Search results

This paper aims to identify and empirically analyze useful and applicable metrics for measuring and managing the sustainability performance of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

To achieve the objective of the paper, potential metrics were adopted from previous research related to industrial sustainability and an empirical analysis was carried to assess the applicability of the metrics by collecting empirical data from Italian footwear SMEs using a structured questionnaire. The SMEs were selected using a convenience sampling method.

The results of the within-case analysis and the cross-case analysis indicate that the majority of the metrics were found to be useful and applicable to each of the SMEs and across the SMEs, respectively. These metrics emphasized measuring industrial sustainability performance related to financial benefits, costs and market competitiveness for the economic sustainability dimension; resources for the environmental sustainability dimension; and customers, employees and the community for the social sustainability dimension.

Apart from the within-case analysis and cross-case analysis, it was not possible to conduct statistical analysis since a small number of SMEs were accessible to collect empirical data.

The findings of the paper have considerable academic, managerial and policy implications and will provide a theoretical basis for future research on measuring and managing industrial sustainability performance. By providing a set of empirically supported metrics based on the triple bottom line approach (i.e. economic, environmental and social metrics), this paper contributes to the existing knowledge in the field of industrial sustainability performance measurement.

The purpose of the paper is to establish a common framework for measuring and reporting sustainability for commercial property assets.

The paper is based on a review of a series of benchmarking tools and company reports plus workshop consultation with industry.

The paper produces an initial list of common metrics for the measurement and monitoring of key sustainability indicators for commercial property. The complexity presented by the heterogeneity of property assets is discussed and suggested means of normalising for particular buildings types is provided.

The research draws largely from desk research of existing tools and company reports. It does not attempt to produce additional reporting methods, rather to draw on and simplify those already in place. The work is largely UK focused.

The work has significant practical implications in that it makes recommendations for a common approach to sustainability reporting at the building level for industry to adopt. This will aid decision making as it will enhance understanding of the sustainability performance of assets relative to their peer group whilst also supporting higher corporate‐level reporting and hence transparency.

Greater clarity of reporting for commercial property would be beneficial in reducing the negative impacts of the asset class on the environment and on society.

The paper aims to provide clear guidance in what has become a crowded and complex area. This is of significant value to the sector.

Currently, studies involving innovation capability and sustainability have been gaining prominence. This logic is also permeating the firms, which need to adapt their innovation capabilities to sustainability. Therefore, the objective of this article is to map the field of innovation capability and sustainability to observe how these two areas have evolved over time.

The bibliometric method was used to conduct this study from the Scopus database.

The authors verified in their research that the theme appears in the literature in the mid-2000s, however as of 2013 it has gained strength, opening discussions on different fronts. The results show that theoretical and empirical research does not dissociate the fundamental logic of the firm that is to produce and remain competitive from the new logics of generating innovation capability for sustainability, on the contrary, sustainability is an important component for its economic performance.

No other studies are found in the literature that search for the state of the art of the evolution of the innovation capability and sustainability.

Sustainability performance in higher education is often evaluated at a generalized large scale. It remains unknown to what extent campus efforts address regional sustainability needs. This study begins to address this gap by evaluating trends in performance through the lens of regional environmental characteristics.

Four sustainability metrics across 300 North American institutions are analyzed between 2005 and 2014. The study applies two established regional frameworks to group and assess the institutions: Commission on Environmental Cooperation Ecoregions and WaterStat (water scarcity status). Standard t-tests were used to assess significant differences between the groupings of institutions as compared to the North American study population as a whole.

Results indicate that all institutions perform statistically uniformly for most variables when grouped at the broadest (Level I) ecoregional scale. One exception is the Marine West Coast Forest ecoregion where institutions outperformed the North American average for several variables. Only when institutions are grouped at a smaller scale of (Level III) ecoregions do the majority of significant performance patterns emerge.

This paper demonstrates an ecoregions-based analytical approach to evaluating sustainability performance that contrasts with common evaluation methods in the implementation field. This research also identifies a gap in the literature explicitly linking ecological sub-regions with their associated environmental challenges and identifies next research steps in developing defensible regional targets for applied sustainability efforts.

The practical implications of this research include the following: substantive changes to methodologies for rating sustainability leadership and performance, a framework that incentivizes institutions to frame sustainability efforts in terms of collaborative or collective impact, a framework within which institutions can meaningfully prioritize efforts, and a potential shift toward regional impact metrics rather than those focused solely on campus-based or generalized targets.

The authors believe this to be the first effort to analyze North American higher education sustainability performance using regional frameworks.

This research aims to propose a framework to integrate Green Lean Six Sigma (GLSS) and Industry 4.0 to improve organizational sustainability.

The integration of GLSS and Industry 4.0 is proposed based on theoretical facets of the individual approaches. A generic, conceptual framework of an integrated GLSS-Industry 4.0 approach is then proposed using the application of different tools and techniques of GLSS and Industry 4.0 at different stages of the realization of a project.

Both approaches have common facets related to enablers and barriers, and the integrated application of tools and techniques of each approach supplements the common focus of both related to sustainability enhancement. The proposed, conceptual framework provides systematic guidelines from the project selection stage to the sustainment of the solution, with the enumerated application of different techniques and tools at each step of the framework.

This research is the first of its kind to propose the integration of GLSS and Industry 4.0 under the umbrella of a unified approach, including a conceptual framework of this integrated GLSS-Industry 4.0 approach.

The purpose of this paper is to assess whether Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) reporting has any direct and positive impact on environmental sustainability performance, and more specifically on CO₂ emissions of the reporting companies.

The authors analyze the CO₂ emissions data from 40 A-level GRI-reporting companies, over a period of six years and across five industry sectors, comparing them with a control group of 24 non-reporting companies, to assess any direct impact of reporting on emissions. Using one-way analysis of variance statistical analysis, the authors perform a cross-industry analysis of the five-year cumulative change in absolute emissions and emissions intensity for both groups of companies from 2008 to 2012.

The authors find that for both metrics, the p-value between the two groups of companies far exceeds the threshold of 0.05, hence strongly favouring the “null hypothesis” that there is no correlation between GRI-reporting and sustainability improvement. More specifically, the authors find that the mean of the five-year cumulative change for the GRI group is an actual increase of about 6 percent in absolute emissions and a decrease of 15 percent emissions intensity, while the mean for non-GRI entities shows a decrease of about 3 percent and a decrease of 17 percent in absolute emissions and emission intensity, respectively.

The authors are limited by the small sample of companies that have five or more years of reliable reporting of CO₂ emissions at Scopes 1 and 2. Nonetheless, a normality test shows that the sample size is sufficiently representative of the entire population.

The lack of any correlation between GRI reporting, which often consists of the lion share of corporate social responsibility (CSR) investment, and any material improvement in CO₂ performance, suggests that the current CSR strategies are futile as far as environmental sustainability is concerned, and hence need to be drastically modified.

This work is the first of its kind to investigate quantitatively, and using rigorous statistical methods, the correlation between GRI reporting and carbon emissions performance.

This paper aims to focus on the use of qualitative research methods to gain a better understanding of the performance management system (PMS) of one of the largest retailers in North America. The motivation for the research was to assess whether the PMS at one of the world’s largest retail companies was congruent with the most recent thinking and research in the management accounting literature.

Using open-ended interviews, the paper seeks to develop relevant hypotheses emerging from the dimensions of the Strauss and Corbin’s qualitative research methodology (1998). A qualitative methodology was used because it provides a structured approach and analytical techniques that can build upon existing theory and literature.

The qualitative evidence collected during the course of the research indicates that financial measures were predominantly used by the company in its PMS, and that this reliance on financial measures may be an artifact of the industry in which the company operates. The retail industry is highly competitive, and it is very sensitive to changes in customer tastes and behavior, as well as shareholder and financial market pressures. In addition to financial measures, it was found that operational management developed certain non-financial performance measures and that this development may have been a response by operational managers to wider stakeholder pressures and external influences. However, these performance measures appear to be not fully integrated in the PMS and are therefore de-coupled and relatively unimportant in, or entirely absent from, top-level decision-making.

The conclusions of the paper provide support for the concepts of isomorphism and de-coupling as found in the literature of new institutional theory.

The case study approach has enabled to explore and gain further understanding of management accounting practices, particularly performance measurement and management, in their natural setting. Strauss and Corbin’s (1998) grounded theory methodology was adopted because it provides a structured set of analytical steps and systematic analytical techniques for handling and interpreting data and theory building.

This study aims to analyze how sustainability, through an efficient knowledge management (KM) system, can serve as a driving force with respect to corporate culture and reputation. The research questions that guided this study are mainly the following: Are KM and sustainability related? Can culture strengthen the link between KM and sustainability? Can the link between KM and sustainability be affected by reputation?

The methodological approach adopted corresponds to qualitative research of analysis on the reference literature in the international field, also supported by empirical analysis.

In this study, the authors show that there is no explicit correlation between sustainability and KM. This relationship, in fact, is not underlined in nonfinancial reporting because it is absent or because it is not considered relevant. Too often sustainability is reduced to a mere relational and reputational tool, ignoring the fact it must be considered a consequence and not the main goal to improve companies’ culture.

The sample studied by the authors refers to the top 40 companies listed on the Italian market, not allowing to generalize the findings across the international context.

The practical implications that could result from making explicit the relationship between sustainability and KM are multiple: the substantial benefits of the reputational aspect, an increase in the economic value related to sustainability; to ensure the going concern of the company and implement its ability to produce and share value in the long term.

The social benefits of a stronger relationship between sustainability and KM are related to the possibility to improve the wealth of all the stakeholders.

This paper analyzes the links between sustainability and KM to understand the influence of these factors on corporate culture and reputation.

Environmental consequences increasingly influence management strategy and choice. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effects on attention and investment of: incorporating environmental data into a balanced scorecard (BSC), called the sustainability balanced score card (SBSC) and the organization of environmental accounting information.

In a between‐participant design, participants (n ≈ 95) chose from among two investments using BSCs. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: no environmental data (control or BSC condition); environmental data embedded within the traditional BSC (four‐perspective SBSC); or environmental data added to a BSC as a standalone fifth perspective (five‐perspective SBSC).

Investment to achieve environmental stewardship objectives was greater with the four‐perspective SBSC than the traditional BSC. In addition, participants were most efficient, i.e. spent the least total time, and least time per data element examined, with the four‐perspective SBSC. Finally, the time spent examining, and decision weight given to, environmental data were unrelated.

Professional managers and accountants may have greater knowledge of environmental metrics than do students, who are the participants in this study; hence, the results may not generalize to higher knowledgeable professionals since their processing of environmental data may differ from the lower knowledge participants of this study.

The form (i.e. organization) of environmental accounting data changed the allocation of participants' attention while the presence of environmental accounting data changed participants' investments; hence, both the presence and form of environmental accounting information influenced decision making.

This study is among the first to show differing influences from both the presence and organization of environmental accounting data on attention and investment.