Search results

The purpose of this paper is to introduce a methodology to identify sustainable supply chain key performance indicators (KPI) that can then be used for sustainability performance evaluation for suppliers.

Initially the complexity of sustainable supply chain performance measurement is discussed. Then, a two-stage method utilizing neighborhood rough set theory to identify KPI and data envelopment analysis (DEA) to benchmark and evaluate relative performance using the KPI is completed. Additional analysis is performed to determine the sensitivity of the KPI set formation and performance results.

The results show that KPI can be determined using neighborhood rough set, and DEA performance results provide insight into relative performance of suppliers. The supply chain sustainability performance results from both the neighborhood rough set and DEA can be quite sensitive parameters selected and sustainability KPI sets that were determined.

The data utilized in this study are illustrative and simulated. Only one model for the neighborhood rough set and DEA was utilized. Additional investigations using a variation of rough set and DEA models can be completed.

This tool set is valuable for managers to help identify sustainable supply chain KPI (from among hundreds of potential measures) and evaluate sustainability performance of various units within supply chains, including supply chain partners, departments, projects and programs.

Sustainability incorporates many business, economic and social implications. The methods introduced in this paper can help organizations and their supply chains become more strategically and operationally sustainable.

Few tools and techniques exist in the sustainable supply chain literature to help develop KPIs and evaluate sustainability performance of suppliers and the supply chain. This paper is one of the first that integrates neighborhood rough set and DEA to address this important sustainable supply chain performance measurement issue.

First, this paper aims to explore the extent of the global reporting initiative (GRI) sustainability key performance indicator (KPI) usage in sustainability reporting by businesses operating in Sri Lanka. Second, using a contingency theory approach, this research examines the factors which promote or inhibit the use of the GRI framework to adopt sustainability KPIs in a developing country context, Sri Lanka.

Content analysis and semi-structured interviews are used in this study to explore the key factors which affect the usage of the GRI framework by Sri Lankan companies in adopting sustainability KPIs and reporting on sustainability.

The findings indicate that the GRI framework is increasingly used for sustainability reporting by Sri Lankan companies because of its flexibility, consistency, legitimacy and its focus on continuous improvement. However, company managers also shed light on the extensive number of KPIs in the GRI framework making selections challenging and the consequent difficulties associated with adapting these KPIs for companies operating in a developing country context.

This study contributes to extending the broader literature on sustainability reporting in developing countries and specifically on sustainability KPIs. Second, this paper adds to the current empirical research on sustainability reporting in Sri Lanka where the literature is still sparse. Third, this study highlights the key factors that support or hinder the usage of the GRI framework in a developing country context.

Important insights for GRI, other standard-setting agencies and businesses can be drawn from the findings of this study. By capitalising further on the training and the educational courses provided by GRI, GRI can be involved in mitigating some of the pressing issues faced by the reporting companies.

This study adds to the limited research on sustainability reporting and sustainability KPIs in developing country contexts. It shows how companies in Sri Lanka are engaging with sustainability KPIs and sustainability reporting, but are also constrained by the GRI framework as its standards are not tailored to issues in developing countries.

Sustainability can be assessed in the dimensions Profit, Planet and People. A problem with the approach is that these dimensions cannot be added. Another problem is that performance seldom is related to global system boundaries. The purpose of this paper is to study the “what” of sustainability by linking this to global boundaries and proposing “how” the authors could manage change toward sustainability.

Sustainability definitions are reviewed to identify main stakeholders. People value defined as utility is compared to Planet harm as carbon emissions and People harm as prices of products. This approach is examined in business studying the global processes of housing, transporting, providing food and cement manufacturing.

The relative indicators with focus on People utility compare to Planet and People harm seem to be relevant for measuring the level of sustainability. The Crippled Bottom Line of People value/Planet harm and People value/Planet harm is proposed as the “what” to measure and the change process of “understanding-defining-measuring-communicating-leading change” is proposed as the “how” to change.

The research is based on identifying the main stakeholders based on sustainability definitions and from that point mostly on deductive reasoning.

The practical implications are that organizations could define sustainability indicators with objectives that are linked to global limits.

Advocating the use of price as a social indicator could have social implications.

The paper contributes to the discussion of how to link global limits to organizational measurements and targets.

This study investigates how organizations in Brazil address sustainability concerns through collaborative governance efforts with strategic stakeholders. Organizations from New Zealand were considered as benchmarks for comparison.

This study is based on a qualitative exploratory research, supported by semistructured interviews. Ten organizations are interviewed, five from each country. Thematic analysis is used to analyze the interview data. Central management practices adopted by organizations are presented, and the goals, benefits, and limitations associated with collaborative initiatives are investigated.

The findings reveal that organizations in Brazil and in New Zealand are employing similar management and sustainability practices. Companies in both countries observe that collaborative efforts with strategic stakeholders improve their ability to meet market demands and jointly develop innovative solutions toward sustainability goals while exchanging knowledge and enhancing their operational effectiveness. Organizations perceive a number of tangible and nontangible value creation outcomes from sustainability practices, such as brand and reputational gains, improved supply chain management, and risk management attainments. The results also present limitations, such as internal limitations of organizations concerning how their executives and general staff incorporate sustainability issues into their organizations’ strategic planning and operational decisions.

Market pressures toward greener and more responsible operations equally affected organizations in both countries, without differentiation in operation between an emerging country such as Brazil and a developed country such as New Zealand. Directions for future research are presented. These are based on how organizations measure sustainability outcomes of management practices and collaborative alliances, and how organizations map upcoming market demands and opportunities to deliver more value to society as the sustainable development debate continues to evolve.

Creating visibility in the supply chain (SC) helps in making it resilient. Integrating the SC with Industry 4.0 key enabling technologies creates visibility and sustainability in SCs. It also fosters intelligent decision-making, thereby making a SC smart. However, how Industry 4.0 technologies affect key performance indicators (KPIs) of a resilient SC and may help achieve sustainability is rarely studied.

Sixteen KPIs were identified from the literature review and analyzed using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) using expert opinions. Further, a sensitivity analysis was conducted for the KPIs by varying the weightage of the criteria. Later, KPIs results were analyzed, and (1) how and which Industry 4.0 technology helps improve the KPI? (2) Resilience relationship with sustainability? were discussed.

The analyses show that the time-oriented (TO) is an essential criterion and organizational (OR) is the less important comparatively. Lead time, time to market and risk assessment frequency are the top KPIs that need a focus. Blockchain, Big Data and Cyber-physical systems enhance KPI's value and, in turn, foster economic, environmental and social sustainability of the SC and help in better decision making in terms of smart contracts, better forecasting and enhanced real-time information sharing.

Identification of the KPIs, the impact of Industry 4.0 technologies and the impact on sustainability; this kind of interplay is rarely evident in the literature. Understanding the findings of this research will help managers develop smart systems that may work intelligently to overcome risks associated and enhance sustainability. Academicians can use the findings and conduct future research that can overcome the limitations of this research.

Building energy efficiency retrofit (BEER) not only provides excellent opportunities to reduce overall energy consumption of buildings in a city but also encourages environmental protection, the rational use of resources, and occupants' healthcare, which all contribute towards the sustainability of existing buildings. However, there is a lack of effective performance indicators to measure the sustainability of BEER projects. The aim of this paper is to formulate a list of key performance indicators (KPI) for the sustainability assessment of BEER in hotel buildings.

First, a literature review and in‐depth interviews with industry experts and academic researchers were conducted, which filtered the performance indicators for assessing sustainability. Second, a questionnaire survey was conducted to collect data from various groups of experts to analyze the significance of the selected performance indicators. Finally, a model based on fuzzy set theory was designed to identify the key performance indicators (KPIs) for the sustainability of BEER.

Eight KPIs were identified based on fuzzy set theory in this study. They are: quality performance, hotel energy management, cost performance, project profitability, energy consumption and resources saving, health and safety, stakeholder satisfaction, and innovation and improvement.

The KPIs of sustainability of BEER identified for hotel buildings in China in this study can be useful reference for other similar research. However, with the different requirements for building types and building ownerships, the KPIs of sustainability of BEER for different buildings may be variable. The findings in this study may not be directly relevant to other types of building.

Key performance indicators for the sustainability assessment of BEER in hotel buildings in China are identified and analyzed in this study. The KPIs can help decision‐makers to identify an optimal solution between alternatives, which presents the maximum sustainability performance.

This research examines what key performance indicators (KPIs) and drivers should be applied at the post-contract phase of construction development to monitor and drive project outcomes in sustainable design and construction. It supplements the previous research which focuses on pre-contract sustainable procurement of competent professionals. Consequently, optimal sustainability can be achieved for the overall sustainable development process.

A review of empirical work was conducted to consolidate the holistic aspects of sustainability that should be considered for design and construction and their project outcome KPI measures. Based on a country-wide questionnaire survey of the university estate sector in the UK, a quantitative hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to identify the performance drivers for those KPIs.

The empirical work review demonstrates that holistic sustainability for development can be measured by project outcome KPIs: economic sustainability by cost KPIs; functional, social and environmental sustainability by quality KPIs. The quantitative hierarchical regression analysis confirmed that these four aspects of sustainability could be significantly driven by task performance and contextual performance drivers, as supported by the job performance theory.

The investigation was undertaken within the context of university estates forming a unique public sector in the UK. The findings form a baseline upon which further research can be conducted in other organisations in the wider public and private sectors. Ultimately, holistic sustainability can be fully driven by construction professionals to achieve government and corporate construction strategy for the benefits of sustainable built environment.

The findings inform project managers and construction professionals that they should apply clear, measurable cost and quality KPIs and focus on significant performance drivers in tandem to drive holistic sustainability for design and construction. Project staff should have a high commitment, technical expertise and experience, execute the project with proper design and management methods and provide a high level of trust and collaboration to the client. Clients, designers and contractors are key stakeholders in the development process so they should be consulted for forming the contract KPIs to monitor the sustainable project outcomes.

The generalised results confirm that task and contextual performance drivers can be applied as project management tools for managing the professional team members to achieve sustainability deliverables in terms of KPIs. Such findings will enhance the government or corporate construction strategy for managing and achieving holistic sustainability for construction developments.

This research identifies post-contract performance monitoring measures (cost and quality KPIs as well as task and contextual performance drivers) that can be adopted for driving sustainable design and construction for sustainable development.

The framework of the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) is principles-based and does not provide specific key performance indicators (KPIs) for integrated thinking and reporting. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to propose KPIs for integrated reporting which decipher a firm’s sustainability through empirical analysis.

As a proxy of firms’ sustainability, the authors focus on firms that have survived for more than 100 years and that have already achieved sustainability, and analyze these firms to reveal the financial features that distinguish sustainable firms from the other firms.

The study found two distinguishing facts: the value added that is distributed to stakeholders other than shareholders is significantly larger, and the stability of profitability and the profitability itself are significantly higher in sustainable firms.

The study proposes a value-added distribution and the stability of profitability as sustainability KPIs for integrated reporting.

First, this study provides the first evidence that value added distribution and the stability of profitability distinguish a firm’s sustainability. Second, it provides a new perspective in the search for sustainability KPIs. Third, as the empirical data consist of all listed firms in 136 countries, the results should be robust and general.

This paper reports on research that investigated perceptions and prioritization of key performance indicators (KPI) for infrastructure sustainability, from a cross section of construction industry stakeholders in Hong Kong and Republic of South Africa. The results show that although there is general agreement on the indicators, there are noticeable differences in stakeholder ranking, which measures their prioritisation of the various indicators. These differences are closely linked to the level of development of the respective country and hence macro‐level priorities in formulating their sustainable development agenda. The most significant agreements are on indicators related to health and safety, while there are significant disagreements on some indicators related to environment, economy and project management and administration. The study provides empirical evidence of such underlying differences. The paper discusses the implications and challenges in addressing sustainability and sustainable development in developed and developing countries. The paper discusses the findings from the two‐country comparative studies and provides validated indicators for infrastructure sustainability. Recommendations are given on the application of these indicators for decision‐support and integrated sustainability appraisal in infrastructure project (SUSAIP).

Sustainability reports (SRs) could be viewed as organisational measurements of sustainability performance. The purpose of this paper is to discuss how well SRs are measuring and communicating sustainability and how reporting could be assessed and improved by presenting a maturity grid based on quality management principles.

Quality management students have assessed publicly available SRs. A total of 55 student assessments have been analysed by the author and used to indicate how understandable reports are. Quality management principles and input from the student assessments have been used to propose a maturity grid for sustainability reporting quality.

The indication is that SRs are not easy to interpret. The word sustainability aspect used should be replaced with impact on vital stakeholder needs. Guidelines for analysing reports could be improved by using process focus to clearly describe scope of reporting as the entire value chain.

Results are limited to assessing how sustainability is measured. How sustainable the organisations are is not assessed. The research is ongoing, and the proposed matrix is preliminary needing validation and further modification.

The proposed maturity grid for sustainability reporting forms a good basis for further development of SRs and the critical review of them.

Results indicate a need to report sustainability in the entire value chain and to focus more on vital stakeholder needs such as poverty and climate change.

The paper discusses a field of synergies between quality and sustainability management, which is important but still sparingly researched.