IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/endesu/v22y2020i7d10.1007_s10668-019-00512-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sustainability benchmarking tool (SBT): theoretical and conceptual model proposition of a composite framework

Author

Listed:
  • Cagatay Tasdemir

    (Purdue University)

  • Rado Gazo

    (Purdue University)

  • Henry J. Quesada

    (Virginia Tech University)

Abstract

Sustainable development and sustainability notions are among trending topics of twenty-first century. Elevated sustainability concerns of various stakeholders have been forcing members of all industries to evolve into their more environmentally and socially responsible versions. However, a complete framework with a true sustainability and benchmarking focus is yet to be delivered. Within this study, an innovative, holistic, versatile and scalable tool was developed to assess and benchmark sustainability performance of organizations and supply chains. The proposed framework was established upon trivet structure of triple bottom line philosophy and fueled by lean, Six Sigma and life cycle analysis methodologies for accurate and effective measurement of sustainability performance. Completeness of the framework was ensured through development of first-generation key performance indicator pool with 33 indicators, a unique work environment assessment mechanism for safety and environmental protection issues in terms of 11 risk categories and by construction of an ownership structure for ease of framework deployment. Proposed framework is expected to help with true sustainability performance improvement and benchmarking objectives at a range of business levels from facility to sectoral operations. Both small- and medium-sized enterprises and large corporations could benefit from SBT Framework since it eliminates unit-based comparisons within its standardized performance measurement modules. Industries with lower profit margins could also gain competitive edge through continuous discovery of improvement opportunities. Furthermore, some manufacturing industries with unique characteristics such as wood products industries with their carbon sequestration potential and electric car manufacturers with their renewable energy-dependent final products could document their strengths more effectively through this science-based assessment mechanism.

Suggested Citation

  • Cagatay Tasdemir & Rado Gazo & Henry J. Quesada, 2020. "Sustainability benchmarking tool (SBT): theoretical and conceptual model proposition of a composite framework," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(7), pages 6755-6797, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:22:y:2020:i:7:d:10.1007_s10668-019-00512-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s10668-019-00512-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-019-00512-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10668-019-00512-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. de Ron, Ad J., 1998. "Sustainable production: The ultimate result of a continuous improvement," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 99-110, September.
    2. Joyce Smith Cooper & James A. Fava, 2006. "Life‐Cycle Assessment Practitioner Survey: Summary of Results," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 10(4), pages 12-14, October.
    3. Andrea Chiarini, 2012. "From Total Quality Control to Lean Six Sigma," SpringerBriefs in Business, Springer, edition 127, number 978-88-470-2658-2, October.
    4. World Commission on Environment and Development,, 1987. "Our Common Future," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780192820808.
    5. Ebert, Udo & Welsch, Heinz, 2004. "Meaningful environmental indices: a social choice approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 270-283, March.
    6. Gopalakrishnan, Kavitha & Yusuf, Yahaya Y. & Musa, Ahmed & Abubakar, Tijjani & Ambursa, Hafsat M., 2012. "Sustainable supply chain management: A case study of British Aerospace (BAe) Systems," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(1), pages 193-203.
    7. Zulfiquar N. Ansari & Ravi Kant, 2017. "Exploring the Framework Development Status for Sustainability in Supply Chain Management: A Systematic Literature Synthesis and Future Research Directions," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(7), pages 873-892, November.
    8. Cagatay Tasdemir & Rado Gazo, 2018. "A Systematic Literature Review for Better Understanding of Lean Driven Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-54, July.
    9. Sarac, Aysegul & Absi, Nabil & Dauzère-Pérès, Stéphane, 2010. "A literature review on the impact of RFID technologies on supply chain management," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(1), pages 77-95, November.
    10. Thomas Dyllick & Kai Hockerts, 2002. "Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 11(2), pages 130-141, March.
    11. Das, Kanchan, 2018. "Integrating lean systems in the design of a sustainable supply chain model," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 177-190.
    12. Torbjørn H. Netland, 2016. "Critical success factors for implementing lean production: the effect of contingencies," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(8), pages 2433-2448, April.
    13. Mohamad Monkiz Khasreen & Phillip F. G. Banfill & Gillian F. Menzies, 2009. "Life-Cycle Assessment and the Environmental Impact of Buildings: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 1(3), pages 1-28, September.
    14. Ricky Speck & Susan Selke & Rafael Auras & James Fitzsimmons, 2016. "Life Cycle Assessment Software: Selection Can Impact Results," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 20(1), pages 18-28, February.
    15. Ness, Barry & Urbel-Piirsalu, Evelin & Anderberg, Stefan & Olsson, Lennart, 2007. "Categorising tools for sustainability assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 498-508, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Eduardo García Villena & Santos Gracia Villar & Luís A. Dzul López & Roberto Marcelo Álvarez & Irene Delgado Noya & Juan Luís Vidal Mazón, 2021. "Approach to a Project Framework in the Environment of Sustainability and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): Case Study of a Training Proposal to a Group of Students in a Higher Education Instituti," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-28, September.
    2. Melike Nur Ince & Cagatay Tasdemir & Rado Gazo, 2023. "Lean and Sustainable Supplier Selection in the Furniture Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-30, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cagatay Tasdemir & Rado Gazo, 2018. "A Systematic Literature Review for Better Understanding of Lean Driven Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-54, July.
    2. Sarah Elena Windolph & Dorli Harms & Stefan Schaltegger, 2014. "Motivations for Corporate Sustainability Management: Contrasting Survey Results and Implementation," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(5), pages 272-285, September.
    3. Tan Yigitcanlar & Md. Kamruzzaman, 2015. "Planning, Development and Management of Sustainable Cities: A Commentary from the Guest Editors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(11), pages 1-12, November.
    4. Dongwook Kim & Sungbum Kim, 2017. "Sustainable Supply Chain Based on News Articles and Sustainability Reports: Text Mining with Leximancer and DICTION," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-44, June.
    5. Margherita Pero & Antonella Moretto & Eleonora Bottani & Barbara Bigliardi, 2017. "Environmental Collaboration for Sustainability in the Construction Industry: An Exploratory Study in Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-25, January.
    6. Mani, Venkatesh & Gunasekaran, Angappa & Delgado, Catarina, 2018. "Supply chain social sustainability: Standard adoption practices in Portuguese manufacturing firms," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 149-164.
    7. Eleonora Bottani & Maria Carmen Gentilotti & Marta Rinaldi, 2017. "A Fuzzy Logic-Based Tool for the Assessment of Corporate Sustainability: A Case Study in the Food Machinery Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-29, April.
    8. Pablo Muñoz & Boyd Cohen, 2018. "Sustainable Entrepreneurship Research: Taking Stock and looking ahead," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 300-322, March.
    9. Wing Chow & Yang Chen, 2012. "Corporate Sustainable Development: Testing a New Scale Based on the Mainland Chinese Context," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 105(4), pages 519-533, February.
    10. Maria Björklund & Helena Forslund, 2019. "Challenges Addressed by Swedish Third-Party Logistics Providers Conducting Sustainable Logistics Business Cases," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-15, May.
    11. Pishchulov, Grigory & Trautrims, Alexander & Chesney, Thomas & Gold, Stefan & Schwab, Leila, 2019. "The Voting Analytic Hierarchy Process revisited: A revised method with application to sustainable supplier selection," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 166-179.
    12. Francesco Di Maddaloni & Roya Derakhshan, 2019. "A Leap from Negative to Positive Bond. A Step towards Project Sustainability," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-19, June.
    13. Hsueh, Che-Fu, 2014. "Improving corporate social responsibility in a supply chain through a new revenue sharing contract," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 214-222.
    14. Diana Tuomasjukka & Staffan Berg & Marcus Lindner, 2013. "Managing Sustainability of Fennoscandian Forests and Their Use by Law and/or Agreement: For Whom and Which Purpose?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-32, December.
    15. Broekhuis, Manda & Vos, Janita F.J., 2003. "Improving organizational sustainability using a quality perspective," Research Report 03A43, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    16. Georgiadou, Maria Christina & Hacking, Theophilus & Guthrie, Peter, 2012. "A conceptual framework for future-proofing the energy performance of buildings," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 145-155.
    17. Van de Kerk, Geurt & Manuel, Arthur R., 2008. "A comprehensive index for a sustainable society: The SSI -- the Sustainable Society Index," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 228-242, June.
    18. Schilling, Markus & Chiang, Lichun, 2011. "The effect of natural resources on a sustainable development policy: The approach of non-sustainable externalities," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 990-998, February.
    19. J. Ram Pillarisetti & Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh, 2008. "Sustainable Nations: What do Aggregate Indicators tell us?," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 08-012/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    20. Viju Raghupathi & Jie Ren & Wullianallur Raghupathi, 2020. "Identifying Corporate Sustainability Issues by Analyzing Shareholder Resolutions: A Machine-Learning Text Analytics Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-24, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:22:y:2020:i:7:d:10.1007_s10668-019-00512-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.