in Southern Vietnam [16]. Li et al. evaluated the efficiency of
major container terminals in China through the super-efficiency model in data envelopment
analysis [17]. Pham et al. combined the technique for order of preference by similarity to
the ideal solution, the analytic hierarchy process, and the cumulative prospect theory to
assess the efficiency of six container terminals in Vietnam [18].
The business performance of an enterprise, which has two components, i.e., financial
performance and non-financial performance [19,20], is an evaluation of all the efforts [21].
The financial performance of an enterprise is measured by monetary value and finan-
cial operations. Non-financial performance is an enterprise’s performance measured by
brand reputation, customer satisfaction, organizational performance, and innovation ac-
tivities [22]. Financial operations are presented in the financial statements, which are an
essential tool for measuring business performance [23]. In a balance sheet, liabilities, equity,
assets, etc., show an overview of the business’s financial situation and position [24]. In
the income statement, revenue, profit, net income, etc., present a firm’s profitability [22].
In addition, Lee revealed that the annual revenues and operating profits of management
consulting companies present consistent results [25]. Therefore, the balance sheet and
income statement in the financial statement are essential instruments for evaluating an en-
terprise’s strength, effectiveness, and general performance [26,27]. Addressing elements in
financial statements is intended to improve financial stability [28], as these factors present
a firm’s financial situation and information on how resilient it is to future downturns
and also to maintain long-term stability [22]. In previous research, Ilori et al. analyzed
turnover, profit before taxation, taxation, profit after taxation, retail profit for the year,
shareholder fund, and ROI to determine a firm’s financial strengths and weaknesses [29].
Tseng et al. evaluated the business performance of Taiwan’s large-size thin-film transistor
liquid-crystal display (TFT-LCD) panel companies through earning profitability, debt, asset,
market value, and cash/turnover ratio in the financial statements [30]. Bertina et al. used
return-on-equity, operating margin, and labor-to-revenue ratio to analyze and show the
level of business performance [31]. Each research method takes a different approach and
selected indicators in financial statements to identify the business performance. In this
study, we chose owner’s equity, cost of goods sold, liabilities, net revenue, and net profit
after tax to measure the business performance of seaport enterprises.
MCDM is a measurement method of alternatives’ weight [32] used to evaluate the
problem and reach decisions involving multiple criteria with continuous and discrete
methods. The constant method is utilized to determine an optimal quantity of decision
problems; the discrete method is a decision-support technique, which includes alternatives,
objectives, and criteria [33,34]. MCDM has developed and extended different methods such
as Vlsekriterijumska Optimizacijia I Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR) [35,36], Technique
for Order of Preference by Similarly to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) [37], CRITIC [38], etc. The
new extended technologies provide different methods for researchers to compare and
select an appreciative model. VIKOR deals with discrete decision problems with non-
commensurable and incompatible criteria; it will provide rankings and choose alternatives
with conflicting criteria [39]. TOPSIS considers the distance between two alternatives and
the choice between ideal and negative-ideal points to rank alternatives [40].
The CRITIC method is a technique used to define the objective weights of relative
importance based on conventional statistics measures in the matrix of evaluation. It can
observe the high value of contrast intensity for objective response, and its correlation coeffi-
cient can conduct the conflict measurement between two considered objectives. Moreover,
it can solve multiple objectives at the same time to present objective weights [38,41]. The re-
lationship between criteria presents the importance of each criterion in the decision-making
process, with conflicting and discrete data widely applied in different areas. For instance,
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8576 4 of 21

Shi et al. [42] conducted a comprehensive weighting factor when using the single-node
measurement method of the CRITIC method. Chen et al. [43] used the CRITIC method
to identify the objective weights of indexes by combining the minimum discriminating
information, the findings of which discovered unstable and stable states of mining slopes in
Xing County, Shanxi Province, China. Gaur [44] employed the CRITIC method to measure
the weights of the stakeholder attributes by addressing the possibility of any correlation
between the characteristics in their weight determination. Chen et al. [45] calculated the
index weight of red-tide risk via the intercriteria correlation of the CRITIC method.
The COCOSO method calculates the scores to determine the ranking of alternatives by
an integrated simple additive weighting and exponentially weighted product model [33],
which deals with complex multi-variable assessment problems. Additionally, it can solve
conflicting data, offer a compromise solution, and indicate decision-maker preferences [46].
Pankaj and Dilip [47] implemented the COCOSO technique to evaluate the performance
and measure the development of the Indian Union Territories. Milan et al. [48] used the
COCOSO method for ranking mixtures by testing recycled asphalt, bitumen emulsion,
cement, zeolite, Bakelite, slag, and fly ash. Abeer et al. [49] ranked and found the highest
values of different carbon-fiber composite thicknesses for improving hole quality. Ghosh
and Bhattachary [50] used the COCOSO method to measure the financial performance
of the hospitality and tourism industries through data from 22 listed India hotels and
9 listed travel agencies. Ridha et al. [51] integrated CRITIC and COCOSO methods to
identify the status of the most critical node, i.e., the caching decision process, and the
most suitable cache node for storing popular content. The CRITIC and COCOSO methods
have been used in different areas such as construction, manufacturing, networks, logistics,
etc. The CRITIC method can support finding the weights of elements. The COCOSO
method can conduct the scoring based on the calculated weights from the CRITIC method
and initial data and then present a ranking of alternatives. The COCOSO method further
consolidates simple additive weighting, weighted aggregated sum product assessment
and multiplicative exponential weighting methods to produce reliable results and can be
applied in various research aspects [52].
Previous research [9–12,14–18] has assessed seaport efficiency with various factors,
including total quay cranes, terminal area, quay length, cost, etc., through data envelopment
analysis, robust benchmarking analysis, hierarchical cluster framework, additive Holt
Winters, technique for order of preference by similarity to the ideal solution, the analytic
hierarchy process, and cumulative prospect theory methods. Some financial indicators in
the financial statements, such as total assets, owner’s equity, liabilities, operating expresses,
net revenue, gross profit, and net profit, were used to determine the seaport companies
in Vietnam via the additive Holt Winters method, the epsilon-based measure, Malmquist,
and super slacks-based measure models in data envelopment analysis [15,53]. The above
theoretical research indicates that the CRITIC method can deal with multiple objectives
at the same time, and the COCOSO can provide reliable results. These studies have not
used an integration of CRITIC and COCOSO methods for analyzing financial indicators
to evaluate business performance. Therefore, the purpose of our research is to utilize the
CRITIC and COCOSO methods to analyze the financial indicators of seaport enterprises in
Vietnam. Firstly, the CRITIC method was utilized to calculate the weights of each criterion.
Secondly, the COCOSO method was employed to measure the scores and determine the
ranking of seaport enterprises. The study’s main contributions are as follows:
# The study provided a notable theoretical concept of a seaport enterprise to clarify its
characteristics and functions.
# The study presented significant theoretical content to demonstrate the correlations
between financial indicators in the financial statements when assessing a firm’s busi-
ness performance.
# The empirical results indicated the business performance and rank of each Vietnamese
seaport enterprise from 2019 to 2023. The findings revealed that Saigon Port Join Stock
Company (SGP) consistently achieved high business efficiency scores and maintained
 characteristics and functions.
o The study presented significant theoretical content to demonstrate the correlations
between financial indicators in the financial statements when assessing a firm’s busi-
ness performance.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8576 o The empirical results indicated the business performance and rank of each Vietnam-5 of 21
ese seaport enterprise from 2019 to 2023. The findings revealed that Saigon Port Join
Stock Company (SGP) consistently achieved high business efficiency scores and
maintained stable positions. In contrast, Quy Nhon New Port Joint Stock Company
stable positions. In contrast, Quy Nhon New Port Joint Stock Company (QSP) had the
(QSP) had the business performance, but its ranks were at the bottom.
business performance, but its ranks were at the bottom.
o The study recommended considering factors that affect the business results of sea-
# The study recommended considering factors that affect the business results of seaport en-
port enterprises, as these factors can help improve the business performance of these
terprises, as these factors can help improve the business performance of these enterprises.
enterprises.
The research process proceeded as follows: Section 1 introduces the context of a seaport
The research process proceeded as follows: Section 1 introduces the context of a sea-
in Vietnam, provides
port in Vietnam, an overview
provides of business
an overview performance,
of business performance,and discusses research
and discusses methods.
research
Section 2 provides a research framework and establishes mathematical
methods. Section 2 provides a research framework and establishes mathematical formu-formulas. Section 3
computes efficiency scores to assess business performance and identify
las. Section 3 computes efficiency scores to assess business performance and identify the the rankings of
seaport
rankingsenterprises. Section 4 compares
of seaport enterprises. Section 4 the findings
compares thewith previous
findings with research. Section 5 pro-
previous research.
vides
Sectionpractical implications
5 provides of the findings
practical implications and
of the feasible
findings and solutions to improve
feasible solutions performance.
to improve
Section 6 summarizes
performance. Section 6the primary results,
summarizes significant
the primary results,contributions, limitations limita-
significant contributions, of research,
and
tionsfurther research.
of research, and further research.

2.
2. Methodology
Methodology andandResearch
ResearchFramework
Framework
2.1. Research Framework
2.1. Research Framework
The business
The business performance
performanceofofthe
theseaport
seaportenterprises
enterprisesininVietnam
Vietnamwas
wascalculated
calculatedfol-
follow-
ing the research framework, as shown in Figure 2.
lowing the research framework, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Research
Researchframework.
framework.

Stage 1: The seaport is the country’s primary economic center and region because
it can process imports and exports of goods under the control and management of the
seaport enterprise. Our study aims to understand Vietnamese seaport knowledge and
assess seaport enterprises’ business performance.
Stage 2: The study introduced theories related to seaport enterprises, business perfor-
mance, and the CRITIC and COCOSO methods, and provided previous research.
Stage 3: The data were gathered based on the principles of the CRITIC and COCOSO
methods. The appreciated data were used to compute the weights through the following
steps: decision matrix, normalization of decision matrix, standard deviation, symmetric
matrix, information content, and objective weights in the CRITIC method. Then, the
COCOSO method involved counting the scores and identifying the rankings of alternatives
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8576 6 of 21

through the following steps: decision matrix, normalization of decision matrix, sum of the
weighted comparability matrix, power of the weighted comparability matrix, aggregation
of appraisal score strategies, and ranking of alternatives. In the symmetric matrix, for
the collected data, we used the Spearman’s correlation coefficient to test the strength and
direction of the relationship between two phenomena, and its coefficient must be ranked
from −1 to +1. If the correlation coefficient does not range from −1 to +1, the data must be
reselected [54].
Stage 4: With the objective weights, the efficiency scores of seaport enterprises were
employed. The findings were used to determine the business performance and the ranks of
seaport enterprises in Vietnam during 2019–2023.
Stage 5: The discussion presented comparisons of empirical results with related
research. The practical implications provided valuable research and recommendations to
improve the efficiency score. The conclusion summarized the main results and contributions.

2.2. Methodology
2.2.1. CRITIC Method
The CRITIC method includes contrasting the intensity of the value’s standard devia-
tion and conflict measurement, in which the conflict measurement calculates the correlation
coefficient between two objectives [41,55]. When the positive correlation between two
objectives is strong, the conflict between two objectives is low. The standard deviation
indicates the absolute change, and the coefficient of variation denotes the relative change.
In this study, we set up ten seaport enterprises as alternatives, considering x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 , x5 ,
x6 , x7 , x8 , x9 , and x10 and five variables as criteria. The main steps of the CRITIC method
calculate the weight of objectives as follows [45]:
Step 1. Formulate the decision matrix and determine maximum and minimum values
for each criteria.
f j∗ = Max { f 1 ( x1 ); f 2 ( x2 ); f 3 ( x3 ); f 4 ( x4 ); f 5 ( x5 ); f 6 ( x6 ); f 7 ( x7 ); f 8 ( x8 ); f 9 ( x9 ); f 10 ( x10 )}
f j∗ = Min{ f 1 ( x1 ); f 2 ( x2 ); f 3 ( x3 ); f 4 ( x4 ); f 5 ( x5 ); f 6 ( x6 ); f 7 ( x7 ); f 8 ( x8 ); f 9 ( x9 ); f 10 ( x10 )} (1)
x∈X

where x is a value in the data distribution, f j is the evaluation criteria, f j∗ is the best score of
the criterion, f j∗ is the worst score of the criterion, and j is the criterion.
Step 2. Normalization of the decision matrix.

f j ( x ) − f j∗
xij = (2)
f j∗ − f j∗

where xij is the normalized score of the alternative.

Step 3. Calculate the standard deviation (σ ) of each criterion.
s
2
∑ (x − x)
σ=
n−1
s (3)
( xi1 − x )2 + ( xi2 − x )2 + ( xi3 − x )2 + ( xi4 − x )2 + ( xi5 − x )2 + ( xi6 − x )2 + ( xi7 − x )2 + ( xi8 − x )2 + ( xi9 − x )2 + ( xi10 − x )2
=
10 − 1

where x is the population mean and n is the total number of observations.

Step 4. Establish a symmetric matrix to define the correlation coefficient of every pair
of criteria (r ). The correlation coefficient is applied to determine the relationship between
criteria [54].
n∑ xi yi − (∑ xi )(∑ yi )
r jk = rh ih i (4)
n ∑ x i 2 − ( ∑ x i )2 n ∑ y i 2 − ( ∑ y i )2

xi and yi are the values of the criteria.

Sustainability 2024, 16, 8576 7 of 21

Asuero et al. [54] indicated that the relationship between two variables is a propagation
method and that this relationship is either negative or positive. The type of correlation
coefficient has different classifications, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Classification of correlation.

Value of Correlation Coefficient Meaning

From 0.90 to 1 Very high correlation
From 0. 70 to 0.89 High correlation
From 0. 50 to 0.69 Moderate correlation
From 0. 30 to 0.49 Low correlation
From 0.00 to 0.29 Little if any correlation
Source: Asuero et al. [54].

Also, random correlation is applied to reverse the correlation for negative values from
−1 to 0.
Step 5. Compute the information content (Cj ).

m h i
Cj = σj ∑ (1 − r jk ) = σj X (1 − r jk1 ) + (1 − r jk2 ) + (1 − r jk3 ) + (1 − r jk4 ) + (1 − r jk5 ) (5)
k =1

where r jk is a generic element, m is the dimension, and k is the criterion variance.

Step 6. Determine the objective weights (Wj ).

Cj Cj
Wj = m = (6)
Cj1 + Cj2 + Cj3 + Cj4 + Cj5
ρ j ∑ Cjk
j =1

where Cjk is a similar matrix as for Cj .

Equations (1)–(6) clarify the steps of the data approach and analysis to calculate the
objective weights.

2.2.2. COCOSO Method

The COCOSO method is used for computing the scores and identifying the ranking
of alternatives after approaching a comparability sequence of integration of the usual
multiplication rule. It is also used for producing the weighted power of the distance
means by aggregating simple additive weighting and the exponentially weighting product
methods [46] through the following steps:
Step 1. Formulate the decision matrix. The maximum and minimum values of each
criteria are determined, and the equation is similar to Equation (1).
Step 2. Normalization of input decision matrix ( xij ), and the equation is similar to
Equation (2).
Step 3. Sum of the weighted comparability matrix (Si ).
n
Si = ∑ (w j xij ) = (w1 × xi1 ) + (w1 × xi2 ) + (w1 × xi3 ) + (w1 × xi4 ) + (w1 × xi5 ) (7)
j =1

Step 4. Power of the weighted comparability matrix ( Pi ).

n
Pi = ∑ (xij )wj = (xi1 )w1 + (xi2 )w2 + (xi3 )w3 + (xi4 )w4 + (xi5 )w5 (8)
j =1

Step 5. Aggregation of appraisal score strategies.

Sustainability 2024, 16, 8576 8 of 21

Arithmetic mean of the weighted sum method and the weighted product method (k ia ).

Pi + Si Pi + Si
k ia = m = (9)
( Pi1 + Si1 ) + ( Pi2 + Si2 ) + ( Pi3 + Si3 ) + ( Pi4 + Si4 ) + ( Pi5 + Si5 )
∑ ( Pi + Si )
i =1

Sum of the relative scores of the weighted sum method and weighted product method (kib ).

Si Pi Si Pi
k ib = + = + (10)
minSi min Pi min{Si1 ; Si2 ; Si3 ; Si4 ; Si5 } min{ Pi1 ; Pi2 ; Pi3 ; Pi4 ; Pi5 }
i i

Balanced compromise of the weighted sum method and the weighted product method (kic ).

λ(Si )+(1−λ)( Pi ) λ(Si )+(1−λ)( Pi )

k ic = (λmaxSi )+(1−λ)max Pi )
=   !
i λmax{Si1 ;Si2 ;Si3 ;Si4 ;Si5 } + (1−λ)max{ Pi1 ;Pi2 ;Pi3 ;Pi4 ;Pi5 }
i
i
(11)
i
(0 ≤ λ ≤ 1)

Step 6. Final ranking of the alternatives (k i ).

1
k i = (k ia k ib k ic )1/3 + (k ia + k ib + k ic ) (12)
3
Equations (1), (2) and (7)–(12) present steps to determine the score and position of
alternatives. This method considers the similarity or difference in values [51]; therefore,
our study applied it to calculate the efficiency score and determine the ranking of seaport
enterprises in Vietnam.

3. Empirical Results
3.1. Data Description
Although the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the global supply chain since 2019,
the goods yield via ocean mode increased and fluctuated from 2019 to 2023, as shown in
Figure 1. In the logistics industry, the volume of goods shows the operations situation of
seaports, and their business performance is reflected in their financial indicators. Our study
analyzed the financial indicators to assess the business performance of seaport enterprises
in Vietnam by integrating the CRITIC and COCOSO models. Ten seaport enterprises in
Vietnam, including Danang Port Joint Stock Company (CDN); Quy Nhon New Port Joint
Stock Company (QSP); CanTho Port Joint Stock Company (CCT); Cat Lai Port Joint Stock
Company (CLL); Doan Xa Port Joint Stock Company (DXP); Nghetinh Port Holding Joint
Stock Company (NAP); Dong Nai Port Joint Stock Company (PDN); Port of Hai Phong
Joint Stock Company (PHP); Saigon Port Join Stock Company (SGP); and Chanmay Port
Joint Stock Company (CMP) were selected once their data were posted on Vietstock [56–65].
The variables of these ten seaport enterprises were financial data in the financial statements,
used to describe the operational business efficiency process from 2019 to 2023. Owner’s
equity (OEY), cost of goods sold (CGS), liabilities (LIS), net revenue (NRE), and net profit
after tax (NPT) are critical variables in the financial report that this study collected to
measure business performance.
Input factors:
Owner’s equity: Shareholder’s or stockholder’s equity includes retained earnings,
comment stock, preferred stock, treasury stock, and additional paid-in capital.
Cost of goods sold: Total costs of producing the goods for an enterprise sold.
Liabilities: The total amount an enterprise lent to lenders, creditors, investors, individ-
uals, and institutions to invest in purchasing assets.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8576 9 of 21

Output factors:
Net revenue: The total income of an enterprise once it deducts the cost of goods sold,
expenses, depreciation and amortization, interest, and taxes. This is a significant value in
measuring performance and profit.
Net profit after tax: The profit or earnings of enterprises when they pay all expenses
and taxes.
We established seaport enterprises as alternatives and financial indicators as criteria
based on the CRITIC and COCOSO methods. The data of 10 seaport enterprises were
gathered, as shown in Table A1.

3.2. Weights of Variables

The weights of each variable were determined based on the steps of the CRITIC
method in Section 2.2.1. The data of 2019 were used for illustration.
Firstly, the maximum and minimum values were established based on Equation (1).

f j∗ = Max {1353878, 160080, 260640, 631699, 407736, 224376, 561748, 4408284, 2037420, 363145}
(13)
f j∗ = Min{1353878, 160080, 260640, 631699, 407736, 224376, 561748, 4408284, 2037420, 363145}
Each variable’s maximum and minimum valuations were identified, as shown in
Table 2. The maximum valuation of OEY, CGS, LIE, NRE, and GPT was 5,735,589; 1,504,407;
2,874,131; 2,349,510; and 845,102, respectively, and the minimum valuation of OEY, CGS,
LIE, NRE, and GPT was 2661; 6331; 6037; 39,919; and 19,424, respectively. As a result, these
values were positive and applied to the CRITIC method in MCDM.

Table 2. Maximum and minimum valuations (million VND).

Indicators Years OEY CGS LIE NRE GPT

Maximum 4,408,284 1,404,250 2,698,531 2,116,617 712,367
2019
Minimum 160,080 10,101 13,332 39,919 19,424
Maximum 4,658,920 1,301,950 2,640,251 2,030,663 728,713
2020
Minimum 169,182 10,084 6056 40,377 26,025
Maximum 4,996,541 1,457,619 2,874,131 2,284,630 827,011
2021
Minimum 179,470 7445 6037 40,444 30,263
Maximum 5,382,778 1,504,407 2,709,199 2,349,510 845,102
2022
Minimum 190,810 6331 6193 41,283 27,089
Maximum 5,735,589 1,400,572 2,522,832 2,156,446 755,875
2023
Minimum 2661 6410 6803 42,077 27,717
Source: Vietstock [56–65].

Secondly, the normalization of the input matrix

1353878 − 160080
xij = = 0.28101 (14)
4408284 − 160080
The normalization was calculated as shown in Table A2.
The standard deviation for the normalized matrix is
v
u [(0.281012 − 0.20734) + (0 − 0.20734) + (0.02367 − 0.20734) + (0.11102 − 0.20734) + (0.05830 − 0.20734)
u
+(0.01513 − 0.20734) + (0.09455 − 0.20734) + (1 − 0.20734) + (0.44191 − 0.20734) + (0.0478 − 0.20734)]2
t
σ= (15)
10−1
= 0.31129

where
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8576 10 of 21

0.281012 + 0 + 0.02367 + 0.11102 + 0.05830 + 0.01513 + 0.09455 + 1 + 0.44191+0.0478

x= = 0.20734 (16)
10
The standard deviation of criteria in each year was determined, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Standard deviation.

Year OWE CGS LIE NRE GPT

2019 0.31129 0.30408 0.32127 0.31452 0.33522
2020 0.31311 0.30824 0.31323 0.31306 0.32165
2021 0.31650 0.32283 0.31022 0.33129 0.34943
2022 0.31586 0.32143 0.31438 0.32567 0.33224
2023 0.31436 0.30805 0.31783 0.31913 0.34134

Thirdly, the correlation coefficient was used to determine the relationship between
variables to ensure the isotonic relationship with values from −1 to 1.

10 × 1.37266 − 2.07339 × 2.65044

r= p (17)
[10 × 1.30199 − 1.30199][10 × 1.53465 − 1.53465]

where

∑ xy = (0.28101 × 0 .37476) + (0 × 0) + (0 .02367 × 0 .06044) + (0 .11102 × 0.15489) + (0.05830 × 0.05469)

+(0.01513 × 0.10297) + (0.09455 × 0.35930) + (1 × 1) + (0.44191 × 0.46694) + (0.0478 × 0.07646) = 1.37266
∑ x = 0.28101 + 0 + 0.02367 + 0.11102 + 0.05830 + 0.01513 + 0.09455 + 1 + .0.44191 + 0.04780 = 2.07339
∑ y = 0.37476 + 0 + 0.06044 + 0.15489 + 0.05469 + 0.10297 + .0.35930 + 1 + 0.46694 + 0.07646 = 2.65044

2 2
2 2 (18)
∑ x2 = (0.28101)2 + (0)2 + (0.02367 +(0.11102) +(0.05830)2 + (0.01513 +(0.09455) + (1)2
2
+.(0 .44191) + (0.04780)2 = 1.30199

2 2 2 2
∑ y2 = (0.37476)2 + (0)2 + (0.06044 +(0.15489) +(0.05469) +(0.10297) + .(0.35930)2 + (1)2
2
+0.46694 + (0.07646) = 1.53465

The correlation coefficients of seaport enterprises were implemented and are shown
in Table A3. The minimum values of OWE, CGS, LIE, NRE, and GPT were 0.61796, 0.55967,
0.55349, 0.57015, and 0.55349, respectively; the maximum valuation was 1. None of the
correlation coefficients are negative values, so they have a perfect correlation coefficient
and are applied in the CRITIC method.
Fourthly, the symmetric matrix of each variable
Cj = 0.311287 × [(1 − 1) + (1 − 0.96621) + (1 − 0.66829) + (1 − 0.97001) + (1 − 0.96416)] = 0.13427 (19)
The symmetric matrix was determined, as shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Symmetric matrix.

Years OWE CGS LIE NRE GPT

2023 0.18563 0.16515 0.50413 0.17102 0.20284
2022 0.17110 0.14967 0.48835 0.15448 0.17145
2021 0.16476 0.15268 0.44505 0.13648 0.12591
2020 0.15619 0.15559 0.51649 0.15021 0.14761
2019 0.13427 0.12526 0.39693 0.11059 0.10150

Finally, the weights of each variable are

0.13427
Wj = = 0.154587 (20)
0.13427 + 0.12526 + 0.39693 + 0.11059 + 0.1015
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8576 11 of 21

The weights were calculated, as shown in Table 5. These weights would be applied to
estimate the efficiency score in Section 3.3.

Table 5. Weights of variable.

Years OWE CGS LIE NRE GPT

2023 0.15107 0.13440 0.41027 0.13918 0.16508
2022 0.15074 0.13186 0.43024 0.13610 0.15105
2021 0.16076 0.14898 0.43424 0.13317 0.12285
2020 0.13870 0.13817 0.45866 0.13339 0.13108
2019 0.15459 0.14422 0.45700 0.12732 0.11687

3.3. Business Performance

The efficiency of each alternative was assessed annually based on the steps of the
COCOSO method shown in Section 2.2.2.
First, maximum and minimum valuations of variables in each years were identified,
as shown in Table 1.
Second, the normalization of variables for each alternative was calculated, as shown
in Table A2.
Third, the sum of the weighted comparability matrix for alternatives is

Si = (0.15459 × 0.28101) + (0.14422 × 0.37476) + (0.457 × 0.10989) + (0.12732 × 0.62249)

(21)
+(0.11687 × 0.60781) = 0.298
Each sum of the weighted comparability matrix for alternatives in each year was
conducted, as shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Sum of the weighted comparability matrix.

Seaport Enterprise 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

CDN 0.29800 0.30510 0.29961 0.31768 0.32622
QSP 0.24243 0.26367 0.25560 0.28570 0.30246
CCT 0.26899 0.28723 0.27697 0.30558 0.32290
CLL 0.25610 0.27437 0.26562 0.28846 0.29959
DXP 0.25609 0.27451 0.26978 0.29730 0.34460
NAP 0.25543 0.27908 0.26936 0.29154 0.31291
PDN 0.29324 0.30758 0.31257 0.30828 0.28901
PHP 0.53088 0.47649 0.47627 0.47781 0.50342
SGP 0.69620 0.73231 0.69097 0.72652 0.72012
CMP 0.29851 0.32598 0.32068 0.34867 0.36240

Fourth, the power of the weighted comparability matrix for alternatives is

Pi = 0.281010.15459 + 0.374760.15459 + 0.109890.15459 + 0.622490.15459 + 0.607810.15459

(22)
= 3.939263

All powers of the weighted comparability matrix for alternatives in each year were
calculated, as shown in Table 7.
Fifth, we found the arithmetic mean, the sum of scores, and a balanced compromise of
the weighted sum method and the weighted product method.
Arithmetic mean of the weighted sum method and the weighted product method (k ia ).

3.93926+0.298
k ia =
(3.93926 + 0.298) + (1.99824 + 0.24243) + (3.44512 + 0.26899) + (3.60364 + 0.2561) + (3.37813 + 0.25609)
+(3.34102 + 0.25543) + (3.86361 + 0.29324) + (2.73367 + 0.53088) + (4.57655 + 0.6962) + (3.66633 + 3.66633) (23)
= 0.11168
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8576 12 of 21

Sum of the relative scores of the weighted sum method and the weighted product
method (k ib ).
0.298
k ib =min(0.298;0.24243;0.26899;0.2561;0.25609;0.25543;0.29324;0.53088;0.6962;0.29851)
3.93926 (24)
+ min(3.93926;1.99824;3.44512;3.60364;3.37813;3.34102;3.86361;2.73367;4.57655;3.66633)
= 3.20057

Balanced compromise of the weighted sum method and the weighted product method (kic ).
0.5×0.298+(1−0 .5)×3.93926
k ic =
(0.5 × max(0.298; 0.24243; 0.26899; 0.2561; 0.25609; 0.25543; 0.29324; 0.53088; 0.6962; 0.29851)
+(1 − 0.5)max (3.93926; 1.99824; 3.44512; 3.60364; 3.37813; 3.34102; 3.86361; 2.73367; 4.57655; 3.66633) (25)
= 0.80361
These values of alternatives were found, as shown in Table A4.
Final, the efficiency score of alternatives is

1
k i = (0.11168 × 3.20057 × 0.80361)1/3 + (0.11168 + 3.20057 + 0.80361) = 2.03176 (26)
3
The scores of seaport enterprises from 2019 to 2023 are as calculated in Table 8, which
presents a slight fluctuation of seaport enterprises in each term.

Table 7. Power of the weighted comparability matrix.

Seaport Enterprise 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

CDN 3.93926 3.96254 3.93158 4.00101 4.01608
QSP 1.99824 1.99920 1.99958 1.99854 1.99819
CCT 3.44512 3.47356 3.39934 3.44067 3.45966
CLL 3.60364 3.65326 3.50033 3.56278 3.58792
DXP 3.37813 3.41333 3.33020 3.41866 3.81769
NAP 3.34102 3.43218 3.34763 3.32816 3.43123
PDN 3.86361 3.91075 3.91085 3.91988 3.88566
PHP 2.73367 2.68279 2.65956 2.71176 2.77142
SGP 4.57655 4.64553 4.56867 4.64306 4.63417
CMP 3.66633 3.70327 3.67621 3.72017 3.74463

Table 8. Efficiency score.

Seaport Enterprise 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

CDN 2.03176 1.99970 2.00811 1.99912 2.00964
QSP 1.19688 1.19396 1.20086 1.19822 1.21753
CCT 1.79224 1.78651 1.76763 1.77039 1.79668
CLL 1.82834 1.83185 1.78586 1.78898 1.80815
DXP 1.74333 1.74240 1.72895 1.74907 1.96432
NAP 1.72812 1.75721 1.73479 1.70609 1.77046
PDN 1.99451 1.98455 2.02297 1.95389 1.90267
PHP 1.99542 1.80683 1.83162 1.76620 1.81778
SGP 2.99552 2.97428 2.92818 2.88163 2.85246
CMP 1.92975 1.93813 1.94858 1.94305 1.96481

Table 8 indicates that all seaport enterprises experienced fluctuations in their per-
formance. Despite a slight annual decrease in the SGP score, this enterprise consistently
achieved the highest performance whenever its values remained above 2.85246. CDN,
QSP, and PHP exhibited a distinct pattern of performance change, with alternating yearly
increases and decreases. CCT and DXP experienced two consecutive years of decline from
2020 to 2021 and two consecutive years of extension from 2022 to 2023. Similarly, NAP saw
two years of increase and two years of decrease; however, its score improved from 1.72812
 Table 8 indicates that all seaport enterprises experienced fluctuations in their perfor-
mance. Despite a slight annual decrease in the SGP score, this enterprise consistently
achieved the highest performance whenever its values remained above 2.85246. CDN,
QSP, and PHP exhibited a distinct pattern of performance change, with alternating yearly
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8576 13 of 21
increases and decreases. CCT and DXP experienced two consecutive years of decline from
2020 to 2021 and two consecutive years of extension from 2022 to 2023. Similarly, NAP
saw two years of increase and two years of decrease; however, its score improved from
in 2019 toin1.75721
1.72812 2019 toin 2020, then
1.75721 decreased
in 2020, to 1.73479
then decreased to in 2021 and
1.73479 1.70609
in 2021 and in 2022, in
1.70609 respectively,
2022,
before increasing
respectively, beforeto increasing
1.77046 in to 2023. CLLinand
1.77046 CMP
2023. CLLhad
andthree
CMP extension
had three terms; the score
extension
of CLL the
terms; declined in CLL
score of 2021,declined
and thein score
2021,ofandCMP thedecreased
score of CMPin 2022. The score
decreased of PDN
in 2022. The had
score reduced
three of PDN hadterms three
andreduced terms and
only increased only increased
in 2021. As a result,in the
2021. As a result,
efficiency scoretheaccurately
effi-
ciency score
reflected theaccurately reflected the business
business performance of each performance of each seaport
seaport enterprise. SGP was enterprise.
a uniqueSGP seaport
was a unique
enterprise seaport
with a soft enterprise
reduction,with
but ita achieved
soft reduction, but it achieved
the highest values due theto
highest values
its central role in
due to its central role in Southern Vietnam’s economic landscape and its
Southern Vietnam’s economic landscape and its ability to handle post-Panamax ships [66]. ability to handle
post-Panamax
The remaining ships
seaport[66]. The remaining
enterprises seaport enterprises
experienced experienced
both extensions both extensions
and declines. The findings
indicated that the business efficiency of all seaport enterprises from 2019 to enterprises
and declines. The findings indicated that the business efficiency of all seaport 2023 witnessed
from
at least2019
onetodecrease
2023 witnessed
in score at least one
because thedecrease
COVID-19 in score because
pandemic the COVID-19
impacted pan-
cargo operations,
demic impacted cargo operations, e.g., shipping delays, manufacturing
e.g., shipping delays, manufacturing postponement, and supply chain disruption. postponement,
and supply chain disruption.
3.4. Ranking of Ocean Ports
3.4. Ranking of Ocean Ports
Based on the scores in Table 8, the position of the alternatives every year is as de-
BasedinonFigure
termined the scores
3. SGPin Table
was 8,thethe position
best of the
seaport alternatives
enterprise andevery
always year is as deter-
attained the first
mined in Figure 3. SGP was the best seaport enterprise
position. CDN ranked second position, except in 2021. These two seaportand always attained the first posi-
enterprises
tion. CDN ranked second position, except in 2021. These two seaport enterprises achieved
achieved high positions from 2019 to 2023. In contrast, QSP was at the bottom position
high positions from 2019 to 2023. In contrast, QSP was at the bottom position from 2019 to
from 2019 to 2023. The range of remaining seaport enterprises changed in each term. For
2023. The range of remaining seaport enterprises changed in each term. For instance, PHP
instance, PHP kept the third position in 2019 and was down to the sixth in 2020 and 2023,
kept the third position in 2019 and was down to the sixth in 2020 and 2023, then fifth and
then fifth and seventh in 2021 and 2022. PDN held the fourth and third positions in 2019
seventh in 2021 and 2022. PDN held the fourth and third positions in 2019 and 2020; then,
and 2020; then, it increased to the second rank in 2021; however, its position decreased to
it increased to the second rank in 2021; however, its position decreased to third and fifth
third and
in 2022 andfifth in respectively.
2023, 2022 and 2023, CMP respectively.
was fifth in CMP was fifth
2019; then, it wasinfourth
2019; in
then,
threeit continual
was fourth in
three continual years from 2020 to 2022 and third in 2023. CCT held
years from 2020 to 2022 and third in 2023. CCT held the seventh position within three the seventh position
within three years, increased to the sixth in 2022, and was down to the
years, increased to the sixth in 2022, and was down to the eighth rank in 2023. CLL only eighth rank in 2023.
CLL
stood in fifth position in two years in 2020 and 2022, then was sixth in 2019 and 2021, and 2019
only stood in fifth position in two years in 2020 and 2022, then was sixth in
and 2021,
it was and it
reduced towas reduced
seventh to DXP
in 2023. seventh in 2023.
moved downDXP frommoved
eighth todown
ninthfrom eighth
position to ninth
in 2020
position
and 2021; after that, it reached the eighth position in 2022 and achieved the fourth in 2023. the
in 2020 and 2021; after that, it reached the eighth position in 2022 and achieved
fourth
NAP had in 2023. NAPinhad
two years thetwo years
eighth rank inin
the eighth
2020 and rank
2021; infor2020 and 2021; three
the remaining for the remaining
years, it
three
was inyears,
ninthitposition.
was in ninth position.

Figure 3. Ranking
Figure 3. RankingVietnamese
Vietnameseseaport
seaportenterprises.
enterprises.

The ranking of every seaport enterprise was accurately determined. Eight seaport
enterprises, including CDN, PHP, CCT, CLL, DXP, NAP, PDN, and CMP, experienced
varying positions from the second to eighth ranks, while QSP and SGP demonstrated
consistent performance. Notably, SGP was the largest port in Southern Vietnam and
maintained the top position for five consecutive years. QSP had the lowest efficiency score
and stayed at the bottom position within five years.
 The ranking of every seaport enterprise was accurately determined. Eight seaport
enterprises, including CDN, PHP, CCT, CLL, DXP, NAP, PDN, and CMP, experienced
varying positions from the second to eighth ranks, while QSP and SGP demonstrated con-
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8576 sistent performance. Notably, SGP was the largest port in Southern Vietnam and main- 14 of 21
tained the top position for five consecutive years. QSP had the lowest efficiency score and
stayed at the bottom position within five years.
4. Discussion
4. Discussion
The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted ocean transportation around the world, which
The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted ocean transportation around the world,
has substantially increased container freight rates on most trade lanes due to coronavirus
which has substantially increased container freight rates on most trade lanes due to coro-
outbreaks, port congestions, shortages of labor, and a lack of new shipping containers [67];
navirus outbreaks, port congestions, shortages of labor, and a lack of new shipping con-
further, fuel prices have increased sharply due to the price of crude oil and market forces
tainers [67]; further, fuel prices have increased sharply due to the price of crude oil and
of supply and demand [68]. The operational cost of a container fleet has risen, and the
market forces of supply and demand [68]. The operational cost of a container fleet has
freight rate has increased to cover rising expenses. Although the freight rate has increased,
risen, and the freight rate has increased to cover rising expenses. Although the freight rate
ocean capacityocean
has increased, couldcapacity
maintain readiness,
could maintainreduce softly,
readiness, or rise
reduce smoothly
softly, in each period.
or rise smoothly in
According
each period.toAccording
statistics [69], global [69],
to statistics container
global shipping
container throughout was affected
shipping throughout by the
was af-
COVID-19
fected by the pandemic
COVID-19 and by fuel prices.
pandemic and by Hence, its index
fuel prices. Hence,values fromvalues
its index January
from2019 to July
Janu-
2023
ary 2019 to July 2023 presented a dramatic variance, as shown in Figure 4. Its index value at a
presented a dramatic variance, as shown in Figure 4. Its index value was often
low
was valuation in January
often at a low valuationand extended
in January andtoextended
the following months. months.
to the following The index Thevalue
indexfrom
January
value from January 2023 to July 2023 did not have a significant variance, only a small os-from
2023 to July 2023 did not have a significant variance, only a small oscillation
119.7 to 123.4.
cillation from 119.7 to 123.4.

Figure 4. Global container shipping throughput from January

Figure 4. January 2019
2019 to
to July
July 2023
2023 ((index value”2015
index value ”2015 == 100).
100). Source:
Source: Statistics
Statistics [69]. [69].

Vietnam has
Vietnam has expanded
expandedand andestablished
established a coastline
a coastlinewith
withmany seaports
many fromfrom
seaports the north
the north
to the
to the south,
south, with
with aa total
totalberth
berthlength
lengthofofapproximately
approximately 107107km.km.
TheThe
country has three
country has three
main ports
main portsalong
alongitsitscoastline:
coastline:HaiHai
Phong in the
Phong innorth; Ho Chi
the north; HoMinh
ChiCity
Minhin the
Citysouth; and
in the south;
Da Nang
and in theincentral
Da Nang region.
the central A shipping
region. fleet reached
A shipping 959 national
fleet reached flag vessels
959 national flagand 167 and
vessels
international
167 flag vessels
international in 2022inand
flag vessels 972and
2022 national flag vessels
972 national flagand 189 internal
vessels and 189 flaginternal
vessels flag
in 2023in[70].
vessels 2023Although Vietnam’s
[70]. Although marine marine
Vietnam’s sector faces
sectordifficulties and challenges
faces difficulties due to due
and challenges
underdeveloped port facilities, outdated assets, and a shortage of port
to underdeveloped port facilities, outdated assets, and a shortage of port operators,operators, the sea- the
port enterprises achieved particular success in their financial operations.
seaport enterprises achieved particular success in their financial operations.
Our study
Our study gathered
gathered Vietnamese
Vietnamese seaport
seaportenterprises’
enterprises’ financial
financialstatements,
statements,whichwhichwere
were analyzed based on integrating CRITIC and COCOSO methods. The results revealed
analyzed based on integrating CRITIC and COCOSO methods. The results revealed a
a dramatic change in the increasing and decreasing process in each period in Table 7. Be-
dramatic change in the increasing and decreasing process in each period in Table 7. Before
fore the COVID-19 pandemic was controlled in 2022, the business performance of seaport
the COVID-19 pandemic was controlled in 2022, the business performance of seaport
enterprises decreased more often than it increased; for example, there were seven seaport
enterprises decreased more often than it increased; for example, there were seven seaport
enterprises with reduced business performance in 2020. Once the COVID-19 pandemic was
under control, the total number of seaports with rising business performance was eight, and
only two seaport enterprises had decreased efficiency in 2023. The COVID-19 pandemic
occurred in Vietnam and the world over, resulting in seaport enterprises experiencing
labor shortages, vessel postponement, fluctuations in fuel price, national lockdowns, and
port congestion. Factory manufacturing operations were also delayed and disconnected,
resulting in a reduction in total goods. With growth strategies and steady maintenance in
manufacturing, the factories maintained and ensured manufacturing products; thus, the
import and export of goods at ports increased continuously, as shown in Figure 1.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8576 15 of 21

Rajesh [23] demonstrated that financial statements contain essential indicators for
evaluating a company’s business performance. Tseng, Chiu, and Chen (2009) [30] and
Bertina et al. (2022) [31] used different methods to analyze various financial indicators in
manufacturing and construction. Our research utilized economic indicators to determine
the business performance of Vietnamese seaport enterprises in the logistics industry. We
applied these selected financial indicators of 10 seaport enterprises to analyze the effi-
ciency scores by combining the CRITIC and COCOSO methods. Equations (1)–(6) of the
CRITIC method in Section 2.2.1 were used to calculate the weights of each element. Next,
Equations (1), (2) and (7)–(12) of the COCOSO method computed the efficiency score based
on the calculated weights and initial data.
Wang et al. [71] and Kuo et al. [72] employed the data envelopment analysis method
to measure the operational efficiency in Vietnam’s port industry. Wang et al. [71] analyzed
elements such as terminal length, equipment, ship call, cargo throughout, and TEUs. Simi-
larly, Kuo et al. [72] calculated the performance by considering variables such as terminal
length, equipment, ship call, and cargo. Here, we focused on the business performance of
Vietnamese seaport enterprises by analyzing financial indicators such as owner’s equity,
cost of goods sold, liabilities, net revenue, and net profit after tax. The findings provide a
valuable reference for seaport enterprises in Vietnam to understand their financial situation
from 2019 to 2023.
Financial indicators significantly contribute to analyzing a firm’s business efficiency;
this study provides valuable insights into these significant indicators for determining
performance. Other businesses can utilize different financial indicators in their financial
statements to measure their business efficiency.

5. Practical Implications
This study presents significant managerial implications for Vietnamese’s seaport enter-
prises. Each seaport enterprise can identify their financial status, from which managers can
establish a development orientation to improve financial statements. Ranking enterprises
offers a comparison of business performance, which carriers could use to understand the
seaport size, offering the potential to select a suitable port. Also, managers could maintain
and balance their operations in business performance through construct investment and
innovative technology.
Moreover, Table 7 indicates that all seaport enterprises demonstrated satisfactory
business performance from 2019 to 2023 when their efficiency scores were higher than 1;
however, strategic measures and tactics can further enhance their future efficiency. First,
investing capital to improve the quality of port infrastructure is crucial. Second, attracting
highly skilled workers is a priority. Third, leveraging innovative technology to optimize
administrative procedures is essential. Fourth, it is necessary to establish a comprehensive
local transportation network connecting industrial zones and seaports through railways,
highways, and roadways. Final, the expansion and development of industrial parks play a
pivotal role in increasing the import and export of goods.

6. Conclusions
A long coastline running along the country of Vietnam is an advantage for domestic
and international trade development after having evenly set up small, medium, and large
seaport sizes at northern, central, and southern regions; thus, small and large vessels can
approach both regions. This study collected available data on Vietnamese seaports, which
were posted in Vietstock [55–64], to demonstrate the performance from 2019 to 2023 based
on algorithms of the CRITIC and COCOSO methods.
The CRITIC method counted the weights of each seaport enterprise each year. Then,
the COCOSO method integrated the weights and initial data into algorithms to construct
the efficiency score and determine the ranking of seaport enterprises. A meaningful exami-
nation sought the Vietnamese seaport enterprises’ performance, development direction,
and position. The tested results showed that SGP always maintained high-efficiency scores
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8576 16 of 21

and secured the first ranking. In contrast, QSP only received the lowest efficiency scores
and consistently ranked lowest. The remaining seaport enterprises presented varying ranks
from second to ninth place. All seaport enterprises received both increased and decreased
terms, excluding SGP.
The findings presented a clear assessment of the business performance and position of
10 seaport enterprises in Vietnam from 2019 to 2023 by analyzing their financial indicators.
Based on the empirical results, enterprises can understand their financial situation and
rank to establish an appreciative direction. This study offers a feasible solution to improve
business performance in the future; the seaport enterprises should innovate technology
and build up modern equipment to enhance their capacity and efficiency. Further, the
theoretical research showed that financial statements are effective for evaluating firms’
business performance.
This study discovered the performance and positions of seaport enterprises and
recommended reasonable solutions to improve seaport efficiency; however, the study still
has some limitations. First, the study primarily relied on observed and analyzed data;
future researchers can use expert questionnaires to gain a more comprehensive knowledge
of port operational processes and factors relative to financial statements. Second, the study
only focused on seaport enterprises in Vietnam and the observation does not have a large
size; further research should expand the research scope to include data from other countries
such as Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia, which can provide meaningful comparisons
and enable the identification of diverse values and perspectives. Third, this study only
presented actual business performance based on actual data; future studies can employ
alternative models or methods such as resampling, grey theory, and ARIMA to estimate
future data. Fourth, this study integrated the CRITIC and COCOSO methods to determine
performance and rank without comparing the findings with other models; further research
can use the data envelopment analysis method to indicate similar and different results
among the methods. Finally, the study only discussed business performance; future
research can gather more variables to explore the company’s profit performance.

Author Contributions: T.K.L.N. designed the research framework, analyzed the data, and wrote the
draft paper; H.N.L. analyzed the data; B.D.H. gathered the data; Q.N.N. created the visualization and
reviewed the paper; V.P.P. wrote the draft paper; V.D.D. reviewed and edited the paper. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Thanh Dong University (Project No. TDU.1792024).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data available in a publicly accessible repository https://finance.
vietstock.vn/.
Acknowledgments: We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Description of data.

Criteria Year CDN QSP CCT CLL DXP NAP PDN PHP SGP CMP
OWE 1,353,878 160,080 260,640 631,699 407,736 224,376 561,748 4,408,284 2,037,420 363,145
CGS 532,568 10,101 94,366 226,045 86,345 153,653 511,019 1,404,250 661,078 116,698
LIE 2019 308,418 13,332 112,946 66,755 24,957 33,534 373,148 1,376,894 2,698,531 311,977
NRE 823,885 39,919 113,790 350,194 118,551 178,411 741,538 2,116,617 1,121,313 175,383
GPT 291,190 29,817 19,424 124,149 32,205 24,757 230,519 712,367 460,235 58,684
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8576 17 of 21

Table A1. Cont.

Criteria Year CDN QSP CCT CLL DXP NAP PDN PHP SGP CMP
OWE 1,405,732 169,182 261,993 647,099 464,526 234,477 648,650 4,658,920 2,261,937 360,540
CGS 584,620 10,084 86,539 263,870 66,224 168,798 545,573 1,301,950 597,459 94,180
LIE 2020 314,409 6056 101,129 58,557 18,820 41,435 367,415 1,152,501 264,0251 329,144
NRE 904,427 40,377 112,565 386,239 107,373 195,558 793,588 2,030,663 935,895 137,164
GPT 319,776 30,293 26,025 122,369 41,149 26,761 248,014 728,713 338,435 42,984
OWE 1,478,208 179,470 264,634 648,254 517,202 231,217 724,821 4,996,541 2,563,499 352,796
CGS 696,426 7445 91,683 157,303 51,295 176,699 624,310 1,457,619 808,393 128,817
LIE 2021 305,892 6037 100,440 30,297 16,604 42,766 417,026 1,105,959 2,874,131 370,163
NRE 1,078,889 40,444 121,946 264,281 87,067 213,792 892,513 2,284,630 1,371,467 166,939
GPT 382,463 32,999 30,263 106,978 35,771 37,093 268,203 827,011 563,074 38,123
OWE 158,6136 190,810 265,635 650,375 563,193 236,769 827,942 5,382,778 2,687,167 341,952
CGS 734,397 6331 102,650 138,576 59,130 146,214 702,307 1,504,407 736,359 14,3215
LIE 2022 473,270 6193 87,823 53,624 22,576 25,348 410,315 1,232,593 2,709,199 355,840
NRE 1,196,375 41,283 129,739 263,727 107,826 191,888 1,067,545 2,349,510 1,112,481 182,472
GPT 461,978 34,952 27,089 12,5151 48,697 45,674 365,238 845,102 376,123 39,257
OWE 1,690,583 200,590 266,155 618,741 838,711 241,584 1,000,826 5,735,589 2,843,793 334,556
CGS 779,599 6410 119,432 176,507 347,450 180,906 738,408 1,400,572 621,200 181,985
LIE 2023 511,696 6803 85,751 56,850 143,922 68,429 358,479 1,343,393 2,522,832 336,634
NRE 1,235,319 42,077 147,149 306,662 410,676 23,7303 1,167,237 2,156,446 942,456 227,424
GPT 455,721 35,667 27,717 130,144 63,225 56,350 428,829 755,875 321,256 45,439
Source: Vietstock [56–65].

Table A2. Normalization of variables.

Criteria Year CDN QSP CCT CLL DXP NAP PDN PHP SGP CMP
OWE 0.28101 0.00000 0.02367 0.11102 0.05830 0.01513 0.09455 1.00000 0.44191 0.04780
CGS 0.37476 0.00000 0.06044 0.15489 0.05469 0.10297 0.35930 1.00000 0.46694 0.07646
LIE 2019 0.10989 0.00000 0.03710 0.01990 0.00433 0.00752 0.13400 0.50781 1.00000 0.11122
NRE 0.62249 1.00000 0.96443 0.85059 0.96214 0.93331 0.66215 0.00000 0.47927 0.93477
GPT 0.60781 0.98500 1.00000 0.84887 0.98156 0.99230 0.69536 0.00000 0.36386 0.94334
OWE 0.27542 0.00000 0.02067 0.10645 0.06578 0.01454 0.10679 1.00000 0.46612 0.04262
CGS 0.44473 0.00000 0.05918 0.19645 0.04346 0.12286 0.41451 1.00000 0.45467 0.06510
LIE 2020 0.11706 0.00000 0.03609 0.01993 0.00485 0.01343 0.13718 0.43522 1.00000 0.12265
NRE 0.56587 1.00000 0.96373 0.82622 0.96634 0.92203 0.62156 0.00000 0.55006 0.95137
GPT 0.58196 0.99393 1.00000 0.86289 0.97848 0.99895 0.68409 0.00000 0.55541 0.97587
OWE 0.26961 0.00000 0.01768 0.09732 0.07011 0.01074 0.11321 1.00000 0.49491 0.03598
CGS 0.47510 0.00000 0.05809 0.10334 0.03024 0.11671 0.42537 1.00000 0.55231 0.08369
LIE 2021 0.10455 0.00000 0.03291 0.00846 0.00368 0.01281 0.14330 0.38350 1.00000 0.12696
NRE 0.53727 1.00000 0.96368 0.90026 0.97922 0.92276 0.62032 0.00000 0.40690 0.94363
GPT 0.55795 0.99657 1.00000 0.90371 0.99309 0.99143 0.70136 0.00000 0.33127 0.99013
OWE 0.26875 0.00000 0.01441 0.08851 0.07172 0.00885 0.12271 1.00000 0.48081 0.02911
CGS 0.48600 0.00000 0.06430 0.08828 0.03524 0.09338 0.46458 1.00000 0.48731 0.09137
LIE 2022 0.17280 0.00000 0.03020 0.01755 0.00606 0.00709 0.14951 0.45372 1.00000 0.12935
NRE 0.49958 1.00000 0.96168 0.90363 0.97117 0.93475 0.55539 0.00000 0.53592 0.93883
GPT 0.46836 0.99039 1.00000 0.88012 0.97358 0.97728 0.58662 0.00000 0.57331 0.98512
OWE 0.26919 0.00000 0.01185 0.07555 0.11529 0.00741 0.14458 1.00000 0.47754 0.02420
CGS 0.55459 0.00000 0.08107 0.12201 0.24462 0.12516 0.52505 1.00000 0.44097 0.12594
LIE 2023 0.20067 0.00000 0.03138 0.01989 0.05450 0.02449 0.13977 0.53123 1.00000 0.13109
NRE 0.43565 1.00000 0.95031 0.87486 0.82567 0.90767 0.46785 0.00000 0.57416 0.91234
GPT 0.41221 0.98908 1.00000 0.85933 0.95124 0.96068 0.44914 0.00000 0.59687 0.97566
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8576 18 of 21

Table A3. Correlation coefficient.

Variables Years OWE CGS LIE NRE GPT

OWE 1.00000 0.96621 0.66829 0.97001 0.96416
CGS 0.96621 1.00000 0.64478 0.99744 0.97962
LIE 2019 0.66829 0.64478 1.00000 0.68947 0.76197
NRE 0.97001 0.99744 0.68947 1.00000 0.99146
GPT 0.96416 0.97962 0.76197 0.99146 1.00000
OWE 1.00000 0.94460 0.63556 0.95434 0.96664
CGS 0.94460 1.00000 0.55967 0.99895 0.99201
LIE 2020 0.63556 0.55967 1.00000 0.57015 0.58571
NRE 0.95434 0.99895 0.57015 1.00000 0.99674
GPT 0.96664 0.99201 0.58571 0.99674 1.00000
OWE 1.00000 0.94274 0.61796 0.95465 0.96407
CGS 0.94274 1.00000 0.60441 0.99754 0.98235
LIE 2021 0.61796 0.60441 1.00000 0.64279 0.70021
NRE 0.95465 0.99754 0.64279 1.00000 0.99304
GPT 0.96407 0.98235 0.70021 0.99304 1.00000
OWE 1.00000 0.93104 0.66648 0.93213 0.92865
CGS 0.93104 1.00000 0.61360 0.99882 0.99092
LIE 2022 0.66648 0.61360 1.00000 0.59844 0.56810
NRE 0.93213 0.99882 0.59844 1.00000 0.99628
GPT 0.92865 0.99092 0.56810 0.99628 1.00000
OWE 1.00000 0.91082 0.71297 0.90437 0.88132
CGS 0.91082 1.00000 0.57655 0.99721 0.97928
LIE 2023 0.71297 0.57655 1.00000 0.57085 0.55349
NRE 0.90437 0.99721 0.57085 1.00000 0.99166
GPT 0.88132 0.97928 0.55349 0.99166 1.00000

Table A4. Aggregation of appraisal score strategies.

Years CDN QSP CCT CLL DXP NAP PDN PHP SGP CMP
ka 0.11168 0.05906 0.09789 0.10173 0.09579 0.09479 0.10956 0.08604 0.13897 0.10450
kb 2019 3.20057 2.00000 2.83361 2.85976 2.74688 2.72557 3.14309 3.55782 5.16201 3.06606
kc 0.80361 0.42495 0.70440 0.73202 0.68925 0.68208 0.78836 0.61914 1.00000 0.75195
ka 0.11113 0.05892 0.09793 0.10227 0.09603 0.09664 0.10984 0.08227 0.14004 0.10492
kb 2020 3.13919 2.00000 2.82681 2.86791 2.74844 2.77522 3.12269 3.14905 5.10103 3.08868
kc 0.79356 0.42078 0.69931 0.73033 0.68575 0.69010 0.78439 0.58746 1.00000 0.74923
ka 0.11205 0.05972 0.09736 0.09973 0.09533 0.09579 0.11184 0.08304 0.13929 0.10585
kb 2021 3.13841 2.00000 2.78365 2.78975 2.72094 2.72800 3.17872 3.19342 4.98817 3.09314
kc 0.80446 0.42877 0.69897 0.71601 0.68445 0.68769 0.80298 0.59621 1.00000 0.75992
ka 0.11249 0.05950 0.09758 0.10031 0.09679 0.09428 0.11013 0.08308 0.13986 0.10598
kb 2022 3.11391 2.00000 2.79117 2.79235 2.75120 2.68572 3.04042 3.02931 4.86618 3.08186
kc 0.80429 0.42540 0.69768 0.71723 0.69204 0.67411 0.78743 0.59401 1.00000 0.75776
ka 0.11097 0.05879 0.09667 0.09935 0.10637 0.09568 0.10669 0.08369 0.13683 0.10496
kb 2023 3.13858 2.04651 2.84865 2.83219 3.10290 2.79984 2.94459 3.12883 4.81084 3.12795
kc 0.81099 0.42968 0.70645 0.72606 0.77738 0.69928 0.77969 0.61163 1.00000 0.76706

References
1. Arbia, H.; Sami, H. Seaport Concept and Services Characteristics: Theoretical Test. Open Transp. J. 2017, 11, 120–129.
2. Song, M.J.; Lee, H.Y. The relationship between international trade and logistics performance: A focus on the South Korean
industrial sector. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2022, 44, 100786. [CrossRef]
3. General Statistics Office of Vietnam. Goods throughput at Vietnam Seaports by 2023 and Forecast 2030. Available online:
https://vantage-logistics.com.vn/goods-throughput-at-vietnam-seaports-by-2023-and-forecast-to-2030-bv247.htm (accessed on
27 July 2024).
4. Matekenya, W.; Ncwadi, R. The macroeconomic Statistical Yearbook impact of ocean economy financing in South Africa. J. Marit.
Ocean Aff. 2024, 1–18. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8576 19 of 21

5. Sarkar, B.D.; Shankar, R.; Kar, A.K. Port logistic issues and challenges in the Industry 4.0 era for emerging economies: An India
perspective. Benchmarking Int. J. 2023, 30, 1. [CrossRef]
6. Wang, C.; Lincoln, C.W.; Wang, B. Transportation capacity shortage influence on logistics performance: Evidence from the driver
shortage. Heliyon 2022, 8, 5. [CrossRef]
7. Paraskevas, A.; Madas, M.; Zeimpekis, V.; Fouskas, K. Smart Ports in Industry 4.0: A Systematic Literature Review. Logistics 2024,
8, 28. [CrossRef]
8. Lin, Y.; Yan, L.; Wang, Y.M. Performance Evaluation and Investment Analysis for Container Port Sustainable Development in
China: An Inverse DEA Approach. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4617. [CrossRef]
9. Mohd, R.N.; Sidik, M.H.; Razik, M.A.; Ahmad, K.S.; Rozar, M.K.A.M.; Usman, I.; Alown, B.E. A hierarchical cluster analysis of
port performance in Malaysia. Marit. Bus. Rev. 2023, 8, 194–208. [CrossRef]
10. Vaggelas, G.K. Measurement of port performance from users’ perspective. Marit. Bus. Rev. 2019, 4, 130–150. [CrossRef]
11. Sadri, E.; Harsej, F.; Hajiaghaei, K.M.; Siyahbalaii, J. Evaluation of the components of intelligence and greenness in Iranian ports
based on network data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach. J. Model. Manag. 2022, 17, 1008–1027. [CrossRef]
12. Caldas, P.; Pedro, M.I.; Marques, R.C. An Assessment of Container Seaport Efficiency Determinants. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4427.
[CrossRef]
13. Government. Decree No.: 37/2017/ND-CP. On Requirements for Seaport Operations. 2017. Available online: https://lawnet.vn/
en/vb/Decree-37-2017-ND-CP-on-requirements-for-seaport-operations-552AE.html (accessed on 27 July 2024).
14. Salem, A.F.; Mustafa, A.; Tajudin, K.A. An extended DEA windows analysis: Middle East and East African seaports. J. Econ. Stud.
2010, 37, 208–218. [CrossRef]
15. Wang, C.N.; Day, J.D.; Lien, N.T.K.; Chien, L.Q. Integrating the Additive Seasonal Model and Super-SBM Model to Compute the
Efficiency of Port Logistics Companies in Vietnam. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2782. [CrossRef]
16. Nguyen, T.L.H.; Park, S.H.; Kim, Y.; Yeo, G.T. An efficiency analysis of container terminals in Southern Vietnam using DEA
dynamic efficiency evaluation. Asian J. Shipp. Logist. 2021, 37, 329–336. [CrossRef]
17. Li, L.L.; Seo, Y.J.; Ha, M.H. The efficiency of major container terminals in China: Super-efficiency data envelopment analysis
approach. Marit. Bus. Rev. 2021, 6, 173–187. [CrossRef]
18. Pham, T.Y.; Truong, N.C.; Nguyen, P.H.; Kim, H.S. The fuzzy MCDM for container terminal choice in Vietnam from shipping
lines’ perspective based on cumulative prospect theory. Asian J. Shipp. Logist. 2024, 40, 147–156. [CrossRef]
19. Yıldız, S.; Karakaş, A. Defining Methods and Criteria for Measuring Business Performance: A Comparative Research Between the
Literature in Turkey and Foreign. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2022, 58, 1091–1102. [CrossRef]
20. Seo, Y.W.; Lee, Y.H. Effects of internal and external factors on business performance of start-ups in South Korea: The engine of
new market dynamics. Int. J. Eng. Bus. Manag. 2019, 11, 1847979018824231. [CrossRef]
21. Artha, B.; Satriadhi, B. Performance of Business: A Review of The Literature. J. Ekon. Lemb. Layanan Pendidik. Tinggi Wil. I 2023, 3,
41–47. [CrossRef]
22. Nguyen, P.V.; Huynh, H.T.N.; Lam, L.N.H.; Le, T.B.; Nguyen, N.H.X. The impact of entrepreneurial leadership on SMEs’
performance: The mediating effects of organizational factors. Heliyon 2021, 7, 6. [CrossRef]
23. Rajesh, D.B. Financial statements: A tools to evaluate business performance. Bus. Manag. Econ. Eng. 2023, 21, 819–835.
24. Mosteanu, N.R.; Faccia, A. Digital systems and new challenges of financial management–FinTech, XBRL, blockchain and
cryptocurrencies. Qual.–Access Success 2020, 21, 159–166.
25. Lee, C.C. Analysis on the strategy of improving management consulting business performance: Evidence on a management
consulting company established by an accounting firm. Asia Pac. Manag. Rev. 2021, 26, 137–148. [CrossRef]
26. Gartenberg, C.; Prat, A.; Serafeim, G. Corporate purpose and financial performance. Organ. Sci. 2019, 30, 1–18. [CrossRef]
27. Alabdullah, T.T.Y.; Ahmed, E.R. Audit committee impact on corporate profitability in Oman companies: An auditing and
management accounting perspective. Ris. Akunt. Dan Keuang. Indones. 2020, 5, 121–128. [CrossRef]
28. Alsayegh, M.F.; Abdul, R.R.; Homayoun, S. Corporate economic, environmental, and social sustainability performance transfor-
mation through ESG disclosure. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3910. [CrossRef]
29. Ilori, M.; Nassar, M.; Okolofo, J.; Akarakiri, J.; Oyebisi, T. An evaluation of business performance and technology development in
the pre- and post-privatisation period of a public company in Nigeria. Technovation 2003, 23, 175–182. [CrossRef]
30. Tseng, F.; Chiu, Y.; Chen, J. Measuring business performance in the high-tech manufacturing industry: A case study of Taiwan’s
large-sized TFT-LCD panel companies. Omega 2009, 37, 686–697. [CrossRef]
31. Bertina, K.; Matteo, B.; Nuria, M.S.; Magnus, A.; Cecilia, O.; Bo, B.; Tomas, H.; Johanna, J.; Carin, H.; David, H.W.; et al. Business
performance and occupational injuries trajectories in the construction sector in Sweden. Saf. Sci. 2022, 152, 105772. [CrossRef]
32. Taherdoost, H.; Madanchian, M. Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Methods and Concepts. Encyclopedia 2023, 3, 77–87.
[CrossRef]
33. Yazdani, M.; Zarate, P.; Kazimieras, Z.E.; Turskis, Z. A combined compromise solution (CoCoSo) method for multi-criteria
decision-making problems. Manag. Decis. 2019, 57, 2501–2519. [CrossRef]
34. Ananda, J.; Herath, G. A critical review of multi-criteria decision making methods with special reference to forest management
and planning. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 68, 2535–2548. [CrossRef]
35. Yu, P.L. A class of solutions for group decision problems. Manag. Sci. 1973, 19, 8. [CrossRef]
36. Opricovic, S. Multicriteria Optimization of Civil Engineering Systems; Faculty of Civil Engineering: Belgrade, Serbia, 1998.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8576 20 of 21

37. Hwang, C.L.; Yoon, K. Multiple Attribute Decision Making—Methods and Applications: A State-of-the-Art Survey; Springer: New York,
NY, USA, 1981. [CrossRef]
38. Diakoulaki, D.; Mavrotas, G.; Papayannakis, L. Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The critic method.
Comput. Oper. Res. 1995, 22, 763–770. [CrossRef]
39. Opricovic, S.; Tzeng, G.H. Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur. J. Oper.
Res. 2004, 156, 445–455. [CrossRef]
40. Yoon, K. A reconciliation among discrete compromise situations. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 1987, 38, 277–286. [CrossRef]
41. Anand, A.; Agarwal, M.; Aggrawal, D. Chapter 4: CRITIC Method for Weight Determination. In Multiple Criteria Decision-Making
Methods: Applications for Managerial Discretion; De Gruyter: Berlin, Germany; Boston, MA, USA, 2022; pp. 25–30. [CrossRef]
42. Shi, H.; Li, Y.; Jiang, Z.; Zhang, J. Comprehensive power quality evaluation method of microgrid with dynamic weighting based
on CRITIC. Meas. Control 2021, 54, 1097–1104. [CrossRef]
43. Chen, H.; Guo, Q.; Wang, L.; Meng, X. Evaluation of Slope Stability within the Influence of Mining Based on Combined Weighting
and Finite Cloud Model. Energ. Explor. Exploit. 2023, 41, 636–655. [CrossRef]
44. Gaur, S.; Dosapati, S.; Tawalare, A. Stakeholder assessment in construction projects using a CRITIC-TOPSIS approach. Built.
Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2023, 13, 217–237. [CrossRef]
45. Chen, Y.L.; Shen, S.L.; Zhou, A. Assessment of red tide risk by integrating CRITIC weight method, TOPSIS-ASSETS method, and
Monte Carlo simulation. Environ. Pollut. 2022, 314, 120254. [CrossRef]
46. Rasoanaivo, R.G.; Morteza Yazdani, M.; Zaraté, P.; Fateh, A. Combined compromise for ideal solution (CoCoFISo): A multi-criteria
decision-making based on the CoCoSo method algorithm. Expert Syst. Appl. 2024, 251, 124079. [CrossRef]
47. Dwivedi, P.P.; Sharma, D.K. Application of Shannon Entropy and COCOSO techniques to analyze performance of sustainable
development goals: The case of the Indian Union Territories. Results Eng. 2022, 14, 100416. [CrossRef]
48. Marinković, M.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Matić, B.; Jovanović, S.; Das, D.K.; Sremac, S. Application of Wasted and Recycled Materials for
Production of Stabilized Layers of Road Structures. Buildings 2022, 12, 552. [CrossRef]
49. Abeer, E.; Mohamed, A.; Mohamed, F. Multi-objective optimization of HS-WEDM for hole cutting in thin-walled CFRP composites
using COCOSO and genetic algorithms. J. King Saud Univ. Eng. Sci. 2024. [CrossRef]
50. Ghosh, S.; Bhattacharya, M. Analyzing the impact of COVID-19 on the financial performance of the hospitality and tourism
industries: An ensemble MCDM approach in the Indian context. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2022, 34, 3113–3142. [CrossRef]
51. Ridha, M.N.; Nana, R.S.; Eueung, M. C3CPS: CRITIC-CoCoSo-based caching placement strategy using multi-criteria decision
method for efficient content distribution in Named Data Networking. J. King Saud Univ.—Comput. Inf. Sci. 2023, 35, 9. [CrossRef]
52. Yazdani, M.; Wen, Z.; Liao, H.; Banaitis, A.; Turskis, Z. A grey combined compromise solution (CoCoSo-G) method for supplier
selection in construction management. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2019, 25, 858–874. [CrossRef]
53. Wang, C.N.; Nguyen, N.A.T.; Fu, H.P.; Hsu, H.P.; Dang, T.T. Efficiency Assessment of Seaport Terminal Operators Using DEA
Malmquist and Epsilon-Based Measure Models. Axioms 2021, 10, 48. [CrossRef]
54. Asuero, A.G.; Sayago, A.; González, A.G. The Correlation Coefficient: An Overview. Crit. Rev. Anal. Chem. 2006, 36, 41–59.
[CrossRef]
55. Wang, Y.M.; Luo, Y.; Wang, Y. Integration of correlations with standard deviations for determining attribute weights in multiple
attribute decision making. Math. Comput. Model. 2010, 51, 1–12. [CrossRef]
56. Vietstock. Danang Port Joint Stock Company (HNX: CDN). 2024. Available online: https://finance.vietstock.vn/CDN/financials.
htm?tab=CDKT (accessed on 15 April 2024).
57. Vietstock. Quy Nhon New Port Joint Stock Company (UPCoM: QSP). 2024. Available online: https://finance.vietstock.vn/QSP-
quy-nhon-new-port-joint-stock-company.htm (accessed on 15 April 2024).
58. Vietstock. CanTho Port Joint Stock Company (UPCoM: CCT). 2024. Available online: https://finance.vietstock.vn/CCT-cantho-
port-joint-stock-company.htm (accessed on 15 April 2024).
59. Vietstock. Cat Lai Port Joint Stock Company (HOSE: CLL). 2024. Available online: https://finance.vietstock.vn/CLL-cat-lai-port-
joint-stock-company.htm (accessed on 15 April 2024).
60. Vietstock. DoanXa Port JSC (HNX: DXP). 2024. Available online: https://finance.vietstock.vn/DXP-doanxa-port-jsc.htm
(accessed on 15 April 2024).
61. Vietstock. Nghetinh Port Holding Joint Stock Company (HNX: NAP). 2024. Available online: https://finance.vietstock.vn/NAP-
nghetinh-port-holding-joint-stock-company.htm (accessed on 15 April 2024).
62. Vietstock. Dong Nai Port JSC (HOSE: PDN). 2024. Available online: https://finance.vietstock.vn/PDN-dong-nai-port-jsc.htm
(accessed on 15 April 2024).
63. Vietstock. Port of Hai Phong Joint Stock Company (UPCoM: PHP). 2024. Available online: https://finance.vietstock.vn/PHP-
port-of-hai-phong-joint-stock-company.htm (accessed on 15 April 2024).
64. Vietstock. Saigon Port Join Stock Company (UPCoM: SGP). 2024. Available online: https://finance.vietstock.vn/SGP-saigon-
port-join-stock-company.htm (accessed on 15 April 2024).
65. Vietstock. Chanmay Port Joint Stock Company (UPCoM: CMP). 2024. Available online: https://finance.vietstock.vn/CMP-
chanmay-port-joint-stock-company.htm (accessed on 15 April 2024).
66. Nguyen, A.P. Port Infrastructure in Vietnam: 3 Regional Hubs for Importers and Exporters. 2024. Available online: https://www.
vietnam-briefing.com/news/port-infrastructure-vietnam-3-hubs-for-importers-exporters.html/ (accessed on 27 July 2024).
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8576 21 of 21

67. Statista Research Department. Container Freight Rates—Statistics & Facts. 2024. Available online: https://www.statista.com/
topics/9237/container-freight-rates/#topicOverview (accessed on 27 July 2024).
68. Statista Research Department. Verage Monthly Price of Very Low Sulfur Fuel Oil (VLSFO) from November 2019 to March 2024.
2024. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109263/monthly-vlsfo-bunker-price-worldwide/ (accessed on 27
July 2024).
69. Einar, H.D. Global Container Shipping Throughput from August 2016 to August 2023 (Index Value). 2024. Available online:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1032213/global-growth-container-shipping/ (accessed on 27 July 2024).
70. Nguyen, M.N. Number of Vessels in Vietnam 2023, by Flag of Registration. 2024. Available online: https://www.statista.com/
statistics/1045657/vietnam-ship-fleet-ownership-by-type/ (accessed on 27 July 2024).
71. Wang, C.N.; Nguyen, P.H.; Nguyen, T.L.; Nguyen, T.G.; Nguyen, D.T.; Tran, T.H.; Le, H.C.; Phung, H.T. A Two-Stage DEA
Approach to Measure Operational Efficiency in Vietnam’s Port Industry. Mathematics 2022, 10, 1385. [CrossRef]
72. Kuo, K.C.; Lu, W.M.; Le, M.H. Exploring the performance and competitiveness of Vietnam port industry using DEA. Asian J.
Shipp. Logist. 2020, 36, 136–144. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.