بررسی ارزیابی مروری بر ادبیات و جهت گیری های آینده در عملکردی توسعه پایداری در صنعت گردشگری
محورهای موضوعی : علوم جغرافیا (کلیه گرایشها)
شهرام رفیعی نائینی
1
,
آتنا حرفه گر
2
,
میترا حسین پور شرف شاد
3
,
محبوبه جرجانی
4
1 -
2 - گروه آموزشی جغرافیا، دانشکده ادبیات، علوم انسانی و اجتماعی، تهران، ایران
3 - گروه آموزشی جغرافیا، دانشکده ادبیات، علوم انسانی و اجتماعی، تهران، ایران
4 - گروه آموزشی جغرافیا، دانشکده ادبیات، علوم انسانی و اجتماعی، تهران، ایران
کلید واژه: صنعت گردشگری, مهمان نوازی سبز محور, عملکرد پایداری, شاخص های پایداری, ارزیابی پایداری, تجارت پایدار.,
چکیده مقاله :
در دهه های اخیر، با نگرش به فعالیت های اقتصادی در صنعت های گردشگری و مهمان نوازی سبز محور به طور فزاینده ای به صورت ناپایدار بوده است. علیرغم تعداد بالای مقالات انتشار یافته در علم پایداری با رویکرد ها و موضوعات مختلف به شدت پراکنده بوده است. هدف از بررسی مقدماتی ارائه یک نمای کلی به صورت ساختار یافته از مقالات انتشار یافته مربوط به ارزیابی عملکرد پایداری در صنعت گردشگری و مهمان پذیری و مستند سازی از نظر وضعیت فعلی ادبیات، دسته بندی مقالات انتشار یافته، تحلیل و پیوند دادن به روندهای مورد مطالعه و همچنین برجسته کردن شکاف ها و ارائه توصیه های پژوهشی علمی است. روش و بررسی در این تحقیق پیشنهادی شامل دو مرحله متوالی روش شناختی است. ابتدا نحوه شناسایی مقالات به عنوان رویکرد جمع آوری داده ها و سپس نحوه تجزیه و تحلیل این مقالات می باشد. در این مقاله نتیجتا نشان داده می شود که مدل های ارزیابی پایداری در صنعت گردشگری و مهمان نوازی باید متعادل تر گردد، معیارها و روابط به طریقی مناسب تعریف گردد و ذهنیت معیارهای ذهنی ذاتی در شاخص های پایداری در نظر گرفته شود. برای پرداختن به این ذهنیت، می توان از سایر روش های تحلیلی و تکنیک های تصمیم گیری گروهی که می تواند با عدم قطعیت، با شاخص های متضاد و ارزیابی های زبانی مقابله نماید و در کارهای آینده مورد استفاده قرار گیرد. با ارائه شکاف‌های تحقیقاتی، در این بررسی محققان را تحریک می‌کند تا چارچوب‌های ارزیابی عملکرد پایداری عملاً قابل اجرا را ایجاد کنند تا با ارزیابی و مقایسه درجه پایداری به کمک کند و منجر به شیوه‌های تجاری پایدارتر شود. این بررسی در تعریف ارزیابی عملکرد پایداری شرکت های گردشگری و مهمان نوازی برای اولین بار، بررسی شکاف بین حسابداری پایداری و ارزیابی پایداری، و ارائه یک نمای کلی ساختار یافته از توصیه‌های پژوهشی نوآورانه در مورد ادغام روش‌های ارزیابی تحلیلی در چارچوب‌های مفهومی پایداری منحصر به فرد را ارائه می نماید.
In recent decades, the outlook for economic activities in the tourism and hospitality industries has been increasingly unstable. Despite the high number of articles published in sustainability science with different approaches and topics, it has been extremely scattered. The purpose of the preliminary review is to provide a structured overview of published articles related to the evaluation of sustainability performance in the tourism and hospitality industry and documentation in terms of the current state of the literature, categorization of published articles, analysis and linking to the studied trends. and also, to highlight gaps and provide scientific research recommendations. The method and investigation in this proposed research include two consecutive methodological steps. First, how to identify articles as a data collection approach and then how to analyze these articles. In this article, the results show that the sustainability assessment models in the tourism and hospitality industry should be more balanced, criteria and relationships should be defined in an appropriate way, and the subjectivity of subjective criteria inherent in sustainability indicators should be considered. To deal with this mentality, other analytical methods and group decision-making techniques can be used that can deal with uncertainty, conflicting indicators and linguistic evaluations and can be used in future works. By presenting research gaps, this review encourages researchers to develop practically applicable sustainability performance assessment frameworks to help assess and compare the degree of sustainability and lead to more sustainable business practices. This review defines the sustainability performance assessment of tourism and hospitality companies for the first time, examines the gap between sustainability accounting and sustainability assessment, and provides a structured overview of innovative research recommendations on the integration of analytical assessment methods into unique sustainability conceptual frameworks provides.
• Accountability, 2005. Stakeholder Engagement Standard (Exposure Draft), Exposure Draft available at: http://www.accountability.org/images/content/0/4/047/SES%20Exposure%20Draft%20-%20FullPDF.pdf.
• Acquaye, A., Feng, K., Oppon, E., Salhi, S., Ibn-Mohammed, T., Genovese, A., Hubacek, K., 2017. Measuring the environmental sustainability performance of global supply chains: a multi-regional input-output analysis for carbon, sulphur oxide and water footprints. J. Environ. Manag. 187, 571-585.
• Adams, C.A., McNicholas, P., 2007. Making a difference: sustainability reporting, accountability and organisational change. Account. Auditing Account. J. 20 (3), 382-402.
• Akadiri, P.O., Olomolaiye, P.O., Chinyio, E.A., 2013. Multi-criteria evaluation model for the selection of sustainable materials for building projects. Automation Constr. 30, 113-125.
• Alves de Albuquerque, G., Maciel, P., Lima, R.M.F., Magnani, F., 2013. Strategic and tactical evaluation of conflicting environment and business goals in green supply chains. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man, Cybern. Syst. 43 (5), 1013-1027.
• Arodudu, O., Helming, K., Wiggering, H., Voinov, A., 2017. Towards a more holistic sustainability assessment framework for agro-bioenergy systems d a review. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 62, 61-75.
• Artiach, T., Lee, D., Nelson, D., Walker, J., 2010. The determinants of corporate sustainability performance. Account. Finance 50 (1), 31-51.
• Awasthi, A., Chauhan, S.S., Goyal, S., 2010. A fuzzy multicriteria approach for evaluating environmental performance of suppliers. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 126 (2(370-378.
• Babcicky, P., 2013. Rethinking the foundations of sustainability measurement: the limitations of the environmental sustainability index (ESI). Soc. Indic. Res. 113(1), 133-157.
• Barata, J., Quelhas, O., Costa, H., Gutierrez, R., de Jesus Lameira, V., Meiriūo, M., 2014. Multi-criteria indicator for sustainability rating in suppliers of the oil and gas industries in Brazil. Sustainability 6 (3), 1107-1128.
• Barnett, J., Lambert, S., Fry, I., 2008. The hazards of indicators: insights from the environmental vulnerability index. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 98 (1), 102-119.
• Bartelmus, P., 2010. Use and usefulness of sustainability economics. Ecol. Econ. 69(11), 2053-2055.
• Bebbington, J., Brown, J., Frame, B., 2007. Accounting technologies and sustainability assessment models. Ecol. Econ. 61 (2e3), 224-236.
• Begić, F., Afgan, N.H., 2007. Sustainability assessment tool for the decision making in selection of energy system Bosnian case. Energy 32 (10), 1979-1985.
• Berardi, U., 2012. Sustainability assessment in the construction sector: rating systems and rated buildings. Sustain. Dev. 20 (6), 411-424.
• Bilbao-Terol, A., Arenas-Parra, M., CaÑal-Fernández, V., 2012. A fuzzy multi objective approach for sustainable investments. Expert Syst. Appl. 39, (12) 10904-10915.
• Boggia, A., Cortina, C., 2010. Measuring sustainable development using a multicriteria model: a case study. J. Environ. Manag. 91 (11), 2301-2306.
• Boggia, A., Rocchi, L., Paolotti, L., Musotti, F., Greco, S., 2014. Assessing rural sustainable development potentialities using a dominance-based rough set approach. J. Environ. Manag. 144, 160-167.
• Boggia, A., Massei, G., Pace, E., Rocchi, L., Paolotti, L., Attard, M., 2018. Spatial multicriteria analysis for sustainability assessment: a new model for decision making. Land Use Policy 71, 281-292.
• Böhringer, C., Jochem, P.E.P., 2007. Measuring the immeasurable - a survey of sustainability indices. Ecol. Econ. 63 (1), 1-8.
• Boiral, O., Henri, J.-F., 2015. Is sustainability performance Comparable? A study of GRI reports of mining organizations. Bus. Soc. 0007650315576134.
• Bond, A., Morrison-Saunders, A., Pope, J., 2012. Sustainability assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 30 (1), 53e62.
• Brown, H.S., de Jong, M., Levy, D.L., 2009. Building institutions based on information disclosure: lessons from GRI's sustainability reporting. J. Clean. Prod. 17 (6), 571-580.
• Buter, R.K., Raan, A.F.J.V., 2012. Identification and analysis of the highly cited knowledge base of sustainability science. Sustain. Sci. 8 (2), 253e267.
• Büyüközkan, G., Berkol, Ç., 2011. Designing a sustainable supply chain using an integrated analytic network process and goal programming approach in quality function deployment. Expert Syst. Appl. 38 (11), 13731-13748.
• Büyüközkan, G., Çifçi, G., 2011. Evaluation of the green supply chain management practices: a fuzzy ANP approach. Prod. Plan. Control 23 (6), 405-418.
• Büyüközkan, G., Çifçi, G., 2013. An integrated QFD framework with multiple formatted and incomplete preferences: a sustainable supply chain application. Appl. Soft Comput. 13 (9), 3931-3941.
• Büyüközkan, G., Karabulut, Y., 2017. Energy project performance evaluation with sustainability perspective. Energy 119, 549-560.
• Castellani, V., Sala, S., 2010. Sustainable performance index for tourism policy development. Tour. Manag. 31 (6), 871-880.
• CDP, 2014. Carbon disclosure project. available at: https://www.cdp.net/en-US/ Respond/Pages/companies.aspx. (Accessed 18 January 2015).
• Chardine-Baumann, E., Botta-Genoulaz, V., 2014. A framework for sustainable performance assessment of supply chain management practices. Comput. Industrial Eng. 76, 138-147.
• Chee Tahir, A., Darton, R.C., 2010. The Process Analysis Method of selecting indicators to quantify the sustainability performance of a business operation. J. Clean. Prod. 18 (16e17), 1598-1607.
• Cinelli, M., Coles, S.R., Kirwan, K., 2014. Analysis of the potentials of multi criteria decision analysis methods to conduct sustainability assessment. Ecol. Indic. 46, 138e148.
• Costa, R., Menichini, T., 2013. A multidimensional approach for CSR assessment: the importance of the stakeholder perception. Expert Syst. Appl. 40 (1), 150-161.
• Čućek, L., Klemeŝ, J.J., Kravanja, Z., 2012. A Review of Footprint analysis tools for monitoring impacts on sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 34, 9-20.
• Dahl, A.L., 2012. Achievements and gaps in indicators for sustainability. Ecol. Indic. 17, 14-19.
• Dai, J., Blackhurst, J., 2012. A four-phase AHP-QFD approach for supplier assessment: a sustainability perspective. Int. J. Prod. Res. 50 (19), 5474-5490.
• de Almeida Guimaráes, V., Leal Junior, I.C., 2017. Performance assessment and evaluation method for passenger transportation: a step toward sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 142 (Part 1), 297-307.
• Deloitte and Touche and BCSD, 1992. Business Strategy for Sustainable Development: Leadership and Accountability for the ’90s. DIANE Publishing Company.
• Diaz-Balteiro, L., González-Pachón, J., Romero, C., 2017. Measuring systems sustainability with multi-criteria methods: a critical review. Eur. J. Operational Res. 258(2), 607-616.
• Dick, J., Smith, R., Banin, L., Reis, S., 2014. Ecosystem service indicators: data sources and conceptual frameworks for sustainable management. Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J. 5 (3), 346e375.
• Ding, G.K.C., 2008. Sustainable construction-the role of environmental assessment tools. J. Environ. Manag. 86 (3), 451e464.
• Dinh, L.T.T., Guo, Y., Mannan, M.S., 2009. Sustainability evaluation of biodiesel production using multicriteria decision-making. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 28 (1), 38-46.
• DJSI Family Overview, 2014 available at: http://www.sustainability-indices.com/ index-family-overview/djsi-family-overview/index.jsp. (Accessed 19 February2015).
• Doukas, H., Karakosta, C., Psarras, J., 2010. Computing with words to assess the sustainability of renewable energy options. Expert Syst. Appl. 37 (7),5491-5497.
• Erol, I., Cakar, N., Erel, D., Sari, R., 2009. Sustainability in the Turkish retailing industry. Sustain. Dev. 17 (1), 49-67.
• Erol, I., Sencer, S., Sari, R., 2011. A new fuzzy multi-criteria framework for measuring sustainability performance of a supply chain. Ecol. Econ. 70 (6), 1088e1100.
• Escrig-Olmedo, E., Fernández-Izquierdo, M.-_Á., MuÑoz-Torres, M.-J., Rivera-Lirio, J.- M., 2015. Fuzzy TOPSIS for an integrative sustainability performance assessment: a proposal for wearing apparel industry. In: Gil-Aluja, J., TerceÑo- Gómez, A., Ferrer-Comalat, J.C., Merigó-Lindahl, J.M., Linares-Mustarós, S. (Eds.), Scientific Methods for the Treatment of Uncertainty in Social Sciences. Springer International Publishing, pp. 31-39.
• Ferreira, L.M.D.F., Silva, C., 2016. Integrating sustainability metrics in the supply chain performance measurement system. In: Peris-Ortiz, M., Ferreira, J.J., Farinha, L., Fernandes, N.O. (Eds.), Multiple Helix Ecosystems for Sustainable Competitiveness. Springer International Publishing, pp. 113-132.
• Figge, F., Hahn, T., 2004. Sustainable Value Added-measuring corporate contributions to sustainability beyond eco-efficiency. Ecol. Econ. 48 (2), 173-187.
• Foundation, G.S., 2012. Gold standard. Gold Stand. available at: http://www. goldstandard.org/. (Accessed 19 January 2015).
• Fowler, S.J., Hope, C., 2007. A critical review of sustainable business indices and their impact. J. Bus. Ethics 76 (3), 243-252.
• Frangopoulos, C.A., Keramioti, D.E., 2010. Multi-criteria evaluation of energy systems with sustainability considerations. Entropy 12 (5), 1006-1020.
• Garcia, S., Cintra, Y., Torres, R., de, C.S.R., Lima, F.G., 2016. Corporate sustainability management: a proposed multi-criteria model to support balanced decision-making. J. Clean. Prod. 136 (Part A), 181-196.
• García-Melón, M., Gómez-Navarro, T., AcuÑa-Dutra, S., 2012. A combined ANP-delphi approach to evaluate sustainable tourism. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 34, 41-50.
• Gasparatos, A., El-Haram, M., Horner, M., 2008. A critical review of reductionist approaches for assessing the progress towards sustainability. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 28 (4e5), 286-311.
• Gatti, L., Seele, P., 2013. Evidence for the prevalence of the sustainability concept in European corporate responsibility reporting. Sustain. Sci. 9 (1), 89-102.
• Ghadimi, P., Azadnia, A.H., Mohd Yusof, N., Mat Saman, M.Z., 2012. A weighted fuzzy approach for product sustainability assessment: a case study in automotive industry. J. Clean. Prod. 33, 10-21.
• Gjølberg, M., 2009. Measuring the immeasurable? Constructing an index of CSR practices and CSR performance in 20 countries. Scand. J. Manag. 25 (1), 10e22.
• Global Reporting Initiative, 2013. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) 4-Reporting Principles and Standard Disclosures. Reporting Principles and Standard Disclosures, Amsterdam available at: https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRIG4-Part1-Reporting-Principles-and-Standard-Disclosures. pdf.
• Goldberg, E., 2002. Aggregated Environmental Indices: Review of Aggregation Methodologies in Use. OECD, Paris, France available at: http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplydocumenpdf/? cote¼ENV/EPOC/SE%282001%292/FINAL&docLanguage¼En. (Accessed 20 February 2015).
• Govindan, K., Khodaverdi, R., Jafarian, A., 2013. A fuzzy multi criteria approach for measuring sustainability performance of a supplier based on triple bottom line approach. J. Clean. Prod. 47, 345-354.
• Goyal, P., Rahman, Z., Kazmi, A.A., 2013. Corporate sustainability performance and firm performance research: literature review and future research agenda. Manag. Decis. 51 (2), 361-379.
• Griggs, D., Stafford-Smith, M., Gaffney, O., Rockström, J., öhman, M.C., Shyamsundar, P., Steffen, W., et al., 2013. Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature 495, 305-307. Gunasekaran, A., Irani, Z., Papadopoulos, T., 2014. Modelling and analysis of sustainable operations management: certain investigations for research and applications. J. Operational Res. Soc. 65 (6), 806-823.
• Hansen, E.G., Schaltegger, S., 2016. The sustainability balanced scorecard: a systematic review of architectures. J. Bus. Ethics 133 (2), 193-221.
• Hendriksen, B., Weimer, J., McKenzie, M., 2016. Approaches to quantify value from business to society: case studies of KPMG's true value methodology. Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J. 7 (4), 474-493.
• Herva, M., Roca, E., 2013. Review of combined approaches and multi-criteria analysis for corporate environmental evaluation. J. Clean. Prod. 39, 355-371.
• Hsu, C.-W., Lee, W.-H., Chao, W.-C., 2013. Materiality analysis model in sustainability reporting: a case study at Lite-On Technology Corporation. J. Clean. Prod. 57, 142-151.
• Hu, L., Gorton, I., 1997. Performance Evaluation for Parallel Systems: a Survey, Citeseer available at. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi¼10.1.1. 12.9079&rep¼rep1&type¼pdf. (Accessed 25 January 2015).
• Hu, A.H., Chen, L.-T., Hsu, C.-W., Ao, J.-G., 2011. An evaluation framework for scoring corporate sustainability reports in taiwan. Environ. Eng. Sci. 28 (12), 843-858.
• Hubbard, G., 2009. Measuring organizational performance: beyond the triple bottom line. Bus. Strategy Environ. 18 (3), 177-191.
• Hutchins, M.J., Sutherland, J.W., 2008. An exploration of measures of social sustainability and their application to supply chain decisions. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (15), 1688-1698.
• Huth, A., Drechsler, M., K€ohler, P., 2005. Using multicriteria decision analysis and a forest growth model to assess impacts of tree harvesting in Dipterocarp lowland rain forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 207 (1), 215-232.
• Ingwersen, W., Cabezas, H., Weisbrod, A.V., Eason, T., Demeke, B., Ma, X., Hawkins, T.R., et al., 2014. Integrated metrics for improving the life cycle approach to assessing product system. Sustainability 6 (3), 1386-1413.
• Janeiro, L., Patel, M.K., 2015. Choosing sustainable technologies. Implications of the underlying sustainability paradigm in the decision-making process. J. Clean. Prod. 105, 438-446.
• Kahraman, C., Kaya, _I., 2010. A fuzzy multicriteria methodology for selection among energy alternatives. Expert Syst. Appl. 37 (9), 6270-6281.
• Kajikawa, Y., Ohno, J., Takeda, Y., Matsushima, K., Komiyama, H., 2007. Creating an academic landscape of sustainability science: an analysis of the citation network. Sustain. Sci. 2 (2), 221-231.
• Kajikawa, Y., Inoue, T., Goh, T.N., 2011. Analysis of building environment assessment frameworks and their implications for sustainability indicators. Sustain. Sci. 6(2), 233-246.
• Karger, C.R., Hennings, W., 2009. Sustainability evaluation of decentralized electricity generation. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 13 (3), 583-593.
• Keijzers, G., 2002. The transition to the sustainable enterprise. J. Clean. Prod. 10 (4), 349-359.
• Khishtandar, S., Zandieh, M., Dorri, B., 2017. A multi criteria decision making framework for sustainability assessment of bioenergy production technologies with hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets: the case of Iran. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 77, 1130-1145.
• Kim, D.B., Shin, S.-J., Shao, G., Brodsky, A., 2015. A decision-guidance framework for sustainability performance analysis of manufacturing processes. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 78 (9e12), 1455-1471.
• Kolak, O.I., Feyzioglu, O., 2016. “Sustainability Performance Evaluation of Transportation Networks Using MCDM Analysis “, Presented at the WCE 2016, IAENG. International Association of Engineers, Hong Kong.
• Kühnen, M., Hahn, R., 2015. Social indicators in corporate sustainability performance measurement. Acad. Manag. Proc. 2015 (1), 12108.
• Kylili, A., Fokaides, P.A., Lopez Jimenez, P.A., 2016. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) approach in buildings renovation for the sustainability of the built environment: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 56, 906e915.
• Lee, K.-H., Farzipoor Saen, R., 2012. Measuring corporate sustainability management: a data envelopment analysis approach. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 140 (1), 219-226.
• Li, T., Zhang, H., Yuan, C., Liu, Z., Fan, C., 2012. A PCA-based method for construction of composite sustainability indicators. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 17 (5), 593-603.
• Liu, G., 2014. Development of a general sustainability indicator for renewable energy systems: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 31, 611-621.
• Liu, G., Rasul, M.G., Amanullah, M.T.O., Khan, M.M.K., 2011. Sustainability indicator of renewable energy system based on fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making methods. Adv. Mater. Res. 361e363, 1263-1273.
• Lobos, V., Partidario, M., 2014. Theory versus practice in strategic environmental assessment (SEA). Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 48, 34-46.
• Lumsden, R.J., 2004. Sustainability assessment: the way ahead for corporate reporting. Int. Conf. Sustain. Eng. Sci. 6-9.
• Maas, K., Schaltegger, S., Crutzen, N., 2016a. Advancing the integration of corporate sustainability measurement, management and reporting. J. Clean. Prod. 133, 859-862.
• Maas, K., Schaltegger, S., Crutzen, N., 2016b. Integrating corporate sustainability assessment, management accounting, control, and reporting. J. Clean. Prod. 136(Part A), 237-248.
• Maltz, E., Bi, H.H., Bateman, M., 2016. Benchmarking sustainability performance: the next step in building sustainable business models. J. Public Aff. (p. n/a-n/a).
• Mardani, A., Jusoh, A., Zavadskas, E.K., Cavallaro, F., Khalifah, Z., 2015. Sustainable and renewable energy: an overview of the application of multiple criteria decision-making techniques and approaches. Sustainability 7 (10), 13947-13984.
• Marshall, J.D., Toffel, M.W., 2005. Framing the elusive concept of Sustainability: a sustainability hierarchy. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39 (3), 673-682.
• Mayer, A.L., 2008. Strengths and weaknesses of common sustainability indices for multidimensional systems. Environ. Int. 34 (2), 277e291.
• McElroy, M.W., Jorna, R.J., van Engelen, J., 2008. Sustainability quotients and the social footprint. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 15 (4), 223-234.
• Medel-González, F., García-Ávila, L.F., Salomon, V.A.P., Marx-Gómez, J., Hernández, C.T., Medel-González, F., García-Ávila, L.F., et al., 2016. Sustainability performance measurement with Analytic Network Process and balanced scorecard: cuban practical case. Production 26 (3), 527-539.
• Miller, P., de Barros, A.G., Kattan, L., Wirasinghe, S.C., 2016. Analyzing the sustainability performance of public transit. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 44, 177-198.
• Mir, M.Z., Rahaman, A.S., 2011. In pursuit of environmental excellence: a stakeholder analysis of the environmental management strategies and performance of an Australian energy company. Account. Auditing Account. J. 24 (7), 848-878.
• Moldan, B., Janouŝková, S., Hák, T., 2012. How to understand and measure environmental sustainability: indicators and targets. Ecol. Indic. 17, 4-13.
• Morhardt, J.E., 2010. Corporate social responsibility and sustainability reporting on the Internet. Bus. Strategy Environ. 19 (7), 436-452.
• Morioka, S.N., de Carvalho, M.M., 2016. A systematic literature review towards a conceptual framework for integrating sustainability performance into business. J. Clean. Prod. available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.104.
• Morrison-Saunders, A., Pope, J., 2013. Conceptualizing and managing trade-offs in sustainability assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 38, 54-63.
• Münnich, R., Seger, J.G., 2014. Impact of survey quality on composite indicators. Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J. 5 (3), 268-291.
• Myllyviita, T., Antikainen, R., Leskinen, P., 2017. Sustainability assessment tools e their comprehensiveness and utilisation in company-level sustainability assessments in Finland. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 24 (3), 236-247.
• Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., Hoffman, A., Giovannini, E., 2005. Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide. OECD available at: http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/? doclanguge¼en&cote¼std/doc%28200%293. (Accessed 20 February 2015).
• Neely, Andy, Gregory, Mike, Platts, Ken, 1995. Performance measurement system design. Int. J. Operations Prod. Manag. 15 (4), 80-116.
• Ness, B., Urbel-Piirsalu, E., Anderberg, S., Olsson, L., 2007. Categorizing tools for sustainability assessment. Ecol. Econ. 60 (3), 498-508.
• Nikolaou, I.E., Evangelinos, K.I., Allan, S., 2013. A reverse logistics social responsibility evaluation framework based on the triple bottom line approach. J. Clean. Prod. 56, 173-184.
• Nunes, B., Alamino, R.C., Shaw, D., Bennett, D., 2016. Modelling sustainability performance to achieve absolute reductions in socio-ecological systems. J. Clean. Prod. 132, 32-44.
• Onat, N.C., Gumus, S., Kucukvar, M., Tatari, O., 2016. Application of the TOPSIS and intuitionistic fuzzy set approaches for ranking the life cycle sustainability performance of alternative vehicle technologies. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 6, 12-25.
• Onat, N.C., Kucukvar, M., Halog, A., Cloutier, S., 2017. Systems thinking for life cycle sustainability assessment: a review of recent developments, applications, and future perspectives. Sustainability 9 (5), 706.
• Pan, T.-C., Kao, J.-J., 2009. Inter-generational equity index for assessing environmental sustainability: an example on global warming. Ecol. Indic. 9 (4), 725-731.
• Parra-López, C., Calatrava-Requena, J., de-Haro-Giménez, T., 2008. A systemic comparative assessment of the multifunctional performance of alternative olive systems in Spain within an AHP-extended framework. Ecol. Econ. 64 (4), 820-834.
• Perrini, F., Tencati, A., 2006. Sustainability and stakeholder management: the need for new corporate performance evaluation and reporting systems. Bus. Strategy Environ. 15 (5), 296-308.
• Phillis, Y.A., Kouikoglou, V.S., Manousiouthakis, V., 2010. A review of sustainability assessment models as system of systems. IEEE Syst. J. 4 (1), 15-25.
• Pinar, M., Cruciani, C., Giove, S., Sostero, M., 2014. Constructing the FEEM sustainability index: a Choquet integral application. Ecol. Indic. 39, 189-202.
• Pons, O., de la Fuente, A., 2013. Integrated sustainability assessment method applied to structural concrete columns. Constr. Build. Mater. 49, 882-893.
• Pope, J., Bond, A., Hug_e, J., Morrison-Saunders, A., 2017. Reconceptualizing sustainability assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 62, 205-215.
• Poveda, C.A., Elbarkouky, M.M.G., 2016. Hybrid process-criterion benchmarking methodology framework to support sustainability performance assessment and reporting. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 23 (3), 278-291.
• Rajak, S., Vinodh, S., 2015. Application of fuzzy logic for social sustainability performance evaluation: a case study of an Indian automotive component manufacturing organization. J. Clean. Prod. 108, 1184-1192.
• Ravetz, J., 2000. Integrated assessment for sustainability appraisal in cities and regions. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 20 (1), 31-64.
• Reisi, M., Aye, L., Rajabifard, A., Ngo, T., 2014. Transport sustainability index: Melbourne case study. Ecol. Indic. 43 (Suppl. C), 288-296.
• Ren, J., Manzardo, A., Toniolo, S., Scipioni, A., 2013. Sustainability of hydrogen supply chain. Part I: identification of critical criteria and cause effect analysis for enhancing the sustainability using DEMATEL. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 38 (33), 14159-14171.
• Rodrigues, V.P., Pigosso, D.C.A., McAloone, T.C., 2016. Process-related key performance indicators for measuring sustainability performance of ecodesign implementation into product development. J. Clean. Prod. 139, 416-428.
• Sala, S., Ciuffo, B., Nijkamp, P., 2015. A systemic framework for sustainability assessment. Ecol. Econ. 119 (Suppl. C), 314-325.
• Santos, S.F. dos, Brandi, H.S., 2015. Model framework to construct a single aggregate sustainability indicator: an application to the biodiesel supply chain. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 17 (7), 1963-1973.
• Schneider, A., Meins, E., 2012. Two dimensions of corporate sustainability assessment: towards a comprehensive framework. Bus. Strategy Environ. 21 (4), 211-222.
• Schöggl, J.-P., Fritz, M.M.C., Baumgartner, R.J., 2016. Toward supply chain-wide sustainability assessment: a conceptual framework and an aggregation method to assess supply chain performance. J. Clean. Prod. 131, 822-835.
• Searcy, C., 2011. Updating corporate sustainability performance measurement systems. Meas. Bus. Excell. 15 (2), 44-56.
• Searcy, C., 2012. Corporate sustainability performance measurement systems: a review and research agenda. J. Bus. Ethics 107 (3), 239-253.
• Searcy, C., 2014. Measuring enterprise sustainability. Bus. Strategy Environ. p. n/a-n/ a).
• Seele, P., 2016. Digitally unified reporting: how XBRL-based real-time transparency helps in combining integrated sustainability reporting and performance control. J. Clean. Prod. 136, 65-77.
• Shen, L., Li Hao, J., Tam, V.W., Yao, H., 2007. A checklist for assessing sustainability performance of construction projects. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 13 (4), 273-281.
• Shmelev, S.E., Rodríguez-Labajos, B., 2009. Dynamic multidimensional assessment of sustainability at the macro level: the case of Austria. Ecol. Econ. 68 (10), 2560-2573.
• Sikdar, S.K., Sengupta, D., Mukherjee, R., 2017. Sustainability Measurement for Technology and Business Systems: Use of Currently Available Tools for Quantification. Measuring Progress Towards Sustainability, Springer International Publishing, pp. 93-127.
• Singh, A.K., Vinodh, S., 2017. Modeling and performance evaluation of agility coupled with sustainability for business planning. J. Manag. Dev. 36 (1), 109-128.
• Singh, R.K., Murty, H.R., Gupta, S.K., Dikshit, A.K., 2007. Development of composite sustainability performance index for steel industry. Ecol. Indic. 7 (3), 565-588.
• Singh, R.K., Murty, H.R., Gupta, S.K., Dikshit, A.K., 2012. An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecol. Indic. 15 (1), 281e299.
• Székely, F., Knirsch, M., 2005. Responsible leadership and corporate social responsibility: metrics for sustainable performance. Eur. Manag. J. 23 (6), 628-647.
• Tan, Y., Ochoa, J.J., Langston, C., Shen, L., 2015. An empirical study on the relationship between sustainability performance and business competitiveness of international construction contractors. J. Clean. Prod. 93, 273-278.
• Tokos, H., Pindaric, Z.N., Krajnc, D., 2012. An integrated sustainability performance assessment and benchmarking of breweries. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 14(2), 173e193.
• Traverso, M., Asdrubali, F., Francia, A., Finkbeiner, M., 2012. Towards life cycle sustainability assessment: an implementation to photovoltaic modules. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 17 (8), 1068-1079.
• Ugwu, O.O., Haupt, T.C., 2007. Key performance indicators and assessment methods for infrastructure sustainability -a South African construction industry perspective. Build. Environ. 42 (2), 665-680.
• United Nations, 2007. Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies, third ed. United Nations, New York.
• Van de Kerk, G., Manuel, A.R., 2008. A comprehensive index for a sustainable society: the SSI - the Sustainable Society Index. Ecol. Econ. 66 (2-3), 228-242.
• van der Voet, H., van der Heijden, G.W.A.M., Renselbrink, J.W., Tromp, S.-O., Regensburg, H., van Bussel, L.G.J., van Asselt, E.D., et al., 2014. A decision supports tool for assessing scenario acceptability using a hierarchy of indicators with compensabilities and importance weights. Ecol. Indic. 43, 306-314.
• Vinodh, S., Girubha, R.J., 2012a. Sustainable concept selection using ELECTRE. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 14 (4), 651-656.
• Vinodh, S., Girubha, R.J., 2012b. PROMETHEE based sustainable concept selection. Appl. Math. Model. 36 (11), 5301-5308.
• Vinodh, S., Kamala, V., Shama, M.S., 2013. Compromise ranking approach for sustainable concept selection in an Indian modular switches manufacturing organization. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 64 (9-12), 1709-1714.
• Waheed, B., Khan, F., Veitch, B., 2009. Linkage-based frameworks for sustainability assessment: making a case for driving force-pressure-state-exposure-effect action (DPSEEA) frameworks. Sustainability 1 (3), 441-463.
• Wang, L., Lin, L., 2007. A methodological framework for the triple bottom line accounting and management of industry enterprises. Int. J. Prod. Res. 45 (5), 1063-1088.
• WCED, 1987. Our Common Future, World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). Oxford University Press, p. 383.
• Weber, O., Scholz, R.W., Michalik, G., 2010. Incorporating sustainability criteria into credit risk management. Bus. Strategy Environ. 19 (1), 39-50.
• Wibowo, S., Grandhi, S., 2016. Evaluating the sustainability performance of thermal power enterprises. In: 2016 IEEE 11th Conference on Industrial Electronics and Applications (ICIEA), Presented at the 2016 IEEE 11th Conference on Industrial Electronics and Applications (ICIEA), pp. 1754-1759.
• Williams, A., Kennedy, S., Philipp, F.,Whiteman, G., 2017. Systems thinking: a review of sustainability management research. J. Clean. Prod. 148, 866-881.
• Wilson, J., Tyedmers, P., Pelot, R., 2007. Contrasting and comparing sustainable development indicator metrics. Ecol. Indic. 7 (2), 299-314.
• Wolfs Lehner, B., Brüchert, F., Fischbach, J., Rammer, W., Becker, G., Lindner, M., Lexer, M.J., 2012. Exploratory multi-criteria analysis in sustainability impact assessment of forest-wood chains: the example of a regional case study in Baden-Württemberg. Eur. J. For. Res. 131 (1), 47-56.
• Yakovleva, N., 2007. Measuring the sustainability of the food supply chain: a case study of the UK. J. Environ. Policy & Plan. 9 (1), 75-100.
• Yao, H., Shen, L., Tan, Y., Hao, J., 2011. Simulating the impacts of policy scenarios on the sustainability performance of infrastructure projects. Automation Constr. 20(8), 1060-1069.
• Zhang, T., 2010. Environmental performance assessment of China's manufacturing. Asian Econ. J. 24 (1), 45-68.
• Zhao, H., Li, N., 2016. Performance evaluation for sustainability of strong smart grid by using stochastic AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods. Sustainability 8 (2), 129.
• Zhou, P., Ang, B.W., 2008. Indicators for assessing sustainability performance. In: Misra, P.K.B. (Ed.), Handbook of Performability Engineering. Springer London, pp. 905-918.
• Zhou, L., Tokos, H., Krajnc, D., Yang, Y., 2012. Sustainability performance evaluation in industry by composite sustainability index. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 14(5), 789-803.
• Ziegler, A., Schröder, M., Rennings, K., 2007. The effect of environmental and social performance on the stock performance of european corporations. Environ. Resour. Econ. 37 (4), 661-680.
• Zimmermann, H.-J., 1978. Fuzzy programming and linear programming with several objective functions. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1 (1), 45-55.
• Ziolkowska, J.R., 2014. Optimizing biofuels production in an uncertain decision environment: conventional vs. advanced technologies. Appl. Energy 114, 366-376.
• Zolfani, S.H., Saparauskas, J., 2014. New application of SWARA method in prioritizing sustainability assessment indicators of energy system. Eng. Econ. 24 (5) available at. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.24.5.4526.
