Identification of Sustainability Assessment Tool in Literature

Identificao das Ferramentas de Avaliao da Sustentabilidade na

literatura
Simone SARTORI (simone.eng.prod@gmail.com) Doctoral student in Production
Engineering, Department of Production Engineering, Federal University of Santa Catarina
(UFSC), Florianopolis, SC, Brazil.
Lucila Maria de Souza CAMPOS (lucila.campos@ufsc.br). Associate Professor at
Department of Production Engineering at Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC),
Florianopolis, SC, Brazil.
Abstract
The importance of tools to evaluate sustainability has been recognized throughout the last
decades. The tools can help clarify and refine sustainability-related concepts, improve our
understanding among components of sustainability in practical terms, and thus promote the
science and practice of sustainable development. This theoretical-conceptual study aims to
analyze the tools for assessing corporate sustainability. We also intend to highlight the
purpose, characteristics and shortcomings of tools relative to Triple-Bottom-Line and
operations management. As a result, the literature presents some gaps in terms of addressing
sustainability in operations management and the integration nature-society.
Keywords: Sustainability Assessment, Triple Bottom Line, Tools for Sustainability.
Resumo
A importncia de ferramentas para avaliar a sustentabilidade tem sido reconhecida ao longo
das ltimas dcadas. As ferramentas ajudam esclarecer e aperfeioar os conceitos
relacionados sustentabilidade e melhora a compreenso das complexas relaes entre os
componentes da sustentabilidade em termos prticos. Este estudo terico-conceitual tem por
objetivo identificar e analisar as ferramentas de avaliao da sustentabilidade empresarial e
destacar a finalidade, caractersticas e lacunas das ferramentas em relao ao TBL e a gesto
de operaes. Como resultado, a literatura apresenta uma srie de lacunas em termos de como
abordar a sustentabilidade na gesto de operaes e a integrao natureza-sociedade.
Palavras-chave: Avaliao da Sustentabilidade, Triple Bottom Line, Ferramentas para
sustentabilidade.
1. Introduction
The growing concern with climate changes and environmental degradation, the sustainable
production and the effective use of resources are becoming popular issues in studies about
sustainability, as well as in corporate and industrial areas (Gaussin et al. 2012). Reaching
progress towards sustainability means to simultaneously consider the balance among
economical, environmental and social issues (Elkington, 1994). The economic performance
1

reflects the organizational success in the market and with the shareholders; the environmental
performance shows compliance with the government legislation and administration to a
group of environmentally conscientious clients; and, the social performance shows the
stakeholders management, especially with the workforce and local community (Sridhar,
2012).
The sustainability evaluation was emphasized at Rio92, when the need for development was
discussed, as well as the identification of sustainability indicators for registry and support in
decision-making regarding the sustainable development (CNUMAD, 1992). Even though the
concept of sustainability is intuitively comprehended, it is difficult to express it at an
operational level (Labuschagne et al. 2005). According to Samuel et al. (2013) the use of
indicators does not ensure sustainable operations, but it guarantees the performance
monitoring and transparency in the disclosure of environmental, economic and social
sustainability dimensions. Thus, the main role of sustainability measurement is to indicate the
progress or retrocession regarding its goals, in order to inform and guide the actions of
managers and the public in general (Parris, Kates, 2003).
Since then, the sustainability measurement has received attention from the academy that is
involved in a relevant number of researches, as well as from organizations, which are mostly
debating on how to achieve better business practices (Parris, Kates, 2003; Labuschagne et al.
2005; Searcy et al. 2007; Ramos, Caeiro, 2010; Lozano, 2013; Samuel et al. 2013; Parisi,
2013).
As a consequence, a series of indicators, methods and tools have been developed in different
disciplines and for multiple proposals (Bhringer, Jochem, 2007; Hasna, 2008; Lozano,
2012). However, there is still lack of understanding of how the numerous approaches treat the
different environmental, economic and social dimensions that compose the sustainability and,
also, how such initiatives contribute with the corporate sustainability assessment.
Sustainability has been the subject of serious debates and studies, but the literature does not
provide much guidance in terms of how operational managers think about all three elements
of sustainability collectively, and hence provides little guidance as to how or if these
managerial cognitions influence operational performance outcomes (Pagell, Gobeli, 2009).
With this context, the present study aims at identifying the corporate sustainability
approaches found in the literature and highlighting some of the tools purposes,
characteristics and gaps regarding the Triple Bottom Line and the operations management.
2. Literature Review
During the last 20 years, there has been a growing pressure over the companies into giving
more attention to environmental consequences due to services and products they offer and the
implanted processes (Kleindorfer et al. 2005). A symptom of this pressure is the movement
towards sustainability, in other words, about the relationship between profit, people and the
planet (Triple Bottom Line) (Elkington, 1994).
Therefore, discussions about sustainability are moved by the basic notion that a companys
performance must be measured not only by the profit, but also by the amount of
damages/improvements to the ecologic and social systems (Schneider, Meins 2012). A
sustainable company is the one that, at the end of the accounting period, was able to main an
intact biosphere (Elkington, 2012).
Pagell and Gobeli (2009) identified two important issues regarding the operations
development and the TBL: (i) how do operational managers (either within a larger company
2

or in similar roles at suppliers) think about the elements of sustainability? and (ii) do
operational managers cognitions regarding the elements of sustainability matter in terms of
operational performance outcomes?
Yet, for this transition to sustainability to happen, the goals must be evaluated, and this has
imposed important challenges on the scientific community in terms of providing trustworthy
and efficient tools (Ness et al. 2007). As a response, the sustainability evaluation area has
quickly developed, along with the evaluation tools (indicators and indexes, frameworks,
standards).
The tools are intended for providing a structure to evaluate the sustainability and its results
(Becker, 2005). According to Lozano (2012), the sustainability evaluation tools have two
main purposes: to evaluate the organizations progress and, to communicate the stakeholders
about the efforts in economic, environmental and social dimensions.
Defining and measuring the sustainability involves decision making as how to define and
quantify the developments, what is being supported and for how long (Parris, Kates, 2003). In
this perspective, the possibility of comparisons is, usually, vital for sustainability;
comparisons between the current and previous developments, the progress of certain
development goals or comparisons between companies, regions and countries.
The purpose of sustainability evaluation is to provide a global evaluation to decision makers
in terms of nature-society integration in short and long term perspectives, in order to help the
establish actions that must or must not be taken towards creating a sustainable society (Ness
et al. 2007). Still in this context, the sustainability evaluation enables people to estimate the
conditions and trends, to give warnings towards avoiding economic, social and environmental
damages, to formulate strategies and communicate ideas (Berk, Manta 1999).
3. Methodological Procedures
This study is composed of four main stages: (i) identification of the selected articles; (ii)
analysis of the selected articles content; (iii) description and classification of the identified
approaches; and, (iv) identification of the approaches limitations.
At the initial stage, the scientific articles were identified by means of a search for key words
on the databases Web of Knowledge (ISI), Wiley, Science Direct and Engineering Village.
Key words as indicators'', ''methods, modeling, performance evaluation, corporate;
Triple Bottom Line were combined with sustainability; the terms economics
sustainability, social sustainability, environmental sustainability and sustainable
operations were also searched.
The key words were used to recover editions containing at least one of the words in the title,
abstract or key words. The 19.639 editions were analyzed regarding the following aspects: (i)
Repeated articles; (ii) English language; (iii) Journal Article; (iv) Articles titles related with
the sustainability evaluation research theme; (v) Abstracts related with the research theme;
and (vi) Articles text related with the research theme. There was no time limitation for the
editions. The software used for registry and selection of articles was EndNote X5.
For the following stage, content analysis, 235 articles were considered to contain some kind
of sustainability measurement tool. 26 theoretical and empirical proposals were identified and
categorized based on two perspectives (Table 1): sustainability as a corporate level and
sustainability at a regional/national/international level. This paper only presents the analysis
of the Corporate level.
3

Table 1 - Sustainability evaluation tools

Regions, Nations and Planet
Barometer of Sustainability;

Ethos Indicators [1,2];

Bellagio Principle;

Global Reporting Initiative [3,4];

Green Management Assessment
Tool [5,6];

Dashboard of Sustainability;
Drivers Pressures-States and TrendsImpacts-Responses;
Ecological footprint method;
Economic Input-Output Life-Cycle;
Assessment Environmental
Performance Index;
Sustainability
Evaluation
Sources

Corporations (Sources)

Environmental Sustainability Index;

FEEM Sustainability Index;
Genuine Progress Indicator;
Genuine Savings;
INSURE;
NEMESIS;
Panta Rhei;

IchemE [7,8];
Sustainability Assessment Model
[9,10];
Sustainability Cost Accounting
[11,12];
Sustainable Value Added [13,14];
Manufacturing Ecosystems Model
[15];
Sustainability performances of
industries [16];
Framework - indicators of
sustainable development for
industry [17]

Sensitivity Model Tools;

Sustainability Assessment by Fuzzy
Evaluation.
[1] Ethos (2011); [2] Delai, Takahashi (2011); [3] Perez, Sanchez (2009); [4]
GRI (2011); [5] Woolman, Veshagh (2007); [6] Eagan, Joeres (1997); [7]
Icheme (2005); [8] OECD (1997); [9] Bebbington, Frame (2003); [10]
Cavanagh, Frame, Lennox (2006); [11] Brent, Van Erck, Labuschagne (2006);
[12] Nyoka, Brent (2007); [13] Figge, Hahn (2004); [14] Hahn et al. (2013);
[15] Despeisse et al. (2012); [16] Labuschagne et al. (2005); [17] Azapagic,
Perdan (2000).

Due to the main intention of this study, for the third stage, only the corporate sustainability
evaluation tools were described regarding the sustainability purpose and dimension
(environmental/economic/social). At the last stage, the execution support techniques and gaps
of the sustainability evaluation tools were identified.
4. Results - Identification of tools for corporate sustainability evaluation
There is a well-known need for researchers, organizations and the society to find standards,
measurements and tools as to define to what extension and which methods make the current
activities unsustainable (Bebbington et al. 2007). On the other hand, several approaches have
been used with the intention of measuring the companies contribution with sustainable
development, that is, the corporate sustainability (Schneider, Meins, 2012).

The basic criteria for choosing tools are the purpose of use, the required data and the
execution support techniques. In this section, ten tools that were identified in the literature
review are presented.
a)

Ethos Indicators

Created in 1998, the Ethos Institute of Business and Social Responsibility is an example of
the Brazilian mobilization towards a Sustainable Development (Curi, 2011). As a nongovernmental organization, it aims at aiding the companies to increase their compromise with
social responsibility and the sustainable development by preserving natural and cultural
resources for future generations, respecting the diversity and promoting the reduction of
social inequalities (Ethos 2011).
b)

Global Reporting Initiative

CERES (Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies) and Pnuma (United Nations
Environment Programme) created in 1997 the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), a
nonprofit international institution, composed by a stakeholder network. GRIs mission is to
make sustainability reports as routine as financial reports and safeguard the Guidelines and its
production process, as well as, to increase the reports quality at a comparison, consistency
and availability level (GRI, 2011). GRI provides guidance for elaboration of sustainability
reports aiming at describing the economic, environmental and social impacts of an
organization (GRI, 2011).
c)

Green Management Assessment Tool

GMAT is an environmental management measurement tool that evaluates the industrial

performance, enabling the creation of a graphic profile of the environment, which, according
to Eagan and Joeres (1997) can be very useful for comparative analysis among the different
organizations or departments.
It is a qualitative method, with questionnaire-based evaluation. A total of 61 questions
represent 16 elements of the International Chamber of Commerces principles, divided into
four levels: i) conformity (health, safety and environmental requirements); ii) Development
and Implantation of Environmental Management Systems; iii) Integration of the business
general functions with environmental concerns; iv) Total Quality Approach the
environmental management integrated systems are globally applied in operations and are
constantly evaluated for improvement.
d)

IchemE

The Institution of Chemical Engineers (IchemE) developed a group of indicators to measure

the industrial processes sustainable performance. According to this initiative, sustainability
may be summarized in the Triple Bottom Line covering the three components: environmental
responsibility, economic return (wealth creation) and social development (IchemE, 2005).
The tool has an internal focus, providing standardized forms and conversion tables, and
enables progress monitoring year-on-year (Labuschagne et al. 2005).
There is not a general agreement about environmental issues that must be measured, yet there
is some agreement about the main aspects presented in the literature air, water, land, energy
5

and materials (OECD 1997). Some important matters as biodiversity, hazardous material and
generation of hazardous waste, risks to human health, to air and water quality are addressed
by IchemE (Delai, Takahashi, 2011).
e)

Sustainability Assessment Model

The tool Sustainability Assessment Model (SAM) was created in 1999 by the oil company
BP with Aberdeen University and Gas and Oil Consultants. The purpose was helping
organizations to develop sustainable forms of operation (Bebbington, Frame, 2003), to
standardize and evaluate the projects development (Hasna, 2008).
This tool is based on the costs accountability technique and takes into consideration the
economic impacts (dividends, taxes, investments etc), environmental impacts (atmosphere
emissions, waste etc), social impacts (labor, health and safety, social impact of products) and
resources impacts (gas and oil, energy, water etc) (Bebbington et al. 2007) in monetary terms.
f)

Sustainability Cost Accounting

The tool Sustainability Cost Accounting (SCA), developed by Brent, Van Erck and
Labuschagne (2005) evaluates, in monetary terms, the environmental and social costs
(external costs or society and environment deterioration) and benefits (internal and external
contributions) of a new industrial technology (Brent et al. 2006).
The procedure is based on Full Cost Accounting (FCA) and Total Cost Assessment (TCA)
methods; however, the approach is different for considering social and environmental
impacts. By means of a common denominator, the external effects can be incorporated into an
internal evaluation (financial) of a new technology performance. SCA has several
sustainability criteria that may be used to evaluate production systems or the company as a
whole.
g)

Sustainable Value Added

The tool Sustainable Value Added (SVA) developed by Figge and Hahn (2004) aims at
measuring corporate sustainability performance, increasing the use of resources based on
opportunity costs, which shall be measured.
SVA defines the corporate sustainability performance in monetary terms for a group of
different economic, environmental and social resources. In this sense, the approach is based
on financial economic principles: the company generates value whenever it makes a more
efficient use of resources when compared with another company (Hahn et al. 2013).
The tool is based on a strong sustainability theory and confers a price to externalities caused
by a specific activity by means of the value paid by the problem causer to the victims, so that
they accept the externality. Therefore, the tool does not reflect a capital substitution but a
compensation (transaction that rewards a certain class in exchange for the resources
consumption).
h)

Manufacturing Ecosystems Model

There is a relevant potential to improve effectiveness of resources by considering the factory

as an ecosystem. Thus, Despeisse et al. (2012) presented the Manufacturing Ecosystems
6

Model (MEM) based on industrial ecology. MEM is based on environmental principles and
industrial practices, and provides bases for identification of environmental performance and
opportunities to improve all areas of the factory.
The model focuses on the global behavior of the system and approaches the following
principles for a sustainable production: (i) avoid usage at the source and improve conversion
efficiency using and wasting less, deeply increasing natural resources productivity
(materials and energy); (ii) close the resources life cycle, with reduction of undesired outputs
and conversion of outputs into inputs (including energy from waste); (iii) change or substitute
the technology reinvest in natural capital by substituting inputs toxic for non-toxic, nonrenewable for renewable; (iv) change ideals by using solution-based business models.
i)

Framework to assess the sustainability of operational initiatives

The indicators available to measure the corporate sustainability do not approach all aspects of
sustainability at an operational level, especially in developing countries (Labuschagne et al.
2005). Thus, Labuschagne et al. (2005) propose a corporate sustainability and operational
activities evaluation system with four dimensions: environmental, economic, social and
institutional. The manifestation of institutional sustainability on a strategic level within a
business (or industry) can therefore be seen as a prerequisite for sustainable operations,
projects or even corporate sustainability.
The first level of the proposed sustainability assessment framework is thus referred to as the
corporate responsibility strategy. The level 2 of the framework defines the corporate strategy
into two distinct parts: operational initiatives, which include core business activities, projects,
etc., and societal initiatives, which refer to corporate social investment (CSI) and corporate
social responsibility (CSR) programs. Operational initiatives should be evaluated in terms of
the three dimensions of sustainability (environmental, economic and social) at level 3 of the
proposed framework. Level 4 contains the main criteria, which should be considered within
each dimension.
j)

Indicators of sustainable development for industry

Nowadays, many companies recognize and monitor these three parallel aspects using
sustainability indicators, which provide information on how the company contributes to
sustainable development. In this sense, Azapagic and Perdan (2000) presented a model of
environmental, economic and social sustainability indicators applied to industry.
The framework proposed attempt to contribute towards standardization of the indicators of
sustainable development for industry. The standardized indicators would enable identification
of more sustainable options through: (i) comparison of similar products made by different
companies; (ii) comparison of different processes producing the same product; (iii)
benchmarking of units within corporations; (iv) rating of a company against other companies
in the (sub-)sector; and (v) assessing progress towards sustainable development of a (sub-)
sector.
5. Discussion
This study presents a review of the corporate sustainability evaluation tools for
environmental, economic and social matters. Under the scientific approach, the sustainability
evaluation tools themselves are considered object of study. Thus, the selection of tools must
7

be in accordance with the context and characteristics that the stakeholders wish to evaluate
(Gasparatos et al. 2008). Table 2 summarizes the sustainability evaluation tools that are
identified in the literature.
Table 2 Summary of the sustainability evaluation tools.
Tools
Framework
to assess the
sustainabilit
y
of
operational
initiatives
Ethos
Indicators

Factors

Execution support
techniques

Criteria that work as

Environmental
starting point for creation
Economic
of the performance
Social
indicators.

Social

System description;
Reports.

Indicators of
Informative framework;
sustainable
Environmental
Normalization; establishes
development
a number of indicators.
for industry
Environmental Principles and indicators
GRI
Economic
to measure performance;
Social
standardized report.
Environmental Questionnaire, ICCs
GMAT
Principles.
Icheme

Environmental

Key-indicators;
standardized report;
conversion factors.

MEM

Environmental Conceptual model;

Industrial Ecology.

SAM

Environmental
Economic
Cost Accounting.
Social

SCA
SVA

Environmental
Economic
Social
Environmental
Economic
Social

Monetization; based on
Full Cost Accounting
Monetization; based on
opportunity cost.

Gaps

The operational and social initiatives are

considered separately (Labuscchagne et al
2005).
Focuses on presenting guidelines for
preparation of the sustainability report
(Singh et al. 2009); presents over than 100
indicators, not all of them are easy to
evaluate (Labuscchagne et al 2005).
Does not allow substitution of the
indicators that were previously defined by
the tool.
Presents over than 100 indicators, not all of
them are easy to evaluate (Labuscchagne et
al 2005); extensive questionnaire.
Pure qualitative evaluation (Eagan, Joeres,
1997).
Focuses on environmental aspects;
indicators are not applicable in practice;
impact guided framework (Delai,
Takahashi, 2011).
Conceptual model; approaches only
material, energy and waste (Despeisse et al.
2012)
Do not define the group of indicators to be
used; lack of a defined method to monetize
the costs; guided for project evaluation not
considering the company as a whole.
Does not indicate when a company is
sustainable; not all relevant criteria are
measured.
The estimated opportunity cost is not based
on real conditions.

The matters regarding the sustainability evaluation tools scope have been little represented in
the literature. The tools presented focus on specific or prioritized areas. There is not a
comprehensive structure to evaluate the total performance (Singh et al. 2009). Also in this
context, there is no explanation as to how the tools approach the different dimensions
(economic, environmental and social) that are related with different elements of the company
(operations and processes, management and strategy, organizational systems, purchase and
8

market and communication) or how each element contributes to sustainability (Lozano,

2012).
Great part of the corporate sustainability research is focused on management of the
stakeholders and debates on the impact of sustainable practices in the companys financial
performance. It is noted, also, that the corporate sustainability is not included in debates on
climate changes and resources exhaustion (Linnenluecke, Griffiths, 2013). Lee and Saen
(2012) report the lack of available tools to monitor and evaluate the corporate activities
impacts on the environment and society. Likewise, it is not clear how these tools can help
evaluate the different activities of the company in a concrete and operational way
(Briassoulis, 2001; Lozano, 2012).
Currently, there is no clear description of how to implement the tools in a certain organization
(Estampe et al. 2013) vindicating the tool scope analysis and support when deciding which
tool to use. Therefore, besides the lack of strategies or tools, the main barrier is not knowing
how to meet the sustainability purposes and, more important, how to insert them in ordinary
activities (Parisi, 2013).
Indicators are largely used to evaluate sustainability. However, they can be very subjective.
Therefore, progress has been made in developing evaluation instruments, some of then in a
quantitative perspective. The sustainability qualitative formulation takes into consideration
the present generation and emphasizes concerns about the future, but with not specific
timeliness (Moldan et al. 2012). The new scientific approaches for quantitative sustainability
evaluation are only beginning to arise (Todorova, Marinova, 2009).
The sustainability performance measurement is immature when compared with the
environmental impact evaluation tools (Ramos, Caeiro, 2010), which makes it difficult to
operate the sustainability concept (Labuschagne et al. 2005). According to Delai and
Takahashi (2011), the way several initiatives evaluate sustainability is not the most
appropriate to incorporate a performance measurement system, and the existence of
management practices and absolute indicators hinder result guided measurements.
The operations sector is an unexplored field. The literature is vague as to what exactly is
encompassed within environmental and social systems (Pagell, Gobeli, 2009). Goyal and
Gupta (2012) reinforce the sustainability evaluation need by comparing studies on different
sectors (manufacture and services) and their relation with the companys performance.
According to Tang and Zhou (2012) there are few quantitative models treating social and
environmental responsibility matters. In practice, the companies have implemented purchase
policies to assure that suppliers meet certain environmental and social standards.
Regarding researches on operations management, it is uppermost the planet measurement
(emissions, waste), as shown in Table 1, while the standards analyze and model developing
sustainable operations.
6. Conclusions
With the outcome of the bibliographic analysis, it is possible to note that sustainability and its
respective tools are emerging issues that must be more thoroughly studied to increase the
scientific knowledge become and make it less subjective. Evaluating the sustainability
performance is an important action of the societys transition towards the sustainable
development principles. In this context, this study identified the sustainability evaluation
tools. The target was not defining the most adequate tool, but identifying the main

characteristics and current support techniques, with the purpose of defining the most relevant
tool for a specific goal.
All tools presented are viable in term of evaluating and contributing with a corporate,
regional or national context. As the tools are recognized, tested and accepted, they may
become important elements of public and corporate agendas. Finally, a tool selection must be
based on the evaluation purpose.
For future studies, it is possible to suggest: i) studies on the evolution of disclosed indicators;
ii) studies on the tools advantages and disadvantages; studies comparing the use of tools in
the public and private sectors; studies evaluating the services sustainability.
In this study, boundaries defined by the researchers influenced the results somehow, such as:
a) the data sources were restricted to Portal Capes database; and, b) the articles considered are
theoretical-empirical studies.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank the National Council of Scientific and Technological
Development (CNPQ) for the financial support.
References
Azapagic, A.; Perdan, S. (2000); Indicators of sustainable development for industry: A
general framework, Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 78(B4), 243-261.
Bebbington, J; Brown, J.; Frame, B. (2007); Accounting technologies and sustainability
assessment models, Ecological Economics, 61(2-3), 224-236.
Bebbington, J.; Frame, B. (2003); Moving from SD reporting to evaluation: the
sustainability assessment model, Chartered Accounting Journal of New Zealand, 82(7), 1113.
Becker, J. (2005). Measuring progress towards sustainable development: an ecological
framework for selecting indicators, Local Environment, 10(1), 87-10.
Bhringer, C.; Jochem, P. (2007); Measuring the immeasurable - A survey of sustainability
indices, Ecological Economics, 63, 1-8.
Brent, A. C.; Van Erck, R.P.; Labuschagne, C. (2006); Sustainability cost accounting, Part 1:
A Monetary procedure to evaluate the sustainability of technologies in the South African
process industry, Journal of Industrial Engineering, 17(2), 16.
Briassoulis, H. (2001); Sustainable development and its indicators: Through a (Planner's)
glass darkly, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 44(3), 409-427.
Cavanagh, J.A.E.; Frame, B.; Lennox, J. (2006); The sustainability assessment model
(SAM): measuring sustainable development performance, Australasian Journal of
Environmental Management, 13(3), 142-145.
CNUMAD (1992); Agenda 21, Comisso das Naes Unidas sobre Meio Ambiente e
Desenvolvimento.
Curi, D. (2011); Gesto Ambiental; Denise Curi (org.) So Paulo: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Delai, I.; Takahashi, S. (2011); Sustainability measurement system: A reference model
proposal, Social Responsibility Journal, 7(3), 438-471.
10

Despeisse, M.; Ball, P.D.; Evans, S.; Levers, A. (2012); Industrial ecology at factory level
a conceptual model, Journal of Cleaner Production, 31, 30-39.
Eagan, P.D; Joeres, E. (1997); Development of a facility-based environmental performance
indicator related to sustainable development, Journal of Cleaner Production, 5(4), 269-278.
Elkington, J. (1994); Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-win-win business strategies
for sustainable development, California Management Review, 36(2), 90-100.
Elkington, J. (2012); Sustentabilidade, canibais com garfo e faca, So Paulo, M. Books do
Brasil Ltda, So Paulo.
Estampe, D.; Lamouri, S.; Paris, J.L.; Brahim-Djelloul, S. (2013); A framework for
analysing supply chain performance evaluation models, International Journal of Production
Economics, 142(2), 247-258.
Ethos
(2011);
Indicadores
Ethos.
Available
http://www1.ethos.org.br/EthosWeb/arquivo/0-A-d8e2011_IndicadoresEthos_PORT.pdf.
(Acessed date May 11, 2013).

at:

Figge, F.; Hahn, T. (2004); Sustainable Value Added - measuring corporate contributions to
sustainability beyond eco-efficiency, Ecological Economics, 48(2), 173-187.
Gasparatos, A.; El-Haram, M.; Horner, M. (2008); A critical review of reductionist
approaches for assessing the progress towards sustainability, Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 28(4-5), 286-311.
Gaussin, M.; Hu, G.; Abolghasem, S.; Basu, S.; Shankar, M.R.; Bidanda, B.( 2013);
Assessing the environmental footprint of manufactured products: A survey of current
literature, International Journal of Production Economics, 146(2), 515-523.
Goyal, A.; Gupta, P. (2012); Performance evaluation of a multi-state repairable production
system: A case study, International Journal of Performability Engineering, 8(3), 330-338.
GRI (2011); Global Reporting Initiative, A new phase: the growth of sustainability
reporting, GRIs Year in Review.
Hahn, R.; Llfs, R. (2013); Legitimizing Negative Aspects in GRI-Oriented Sustainability
Reporting: A Qualitative Analysis of Corporate Disclosure Strategies, Journal of Business
Ethics, 1-20, 10.1007/s10551-013-1801-4.
Hasna, A.M. (2008); A review of sustainability assessment methods in engineering, The
International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic & Social Sustainability,
5(1),161-176.
IChemE (2005); The sustainability metrics, Available at:
http://www.icheme.org/communities/subject_groups/sustainability/~/media/Documents/Subje
ct%20Groups/Sustainability/Newsletters/Sustainability%20Metrics.ashx (Acessed date
November 13, 2013).
Kleindorfer, P.R.; Singhal, K.; Van Wassenhove, L.N. (2005); Sustainable Operations
Management, Production and Operations Management, 14(4), 482-492.
Labuschagne, C.; Brent, A. C.; Van Erck, R.P.G. (2005); Assessing the sustainability
performances of industries, Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(4), 373-385.
Lee, K. H.; Saen, R.F. (2012); Measuring corporate sustainability management: A data
envelopment analysis approach, International Journal of Production Economics, 140(1),
219-226.
11

Lozano, R. (2012); Towards better embedding sustainability into companies systems: an

analysis of voluntary corporate initiatives, Journal of Cleaner Production, 25, 14-26.
Lozano, R. (2013); Sustainability inter-linkages in reporting vindicated: a study of European
companies, Journal of Cleaner Production, 51, 57-65.
Moldan, B.; Janoukov, S.; Hk, T. (2012); How to understand and measure environmental
sustainability: Indicators and targets, Ecological Indicators, 17, 4-13.
Ness, B.; Urbel-Piirsalu, E.; Anderberg, S.; Olsson, L. (2007); Categorising tools for
sustainability assessment, Ecological Economics, 60(3), 498-508.
Nyoka, M.; Brent, A. (2007); Application of an environmental valuation approach that
incorporates externality costs in sustainability decision-making of the metallurgical sector,
Journal-South African Institute Of Mining And Metallurgy, 107(10), 663.
OECD (1993); OECD Core Set of Indicators for Environmental Performance Reviews:
A Synthesis Report by the Group on the State of the Environment, Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, Report 83, 39.
Pagell, M.; Gobeli, D. (2009); How Plant Managers' Experiences and Attitudes Toward
Sustainability Relate to Operational Performance, Production and Operations Management,
18(3), 278-299.
Parisi, C. (2013); The impact of organisational alignment on the effectiveness of firms'
sustainability strategic performance measurement systems: An empirical analysis, Journal
of Management and Governance, 17(1), 71-97.
Parris, T. M.; Kates, R.W.(2003); Characterizing and measuring sustainable development,
Reviews in Advances, 28(13), 1-13.
Perez, F.; Sanchez, L.E. (2009); Assessing the evolution of sustainability reporting in the
mining sector, Environmental Management, 43(6), 949-961.
Ramos, T.B.; Caeiro, S. (2010); Meta-performance evaluation of sustainability indicators,
Ecological Indicators, 10(2), 157-166.
Samuel, V.B.; Agamuthu, P.; Hashim, M.A. (2013); Indicators for assessment of sustainable
production: A case study of the petrochemical industry in Malaysia, Ecological Indicators,
24, 392-402.
Schneider, A.; Meins, E. (2012); Two Dimensions of Corporate Sustainability Assessment:
Towards a Comprehensive Framework, Business Strategy and the Environment, 21(4), 211222.
Searcy, C.; McCartney, D.; Karapetrovic, S. (2007); Sustainable development indicators for
the transmission system of an electric utility, Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, 14(3), 135-151.
Singh, R.K.; Murty, H.R.; Gupta, S.K.; Dikshit, A.K. (2009); An overview of sustainability
assessment methodologies, Ecological Indicators, 9(15), 89-212.
Sridhar, K. (2012); Corporate conceptions of triple bottom line reporting: An empirical
analysis into the signs and symbols driving this fashionable framework, Social
Responsibility Journal, 8(3), 312-326.
Tang, C.S.; Zhou, S. (2012); Research advances in environmentally and socially sustainable
operations, European Journal of Operational Research, 223(3), 585-594.

12

Todorova, V.; Marinova, D. (2011); Modelling sustainability, Mathematics and Computers

in Simulation 81(7), 1397-1408.
Woolman, T.; Veshagh, A. (2007); Development of a Management Tool for Assessing
Environmental Performance in SMEs Design and Production, Takata, S., Umeda, Y. (Ed.),
Advances in Life Cycle Engineering for Sustainable Manufacturing Businesses, Springer
London, cap. 66, 383-388.

13