A Literature Review of the Concepts of Resilience and Sustainability in Group Decision-Making

Abstract

The most critical decisions usually involve several decision makers with different roles and opportunities to commit key resources. Several group decision-making (GDM) approaches can support the identification of a joint or compromise decision in less conflicting settings, where there is a group of subjects (e.g’, partners) who pursue a common overall objective. However, considering the uncertainty in future events and complexity of modern-day systems, decision processes do not always produce beneficial results or give the participants a positive perception of their role in the process. Group decision-making should then take into consideration some aspects that might insure future resilience and sustainability, particularly the achievement of the objectives in view of future risks and the transparency and participation that are needed to limit problems in the implementation phase of the decision. The literature survey presented in this study identified a research gap regarding GDM. Differently from traditional GDM, which was first discussed in the early 1980s and whose body of knowledge is pretty defined, resilient and sustainable GDM (R&S GDM) is fairly new. The main objective of this study is then identifying the main attributes for supporting sustainable and resilient group decisions. To this aim, a preliminary focused systematic review was conducted to study the existing group decision-making methods in the literature and how the concepts of sustainability and resilience have been employed. After defining the search keywords and exclusion criteria for the individuation of the articles, the first screening process was carried out and the most relevant articles were selected. The last steps of the systematic review were the classification of the articles and the full paper examination to extract the main factors of R&S GDM. Seven attributes were listed as the key factors of R&S GDM. In light of those factors, a group decision process concerning an injection moulding line in Tajikistan was investigated. The case study highlighted that over self-confidence, information flow and transparency were the main reasons for faulty decisions, thus suggesting that information system and information fluidity play an important role in R&S GDM. Finally, the most important managerial implications of R&S GDM are reported.

Global Resilience Nexus: Forging a Sustainable Future

“…1). It recognizes the power of knowledge as a catalyst for informed decision-making, effective planning and the implementation of resilient strategies (Aghazadeh Ardebili and Padoano, 2020). At its core, knowledge sharing enables stakeholders from diverse backgrounds, sectors and regions to learn from one another's experiences.…”

Towards a resilient perspective for the future of offshore platforms. Insights from a data driven approach

“…Especially, considering the uncertainty in future events and complexity of modern-day systems, decision-making processes on the decommissioning of the offshore platforms should take into consideration some aspects that might ensure future resilience and sustainability, as depicted in Table 2. The achievement of the objectives in view of future risks, transparency and participation are needed to limit problems in the implementation phase of the decision (Aghazadeh Ardebili and Padoano, 2020; Simone et al , 2020). To follow this perspective, key stakeholders need to be at the table to share their insights and challenges regarding community initiatives.…”

Sustainable business models and conflict indices for sustainable decision‐making: An application to decommissioning versus reusing offshore gas platforms

“…Sustainable decision-making requires the consideration of at least three dimensions (i.e., economic, social, and environmental features) (e.g., Grimmel et al, 2019) with a participatory approach (i.e., involvement of stakeholders) (e.g., Ardebili & Padoano, 2020).…”

“…Sustainable decision‐making requires the consideration of at least three dimensions (i.e., economic, social, and environmental features) (e.g., Grimmel et al, 2019) with a participatory approach (i.e., involvement of stakeholders) (e.g., Ardebili & Padoano, 2020). Note that either substantive rationality (i.e., that focuses on the ethics of an action) or instrumental rationality (i.e., which focuses on whether the means can achieve the desired end, irrespective of the ethics of that means) can be pursued (e.g., Assuad, 2020; Bolis et al, 2017).…”