Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 10

Journal of Cleaner Production 190 (2018) 84e93

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Sustainability evaluation model for manufacturing systems based on

the correlation between triple bottom line dimensions and balanced
scorecard perspectives
Alaercio Nicoletti Junior a, *, Maria Ce
lia de Oliveira a, b, Andre
 Luís Helleno a, b
a rbara d’Oeste, SP, Brazil
UNIMEP - Universidade Metodista de Piracicaba, km 24, Rodovia Luis Ometto (SP 306), 13451-900 Santa Ba
b ~o St., 01302-907 Sa
Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie, 930, Consolaça ~o Paulo, SP, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The evolution of the concept of sustainability associated with the demands of society has transformed
Received 28 October 2017 the management models of manufacturing systems. Several models of sustainability evaluation based on
Received in revised form indicators that represent the economic, environmental and social dimensions of the triple bottom line
21 March 2018
(TBL) concept have been proposed in the literature. However, the definition and coverage of sustain-
Accepted 15 April 2018
Available online 18 April 2018
ability indicators have become a challenge. Thus, the aim of this article is to propose a sustainability
evaluation model based on a correlation matrix between the dimensions of the TBL concept and the
perspectives (learning and growth, process, market and financial) of the balanced scorecard (BSC)
management model. Based on the literature review, this study proposes performance indicators for each
Triple bottom line of these correlations, obtained via the TBL X BSC matrix, which resulted in the sustainability evaluation
Balanced scorecard model. This model also provides a governance logic establishing a flow to assure the compliance of the
Manufacturing system matrix. The proposed model was applied to a Brazilian manufacturer in the market of food and beverage,
Evaluation model through visits and interviews. This application showed that the 12 correlations of the TBL X BSC matrix
allow for a comprehensive and detailed evaluation of a manufacturing system, because it involves the
TBL dimensions and the BSC perspectives, and enables the definition of indicators for each correlation.
The model can also be useful for defining performance indicators for sustainability assessment models
and can be integrated into multi-criteria decision methods to improve organizational sustainability and
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Thus, an increasing number of researchers have studied per-

formance indicators to evaluate the sustainability levels of
The evaluation of sustainability in manufacturing systems has manufacturing systems considering TBL integration. Govindan et al.
been the subject of several academic studies in the past several (2016b) highlighted the importance of the balance among the
years and has particularly focused on the association between economic, environmental and social dimensions in a company
sustainability and manufacturing system performance. Amui et al. through the correlation between performance indicators and TBL
(2017) identified that the alignment of organizational strategy dimensions. Goyal et al. (2013) identified performance indicators
with sustainability results in the increased competitiveness of based on the critical success factors obtained through the risk
manufacturing systems. Edgeman and Eskidsen (2014) argued that analysis of the association between organizational strategy and
traditionally, the evolution of manufacturing systems’ excellence sustainability. Faulkner and Badurdeen (2014) and Helleno et al.
has not directly related to the application of sustainability, and they (2017) developed a sustainability evaluation model for
highlighted the difficulty of integrating the three dimensions of manufacturing systems based on the integration between value
sustainability of the triple bottom line (TBL) concept. stream mapping (VSM) and the TBL dimensions in manufacturing.
These studies highlight the importance of using the TBL dimensions
to evaluate manufacturing systems’ performance.
In parallel, reports and indicators based on TBL dimensions, such
* Corresponding author.
as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the Dow Jones
E-mail address: alaercionicoletti@hotmail.com (A. Nicoletti Junior).

0959-6526/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Nicoletti Junior et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 190 (2018) 84e93 85

Sustainability Index (DJSI), have been developed as benchmarking sustainability to be an element that differentiates them from their
solutions for assessing the levels of sustainability of manufacturing competitors, and with this, sustainability can be a strategy for
systems (Searcy and Elkhawas, 2012; DJSI, 2016; GRI, 2016). Reports adding value to maintain competitiveness.
such as the DJSI, DAX Index (Deutsche Akzien Index) and GRI have Although the existing corporate sustainability issues are varied,
become important standards in business management (Hahn and this is considered a strategic issue (Lee and Saen, 2012) and is
Kühnen, 2013) and, according to Hahn and Lülfs (2014), although directly associated with the TBL concept (Elkington, 1998).
some companies provide additional sustainability information to Elkington (1998) defined the dimensions of the TBL concept as
the index on their homepages, the authors consider in their study follows: (i) economic: represents the profit and earnings per share
that the GRI guidelines cover all relevant aspects of sustainability as part of the company's accounting; (ii) environmental: indicates
performance. the environmental agenda that the executives of the enterprises
However, the study of reports such as the DJSI exposes the have defined to meet the market expectations; and (iii) social:
fragility of their practical implications because the corporations comprises the social, political and ethics issues.
have implemented by chance a variety of sustainability initiatives The TBL concept is a core and dominant idea today that orients
as a response to the increase of internal and external pressures to sustainability reporting and the incorporation of the TBL key per-
consider the environmental and social impacts of their operations formance indicators (KPIs) into manufacturing systems (Milne and
(Searcy and Elkhawas, 2012). Searcy and Buslovich (2014) Gray, 2013; Ahi and Searcy, 2013). Govindan et al. (2016b) com-
concluded that the practical application of these reports is some- plemented the TBL concept by establishing that economically sus-
times just to validate internal engagement in the companies once tainable enterprises ensure liquidity and financial returns to
the nonprescriptive requirements of the standards are frequently stakeholders; environmentally sustainable companies are
modified or ignored by the corporations. committed to preserving the ecosystem; and socially sustainable
In addition to using the TBL dimensions for sustainability eval- ones enrich communities with the management of their social
uation, in the scope of the manufacturing system analysis, the capital. In this context, a company must harmoniously meet the
balanced scorecard (BSC) is one of the techniques widely explored three dimensions of the TBL concept to be considered sustainable.
in operations management models, considering both the financial With the aim of developing a model to integrate the TBL di-
and nonfinancial aspects of performance evaluation (Franco-Santos mensions, Dyllick and Hockerts (2002) proposed the criteria pre-
et al., 2012). The BSC has normally been associated with sustain- sented in Fig. 1, identifying six criteria for evaluating corporate
ability in an attempt to integrate it with organizational sustainability through the TBL.
performance. Fig. 1 shows the association among the TBL dimensions,
With the aim of integrating the BSC with the concept of sus- considering the evolution of socio-effectiveness, eco-effectiveness
tainability, studies have addressed and developed various models. and efficiency as a way to achieve corporate sustainability. The
One of these models, the sustainability balanced scorecard (SBSC), interaction among the three dimensions results in six criteria that
integrates social, environmental and ethical issues into the BSC need to be respected to assure compliance with the TBL concept.
design as an approach to sustainability-oriented organizational In the same sense, Faulkner and Badurdeen's (2014) concept of
development, considering the structure of the BSC to support the sustainable VSM (Sus-VSM) brought to the empirical context the
corporate sustainability strategy (Hansen and Schaltegger, 2016). use of the three dimensions of the TBL to evaluate the
Therefore, even the integration of sustainability and manufacturing system, establishing indicators for measuring
manufacturing system performance is a subject of current studies, environmental and social risks. In this model, economic perfor-
and several of these research studies have proposed models to mance is considered to be based on the classical VSM metrics of
assure this integration. However, no consensus has been reached cycle time, changeover times, number of operators involved in the
on the definition of how to do so and concerning which indicators process etc.
can be used to assure the compliance of the models. In this context, Jabbour et al. (2014) presented indicators associated with or-
the aim of this article is to propose a sustainability evaluation ganizations' green performance, confirmed in practice through a
model by integrating the TBL dimensions with the BSC perspec- structural model that linked manufacturing practices with green
tives. Thus, the intent is to increase the scope of the sustainability
assessment considering social and environmental responsibilities
and actions that seek to maintain a company's competitiveness in
the market.
In this study, the following sections are presented: Section
2eTheoretical background: provides a conceptualization and the
literature background of sustainability, manufacturing system
performance and the models integrating these concepts; Section
3eProposed model: introduces the research method for the model
construction; Section 4eCase study: shows the application of the
conceived model at a Brazilian manufacturer in the food and
beverage area. Finally, Section 5eConclusion: concludes the study
with academic and practical contributions.

2. Theoretical background

Corporate sustainability can be defined as the achievement of

the direct and indirect stakeholders’ needs (involving employees,
clients, communities etc.) without compromising the ability to
meet their future needs, considering both the administrative and
the operations activities of the organization (Dyllick and Hockerts, Fig. 1. Overview of criteria of corporate sustainability (source: Dyllick and Hockerts,
2002). According to Lopez et al. (2007), organizations consider 2002).
86 A. Nicoletti Junior et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 190 (2018) 84e93

performance in ISO 14.001-certified companies. According to regarding the integration of environmental and social objectives
Vigneau et al. (2015), the expansion of pressure on corporations to into the organization's performance management system.
consider their social and environmental impacts over the past two As one evolution of the SBSC, Edgeman and Eskildsen (2014)
decades has led to the emergence of benchmarking reporting developed another model, presented in Fig. 3, as a springboard
standards, such as the GRI and the DJSI. However, Hansen and for sustainability enterprise excellence (SEE), defined as balancing
Schaltegger (2016) showed that organizations’ sustainability ef- the competing and complementary interests of key stakeholder
forts in these reports are mainly directed toward the integration of segments to increase enterprise success via superior competitive
social and environmental issues, leaving the financial issues as a performance and sustainable positioning considering the strategy
consequence of the others. and governance.
Aiming to measure business performance, organizations The SEE is a model based on the framework of Dyllick and
consider various tools and methods. According to Figge et al. Hockerts (2002), presented in Fig. 1, and according to Edgeman
(2002), even though it is a controversial concept, the BSC is the and Eskildsen (2014), it treats and significantly expands their
most popular performance measurement and management tool, models and concepts by considering the integration between sus-
and it is usually associated with corporate sustainability among tainability and business performance as a process and considering
academics. The BSC, which Kaplan and Norton (2000) created, the governance aspect to manage the company initiatives.
consists of one alternative for measuring a manufacturing system; The SEE model considers strategy and governance administra-
it considers both financial and nonfinancial perspectives for tion through policies, people and partnership. In the implementa-
measuring the system's performance. tion and execution process, it considers drivers as innovation,
According to Ghazinoory and Soofi (2012), the BSC constitutes a human capital aspects and design and change diagnosis. Mean-
set of criteria that usually considers four dimensions of metrics while, the last block presents the results in four key categories:
related to the following areas: financial; learning and growth; innovation and sustainability as a specific module, and financial
process; and market. To illustrate its application, Hansen and and human resources as general results to be incorporated into the
Schaltegger (2016) distributed into the four perspectives of BSC model. This model is also more consistent than the SBSC of Fig. 2 in
the indicators for providing a return on capital employed (financial terms of the integration of performance and sustainability. It con-
perspective) from the increase of market share (customer siders the 3 Es (equity, ecology and economy) of strategy as inputs
perspective), production cost (process perspective) and employee and converts them into the results of 3 P dimensions (people,
satisfaction (learning and growth perspective), among others in the planet and profit, equivalent terms of the TBL).
same perspectives. The proposed model presented in the next section considers the
Figge et al. (2002) characterized the perspectives of the BSC as three models presented in Figs. 1e3, fully integrating the per-
follows: (i) financial: indicates how the strategy transformation spectives of the BSC with the dimensions of the TBL based on the
results in economic success; (ii) customer: shows which practices SBSC. It will adopt the model of governance proposed in the SEE
the company uses to create customer value; (iii) process: presents from the strategy of the organization for the results. Another
the internal processes that enable the company to meet the cus- attempt of this model is to contemplate the practical applicability
tomers’ expectations; and (iv) learning and growth: describes the to be useful for managers and enterprises.
infrastructure needed to achieve the objectives of the other three
perspectives. 3. Proposed model
Franco-Santos et al. (2012) identified three different approaches
to BSC application in companies: (i) Type I - considers scorecards Based on the literature, and with the goal of integrating sus-
containing financial and nonfinancial measures; (ii) type II - con- tainability with a manufacturing system, Fig. 4 proposes a model,
siders the same concept as type I, but describes the organizational here denominated as the sustainability evaluation model (SEM),
strategy using a sequence of cause and effect between the in- associating the four perspectives of the BSC with the three di-
dicators and between the perspectives, taking the indicators from mensions of the TBL.
the perspective processes as an effect of the people perspective, Fig. 4 shows that the proposed model includes the correlation
those of the market perspective as a consequence of the processes among the dimensions of the TBL and the four perspectives of BSC,
perspective, and the financial perspective as a consequence of the forming the core of the model. The intersection of the dimensions
others; (iii) type III - adds to type II the incentive for the perfor- with the BSC perspectives results in 12 correlations (TBL X BSC
mance of scorecards. matrix). The correlation between the learning and growth
Authors such as Hansen and Schaltegger (2016), Kang et al. perspective of the BSC and the TBL dimensions results in attrac-
(2015), Nikolaou and Tsalis (2013) and Figge et al. (2002) devel- tiveness, acknowledgement and company reputation. The process
oped the concept of the SBSC, integrating environmental and social perspective results productivity and social and environmental
issues into the BSC map (Fig. 2). legislation compliance. The market perspective results in QCDI
The integration among the perspectives of the BSC and the di- (Quality, Cost, Delivery and Innovation), social and environmental
mensions of the TBL takes into account both sustainability and impacts. The last perspective, the financial one, results in profit-
business performance concepts. Nikolaou and Tsalis (2013) ability and social and environmental investments. Complementing
emphasized the lack of well-defined indicators and uniformity the 12 correlations and following the model of SEE that Edgeman
due to the lack of agreement of sustainability reports, leading many and Eskildsen (2014) proposed, the SEM in Fig. 4 indicates that
authors to develop measurement-benchmarking techniques to although governance takes place in parallel and at the same time in
homogenize such content. Fig. 2, even though it adopts the BSC all terms of the block, the strategy is described in steps, according to
logic, shows that the SBSC introduces some issues concerning so- the logic of the BSC type II, from attracting, developing and
cial, environmental and ethical elements into the perspectives of retaining people to achieving sustainable profitability.
the BSC, with the goal of constructing a logic of BSC with the TBL These correlations, the characteristics of which are described in
dimension concerns. The SBSC, according to Hansen and Table 1, must be harmoniously met for an organization that aims to
Schaltegger (2016), is a generic system and must be implemented achieve superior performance in sustainability and manufacturing.
in practice to be confirmed. According to the same authors, the As described in Table 1, the achievement of the 12 proposed
SBSC provides initial guidance for managers to make decisions correlations assures the fulfillment of the correlation between the
A. Nicoletti Junior et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 190 (2018) 84e93 87

Fig. 2. Strategic map of the SBSC for a sample company (source: Figge et al., 2002).

TBL dimensions and BSC perspectives, and it allows for the iden- but the model assumed the ones that expressed the characteristics
tification of one measurement system to help managers make de- of each correlation.
cisions concerning the organization's sustainability associated with One additional observation of the indicators is that none of them
the company strategy once it can provide a score for each is considered in all of the researched documents, which can explain
correlation. the difficulty in obtaining a consensus concerning the right in-
Table 2 shows some examples of performance indicators for dicators and the scope of the theme of sustainability. For example,
each of the TBL X BSC matrix correlations with the literature authors such as Campos et al. (2015) worked specifically with in-
sources that treated the specific indicators directly or indirectly. dicators of an environmental dimension and index such as DJSI
With these indicators, it is possible to diagnose the level of sus- (2016) or GRI (2016) that attempts to associate all of the di-
tainability of a manufacturing system. In addition to the indicators, mensions of TBL, but they forgot some correlations, mainly in the
one column was proposed with the questions to be answered economic dimension, considered a consequence of the correlation
regarding each correlation of the TBL X BSC matrix. between the other ones.
These indicators are just examples, but they are commonly used The proposed model assumes all of the correlations raised in the
in the literature, as observed in the sources column, and they model, assuring them and complementing the conceptions studied
demonstrate the main characteristics of each correlation as in the literature up to now. The next topic involves a case study
described in Table 1. In the articles and sustainable reports, many with a practical application of the SEM considering the indicators of
indicators detailing some of the matrix correlations were observed, Table 2 to prove their empirical adherence to represent
88 A. Nicoletti Junior et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 190 (2018) 84e93

Fig. 3. Springboard to SEE model (source: Edgeman and Eskildsen, 2014).

Sustainability Evaluation Model (SEM)

Perspective Learning and

Process Market Financial
Dimension .

Quality, cost,
Economic Atractiviness Productivity Profitability

Social Acknowledgement legislation Social impacts

Company´s Environmental Environmental
Environmental legislation
reputation impacts investment

Attract, develop Meet good Achieve
Strategy and customer
and retain practices and sustainable
Governance needs and
people legislation profitability

Fig. 4. Sustainability evaluation model.

sustainability of manufacturing system performance. matrix in a recognized large-sized company of a sensible market,
such as food and beverage.
Concerning the strategy, the company started on its path to
4. Case study
sustainability by redefining its mission and vision based on the
BSC's logic. The company's choice for this study was due to the
This study considered the application of the conceived model in
association of the concepts of sustainability and BSC, although
a large Brazilian organization actuating in the food and beverage
there was no obligatory relationship between them. In terms of
market. The studied company acts throughout the Brazilian terri-
governance, the company chose to create four committees, one for
tory, with six plants distributed in three regions of the country.
each BSC perspective, namely: people, processes, market and re-
Employees, community and stakeholders in general have recog-
sults, related, respectively, to the perspectives of learning and
nized the organization as an example of sustainability, as observed
growth, process, market and financial. Each committee has a di-
in the annual internal organization climate research studies, with
rector, and all of the committees report to the executive committee,
more than 80% of employees being satisfied in the past five years,
composed of the board of directors and the president of the com-
and society perceives the company as having no environmental or
pany. This approach confirmed that the governance occurs in par-
social impact. One more piece of evidence of enterprise success is
allel, reporting to each committee, and the strategy in steps,
that its market share grew more than one percent per year in the
because the strategic map of the company reflects the correlation
considered period, representing one of the top five suppliers in its
among the goals as cause and consequence in the sequence of
market in Brazil. The main objective of this case study is to prac-
learning and growth, processes, market and financial. This logic,
tically verify the balance among the correlations of the TBL X BSC
A. Nicoletti Junior et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 190 (2018) 84e93 89

Table 1
Characteristics of the correlation in the TBL X BSC matrix.

# Code BSC TBL Correlation Characteristics


1 PE Learning and Economic Atractiviness the company is attractive to talents, allowing to retain the best professionals.
2 PS growth Social Acknowledgement the company manages to retain their talent, the internal environment and employee perception.
3 PN Environmental Company's reputation the society considers the company as a place to work.
4 PrE Process Economic Productivity the practices consider by the organization minimize the wastes and assures the social and
environmental dimensions.
5 PrS Social Social legislation compliance the enterprise's concern with the employees and, consequently, with society. Internally, it
considers also safe and work initiatives.
6 PrN Environmental Environmental legislation the company respects the environmental legislation.
7 ME Market Economic Quality, cost, delay, the organization is prepared to meet the market with efficiency in quality, cost, delivery time, and
innovation (QCDI) innovation.
8 MS Social Social impacts if the company generates some social impact and which was it reaction in an eventual
9 MN Environmental Environmental impacts if the company generates some environmental impact and which was it reaction in an eventual
10 FE Financial Economic Profitability if the organization is profitable.
11 FS Social Social investment the company invests in social actions and their benefits generated to the society - perception of
the stakeholders about.
12 FN Environmental Environmental investment the company invests in environmental actions and the consequent benefits obtained - perception
of the stakeholders.

(*) P e learning and growth (People); M e Market; Pr e Process; F e Financial; E Economic; S e Social; N e environmental.

Table 2
Sustainable management indicators.

Code Indicator Question to be answered Sources

1 PE Salary and benefits The salary and benefits meet the DJSI (2016); Helleno et al. (2017).
expectations of the region?
2 PS Turn over The turnover is less than 1%? DJSI (2016); GRI (2016); Helleno et al. (2017)).
3 PN Ethics and transparency The stakeholders consider the company DJSI (2016); GRI (2016); Antolín-Lopez et al. (2016); Bautista et al. (2016);
transparent and ethic? Formentini and Taticchi (2016); Garcia et al. (2016); Gomes et al. (2015).
4 PrE Productivity (operation costs) The cost target is achieved? Antolín-Lopez et al. (2016); Figge et al. (2002); Govindan et al. (2016a); Helleno
et al. (2017); Hsu et al. (2011); Kamali and Hewage (2017).
5 PrS Compliance with the social The stakeholders consider that company DJSI (2016); GRI (2016); Antolín-Lopez et al. (2016); Bautista et al. (2016); Campos
legislation (safe and work respects the social legislation? (2012); Formentini and Taticchi (2016); Garcia et al. (2016); Helleno et al. (2017);
initiatives) Kamali and Hewage (2017).
6 PrN Compliance with the The stakeholders consider that company DJSI (2016); GRI (2016); Antolín-Lopez et al. (2016); Campos (2012); Campos et al.
environmental legislation respects the environmental legislation? (2015); Formentini and Taticchi (2016); Garcia et al. (2016).
7 ME Market share The company achieves its share goals? Figge et al. (2002); Garcia et al. (2016); Govindan et al. (2016a); Helleno et al.
8 MS Social impact In case of a social impact, the stakeholders DJSI (2016); Bautista et al. (2016); Faulkner and Badurdeen (2014).
recognize the efforts of the enterprise?
9 MN Environmental impact In case of a environemntal impact, the DJSI (2016); GRI (2016); Antolín-Lopez et al. (2016); Bautista et al. (2016); Campos
stakeholders recognize the efforts of the et al. (2015); Gomes et al. (2014); Helleno et al. (2017).
10 FE Profitability index The company is profitable? Antolín-Lopez et al. (2016); Bautista et al. (2016); Garcia et al. (2016); Helleno et al.
(2017); Hsu et al. (2011); Jabbour and Jabbour (2016).
11 FS Investment in social projects The stakeholders perceive the benefits of Antolín-Lopez et al. (2016); Gomes et al. (2014); Gomes et al. (2015); Helleno et al.
the social investments? (2017); Hsu et al. (2011); Kamali and Hewage (2017).
12 FN Investment in environmental The stakeholders perceive the benefits of Campos et al. (2015); Gomes et al. (2015).
projects the environmental investments?

due to the BSC type II, is the same logic adopted in the strategic and survey was administered to the general managers as well as the
governance block of the SEM. industrial and logistics managers of the six plants. They answered
The researchers had access to the indicators that represent the direct questions about their perceptions of each indicator of the
12 correlations raised in the past five years. They confirmed the proposed model.
company's growth in terms of market share and sales above its Aiming to assure the unbiasedness of the answers, the managers
main competitors from the adoption of the new strategic approach, were instructed to consider the stakeholder issues and the in-
which confirms the efficiency of the adopted strategy. The studied dicators of Table 2, shown in Table 3.
company also increased its profitability significantly over the The researchers had access to the original values of the official
period considered. The main changes occurred after the strategic indicators of the company and compiled the information in Table 3,
alignment and the adoption of the BSC type II concept, in addition which presents their analysis in comparison with its objectives and
to explicitly aggregating the sustainability objectives. with companies that operate in its market and in the same region of
In order to test the SEM, the indicators suggested in Table 2 of each unit. The analysis confirms the satisfactory results achieved by
each correlation of the TBL X BSC matrix were considered, as well as the units, despite some variations. It is also noted that stakeholder
the answers to a survey with the top management of the organi- perceptions were taken into account for some indicators, especially
zation, considering their perceptions concerning the indicators. The those that refer to social and environmental dimensions of the TBL
90 A. Nicoletti Junior et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 190 (2018) 84e93

Table 3
Indicators associated with the TBL X BSC matrix correlations.

Code Indicator Details Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 5 Unit 6

PE Salary and benefits Comparison between the Better than the Same as the Same as the Same as the Better than the Same as the
company and other region region region region region region
companies in the same
PS Turn over Comparison between the Lower than the Lower than the Lower than the Lower than the Lower than the Lower than the
company and other region region region region region region
companies in the same
PN Ethics and Considers stakeholders Positive Neutral Neutral Positive Positive Positive
transparency perception
PrE Productivity Considers the targets of Exceeded goal Achieved goal Achieved goal Must be achieved Exceeded goal Exceeded goal
(operation costs) the last 6 months in the year
PrS Compliance with the % of pendencies 0 0 0 0 0 0
social legislation
PrN Compliance with the % of pendencies 0 0 <1% <1% 0 0
ME Market share Considering the targets of Achieved Achieved Achieved Achieved Achieved Achieved
the last 6 months
MS Social impact Quantity of impacts 0 0 0 0 0 0
considering stakeholders
perception (*)
MN Environmental Quantity of impacts 0 0 0 0 0 0
impact considering stakeholders
perception (*)
FE Profitability index Achieving goal (increase Achieved Achieved Must be achieved Achieved Achieved Achieved
compared with the same in the year
period last year)
FS Investment in social Considering stakeholders No pending issue. No pending issue. No pending issue. No pending issue. No pending issue. No pending issue.
projects perception (*) Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited
perception of perception of perception of perception of perception of perception of
investment investment investment investment investment investment
FN Investment in Considering stakeholders No pending issue. No pending issue. No pending issue. No pending issue. No pending issue. No pending issue.
environmental perception (*) Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited
projects perception of perception of perception of perception of perception of perception of
investment investment investment investment investment investment

(*) Stakeholders involved: employees, customers and local residents.

(in particular MS, MN, FS and FN). The qualitative perceptions of the manager, industrial manager and logistics managers, and they were
stakeholders regarding the indicators in Table 3 were obtained not identified individually.
from a complementary survey conducted by the company twice a Table 4 presents the individual answers and the mode of each
year. interaction of the TBL X BSC matrix. The managers' perceptions
It is possible to verify that the company, in general, performs varied between 6 and 10. It is possible to verify the consistency
better than its competitors, offering greater value to the stake- between Tables 3 and 4, which present, in general, good scores for
holders for each correlation. The exception is in FS and FN, which, all correlations, with the worst results in FS and FN. In order to
even there is no social or environmental impact, are not perceived reduce the influence of Table 3 on managers' responses, the re-
as business differentials by stakeholders. searchers asked about the managers’ perceptions of social and
As complementary information, the evolution of the company's environmental investments during the individual interviews. The
results, especially the financial ones, were evident and perceived by responses confirmed that investments in social and environmental
the managers and confirmed in their interviews from the beginning issues can be improved and better communicated to stakeholders,
of the monitoring, according to the SEM. especially local society and investors. When asked about the overall
The questions in the interviews with managers were the same performance evolution of the company after the implementation of
for each indicator of Table 2, consisting of asking them to attribute, the SEM focus, the managers unanimously responded that they had
according to their perceptions, a number on a scale of 1e10 to the improved.
proposed questions, also in Table 2. Aiming to validate the attrib- With the same proposal, numbers 5 to 7 present the overall
uted values, the discrepancies between the managers' responses average of the managers' scores. The coherence between the
and the indicators of Table 3 were dissolved during the site visits to managers’ responses and their scores, as well as the evolution of
each plant and in individual interviews with the respondents, and the measured indicators, was confirmed.
the final scores of the indicators are the average of the managers' As an initial analysis, Fig. 5 presents the indicators grouped per
individual answers to each question. The researchers mainly dimension of the TBL.
considered discrepancies with the indicators presented in Table 3, Fig. 5 indicates balance among the economic, social and envi-
ensuring that they were taken into account in the managers’ ronmental dimensions, suggesting the equivalence of company
responses. efforts to achieve them. This information can help decision-makers
Table 4 compiles the managers’ answers. to take action concerning reducing the differences among the di-
The interviewed managers of the six plants were the general mensions or improving them to achieve a better level of
A. Nicoletti Junior et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 190 (2018) 84e93 91

Table 4
Managers’ answers concerning the indicators.

Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 5 Unit 6

Code Mode
M1 M2 M3 M1 M2 M3 M1 M2 M3 M1 M2 M3 M1 M2 M3 M1 M2 M3

PE 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 10 10 8 8,0
PS 8 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8,0
PN 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 10 10 8 8,0
PrE 8 10 8 8 8 9 8 8 8 9 9 8 6 8 8 9 9 9 8,0
PrS 9 10 8 9 9 9 9 6 9 9 8 9 9 9 9 10 10 9 9,0
PrN 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 10 10 8 8,0
ME 8 9 8 9 8 9 8 8 8 8 9 8 6 8 6 9 9 9 8,0
MS 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 10 10 9 10 8 10 10 9 10 10 9 10,0
MN 9 10 9 10 10 9 10 10 9 9 10 9 10 10 10 10 10 8 10,0
FE 8 10 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 10 10 8 8,0
FS 8 7 7 8 7 7 7 7 8 8 7 7 8 8 8 7 7 7 7,0
FN 7 7 7 8 8 8 7 7 8 8 7 7 8 8 8 7 7 8 7,0

TBL - Triple Bo om Line (Sustainability)

Economic (PE, PrE, ME, FE)


Environmental (PN, PrN,
Social (PS, PrS, MS, FS)
MN, FN) 8
Fig. 5. Scores by TBL dimension.

sustainability. For example, one alternative in this case could be to efforts to increase the other perspectives’ indicators, aiming to
try to increase the economic dimension. Another could be to focus achieve the correct balance among all of the perspectives.
efforts on attaining better scores in all TBL dimensions. Another Figs. 5 and 6 group the indicators per dimensions of the TBL or
way in which to group the results is per the BSC perspective, as perspectives of the BSC, treating the subject as a sustainability or
shown in Fig. 6. business performance issue, respectively. The visualization of the
It provides managers with the opportunity to concentrate their score per indicator apart from the groups is also possible, as shown

BSC - Balanced ScoreCard

Profit & grouth (PE, PS, PN)

7 8

8 3

Financial (FE, FS, FN) 1 Process (PrE, PrS, PrN)


Market (ME, MS, MN)
Fig. 6. Scores by BSC perspective.
92 A. Nicoletti Junior et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 190 (2018) 84e93

Matrix TBL X BSC concept and the perspectives of the BSC. These 12 correlations
allow organizations to evaluate the level of commitment to each
PE requirement to achieve full integration between sustainability and
10 8.0 manufacturing system performance, with this being the main dif-
FN 7.0 PS ferential of the proposed model from the pre-existing ones. To test
8.0 the model, the case study showed the practical application of the
6 TBL X BSC matrix to help managers in the process of making
8.0 The SEM involved the TBL X BSC matrix with the 12 possible
8.0 2 correlations, each one with particular characteristics and with in-
dicators for the measurement of their performance. The fulfillment
FE 0 PrE
of these correlations by redefining strategy and governance
8.0 allowed the company to grow in the market and to remain
competitive in a profitable way, as confirmed by managers when
10.0 MN asked about their perceptions, in addition to the evolution of per-
formance indicators of the organization. The model also presents a
9.0 governance flow with the steps for achieving sustainability through
10.0 the BSC method. The governance additionally assures the applica-
MS 8.0 PrN
bility of the SEM as an effective management system for
ME 8.0 sustainability.
The practical contribution of the model is to provide enterprises
Fig. 7. Scores to correlations in the empirical application.
and managers with an evaluation system for making decisions, as
confirmed in the case study of a Brazilian company. The graphs
obtained from the 12 correlations, or their associations by the BSC
in Fig. 7. This observation could help managers to concentrate on perspectives or the TBL dimensions, indicate that the model is
the individual indicators. appropriate to identify improvement opportunities for the orga-
Fig. 7 completes the analysis with the most detail per indicator. nization, as suggested in the analyses described in topic 4. However,
These results indicate the opportunity to take action mainly to it is necessary to monitor the evolution of the correlations based on
improve the indicators’ environmental and social investments. In the measures taken in order to confirm if they reflect effective
this way, the focus in these two indicators improves the social and improvements in organizational performance.
environmental dimensions of TBL (Fig. 5) and the financial This model can also be used, in future studies, to define in-
perspective of the BSC (Fig. 6). In short, the evaluation of Figs. 5e7 dicators associated with the 12 correlations of the TBL matrix, and
indicates the opportunity to focus enterprise actions on social and these indicators can be integrated into a multi-criteria decision
environmental investments, and it must increase the financial method to improve organizational sustainability and performance.
perspective of the BSC as well. Fig. 5 diagnoses the balance among One limitation of the SEM is that it is a generic approach to the
the dimensions of the TBL, and the evaluation of Figs. 6 and 7 full integration of the TBL with the BSC. Due to this, the indicators
identifies some opportunities for balancing the indicators and, found in the literature and presented here should be better
consequently, all of the ways in which to approach sustainability of explored and tested, although in the specific case study, they were
organizational performance in a manufacturing enterprise. Because applicable. This paper also represents a single case study in the
the opportunities are in the same perspective of the BSC, the manufacturing industry and involves a qualitative evaluation of the
financial perspective, the decision and actions should be made and indicators of the SEM.
taken, respectively, with no priority. They can occur at the same
time or at different moments. Acknowledgements
While Figs. 5 and 6 present focused views on the TBL di-
mensions and the BSC perspectives, respectively, Fig. 7 shows a This research was supported by Coordination for the Improve-
global comprehension, which allows, from the analysis of the three ment of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES).
figures separately and together, the identification of actions to
improve the company's performance. Based on these analyses, it is References
possible to conclude the existence of an opportunity for improve-
Ahi, P., Searcy, C., 2013. A comparative literature analysis of definitions for green and
ments in the FS and FN correlations, which should improve the sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 52, 329e341.
social and environmental dimensions of the TBL, in addition to the Amui, L.B.L., Jabbour, C.J.C., de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L., Kannan, D., 2017. Sustainability
BSC's financial perspective. Furthermore, according to the man- as a dynamic organizational capability: a systematic review and a future agenda
toward a sustainable transition. J. Clean. Prod. 142, 308e322.
agers' responses, the improvements in those cases imply a focus on Antolín-Lopez, R., Delgado-Ceballos, J., Montiel, I., 2016. Deconstructing corporate
these specific correlations, better weighing the investments and Sustainability: a comparison of different stakeholder metrics. J. Clean. Prod. 136,
communicating them appropriately to the stakeholders. However, 5e17.
Bautista, S., Enjolras, M., Narvaez, P., Camargo, M., Morel, L., 2016. Biodiesel-triple
it is necessary to monitor the evolution of these indicators after the
bottom line (TBL): a new hierarchical Sustainability assessment framework of
implementation of the improvements, which constitutes the principles criteria & indicators (PC&I) for biodiesel production. Part II e vali-
company's strategy for the current year. dation. Ecol. Indicat. 69, 803e817.
Campos, L.M.S., 2012. Environmental management systems (EMS) for small com-
panies: a study in Southern Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 32, 141e148.
Campos, L.M.S., Heizen, D.A.M., Verdinelli, M.A., Miguel, P.A.C., 2015. Environmental
5. Conclusion performance indicators: a study on ISO 14001 certified companies. J. Clean.
Prod. 99, 286e296.
This study involved developing a conceptual model to associate DJSI, 2016. Dow Jones Sustainability Indices. http://www.Sustainability-indices.
com/images/ (accessed 25 September 2016).
sustainability and performance in a manufacturing system, Dyllick, T., Hockerts, K., 2002. Beyond the business case for corporate Sustainability.
considering all of the correlations among the dimensions of the TBL Bus. Strat. Environ. 11 (2), 130e141.
A. Nicoletti Junior et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 190 (2018) 84e93 93

Edgeman, R., Eskildsen, J., 2014. Modeling and assessing sustainable enterprise reporting: a qualitative analysis of corporate disclosure strategies. J. Bus. Ethics
excellence. Bus. Strat. Environ. 23 (3), 173e187. 123 (3), 401e420.
Elkington, J., 1998. Cannibals with Forks: the Triple Bottom Line of Sustainability. Hansen, E.G., Schaltegger, S., 2016. The Sustainability balanced scorecard: a sys-
New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island. tematic review of architectures. J. Bus. Ethics 133 (2), 193e221.
Faulkner, W., Badurdeen, F., 2014. Sustainable Value Stream Mapping (Sus-VSM): Helleno, A.L., Moraes, A.J.I., Simon, A.T., 2017. Integrating Sustainability indicators
methodology to visualize and assess manufacturing Sustainability performance. and Lean Manufacturing to assess manufacturing processes: application case
J. Clean. Prod. 85, 8e18. studies in Brazilian industry. J. Clean. Prod. 153, 405e416.
Figge, F., Hahn, T., Schaltegger, S., Wagner, M., 2002. The Sustainability balanced Hsu, C.-W., Hu, A.H., Chiou, C.-Y., Chen, T.-C., 2011. Using the FDM and ANP to
scorecarddlinking Sustainability management to business strategy. Bus. Strat. construct a Sustainability balanced scorecard for the semiconductor industry.
Environ. 11 (5), 269e284. Expert Syst. Appl. 38, 12891e12899.
Formentini, M., Taticchi, P., 2016. Corporate Sustainability approaches and gover- Jabbour, A.B.L.S., Jabbour, C.J.C., Latan, H., Teixeira, A.A., Oliveira, J.H.C., 2014. Quality
nance mechanisms in sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 112, management, environmental management maturity, green supply chain prac-
1920e1933. tices and green performance of Brazilian companies with ISO 14001 certifica-
Franco-Santos, M., Lucianetti, L., Bourne, M., 2012. Contemporary performance tion: direct and indirect effects. Transport. Res. Part E 67, 39e51.
measurement systems: a review of their consequences and a framework for Jabbour, C.J.C., Jabbour, A.B.L.S., 2016. Green human resource management and
research. Manag. Account. Res. 23, 79e119. Green supply chain management: linking two emerging agendas. J. Clean. Prod.
Garcia, S., Cintra, Y., Torres, R.C.S.R., Lima, F.G., 2016. Corporate Sustainability 112, 1824e1833.
management: a proposed multi-criteria model to support balanced decision- Kamali, M., Hewage, K., 2017. Development of performance criteria for Sustain-
making. J. Clean. Prod. 136, 181e196. ability evaluation of modular versus conventional construction methods.
Ghazinoory, S., Soofi, A., 2012. Modifying BSC for national nanotechnology devel- J. Clean. Prod. 142, 3592e3606.
opment: an implication for “social capital” role in NIS theory. Technol. Econ. Kang, J.S., Chiang, C.F., Huangthanapan, K., Downing, S., 2015. Corporate social re-
Dev. Econ. 18 (3), 487. sponsibility and Sustainability balanced scorecard: the case study of family-
Gomes, C.M., Kneipp, J.M., Kruglianskas, I., da Rosa, L.A.B., Bichueti, R.S., 2014. owned hotels. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 48, 124e134.
Management for Sustainability in companies of the mining sector: an analysis Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P., 2000. The Strategy-focused Organization: How Balanced
of the main factors related with the business performance. J. Clean. Prod. 84, Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment. Harvard Busi-
84e93. ness Review Press; 1 Edition (September 2000).
Gomes, C.M., Kneipp, J.M., Kruglianskas, I., da Rosa, L.A.B., Bichueti, R.S., 2015. Lee, K.H., Saen, R.F., 2012. Measuring corporate Sustainability management: a data
Management for Sustainability: an analysis of the key practices according to the envelopment analysis approach. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 140 (1), 219e226.
business size. Ecol. Indicat. 52, 116e127. pez, M.V., Garcia, A., Rodriguez, L., 2007. Sustainable development and corporate
Govindan, K., Garg, K., Gupta, S., Jha, P.C., 2016a. Effect of product recovery and performance: a study based on the Dow Jones Sustainability index. J. Bus. Ethics
Sustainability enhancing indicators on the location selection of manufacturing 75 (3), 285e300.
facility. Ecol. Indicat. 67, 517e532. Milne, M.J., Gray, R., 2013. W(h)ither ecology? The triple bottom line, the global
Govindan, K., Seuring, S., Zhu, Q., Azevedo, S.G., 2016b. Accelerating the transition reporting initiative, and corporate Sustainability reporting. J. Bus. Ethics 118 (1),
towards Sustainability dynamics into supply chain relationship management 13e29.
and governance structures. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 1813e1823. Nikolaou, I.E., Tsalis, T.A., 2013. Development of a sustainable balanced scorecard
Goyal, P., Rahman, Z., Kazmi, A.A., 2013. Corporate Sustainability performance and framework. Ecol. Indicat. 34, 76e86.
firm performance research: literature review and future research agenda. Searcy, C., Buslovich, R., 2014. Corporate perspectives on the development and use
Manag. Decis. 51 (2), 361e379. of Sustainability reports. J. Bus. Ethics 121 (2), 149e169.
GRI, 2016. Global Reporting Initiative. http://www.globalreporting.org/ (accessed Searcy, C., Elkhawas, D., 2012. Corporate sustainability ratings: an investigation into
25 September 2016). how corporations use the Dow Jones sustainability index. J. Clean. Prod. 35,
Hahn, R., Kühnen, M., 2013. Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of 79e92.
results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research. Vigneau, L., Humphreys, M., Moon, J., 2015. How do firms comply with international
J. Clean. Prod. 59, 5e21. Sustainability standards? Processes and consequences of adopting the global
Hahn, R., Lülfs, R., 2014. Legitimizing negative aspects in GRI-oriented Sustainability reporting initiative. J. Bus. Ethics 131 (2), 469e486.