The Development of Strategic Management Assessment Tool (From a Systematic Literature Review to a Conceptual Framework) Ubaya Repository
2017 6th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Logistics and Transport (ICALT)
The Development of Sustainability
Strategic Management Assessment Tool
From a Systematic Literature Review to a Conceptual Framework
Yenny Sari, Akhmad Hidayatno*
Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering
Universitas Indonesia
Jakarta, Indonesia
* Corresponding author email: akhmad@eng.ui.ac.id
Abstract—With the increased of interest in how organizations
are contributing to the achievement of a more sustainable world,
there is a growing need for a better way to develop, assess and
measure
organizations
sustainability
performance.
In
organizations, the best way to achieve this is by initially selecting
balanced sustainability indicators. This paper discussed a threestage systematic literature review that being deployed as the
research framework and reviewed 63 selected articles out of 875
papers from Science Direct database. It identified two major
approaches were used in selecting sustainability indicators:
criteria-based and model-based. Based on our review, both
approaches have their strengths and weaknesses which are
dependent on the organizations’ level of sustainability
understanding and efforts. The review also showed that both
approaches have similar popularity in publication: 57% for
criteria-based and 43% for model-based. At the end, the paper
showed that model-based approach was chosen to develop the
conceptual framework, in which a set of sustainability indicators
will be formulated and embedded to the model, but the indicators
will be selected based on the different sustainability effort levels
of the organizations. For future direction, the conceptual
framework will be developed using the underlying concept of
Sustainability Strategic Management into an assessment tool
namely Sustainability Strategic Management Assessment Tool; it
is a set of methods, forms or maps that organizations can use to
measure the readiness level in initiating sustainability efforts or
to chart the progression in achieving their target of sustainability.
Keywords—criteria-based approach; model-based approach;
sustainability indicator; Sustainability Strategic Management
Assessment Tool; systematic literature review
I. INTRODUCTION
Organizations are facing more challenges in the globalized
world because society now demands them to be also
responsible on creating a more sustainable world. They are
forced to think the impact of their actions in a more diverse
way to include social responsibility and environment
responsibility. Sustainability, with the concept of “triple
bottom line” which was originated by John Elkington [1] in
1994, has been growing as a “trending topic” recently. It is no
longer a paradox; it is now about how to turn this challenge or
opportunity into day-to-day management decisions to achieve
advantage in both financial performance and corporate
978-1-5386-1623-9/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE
sustainability [2]. A study conducted by Harvard Business
Review which involved thirty large corporate organizations
suggests that sustainability becomes to play role to create
innovation in technology as well as organization that led to the
financial benefit of the organization [3]. The application of
sustainability concept has been interpreted differently by
industry and academia. For example, Unilever, a well-known
consumer goods manufacturer in Indonesia, helped to develop
the welfare of farmers and suppliers of raw materials or to
reduce the use of chemicals that had negative impacts to the
environment through its “Sustainable Living Plan” program.
Djarum Foundation, a prominent foundation in Indonesia,
built building and laboratory facilities for universities through
its corporate social responsibility program. Some related
studies ([4], [5], [6], [7]) revealed that the sustainability
concept has been applied in many aspects such as performance
measurement, economic, educational and social life; industry
and academia were also awared of it. By using the search
engine http://scholar.google.com/ and keywords of
“sustainability”, the fact of 3.120.000 results (as December
10th, 2016) supported that the research topic in this field is also
a hot topic.
In order to achieve corporate sustainability as a
competitive advantage, organizations need to manage their
business process especially at the strategic level. Business
processes were divided into: (a) core processes, involves the
activities from getting the order to delivering the product; (b)
support processes, consists the supporting processes such as
finance or human resources support; (c) managerial processes,
includes the process of determining the vision and mission,
strategies, goals and objectives to direct the business
development ([8], [9]). The role of business process was
initially mentioned by [10] and later developed by [11] who
described that managing the core process will create
competitive advantage of an organization, controlling the
support process will enable competitive advantage meanwhile
the managerial process will ensure sustainable competitive
advantage. Managerial process itself actually refers to the
concept of strategic management and the term “Sustainable
Strategic Management” refers to the managerial processes at
87
2017 6th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Logistics and Transport (ICALT)
the strategic level that incorporating sustainability as another
key success factor, how the triple bottom line concept can be
integrated to the stages of strategic management process.
In term of managing the business processes, a
methodology for Business Process Improvement which
formed by [12] described that the initial phase of seven-step
Business Process Improvement is the need of readiness
assessment. To measure the readiness level of an organization
before any business process improvements are made, an
assessment tool that designed appropriately is obviously
needed. Readiness of an organization can be measured through
a well-designed assessment tool so that the result of its
assessment provides the foundation for the analysis or
improvement. The involvement in Indonesian government
program of “Increasing the competitive advantage through the
implementation of ISO 9001:2008 in 50 Micro, Small and
Medium Enterprises in East Java, Indonesia” giving practical
experience that the improvement of a management system
required an assessment tool to identify the gap. The
government guidelines for implementation showed that the
“Gap Analysis Checklist” as an assessment tool was
formulated based on the requirements of ISO 9001: 2008
clauses in order to identify the gap between the current
condition of an organization and its conformity towards the
requirement of ISO 9001. The results of the assessment were
accordingly used as the platform for designing a relevant
quality management system. Lean Assessment Tool (LAT)
was developed by [13] as an assessment tool that can help
organizations to understand the major issues, problems, and
potential solutions in the area of manufacturing in accordance
to lean deployment. LAT was applied by [14] to 20 hi-tech
industries in China, [15] explained that the LAT comprises the
quantitative measurement and qualitative dimensions such as
time effectiveness, quality, process, cost, human resources,
delivery, customer and inventory. For that same purpose, the
development of a Sustainable Strategic Management
Assessment Tool (SSMAT) is necessary; SSMAT will be a set
of methods, forms or maps that organizations can use to assess
their readiness in initiating sustainability efforts or to chart
their progression in achieving their target of sustainability.
For the purposes of designing SSMAT, thus, there are
some main issues, namely "What sustainability indicators will
be used? How the indicators should be selected? How to
measurement process should be done? Is there any framework
should be constructed to carry out the assessment process?".
To assess sustainability performance of an organization, it was
necessary to formulate a list of sustainability indicators. There
are two primary approaches in selecting good indicators:
A. Criteria-based approach
Many publications showed that the formulation of
indicators in the sustainability assessment often used the
concept of sustainability or Triple Bottom Line which
comprises three aspects: people, profit and planet. The
sustainability indicators can be derived from literature review
([16], [17]) or selected based on some criteria ([18], [19]). It
designed a general set of sustainability indicators that are
suitable to be applied in all sectors but it was limited to a
specific industry [18] meanwhile [19] derived sustainability
indicators to assess an eco-industrial park, those specific
indicators were limited to be used for any other industries.
B. Model-based approach
Some sustainability assessments were also done through
the development of a model. For example, [20] proposed the
sustainability aspect into the Balanced Scorecard method [21],
known as the Sustainability Balanced Scorecard (SBSC). Four
previous internal researches during 2014 to 2015 related to the
implementation of SBSC in different manufacturing
organizations (cigarette, footwear, furniture and motorcycle
spare parts manufacturer) showed that the use of sustainability
metrics were limited to some metrics such as waste
percentage, local employee or energy consumption. During the
four studies were conducted, it was found that there were
differences on placing the perspective of sustainability among
four perspectives of Balanced Scorecard. Hence, the process
of formulating sustainability indicators and the determination
of the assessment model as a basis to determine the indicators
allows some research opportunities to be developed.
It now turned out as a research question, between criteriabased and model-based approach, which one will be chosen
for formulating or selecting the sustainability indicator in
developing SSMAT. Long-term research purpose is to achieve
the design of Sustainable Strategic Management Assessment
Tool (SSMAT) which functions as an assessment tool or a
performance measurement system to assess readiness level of
the implementation of Sustainable Strategic Management in
organization. Short-term goal is to conduct a systematic
literature review to provide viewpoint and foundation for the
conceptual models of SSMAT. This short-term goal is the
purpose of this review article.
II. RESEARCH METHOD
A ‘systematic literature review’ was introduced in this article
as an effective method to review multiple research papers or
publications, in which the process was conducted through
three stages [22]: (1) stage of planning the review; (2) stage
of conducting the review; (3) stage of reporting and
dissemination. As recommended by [23] and deployed by
[24], these stages of systematic literature review were also
performed in this review paper, the detailed was shown in
Table I. In the first stage, the literature review was planned
by reading the references (books) that contained basic
concepts of sustainability, triple bottom line [25],
sustainability indicators [26], corporate sustainability models
([2], [27]) as well as performing meta-analysis by initially
skimming 15 published articles with related topic. The
planning stage was aimed to: (1) gain the comprehensive
understanding about the research topic, (2) identify proper
terms for searching the paper in the next stage of review, (3)
determine the targeted journal publishers or electronic
databases and (4) define the criteria to classify the articles for
data analysis.
88
2017 6th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Logistics and Transport (ICALT)
TABLE I.
THREE STAGES OF SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW AS
TABLE II.
TWO PRIMARY APPROACHES IN FORMULATING INDICATOR,
WITH THEIR STRENGTHS & WEAKNESSES
RESEARCH METHOD
Stage
Stage
1
Stage
2
Stage
3
Activities
Planning the review
Review basic concepts of sustainability and perform metaanalysis on sample of 15 related published articles, which
aimed to:
a. Gain comprehensive understanding
b. Identify the terms for searching articles and publication
year
• Terms that being used to search for the paper in title,
abstract, and keywords are: (sustainability indicator OR
sustainability metric) AND (sustainability assessment OR
sustainability
performance
OR
performance
measurement
OR
sustainability
performance
measurement) AND (corporate sustainability OR
corporate
sustainability
model
OR
strategic
management)
• Publication year: 2010 - 2016
c. Determine targeted publishers
• Targeted publishers: Science Direct, Emerald, Springer,
Taylor & Francis, Wiley
• In this review paper, the review process is initially
attempted to Science Direct
d. Define criteria for classifying the articles to support the
analysis
Conducting the review
Selection of articles to be reviewed, based on the terms and
criteria defined in previous stage:
a. From title, abstract and keywords: filtering the papers with
the defined terms. Total search: 875 articles.
b. From full paper, skimming reading on introduction,
research methods and conclusions, to select valid articles
for the review, classifying articles according to the
classification criteria. Valid: 63 articles (7.2%)
c. From selected full paper: focused reading, deep
understanding and analysis about sustainability indicator
and corporate sustainability
Reporting & Dissemination
a. After selecting articles (2nd round of previous stage) from
electronic database Science Direct and after 30% reading
(3rd round on previous stage),
b. Prepare initial draft of the review result to be published in
the international conference.
c. Conclude main aspects of Systematic Literature Review
and future directions for conceptual frameworkof SAT to
assess sustainability initiatives in corporate level
Source: adapted from [22], modified from [24]
III.
RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS
After the planning stage of systematic literature review, the
review process continued by searching the articles from
scientific database Science Direct, gave the result of 875
articles whose titles, abstracts or keywords fitted the defined
terms and publication years, then by skimming reading to
introduction, research methods and conclusions, there were 63
(or 7.25% of 875) articles valid as selected papers for further
analysis. For 63 selected article, the meta-analysis was
performed to collect information about: (a) authors, (b)
publication year, (c) publisher name, (d) industry sector, (e)
dimensions of sustainability indicators (environment,
economic or social), qualitative or quantitative indicators, (f)
underlying concept to formulate the indicators/models, and (g)
outcoming model/framework. The following results and
discussions were made based on the meta analysis.
Approach
Strengths
Weaknesses
• Provides a general set of • Indicators in a criteria can be
difficult to choose due to its
common
sustainability
similarities
indicators to easily be
chosen
• Selection of the indicators
can be subjective without
• These common indicators
measuring
the
also available for specific
Criteria
appropriateness and quality
industry
based
of the indicators used. A
approach • Can be easily integrate with
right way of filtering the
the current organization
indicators is necessary.
strategy
as
new
key
• Organizations might have
performance indicators
difficulties in identifying
whether they have achieved
sustainability or not
• Create clear ideal model how • Debates of how ideal model
is actually ideal
a sustainable organizations
operates and functions.
• Some models are industry
specific, that might not easy
• The gap between ideal and
to generalized
current conditions will make
it easier to plan and develop • Some models might required
process and activities
a major changes in the
Model
current strategy of the
based • Create a more robust
organizations
sustainability
indicators
approach
because it is based on a
proven ideal model
• With the ideal model in
sight, organizations can
develop stages to measure
their closeness on achieving
their ideal conditions
As mentioned previously, it was found that there were two
primary approaches in formulation and selecting sustainability
indicators, and based on the review, both approaches have
their strengths and weaknesses as described as follows in
Table II. Then, both approaches were set as the criterion for
classification. For criteria-based approach, it was found that
some research determined the indicators directly (from
literature review and underlying concepts then the indicators
were formulated) or indirectly (a particular mechanism was
applied to filter a set of indicators that being derived from
literature review and underlying concept). Table III showed
that, from these 63 selected articles, there were 43% in modelbased approach and 57% articles in criteria-based approach.
For the criteria-based approach, it still can be divided into:
43% is those were not using any filtration methods (directly)
to formulate the indicators and 14% is using certain filtration
methods (indirectly).
TABLE III.
DISTRIBUTION 63 ARTICLES INTO TWO PRIMARY APPROACHES
Approach
Criteria
-based
with no
filtration
(CNF)
with
filtration
(CF)
Model-based
(M)
Publications
27 articles (43% of 63)
[16], [17], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34],
[35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43],
[44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52]
9 articles(14% of 63)
[18], [19], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59]
27 articles (43% of 63)
[58], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67],
[68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76],
[77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85]
89
2017 6th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Logistics and Transport (ICALT)
Number of articles
25
TABLE IV.
23
20
Journal of Cleaner Production
International Journal of Production Economics
15
8
4
5
5
5
2012
2013
1
0
2010
2011
2014
2015
Number of articles
12
2016
11
10
9
8
CNF
8
CF
M
6
5
3
2
2
2
1 1
3
3
3
2
1
1
0 0
0
0
2012
2013
0
2010
2011
Applied Energy, CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology,
Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing, Expert Systems
with Applications, Journal of Environment Management,
Renewable and Sustainable Energy, Tourist Management,
2 for
each
publisher
Accounting Forum, Cities, Ecological Indicators, Energy
Policy, Environmental Science & Policy, Future Generation
Computer Systems, Journal of Business Research, Journal of
Project Management, Journal of Purchasing & Supply
Management, Journal of Strategic Information Systems,
Journal of World Business, Management and Control of
Production and Logistics, Management Journal, Procedia,
Recourses Policy,
Science and Justice,
Sustainable
Production and Consumption, The British Accounting Review
1 for
each
publisher
4
4
4
# of
article
26
4
Publisher Name
17
10
DISTRIBUTION OF MAIN JOURNALS
2014
2015
2016
Publication Year
Fig. 1. Distribution of number of publications per year. (Above) for topics of
sustainability indicators or models, (bottom) for specific classification. Notes:
CNF: criteria-based approach no filtration, CF: criteria-based with
filtrations, M: model-based)
Descriptive statistics based on selected papers were
conducted. Fig. 1 showed that articles within these topics of
interest (i.e. sustainability indicator or corporate sustainability
model) have been increasing for the last five years, from 5
articles in 2012 to 23 articles in 2016. The same trend was also
occurred to the articles which used criteria-based approach
with no filtration (CNF) and model-based approach (M), there
were 2 articles of CNF in 2012 increasing to 11 articles in
2016 and 1 articles of M in 2012 increasing to 9 articles in
2016. Given the number of articles, 1 article of criteria-based
model with filtration (CF) in 2012, no related publication in
2011, 2012 and 2013, and 3 articles in 2016; it indicated
articles of criteria-based approach with filtration were rare and
had no trend in quantity year to year. Table IV showed that
Journal of Cleaner Production was the main journal that
contributed to this topic of interest, it gave 26 publication or
41% of 63 selected papers, it followed by International Journal
of Production Economics (6.3% of 63).
From Table V, it can be seen that about 33% of the
selected articles were discussing about sustainability indicator
or corporate sustainability model for general corporations,
meanwhile 67% of them discussing the same issue for specific
industry sectors which majority covered the sectors of supply
chain & logistics, public service, information technology,
manufacturing, tourism, university and micro small and
medium enterprise.
For model-based approach, there were 27 articles that
being selected because they discussed the development of
sustainability models using certain basic concepts.
Table VI mapped the underlying concepts that used to develop
the model year by year. Given the percentage of usage,
Business Process Management was placed as the mostfrequent-used underlying concept, with the percentage of
usage was 37%. It was followed by Corporate Sustainability
and Supply Chain Management as the second and third highest
percentages, with the percentages of usage were 33% and 22%
respectively. Some models were discussed as below. The
framework in [69] suggested the future search about the
relationship
between
sustainability
practices
and
organizational performance, in which sustainability practices
were divided into two different strategies: exploitation
(sustainability practices that aimed to make organization more
efficient through incremental improvement) or exploration
(sustainability practices that challenged the organization to
explore for innovation). The articles ([64], [84]) were aimed to
introduce the effect of strategic management on managing
business process or corporate sustainability, [66] proposed on
how a systemic approach, that built on three complementary
modules: strategic, tactical and operational, could integrate
sustainability strategies into all corporate business activities.
Sustainability performance indicators were integrating into
logistics and supply chain by [68], it used the multimethodological approach which began with process mapping
and data collecting and ended by mathematical and simulation
model for making decision.
TABLE V.
Industry Sector
General corporation
Specific industry
Total
DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRIAL SECTORS
Percentage
33
67
100
For 42 specific industry sector, there were:
Supply Chain & Logistics
(e.g. retailer, port, logistics service provider)
Public Service
(e.g. urban design, water service, park, electricity)
Information Technology (e.g. green IT,
service centre, telecommunication service)
Manufacturing, Tourism, University,
Micro Small Medium Enterprise
Automotive, Energy,
Forestry, Mining, Textile
Fashion, Fishing, Forensic, Hospital,
Local Government, Project Management
# of articles
21
42
63
# of articles
6
5
3
3 for
each industry
2 for
each industry
1 for
each industry
90
2017 6th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Logistics and Transport (ICALT)
TABLE VI.
Article
(Year)
[60]
(2010)
[61]
(2012)
[62]
(2012)
[63]
(2012)
[64]
(2013)
[65]
(2013)
[66]
(2013)
[67]
(2014)
[68]
(2014)
[69]
(2014)
[75]
(2015)
[74]
(2015)
[76]
(2015)
[77]
(2015)
[70]
(2015)
[73]
(2015)
[71]
(2015)
[72]
(2015)
[58]
(2016)
[82]
(2016)
[78]
(2016)
[79]
(2016)
[80]
(2016)
[81]
(2016)
[85]
(2017)
[83]
(2017)
[84]
(2017)
DISTRIBUTION OF UNDERLYING CONCEPTS
Developed models
Process Analysis
Method
BSC Strategic
Framework
Green Performance
Indicators
Sustainability Supply
Chain Management
Sustainable
Management System
A
v
Underlying Concept *)
B
C
D
E
F
v
v
v
v
IV.
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
BSC Model
Sustainable Systems
Integration ModelMetrics Framework
Economic and Socioeconomic assessment
Corporate
Sustainability Activity
(CSA) framework
Risk Management
Approach
Sustainability Supply
Chain Performance
Efficiency Model
based on Data
Envelopment Analysis
Energy Efficiency
Model
Sustainability BSC
(SBSC)
Triple-layered
Business Model
Canvas
Sustainability
Business Model
Assessment of Supply
Chain Sustainability
Framework
Product life cycle
phases
Campus Sustainability
Assessment
Sustainable Strategic
Management
TOTAL
Percentage
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
10
37
%
9
33
%
6
22
%
5
19
%
v
4
15
%
3
11
%
CONCLUSIONS
This paper described on how the three-stage systematic
literature review gave a scientific contribution in providing,
for the best of authors’ understanding, a helicopter-view about
the expansion of the publications related to the interest topic.
It started from (i) planning the literature review by defining
specific terms to search the articles, determining targeted
publisher, publication year and classification criteria, (ii)
conducting the review by skimming the title, keywords,
abstract and reading the introduction, methodology and
conclusion of selected articles, then (iii) reporting the result by
concluding main issues and providing guidance for future
directions. Regarding to the interest topic i.e. the development
of Sustainable Strategic Management Assessment Tool
(SSMAT), the systematic literature review filtered only 63
articles or 7.2% out of 875 articles from Science Direct
electronic database, however, the distribution of number of
publications has shown an uptrend within last five years. It
identified two primary approaches that were used in designing
the sustainability assessment i.e. criteria-based approach
(assessment indicators were derived directly or indirectly from
literature review) or model-based approach (the development
of a certain model was done prior to the formulation of the
assessment indicators).
v
Green SCM
Systemic Navigation
Framework
Energy Management
Maturity Model
Multi-methodological
approach
Sustainability
exploitation &
exploration
Urban Water Service
Sustainability
Energy Efficiency
Model
G
Reference [72] also discussed on measuring the performance
of sustainable supply chain using three constructs: supplier
partnership performance, production performance and
delivery/logistic performance. The risk management approach
was used by [71] to identify sustainability-related supply chain
risks by measuring risk priority number using the concept of
Failure Mode and Effect Analysis.
1
4
%
*) A for Business Process Management, B: Corporate Sustainability,
C: Supply Chain Management, D: Triple Bottom Line, E: Engineering
Management, F: Balanced scorecard, G: Product Life Cycle
In general, there were two major issues to be concluded
from the result of the literature review. Firstly, both
approaches had similar popularities in publications; there were
27 articles (or 43%) of 63 selected articles that using modelbased approach, another 43% of them were criteria-based
approach with no filtration and the rest 14% were criteriabased using a specific filtration method to select the
indicators. Furthermore, the review indicated that the
approaches were balance in strengths and weaknesses, for
instance, it was easy for criteria-based approach to formulate a
set of indicators, but it might be difficult because of the
similarities among indicators and the subjectivity in selection.
With model-based approach, it could create a more robust
indicator based on a proven ideal model but it might be
difficult to find how ideal a model was. However, a modelbased approach appears more appropriate because a model can
be an identifier to distinguish an assessment tool from others;
a model can describe the constructs and their relationships.
Finally, none of these publications was considering the
maturity level of the corporations when the assessment as
done. The maturity level becomes important to be considered
because the starting point of each corporation when
assessment is done may differ or the indicators may evolve
along the maturity level.
91
2017 6th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Logistics and Transport (ICALT)
For future direction, in term of the development of the
conceptual framework for Sustainable Strategic Management
Assessment Tool (SSMAT), it will used model-based
approach, the formulation of sustainability indicators will be
used criteria-based approach with no filtration methods and
the indicators will be designed various to the different
sustainability maturity level of organization. Indicators can
comprise of quantitative and qualitative ones. Business
Process Management, Corporate Sustainability Model or
Supply Chain Management will be studied further to
determine the constructs of the model. The model will be
developed for general corporations and will be validated by
applying it to some case studies such as logistic providers or
transportation industries.
References
[1] J. Elkington, "Enter the triple bottom line," The triple bottom line: Does it
all add up, vol. 11, pp. 1-16, 2004.
[2] M. J. Epstein and A. R. Buhovac, Making sustainability work: Best
practices in managing and measuring corporate social, environmental, and
economic impacts: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2014.
[3] R. Nidumolu, C. K. Prahalad, and M. R. Rangaswami, "Why sustainability
is now the key driver of innovation," Harvard business review, vol. 87, pp.
56-64, 2009.
[4] A. M. Said, Ahmadun, F., Paim, L. dan Masud, J., "Environmental
Concerns, knowledge and practices gap among Malaysian teachers,"
International Journal of Sustainablity in Higher Education, vol. 4, pp. 305313, 2003.
[5] J. Thogersen, "How May Consumer Policy Empower Consumers for
Sustainable Lifestyles?," Journal of Consumer Policy, pp. 143-178, 2005.
[6] C. Adams, Muir, S. dan Hoque, Z., "Measurement of Sustainablity in the
Public Sector, Sustainability Accounting," Management and Policy Journal,
vol. 5, pp. 46-63, 2014.
[7] Y. Sari, Hadiyat, M. A., Loa, J. L., "The Modelling of Sustainable
Lifestyle towards the readiness of ASEAN Economic Community by
Structural Equation Modeling (Case Study: City of Surabaya)," Proceedings
of the Conference on Production Systems XI and Conference on Management
and Quality Engineering, 2015.
[8] AMICE, CIMOSA: Open Systems Architecture for CIM: SpringerVerlag/ESPRIT Consortium, AMICE, Berlin, 1989.
[9] S. J. Childe, Maull, R.S. and Bennett, J., "Frameworks for understanding
business process re-engineering," International Journal of Operation and
Production Management, vol. 14, pp. 23-34, 1994.
[10] N. a. B. McCallum, U.S., "Understanding and managing the manage
processes," presented at the the Biennial Conference of the Performance
Measurement Association (PMA2004), Edinburgh, 2004.
[11] D. Mackay, Bititci, U., Maguire, C., Ates, A., "Delivering sustained
performance through a structured business process approach to management,"
Measuring Business Excellence, vol. 12, pp. 22-37, 2008.
[12] S. Adesola, Baines, T., "Developing and evaluating a methodology for
business processimprovement," Business Process Management Journal, vol.
11, pp. 37-46, 2005.
[13] Q. Lee, "Lean manufacturing strategy," ed: Strategos Inc., available at:
www.strategosinc.com, 2004.
[14] S. Taj, "Applying lean assessment tools in Chinese hi-tech industries,"
Management Decision, vol. 43, pp. 628-643, 2005.
[15] F. Pakdil, Leonard., K. M., "Criteria for a lean organisation: development
of a lean assessment tool," Criteria for a lean organisation: development of a
lean assessment tool, vol. 52, pp. 4587-4607, 2014.
[16] Y. Kang, M.-H. Ryu, and S. Kim, "Exploring sustainability management
for telecommunications services: A case study of two Korean companies,"
Journal of World Business, vol. 45, pp. 415-421, 2010.
[17] R. Antolin-Lopez, J. Delgado-Ceballos, and I. Montiel, "Deconstructing
corporate sustainability: a comparison of different stakeholder metrics,"
Journal of Cleaner Production, 2016.
[18] A. H. Rahdari and A. A. A. Rostamy, "Designing a general set of
sustainability indicators at the corporate level," Journal of Cleaner
Production, vol. 108, pp. 757-771, 2015.
[19] G. Valenzuela-Venegas, J. C. Salgado, and F. A. Díaz-Alvarado,
"Sustainability indicators for the assessment of eco-industrial parks:
classification and criteria for selection," Journal of Cleaner Production, vol.
133, pp. 99-116, 2016.
[20] F. Figge, T. Hahn, S. Schaltegger, and M. Wagner, "The sustainability
balanced scorecard–linking sustainability management to business strategy,"
Business strategy and the Environment, vol. 11, pp. 269-284, 2002.
[21] R. S. Kaplan and D. P. Norton, "Using the balanced scorecard as a
strategic management system," ed: Harvard business review, 1996.
[22] D. Tranfield, D. Denyer, and P. Smart, "Towards a methodology for
developing evidence‐informed management knowledge by means of
systematic review," British journal of management, vol. 14, pp. 207-222,
2003.
[23] J. H. Littell, J. Corcoran, and V. Pillai, Systematic reviews and metaanalysis: Oxford University Press, 2008.
[24] S. N. Morioka and M. M. de Carvalho, "A systematic literature review
towards a conceptual framework for integrating sustainability performance
into business," Journal of Cleaner Production, 2016.
[25] J. Elkington, "Cannibals with forks," The triple bottom line of 21st
century, 1997.
[26] S. Bell and S. Morse, Sustainability indicators: measuring the
immeasurable?: Earthscan, 2008.
[27] W. R. Blackburn, The sustainability handbook: The complete
management guide to achieving social, economic, and environmental
responsibility: Environmental Law Institute, 2007.
[28] S. Kuruppu and M. J. Milne, "Dolphin deaths, organizational legitimacy
and potential employees’ reactions to assured environmental disclosures," in
Accounting Forum, 2010, pp. 1-19.
[29] R. Bose and X. Luo, "Integrative framework for assessing firms’
potential to undertake Green IT initiatives via virtualization–A theoretical
perspective," The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, vol. 20, pp. 3854, 2011.
[30] E. Hassini, C. Surti, and C. Searcy, "A literature review and a case study
of sustainable supply chains with a focus on metrics," International Journal of
Production Economics, vol. 140, pp. 69-82, 2012.
[31] R. K. Singh, H. Murty, S. Gupta, and A. Dikshit, "An overview of
sustainability assessment methodologies," Ecological Indicators, vol. 15, pp.
281-299, 2012.
[32] C. Colicchia, G. Marchet, M. Melacini, and S. Perotti, "Building
environmental sustainability: empirical evidence from Logistics Service
Providers," Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 59, pp. 197-209, 2013.
[33] N. Suwartha and R. F. Sari, "Evaluating UI GreenMetric as a tool to
support green universities development: assessment of the year 2011 ranking,"
Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 61, pp. 46-53, 2013.
[34] D. Chen, S. Thiede, T. Schudeleit, and C. Herrmann, "A holistic and
rapid sustainability assessment tool for manufacturing SMEs," CIRP AnnalsManufacturing Technology, vol. 63, pp. 437-440, 2014.
[35] N. F. da Cruz and R. C. Marques, "Scorecards for sustainable local
governments," Cities, vol. 39, pp. 165-170, 2014.
[36] S. Lodhia and N. Martin, "Corporate sustainability indicators: an
Australian mining case study," Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 84, pp.
107-115, 2014.
[37] S. Teitelbaum, "Criteria and indicators for the assessment of community
forestry outcomes: a comparative analysis from Canada," Journal of
environmental management, vol. 132, pp. 257-267, 2014.
[38] A. Lauder, R. F. Sari, N. Suwartha, and G. Tjahjono, "Critical review of a
global campus sustainability ranking: GreenMetric," Journal of Cleaner
Production, vol. 108, pp. 852-863, 2015.
[39] E. A. Severo, J. C. F. de Guimarães, E. C. H. Dorion, and C. H. Nodari,
"Cleaner production, environmental sustainability and organizational
performance: an empirical study in the Brazilian Metal-Mechanic industry,"
Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 96, pp. 118-125, 2015.
[40] T. Sharma and P. Balachandra, "Benchmarking sustainability of Indian
electricity system: An indicator approach," Applied Energy, vol. 142, pp. 206220, 2015.
[41] N. Subramanian and A. Gunasekaran, "Cleaner supply-chain
management
practices
for
twenty-first-century
organizational
competitiveness: Practice-performance framework and research propositions,"
International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 164, pp. 216-233, 2015.
92
2017 6th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Logistics and Transport (ICALT)
[42] S. Rajak and S. Vinodh, "Application of fuzzy logic for social
sustainability performance evaluation: A case study of an Indian automotive
component manufacturing organization," Journal of Cleaner Production, vol.
108, pp. 1184-1192, 2015.
[43] M. A. Iniesta-Bonillo, R. Sánchez-Fernández, and D. Jiménez-Castillo,
"Sustainability, value, and satisfaction: Model testing and cross-validation in
tourist destinations," Journal of Business Research, 2016.
[44] M. L. Martens and M. M. Carvalho, "Key factors of sustainability in
project management context: A survey exploring the project managers'
perspective," International Journal of Project Management, 2016.
[45] S. N. Morioka and M. M. Carvalho, "Measuring sustainability in
practice: exploring the inclusion of sustainability into corporate performance
systems in Brazilian case studies," Journal of Cleaner Production, 2016.
[46] G. Nascimento, C. A. S. Araujo, and L. A. Alves, "Corporate
sustainability practices in accredited Brazilian hospitals: a degree-of-maturity
assessment of the environmental dimension," Revista de Administração, 2016.
[47] E. Passetti and A. Tenucci, "Eco-efficiency measurement and the
influence of organisational factors: evidence from large Italian companies,"
Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 122, pp. 228-239, 2016.
[48] V. P. Rodrigues, D. C. Pigosso, and T. C. McAloone, "Process-related
key performance indicators for measuring sustainability performance of
ecodesign implementation into product development," Journal of Cleaner
Production, vol. 139, pp. 416-428, 2016.
[49] C. Searcy, S. M. Dixon, and W. P. Neumann, "The use of work
environment performance indicators in corporate social responsibility
reporting," Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 112, pp. 2907-2921, 2016.
[50] J. W. Sutherland, J. S. Richter, M. J. Hutchins, D. Dornfeld, R. Dzombak,
J. Mangold, et al., "The role of manufacturing in affecting the social
dimension of sustainability," CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology, vol.
65, pp. 689-712, 2016.
[51] S. Winter and R. Lasch, "Environmental and social criteria in supplier
evaluation–Lessons from the fashion and apparel industry," Journal of
Cleaner Production, vol. 139, pp. 175-190, 2016.
[52] A. M. Quarshie, A. Salmi, and R. Leuschner, "Sustainability and
corporate social responsibility in supply chains: The state of research in
supply chain management and business ethics journals," Journal of
Purchasing and Supply Management, vol. 22, pp. 82-97, 2016.
[53] Y. Lin, H.-P. Cheng, M.-L. Tseng, and J. C. Tsai, "Using QFD and ANP
to analyze the environmental production requirements in linguistic
preferences," Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 37, pp. 2186-2196, 2010.
[54] C. Lin, C. N. Madu, C.-h. Kuei, H.-L. Tsai, and K.-n. Wang, "Developing
an assessment framework for managing sustainability programs: A Analytic
Network Process approach," Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 42, pp.
2488-2501, 2015.
[55] A. A. Feil, D. M. de Quevedo, and D. Schreiber, "Selection and
identification of the indicators for quickly measuring sustainability in micro
and small furniture industries," Sustainable Production and Consumption, vol.
3, pp. 34-44, 2015.
[56] B. Mainali and S. Silveira, "Using a sustainability index to assess energy
technologies for rural electrification," Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, vol. 41, pp. 1351-1365, 2015.
[57] H. X. Tan, Z. Yeo, R. Ng, T. B. Tjandra, and B. Song, "A sustainability
indicator framework for Singapore small and medium-sized manufacturing
enterprises," Procedia CIRP, vol. 29, pp. 132-137, 2015.
[58] Y. Huang and V. R. Coelho, "Sustainability performance assessment
focusing on coral reef protection by the tourism industry in the coral Triangle
region," Tourism Management, vol. 59, pp. 510-527, 2017.
[59] D. Jasiński, J. Meredith, and K. Kirwan, "A comprehensive framework
for automotive sustainability assessment," Journal of Cleaner Production, vol.
135, pp. 1034-1044, 2016.
[60] A. C. Tahir and R. Darton, "The process analysis method of selecting
indicators to quantify the sustainability performance of a business operation,"
Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 18, pp. 1598-1607, 2010.
[61] M. Houck, P. J. Speaker, A. S. Fleming, and R. A. Riley, "The balanced
scorecard: Sustainable performance assessment for forensic laboratories,"
Science & Justice, vol. 52, pp. 209-216, 2012.
[62] A. Kipp, T. Jiang, M. Fugini, and I. Salomie, "Layered green
performance indicators," Future Generation Computer Systems, vol. 28, pp.
478-489, 2012.
[63] S. Zailani, K. Jeyaraman, G. Vengadasan, and R. Premkumar,
"Sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) in Malaysia: A survey,"
International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 140, pp. 330-340, 2012.
[64] I. Delai and S. Takahashi, "Corporate sustainability in emerging markets:
insights from the practices reported by the Brazilian retailers," Journal of
Cleaner Production, vol. 47, pp. 211-221, 2013.
[65] N. Kafa, Y. Hani, and A. El Mhamedi, "Sustainability performance
measurement for green supply chain management," IFAC Proceedings
Volumes, vol. 46, pp. 71-78, 2013.
[66] F. Zhang, M. Rio, R. Allais, P. Zwolinski, T. R. Carrillo, L. Roucoules, et
al., "Toward an systemic navigation framework to integrate sustainable
development into the company," Journal of cleaner production, vol. 54, pp.
199-214, 2013.
[67] P. Antunes, P. Carreira, and M. M. da Silva, "Towards an energy
management maturity model," Energy Policy, vol. 73, pp. 803-814, 2014.
[68] K.-H. Lee and Y. Wu, "Integrating sustainability performance
measurement into logistics and supply networks: A multi-methodological
approach," The British Accounting Review, vol. 46, pp. 361-378, 2014.
[69] M. Maletič, D. Maletič, J. J. Dahlgaard, S. M. Dahlgaard-Park, and B.
Gomišček, "Sustainability exploration and sustainability exploitation: From a
literature review towards a conceptual framework," Journal of Cleaner
Production, vol. 79, pp. 182-194, 2014.
[70] G. Dalton, G. Allan, N. Beaumont, A. Georgakaki, N. Hacking, T.
Hooper, et al., "Economic and socio-economic assessment methods for ocean
renewable energy: Public and private perspectives," Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 45, pp. 850-878, 2015.
[71] M. Giannakis and T. Papadopoulos, "Supply chain sustainability: a risk
management approach," International Journal of Production Economics, vol.
171, pp. 455-470, 2016.
[72] S. K. Jakhar, "Performance evaluation and a flow allocation decision
model for a sustainable supply chain of an apparel industry," Journal of
Cleaner Production, vol. 87, pp. 391-413, 2015.
[73] S.-K. Fuisz-Kehrbach, "A three-dimensional framework to explore
corporate sustainability activities in the mining industry: Current status and
challenges ahead," Resources Policy, vol. 46, pp. 101-115, 2015.
[74] G. May, I. Barletta, B. Stahl, and M. Taisch, "Energy management in
production: A novel method to develop key performance indicators for
improving energy efficiency," Applied Energy, vol. 149, pp. 46-61, 2015.
[75] R. C. Marques, N. F. da Cruz, and J. Pires, "Measuring the sustainability
of urban water services," Environmental Science & Policy, vol. 54, pp. 142151, 2015.
[76] V. Nappi and H. Rozenfeld, "The incorporation of sustainability
indicators into a performance measurement system," Procedia CIRP, vol. 26,
pp. 7-12, 2015.
[77] S. Sofian, X. Li, P. Kusumawardhani, and W. Widiyani, "Sustainable
Systems Integration Model-Metrics in Design Process," Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, vol. 184, pp. 297-309, 2015.
[78] M. Journeault, "The Integrated Scorecard in support of corporate
sustainability strategies," Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 182,
pp. 214-229, 2016.
[79] A. Joyce, R. Paquin, and Y. Pigneur, "The triple layered business model
canvas: A tool to design more sustainable business models," in ARTEM
Organizational Creativity International Conference, 2015, pp. 26-27.03.
[80] S. N. Morioka, S. Evans, and M. M. de Carvalho, "Sustainable Business
Model Innovation: Exploring Evidences in Sustainability Reporting,"
Procedia CIRP, vol. 40, pp. 660-668, 2016.
[81] J.-P. Schöggl, M. M. Fritz, and R. J. Baumgartner, "Toward supply
chain-wide sustainability assessment: a conceptual framework and an
aggregation method to assess supply chain performance," Journal of Cleaner
Production, 2016.
[82] A. Svensson and S. Paramonova, "An analytical model for identifying
and addressing energy efficiency improvement opportunities in industrial
production systems–Model development and testing experiences from
Sweden," Journal of Cleaner Production, 2016.
[83] P. Arroyo, "A new taxonomy for examining the multi-role of campus
sustainability assessments in organizational change," Journal of Cleaner
Production, 2015.
[84] R. J. Baumgartner and R. Rauter, "Strategic perspectives of corporate
sustainability management to develop a sustainable organization," Journal of
Cleaner Production, vol. 140, pp. 81-92, 2017.
[85] S. I. Hallstedt, "Sustainability criteria and sustainability compliance
index for decision support in product development," Journal of Cleaner
Production, 2015.
93
The Development of Sustainability
Strategic Management Assessment Tool
From a Systematic Literature Review to a Conceptual Framework
Yenny Sari, Akhmad Hidayatno*
Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering
Universitas Indonesia
Jakarta, Indonesia
* Corresponding author email: akhmad@eng.ui.ac.id
Abstract—With the increased of interest in how organizations
are contributing to the achievement of a more sustainable world,
there is a growing need for a better way to develop, assess and
measure
organizations
sustainability
performance.
In
organizations, the best way to achieve this is by initially selecting
balanced sustainability indicators. This paper discussed a threestage systematic literature review that being deployed as the
research framework and reviewed 63 selected articles out of 875
papers from Science Direct database. It identified two major
approaches were used in selecting sustainability indicators:
criteria-based and model-based. Based on our review, both
approaches have their strengths and weaknesses which are
dependent on the organizations’ level of sustainability
understanding and efforts. The review also showed that both
approaches have similar popularity in publication: 57% for
criteria-based and 43% for model-based. At the end, the paper
showed that model-based approach was chosen to develop the
conceptual framework, in which a set of sustainability indicators
will be formulated and embedded to the model, but the indicators
will be selected based on the different sustainability effort levels
of the organizations. For future direction, the conceptual
framework will be developed using the underlying concept of
Sustainability Strategic Management into an assessment tool
namely Sustainability Strategic Management Assessment Tool; it
is a set of methods, forms or maps that organizations can use to
measure the readiness level in initiating sustainability efforts or
to chart the progression in achieving their target of sustainability.
Keywords—criteria-based approach; model-based approach;
sustainability indicator; Sustainability Strategic Management
Assessment Tool; systematic literature review
I. INTRODUCTION
Organizations are facing more challenges in the globalized
world because society now demands them to be also
responsible on creating a more sustainable world. They are
forced to think the impact of their actions in a more diverse
way to include social responsibility and environment
responsibility. Sustainability, with the concept of “triple
bottom line” which was originated by John Elkington [1] in
1994, has been growing as a “trending topic” recently. It is no
longer a paradox; it is now about how to turn this challenge or
opportunity into day-to-day management decisions to achieve
advantage in both financial performance and corporate
978-1-5386-1623-9/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE
sustainability [2]. A study conducted by Harvard Business
Review which involved thirty large corporate organizations
suggests that sustainability becomes to play role to create
innovation in technology as well as organization that led to the
financial benefit of the organization [3]. The application of
sustainability concept has been interpreted differently by
industry and academia. For example, Unilever, a well-known
consumer goods manufacturer in Indonesia, helped to develop
the welfare of farmers and suppliers of raw materials or to
reduce the use of chemicals that had negative impacts to the
environment through its “Sustainable Living Plan” program.
Djarum Foundation, a prominent foundation in Indonesia,
built building and laboratory facilities for universities through
its corporate social responsibility program. Some related
studies ([4], [5], [6], [7]) revealed that the sustainability
concept has been applied in many aspects such as performance
measurement, economic, educational and social life; industry
and academia were also awared of it. By using the search
engine http://scholar.google.com/ and keywords of
“sustainability”, the fact of 3.120.000 results (as December
10th, 2016) supported that the research topic in this field is also
a hot topic.
In order to achieve corporate sustainability as a
competitive advantage, organizations need to manage their
business process especially at the strategic level. Business
processes were divided into: (a) core processes, involves the
activities from getting the order to delivering the product; (b)
support processes, consists the supporting processes such as
finance or human resources support; (c) managerial processes,
includes the process of determining the vision and mission,
strategies, goals and objectives to direct the business
development ([8], [9]). The role of business process was
initially mentioned by [10] and later developed by [11] who
described that managing the core process will create
competitive advantage of an organization, controlling the
support process will enable competitive advantage meanwhile
the managerial process will ensure sustainable competitive
advantage. Managerial process itself actually refers to the
concept of strategic management and the term “Sustainable
Strategic Management” refers to the managerial processes at
87
2017 6th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Logistics and Transport (ICALT)
the strategic level that incorporating sustainability as another
key success factor, how the triple bottom line concept can be
integrated to the stages of strategic management process.
In term of managing the business processes, a
methodology for Business Process Improvement which
formed by [12] described that the initial phase of seven-step
Business Process Improvement is the need of readiness
assessment. To measure the readiness level of an organization
before any business process improvements are made, an
assessment tool that designed appropriately is obviously
needed. Readiness of an organization can be measured through
a well-designed assessment tool so that the result of its
assessment provides the foundation for the analysis or
improvement. The involvement in Indonesian government
program of “Increasing the competitive advantage through the
implementation of ISO 9001:2008 in 50 Micro, Small and
Medium Enterprises in East Java, Indonesia” giving practical
experience that the improvement of a management system
required an assessment tool to identify the gap. The
government guidelines for implementation showed that the
“Gap Analysis Checklist” as an assessment tool was
formulated based on the requirements of ISO 9001: 2008
clauses in order to identify the gap between the current
condition of an organization and its conformity towards the
requirement of ISO 9001. The results of the assessment were
accordingly used as the platform for designing a relevant
quality management system. Lean Assessment Tool (LAT)
was developed by [13] as an assessment tool that can help
organizations to understand the major issues, problems, and
potential solutions in the area of manufacturing in accordance
to lean deployment. LAT was applied by [14] to 20 hi-tech
industries in China, [15] explained that the LAT comprises the
quantitative measurement and qualitative dimensions such as
time effectiveness, quality, process, cost, human resources,
delivery, customer and inventory. For that same purpose, the
development of a Sustainable Strategic Management
Assessment Tool (SSMAT) is necessary; SSMAT will be a set
of methods, forms or maps that organizations can use to assess
their readiness in initiating sustainability efforts or to chart
their progression in achieving their target of sustainability.
For the purposes of designing SSMAT, thus, there are
some main issues, namely "What sustainability indicators will
be used? How the indicators should be selected? How to
measurement process should be done? Is there any framework
should be constructed to carry out the assessment process?".
To assess sustainability performance of an organization, it was
necessary to formulate a list of sustainability indicators. There
are two primary approaches in selecting good indicators:
A. Criteria-based approach
Many publications showed that the formulation of
indicators in the sustainability assessment often used the
concept of sustainability or Triple Bottom Line which
comprises three aspects: people, profit and planet. The
sustainability indicators can be derived from literature review
([16], [17]) or selected based on some criteria ([18], [19]). It
designed a general set of sustainability indicators that are
suitable to be applied in all sectors but it was limited to a
specific industry [18] meanwhile [19] derived sustainability
indicators to assess an eco-industrial park, those specific
indicators were limited to be used for any other industries.
B. Model-based approach
Some sustainability assessments were also done through
the development of a model. For example, [20] proposed the
sustainability aspect into the Balanced Scorecard method [21],
known as the Sustainability Balanced Scorecard (SBSC). Four
previous internal researches during 2014 to 2015 related to the
implementation of SBSC in different manufacturing
organizations (cigarette, footwear, furniture and motorcycle
spare parts manufacturer) showed that the use of sustainability
metrics were limited to some metrics such as waste
percentage, local employee or energy consumption. During the
four studies were conducted, it was found that there were
differences on placing the perspective of sustainability among
four perspectives of Balanced Scorecard. Hence, the process
of formulating sustainability indicators and the determination
of the assessment model as a basis to determine the indicators
allows some research opportunities to be developed.
It now turned out as a research question, between criteriabased and model-based approach, which one will be chosen
for formulating or selecting the sustainability indicator in
developing SSMAT. Long-term research purpose is to achieve
the design of Sustainable Strategic Management Assessment
Tool (SSMAT) which functions as an assessment tool or a
performance measurement system to assess readiness level of
the implementation of Sustainable Strategic Management in
organization. Short-term goal is to conduct a systematic
literature review to provide viewpoint and foundation for the
conceptual models of SSMAT. This short-term goal is the
purpose of this review article.
II. RESEARCH METHOD
A ‘systematic literature review’ was introduced in this article
as an effective method to review multiple research papers or
publications, in which the process was conducted through
three stages [22]: (1) stage of planning the review; (2) stage
of conducting the review; (3) stage of reporting and
dissemination. As recommended by [23] and deployed by
[24], these stages of systematic literature review were also
performed in this review paper, the detailed was shown in
Table I. In the first stage, the literature review was planned
by reading the references (books) that contained basic
concepts of sustainability, triple bottom line [25],
sustainability indicators [26], corporate sustainability models
([2], [27]) as well as performing meta-analysis by initially
skimming 15 published articles with related topic. The
planning stage was aimed to: (1) gain the comprehensive
understanding about the research topic, (2) identify proper
terms for searching the paper in the next stage of review, (3)
determine the targeted journal publishers or electronic
databases and (4) define the criteria to classify the articles for
data analysis.
88
2017 6th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Logistics and Transport (ICALT)
TABLE I.
THREE STAGES OF SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW AS
TABLE II.
TWO PRIMARY APPROACHES IN FORMULATING INDICATOR,
WITH THEIR STRENGTHS & WEAKNESSES
RESEARCH METHOD
Stage
Stage
1
Stage
2
Stage
3
Activities
Planning the review
Review basic concepts of sustainability and perform metaanalysis on sample of 15 related published articles, which
aimed to:
a. Gain comprehensive understanding
b. Identify the terms for searching articles and publication
year
• Terms that being used to search for the paper in title,
abstract, and keywords are: (sustainability indicator OR
sustainability metric) AND (sustainability assessment OR
sustainability
performance
OR
performance
measurement
OR
sustainability
performance
measurement) AND (corporate sustainability OR
corporate
sustainability
model
OR
strategic
management)
• Publication year: 2010 - 2016
c. Determine targeted publishers
• Targeted publishers: Science Direct, Emerald, Springer,
Taylor & Francis, Wiley
• In this review paper, the review process is initially
attempted to Science Direct
d. Define criteria for classifying the articles to support the
analysis
Conducting the review
Selection of articles to be reviewed, based on the terms and
criteria defined in previous stage:
a. From title, abstract and keywords: filtering the papers with
the defined terms. Total search: 875 articles.
b. From full paper, skimming reading on introduction,
research methods and conclusions, to select valid articles
for the review, classifying articles according to the
classification criteria. Valid: 63 articles (7.2%)
c. From selected full paper: focused reading, deep
understanding and analysis about sustainability indicator
and corporate sustainability
Reporting & Dissemination
a. After selecting articles (2nd round of previous stage) from
electronic database Science Direct and after 30% reading
(3rd round on previous stage),
b. Prepare initial draft of the review result to be published in
the international conference.
c. Conclude main aspects of Systematic Literature Review
and future directions for conceptual frameworkof SAT to
assess sustainability initiatives in corporate level
Source: adapted from [22], modified from [24]
III.
RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS
After the planning stage of systematic literature review, the
review process continued by searching the articles from
scientific database Science Direct, gave the result of 875
articles whose titles, abstracts or keywords fitted the defined
terms and publication years, then by skimming reading to
introduction, research methods and conclusions, there were 63
(or 7.25% of 875) articles valid as selected papers for further
analysis. For 63 selected article, the meta-analysis was
performed to collect information about: (a) authors, (b)
publication year, (c) publisher name, (d) industry sector, (e)
dimensions of sustainability indicators (environment,
economic or social), qualitative or quantitative indicators, (f)
underlying concept to formulate the indicators/models, and (g)
outcoming model/framework. The following results and
discussions were made based on the meta analysis.
Approach
Strengths
Weaknesses
• Provides a general set of • Indicators in a criteria can be
difficult to choose due to its
common
sustainability
similarities
indicators to easily be
chosen
• Selection of the indicators
can be subjective without
• These common indicators
measuring
the
also available for specific
Criteria
appropriateness and quality
industry
based
of the indicators used. A
approach • Can be easily integrate with
right way of filtering the
the current organization
indicators is necessary.
strategy
as
new
key
• Organizations might have
performance indicators
difficulties in identifying
whether they have achieved
sustainability or not
• Create clear ideal model how • Debates of how ideal model
is actually ideal
a sustainable organizations
operates and functions.
• Some models are industry
specific, that might not easy
• The gap between ideal and
to generalized
current conditions will make
it easier to plan and develop • Some models might required
process and activities
a major changes in the
Model
current strategy of the
based • Create a more robust
organizations
sustainability
indicators
approach
because it is based on a
proven ideal model
• With the ideal model in
sight, organizations can
develop stages to measure
their closeness on achieving
their ideal conditions
As mentioned previously, it was found that there were two
primary approaches in formulation and selecting sustainability
indicators, and based on the review, both approaches have
their strengths and weaknesses as described as follows in
Table II. Then, both approaches were set as the criterion for
classification. For criteria-based approach, it was found that
some research determined the indicators directly (from
literature review and underlying concepts then the indicators
were formulated) or indirectly (a particular mechanism was
applied to filter a set of indicators that being derived from
literature review and underlying concept). Table III showed
that, from these 63 selected articles, there were 43% in modelbased approach and 57% articles in criteria-based approach.
For the criteria-based approach, it still can be divided into:
43% is those were not using any filtration methods (directly)
to formulate the indicators and 14% is using certain filtration
methods (indirectly).
TABLE III.
DISTRIBUTION 63 ARTICLES INTO TWO PRIMARY APPROACHES
Approach
Criteria
-based
with no
filtration
(CNF)
with
filtration
(CF)
Model-based
(M)
Publications
27 articles (43% of 63)
[16], [17], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34],
[35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43],
[44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52]
9 articles(14% of 63)
[18], [19], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59]
27 articles (43% of 63)
[58], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67],
[68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76],
[77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85]
89
2017 6th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Logistics and Transport (ICALT)
Number of articles
25
TABLE IV.
23
20
Journal of Cleaner Production
International Journal of Production Economics
15
8
4
5
5
5
2012
2013
1
0
2010
2011
2014
2015
Number of articles
12
2016
11
10
9
8
CNF
8
CF
M
6
5
3
2
2
2
1 1
3
3
3
2
1
1
0 0
0
0
2012
2013
0
2010
2011
Applied Energy, CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology,
Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing, Expert Systems
with Applications, Journal of Environment Management,
Renewable and Sustainable Energy, Tourist Management,
2 for
each
publisher
Accounting Forum, Cities, Ecological Indicators, Energy
Policy, Environmental Science & Policy, Future Generation
Computer Systems, Journal of Business Research, Journal of
Project Management, Journal of Purchasing & Supply
Management, Journal of Strategic Information Systems,
Journal of World Business, Management and Control of
Production and Logistics, Management Journal, Procedia,
Recourses Policy,
Science and Justice,
Sustainable
Production and Consumption, The British Accounting Review
1 for
each
publisher
4
4
4
# of
article
26
4
Publisher Name
17
10
DISTRIBUTION OF MAIN JOURNALS
2014
2015
2016
Publication Year
Fig. 1. Distribution of number of publications per year. (Above) for topics of
sustainability indicators or models, (bottom) for specific classification. Notes:
CNF: criteria-based approach no filtration, CF: criteria-based with
filtrations, M: model-based)
Descriptive statistics based on selected papers were
conducted. Fig. 1 showed that articles within these topics of
interest (i.e. sustainability indicator or corporate sustainability
model) have been increasing for the last five years, from 5
articles in 2012 to 23 articles in 2016. The same trend was also
occurred to the articles which used criteria-based approach
with no filtration (CNF) and model-based approach (M), there
were 2 articles of CNF in 2012 increasing to 11 articles in
2016 and 1 articles of M in 2012 increasing to 9 articles in
2016. Given the number of articles, 1 article of criteria-based
model with filtration (CF) in 2012, no related publication in
2011, 2012 and 2013, and 3 articles in 2016; it indicated
articles of criteria-based approach with filtration were rare and
had no trend in quantity year to year. Table IV showed that
Journal of Cleaner Production was the main journal that
contributed to this topic of interest, it gave 26 publication or
41% of 63 selected papers, it followed by International Journal
of Production Economics (6.3% of 63).
From Table V, it can be seen that about 33% of the
selected articles were discussing about sustainability indicator
or corporate sustainability model for general corporations,
meanwhile 67% of them discussing the same issue for specific
industry sectors which majority covered the sectors of supply
chain & logistics, public service, information technology,
manufacturing, tourism, university and micro small and
medium enterprise.
For model-based approach, there were 27 articles that
being selected because they discussed the development of
sustainability models using certain basic concepts.
Table VI mapped the underlying concepts that used to develop
the model year by year. Given the percentage of usage,
Business Process Management was placed as the mostfrequent-used underlying concept, with the percentage of
usage was 37%. It was followed by Corporate Sustainability
and Supply Chain Management as the second and third highest
percentages, with the percentages of usage were 33% and 22%
respectively. Some models were discussed as below. The
framework in [69] suggested the future search about the
relationship
between
sustainability
practices
and
organizational performance, in which sustainability practices
were divided into two different strategies: exploitation
(sustainability practices that aimed to make organization more
efficient through incremental improvement) or exploration
(sustainability practices that challenged the organization to
explore for innovation). The articles ([64], [84]) were aimed to
introduce the effect of strategic management on managing
business process or corporate sustainability, [66] proposed on
how a systemic approach, that built on three complementary
modules: strategic, tactical and operational, could integrate
sustainability strategies into all corporate business activities.
Sustainability performance indicators were integrating into
logistics and supply chain by [68], it used the multimethodological approach which began with process mapping
and data collecting and ended by mathematical and simulation
model for making decision.
TABLE V.
Industry Sector
General corporation
Specific industry
Total
DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRIAL SECTORS
Percentage
33
67
100
For 42 specific industry sector, there were:
Supply Chain & Logistics
(e.g. retailer, port, logistics service provider)
Public Service
(e.g. urban design, water service, park, electricity)
Information Technology (e.g. green IT,
service centre, telecommunication service)
Manufacturing, Tourism, University,
Micro Small Medium Enterprise
Automotive, Energy,
Forestry, Mining, Textile
Fashion, Fishing, Forensic, Hospital,
Local Government, Project Management
# of articles
21
42
63
# of articles
6
5
3
3 for
each industry
2 for
each industry
1 for
each industry
90
2017 6th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Logistics and Transport (ICALT)
TABLE VI.
Article
(Year)
[60]
(2010)
[61]
(2012)
[62]
(2012)
[63]
(2012)
[64]
(2013)
[65]
(2013)
[66]
(2013)
[67]
(2014)
[68]
(2014)
[69]
(2014)
[75]
(2015)
[74]
(2015)
[76]
(2015)
[77]
(2015)
[70]
(2015)
[73]
(2015)
[71]
(2015)
[72]
(2015)
[58]
(2016)
[82]
(2016)
[78]
(2016)
[79]
(2016)
[80]
(2016)
[81]
(2016)
[85]
(2017)
[83]
(2017)
[84]
(2017)
DISTRIBUTION OF UNDERLYING CONCEPTS
Developed models
Process Analysis
Method
BSC Strategic
Framework
Green Performance
Indicators
Sustainability Supply
Chain Management
Sustainable
Management System
A
v
Underlying Concept *)
B
C
D
E
F
v
v
v
v
IV.
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
BSC Model
Sustainable Systems
Integration ModelMetrics Framework
Economic and Socioeconomic assessment
Corporate
Sustainability Activity
(CSA) framework
Risk Management
Approach
Sustainability Supply
Chain Performance
Efficiency Model
based on Data
Envelopment Analysis
Energy Efficiency
Model
Sustainability BSC
(SBSC)
Triple-layered
Business Model
Canvas
Sustainability
Business Model
Assessment of Supply
Chain Sustainability
Framework
Product life cycle
phases
Campus Sustainability
Assessment
Sustainable Strategic
Management
TOTAL
Percentage
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
10
37
%
9
33
%
6
22
%
5
19
%
v
4
15
%
3
11
%
CONCLUSIONS
This paper described on how the three-stage systematic
literature review gave a scientific contribution in providing,
for the best of authors’ understanding, a helicopter-view about
the expansion of the publications related to the interest topic.
It started from (i) planning the literature review by defining
specific terms to search the articles, determining targeted
publisher, publication year and classification criteria, (ii)
conducting the review by skimming the title, keywords,
abstract and reading the introduction, methodology and
conclusion of selected articles, then (iii) reporting the result by
concluding main issues and providing guidance for future
directions. Regarding to the interest topic i.e. the development
of Sustainable Strategic Management Assessment Tool
(SSMAT), the systematic literature review filtered only 63
articles or 7.2% out of 875 articles from Science Direct
electronic database, however, the distribution of number of
publications has shown an uptrend within last five years. It
identified two primary approaches that were used in designing
the sustainability assessment i.e. criteria-based approach
(assessment indicators were derived directly or indirectly from
literature review) or model-based approach (the development
of a certain model was done prior to the formulation of the
assessment indicators).
v
Green SCM
Systemic Navigation
Framework
Energy Management
Maturity Model
Multi-methodological
approach
Sustainability
exploitation &
exploration
Urban Water Service
Sustainability
Energy Efficiency
Model
G
Reference [72] also discussed on measuring the performance
of sustainable supply chain using three constructs: supplier
partnership performance, production performance and
delivery/logistic performance. The risk management approach
was used by [71] to identify sustainability-related supply chain
risks by measuring risk priority number using the concept of
Failure Mode and Effect Analysis.
1
4
%
*) A for Business Process Management, B: Corporate Sustainability,
C: Supply Chain Management, D: Triple Bottom Line, E: Engineering
Management, F: Balanced scorecard, G: Product Life Cycle
In general, there were two major issues to be concluded
from the result of the literature review. Firstly, both
approaches had similar popularities in publications; there were
27 articles (or 43%) of 63 selected articles that using modelbased approach, another 43% of them were criteria-based
approach with no filtration and the rest 14% were criteriabased using a specific filtration method to select the
indicators. Furthermore, the review indicated that the
approaches were balance in strengths and weaknesses, for
instance, it was easy for criteria-based approach to formulate a
set of indicators, but it might be difficult because of the
similarities among indicators and the subjectivity in selection.
With model-based approach, it could create a more robust
indicator based on a proven ideal model but it might be
difficult to find how ideal a model was. However, a modelbased approach appears more appropriate because a model can
be an identifier to distinguish an assessment tool from others;
a model can describe the constructs and their relationships.
Finally, none of these publications was considering the
maturity level of the corporations when the assessment as
done. The maturity level becomes important to be considered
because the starting point of each corporation when
assessment is done may differ or the indicators may evolve
along the maturity level.
91
2017 6th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Logistics and Transport (ICALT)
For future direction, in term of the development of the
conceptual framework for Sustainable Strategic Management
Assessment Tool (SSMAT), it will used model-based
approach, the formulation of sustainability indicators will be
used criteria-based approach with no filtration methods and
the indicators will be designed various to the different
sustainability maturity level of organization. Indicators can
comprise of quantitative and qualitative ones. Business
Process Management, Corporate Sustainability Model or
Supply Chain Management will be studied further to
determine the constructs of the model. The model will be
developed for general corporations and will be validated by
applying it to some case studies such as logistic providers or
transportation industries.
References
[1] J. Elkington, "Enter the triple bottom line," The triple bottom line: Does it
all add up, vol. 11, pp. 1-16, 2004.
[2] M. J. Epstein and A. R. Buhovac, Making sustainability work: Best
practices in managing and measuring corporate social, environmental, and
economic impacts: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2014.
[3] R. Nidumolu, C. K. Prahalad, and M. R. Rangaswami, "Why sustainability
is now the key driver of innovation," Harvard business review, vol. 87, pp.
56-64, 2009.
[4] A. M. Said, Ahmadun, F., Paim, L. dan Masud, J., "Environmental
Concerns, knowledge and practices gap among Malaysian teachers,"
International Journal of Sustainablity in Higher Education, vol. 4, pp. 305313, 2003.
[5] J. Thogersen, "How May Consumer Policy Empower Consumers for
Sustainable Lifestyles?," Journal of Consumer Policy, pp. 143-178, 2005.
[6] C. Adams, Muir, S. dan Hoque, Z., "Measurement of Sustainablity in the
Public Sector, Sustainability Accounting," Management and Policy Journal,
vol. 5, pp. 46-63, 2014.
[7] Y. Sari, Hadiyat, M. A., Loa, J. L., "The Modelling of Sustainable
Lifestyle towards the readiness of ASEAN Economic Community by
Structural Equation Modeling (Case Study: City of Surabaya)," Proceedings
of the Conference on Production Systems XI and Conference on Management
and Quality Engineering, 2015.
[8] AMICE, CIMOSA: Open Systems Architecture for CIM: SpringerVerlag/ESPRIT Consortium, AMICE, Berlin, 1989.
[9] S. J. Childe, Maull, R.S. and Bennett, J., "Frameworks for understanding
business process re-engineering," International Journal of Operation and
Production Management, vol. 14, pp. 23-34, 1994.
[10] N. a. B. McCallum, U.S., "Understanding and managing the manage
processes," presented at the the Biennial Conference of the Performance
Measurement Association (PMA2004), Edinburgh, 2004.
[11] D. Mackay, Bititci, U., Maguire, C., Ates, A., "Delivering sustained
performance through a structured business process approach to management,"
Measuring Business Excellence, vol. 12, pp. 22-37, 2008.
[12] S. Adesola, Baines, T., "Developing and evaluating a methodology for
business processimprovement," Business Process Management Journal, vol.
11, pp. 37-46, 2005.
[13] Q. Lee, "Lean manufacturing strategy," ed: Strategos Inc., available at:
www.strategosinc.com, 2004.
[14] S. Taj, "Applying lean assessment tools in Chinese hi-tech industries,"
Management Decision, vol. 43, pp. 628-643, 2005.
[15] F. Pakdil, Leonard., K. M., "Criteria for a lean organisation: development
of a lean assessment tool," Criteria for a lean organisation: development of a
lean assessment tool, vol. 52, pp. 4587-4607, 2014.
[16] Y. Kang, M.-H. Ryu, and S. Kim, "Exploring sustainability management
for telecommunications services: A case study of two Korean companies,"
Journal of World Business, vol. 45, pp. 415-421, 2010.
[17] R. Antolin-Lopez, J. Delgado-Ceballos, and I. Montiel, "Deconstructing
corporate sustainability: a comparison of different stakeholder metrics,"
Journal of Cleaner Production, 2016.
[18] A. H. Rahdari and A. A. A. Rostamy, "Designing a general set of
sustainability indicators at the corporate level," Journal of Cleaner
Production, vol. 108, pp. 757-771, 2015.
[19] G. Valenzuela-Venegas, J. C. Salgado, and F. A. Díaz-Alvarado,
"Sustainability indicators for the assessment of eco-industrial parks:
classification and criteria for selection," Journal of Cleaner Production, vol.
133, pp. 99-116, 2016.
[20] F. Figge, T. Hahn, S. Schaltegger, and M. Wagner, "The sustainability
balanced scorecard–linking sustainability management to business strategy,"
Business strategy and the Environment, vol. 11, pp. 269-284, 2002.
[21] R. S. Kaplan and D. P. Norton, "Using the balanced scorecard as a
strategic management system," ed: Harvard business review, 1996.
[22] D. Tranfield, D. Denyer, and P. Smart, "Towards a methodology for
developing evidence‐informed management knowledge by means of
systematic review," British journal of management, vol. 14, pp. 207-222,
2003.
[23] J. H. Littell, J. Corcoran, and V. Pillai, Systematic reviews and metaanalysis: Oxford University Press, 2008.
[24] S. N. Morioka and M. M. de Carvalho, "A systematic literature review
towards a conceptual framework for integrating sustainability performance
into business," Journal of Cleaner Production, 2016.
[25] J. Elkington, "Cannibals with forks," The triple bottom line of 21st
century, 1997.
[26] S. Bell and S. Morse, Sustainability indicators: measuring the
immeasurable?: Earthscan, 2008.
[27] W. R. Blackburn, The sustainability handbook: The complete
management guide to achieving social, economic, and environmental
responsibility: Environmental Law Institute, 2007.
[28] S. Kuruppu and M. J. Milne, "Dolphin deaths, organizational legitimacy
and potential employees’ reactions to assured environmental disclosures," in
Accounting Forum, 2010, pp. 1-19.
[29] R. Bose and X. Luo, "Integrative framework for assessing firms’
potential to undertake Green IT initiatives via virtualization–A theoretical
perspective," The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, vol. 20, pp. 3854, 2011.
[30] E. Hassini, C. Surti, and C. Searcy, "A literature review and a case study
of sustainable supply chains with a focus on metrics," International Journal of
Production Economics, vol. 140, pp. 69-82, 2012.
[31] R. K. Singh, H. Murty, S. Gupta, and A. Dikshit, "An overview of
sustainability assessment methodologies," Ecological Indicators, vol. 15, pp.
281-299, 2012.
[32] C. Colicchia, G. Marchet, M. Melacini, and S. Perotti, "Building
environmental sustainability: empirical evidence from Logistics Service
Providers," Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 59, pp. 197-209, 2013.
[33] N. Suwartha and R. F. Sari, "Evaluating UI GreenMetric as a tool to
support green universities development: assessment of the year 2011 ranking,"
Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 61, pp. 46-53, 2013.
[34] D. Chen, S. Thiede, T. Schudeleit, and C. Herrmann, "A holistic and
rapid sustainability assessment tool for manufacturing SMEs," CIRP AnnalsManufacturing Technology, vol. 63, pp. 437-440, 2014.
[35] N. F. da Cruz and R. C. Marques, "Scorecards for sustainable local
governments," Cities, vol. 39, pp. 165-170, 2014.
[36] S. Lodhia and N. Martin, "Corporate sustainability indicators: an
Australian mining case study," Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 84, pp.
107-115, 2014.
[37] S. Teitelbaum, "Criteria and indicators for the assessment of community
forestry outcomes: a comparative analysis from Canada," Journal of
environmental management, vol. 132, pp. 257-267, 2014.
[38] A. Lauder, R. F. Sari, N. Suwartha, and G. Tjahjono, "Critical review of a
global campus sustainability ranking: GreenMetric," Journal of Cleaner
Production, vol. 108, pp. 852-863, 2015.
[39] E. A. Severo, J. C. F. de Guimarães, E. C. H. Dorion, and C. H. Nodari,
"Cleaner production, environmental sustainability and organizational
performance: an empirical study in the Brazilian Metal-Mechanic industry,"
Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 96, pp. 118-125, 2015.
[40] T. Sharma and P. Balachandra, "Benchmarking sustainability of Indian
electricity system: An indicator approach," Applied Energy, vol. 142, pp. 206220, 2015.
[41] N. Subramanian and A. Gunasekaran, "Cleaner supply-chain
management
practices
for
twenty-first-century
organizational
competitiveness: Practice-performance framework and research propositions,"
International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 164, pp. 216-233, 2015.
92
2017 6th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Logistics and Transport (ICALT)
[42] S. Rajak and S. Vinodh, "Application of fuzzy logic for social
sustainability performance evaluation: A case study of an Indian automotive
component manufacturing organization," Journal of Cleaner Production, vol.
108, pp. 1184-1192, 2015.
[43] M. A. Iniesta-Bonillo, R. Sánchez-Fernández, and D. Jiménez-Castillo,
"Sustainability, value, and satisfaction: Model testing and cross-validation in
tourist destinations," Journal of Business Research, 2016.
[44] M. L. Martens and M. M. Carvalho, "Key factors of sustainability in
project management context: A survey exploring the project managers'
perspective," International Journal of Project Management, 2016.
[45] S. N. Morioka and M. M. Carvalho, "Measuring sustainability in
practice: exploring the inclusion of sustainability into corporate performance
systems in Brazilian case studies," Journal of Cleaner Production, 2016.
[46] G. Nascimento, C. A. S. Araujo, and L. A. Alves, "Corporate
sustainability practices in accredited Brazilian hospitals: a degree-of-maturity
assessment of the environmental dimension," Revista de Administração, 2016.
[47] E. Passetti and A. Tenucci, "Eco-efficiency measurement and the
influence of organisational factors: evidence from large Italian companies,"
Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 122, pp. 228-239, 2016.
[48] V. P. Rodrigues, D. C. Pigosso, and T. C. McAloone, "Process-related
key performance indicators for measuring sustainability performance of
ecodesign implementation into product development," Journal of Cleaner
Production, vol. 139, pp. 416-428, 2016.
[49] C. Searcy, S. M. Dixon, and W. P. Neumann, "The use of work
environment performance indicators in corporate social responsibility
reporting," Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 112, pp. 2907-2921, 2016.
[50] J. W. Sutherland, J. S. Richter, M. J. Hutchins, D. Dornfeld, R. Dzombak,
J. Mangold, et al., "The role of manufacturing in affecting the social
dimension of sustainability," CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology, vol.
65, pp. 689-712, 2016.
[51] S. Winter and R. Lasch, "Environmental and social criteria in supplier
evaluation–Lessons from the fashion and apparel industry," Journal of
Cleaner Production, vol. 139, pp. 175-190, 2016.
[52] A. M. Quarshie, A. Salmi, and R. Leuschner, "Sustainability and
corporate social responsibility in supply chains: The state of research in
supply chain management and business ethics journals," Journal of
Purchasing and Supply Management, vol. 22, pp. 82-97, 2016.
[53] Y. Lin, H.-P. Cheng, M.-L. Tseng, and J. C. Tsai, "Using QFD and ANP
to analyze the environmental production requirements in linguistic
preferences," Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 37, pp. 2186-2196, 2010.
[54] C. Lin, C. N. Madu, C.-h. Kuei, H.-L. Tsai, and K.-n. Wang, "Developing
an assessment framework for managing sustainability programs: A Analytic
Network Process approach," Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 42, pp.
2488-2501, 2015.
[55] A. A. Feil, D. M. de Quevedo, and D. Schreiber, "Selection and
identification of the indicators for quickly measuring sustainability in micro
and small furniture industries," Sustainable Production and Consumption, vol.
3, pp. 34-44, 2015.
[56] B. Mainali and S. Silveira, "Using a sustainability index to assess energy
technologies for rural electrification," Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, vol. 41, pp. 1351-1365, 2015.
[57] H. X. Tan, Z. Yeo, R. Ng, T. B. Tjandra, and B. Song, "A sustainability
indicator framework for Singapore small and medium-sized manufacturing
enterprises," Procedia CIRP, vol. 29, pp. 132-137, 2015.
[58] Y. Huang and V. R. Coelho, "Sustainability performance assessment
focusing on coral reef protection by the tourism industry in the coral Triangle
region," Tourism Management, vol. 59, pp. 510-527, 2017.
[59] D. Jasiński, J. Meredith, and K. Kirwan, "A comprehensive framework
for automotive sustainability assessment," Journal of Cleaner Production, vol.
135, pp. 1034-1044, 2016.
[60] A. C. Tahir and R. Darton, "The process analysis method of selecting
indicators to quantify the sustainability performance of a business operation,"
Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 18, pp. 1598-1607, 2010.
[61] M. Houck, P. J. Speaker, A. S. Fleming, and R. A. Riley, "The balanced
scorecard: Sustainable performance assessment for forensic laboratories,"
Science & Justice, vol. 52, pp. 209-216, 2012.
[62] A. Kipp, T. Jiang, M. Fugini, and I. Salomie, "Layered green
performance indicators," Future Generation Computer Systems, vol. 28, pp.
478-489, 2012.
[63] S. Zailani, K. Jeyaraman, G. Vengadasan, and R. Premkumar,
"Sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) in Malaysia: A survey,"
International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 140, pp. 330-340, 2012.
[64] I. Delai and S. Takahashi, "Corporate sustainability in emerging markets:
insights from the practices reported by the Brazilian retailers," Journal of
Cleaner Production, vol. 47, pp. 211-221, 2013.
[65] N. Kafa, Y. Hani, and A. El Mhamedi, "Sustainability performance
measurement for green supply chain management," IFAC Proceedings
Volumes, vol. 46, pp. 71-78, 2013.
[66] F. Zhang, M. Rio, R. Allais, P. Zwolinski, T. R. Carrillo, L. Roucoules, et
al., "Toward an systemic navigation framework to integrate sustainable
development into the company," Journal of cleaner production, vol. 54, pp.
199-214, 2013.
[67] P. Antunes, P. Carreira, and M. M. da Silva, "Towards an energy
management maturity model," Energy Policy, vol. 73, pp. 803-814, 2014.
[68] K.-H. Lee and Y. Wu, "Integrating sustainability performance
measurement into logistics and supply networks: A multi-methodological
approach," The British Accounting Review, vol. 46, pp. 361-378, 2014.
[69] M. Maletič, D. Maletič, J. J. Dahlgaard, S. M. Dahlgaard-Park, and B.
Gomišček, "Sustainability exploration and sustainability exploitation: From a
literature review towards a conceptual framework," Journal of Cleaner
Production, vol. 79, pp. 182-194, 2014.
[70] G. Dalton, G. Allan, N. Beaumont, A. Georgakaki, N. Hacking, T.
Hooper, et al., "Economic and socio-economic assessment methods for ocean
renewable energy: Public and private perspectives," Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 45, pp. 850-878, 2015.
[71] M. Giannakis and T. Papadopoulos, "Supply chain sustainability: a risk
management approach," International Journal of Production Economics, vol.
171, pp. 455-470, 2016.
[72] S. K. Jakhar, "Performance evaluation and a flow allocation decision
model for a sustainable supply chain of an apparel industry," Journal of
Cleaner Production, vol. 87, pp. 391-413, 2015.
[73] S.-K. Fuisz-Kehrbach, "A three-dimensional framework to explore
corporate sustainability activities in the mining industry: Current status and
challenges ahead," Resources Policy, vol. 46, pp. 101-115, 2015.
[74] G. May, I. Barletta, B. Stahl, and M. Taisch, "Energy management in
production: A novel method to develop key performance indicators for
improving energy efficiency," Applied Energy, vol. 149, pp. 46-61, 2015.
[75] R. C. Marques, N. F. da Cruz, and J. Pires, "Measuring the sustainability
of urban water services," Environmental Science & Policy, vol. 54, pp. 142151, 2015.
[76] V. Nappi and H. Rozenfeld, "The incorporation of sustainability
indicators into a performance measurement system," Procedia CIRP, vol. 26,
pp. 7-12, 2015.
[77] S. Sofian, X. Li, P. Kusumawardhani, and W. Widiyani, "Sustainable
Systems Integration Model-Metrics in Design Process," Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, vol. 184, pp. 297-309, 2015.
[78] M. Journeault, "The Integrated Scorecard in support of corporate
sustainability strategies," Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 182,
pp. 214-229, 2016.
[79] A. Joyce, R. Paquin, and Y. Pigneur, "The triple layered business model
canvas: A tool to design more sustainable business models," in ARTEM
Organizational Creativity International Conference, 2015, pp. 26-27.03.
[80] S. N. Morioka, S. Evans, and M. M. de Carvalho, "Sustainable Business
Model Innovation: Exploring Evidences in Sustainability Reporting,"
Procedia CIRP, vol. 40, pp. 660-668, 2016.
[81] J.-P. Schöggl, M. M. Fritz, and R. J. Baumgartner, "Toward supply
chain-wide sustainability assessment: a conceptual framework and an
aggregation method to assess supply chain performance," Journal of Cleaner
Production, 2016.
[82] A. Svensson and S. Paramonova, "An analytical model for identifying
and addressing energy efficiency improvement opportunities in industrial
production systems–Model development and testing experiences from
Sweden," Journal of Cleaner Production, 2016.
[83] P. Arroyo, "A new taxonomy for examining the multi-role of campus
sustainability assessments in organizational change," Journal of Cleaner
Production, 2015.
[84] R. J. Baumgartner and R. Rauter, "Strategic perspectives of corporate
sustainability management to develop a sustainable organization," Journal of
Cleaner Production, vol. 140, pp. 81-92, 2017.
[85] S. I. Hallstedt, "Sustainability criteria and sustainability compliance
index for decision support in product development," Journal of Cleaner
Production, 2015.
93