Multidimensional Assessment of Sustainability and Competitiveness in the Ceramic Tile and Natural Stone Industries: A Cross Country Comparative Study

Abstract The natural stone and ceramic industries represent two major competitors in the global building materials sector. This study adopts a multidimensional and integrative approach to conduct a comparative analysis of these two strategic industries across seven selected countries. It concurrently evaluates their economic, environmental, organizational, and industrial performance. The analysis combines traditional decision-making frameworks, including Life Cycle Costing (LCC), SWOT analysis, and Porter’s Five Forces, with advanced machine learning algorithms such as Principal Component Analysis (PCA), K-Means clustering, and SHAP. Five key indicators, production cost, energy consumption, CO₂ emission intensity, water usage, and non-recyclable waste generation, were collected from authoritative international sources, normalized, and analyzed comparatively. The PCA results revealed that the first component reflects economic-energy pressure, while the second component represents environmental burden. K-Means clustering grouped countries into three structural categories: sustainable industrial economies, semi-sustainable states, and high-risk developing economies. SHAP analysis, used to interpret a multivariate regression model, identified CO₂ emissions as the most influential factor contributing to structural pressure, suggesting it should be prioritized in climate-related policymaking. LCC analysis further indicated that despite higher upfront installation costs, natural stone proves more cost-effective over a long-term horizon compared to ceramic tiles. On the organizational level, results showed that in advanced economies, the ceramic tile industry benefits from skilled human capital, technological adoption, and modern institutional frameworks. Conversely, the stone industry, especially in developing nations, faces persistent challenges such as unskilled labor, bureaucratic licensing, and cultural resistance to innovation.