Selection and identification of the indicators for quickly measuring ...

S U S TA I N A B L E P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N

3 (2015) 34–44

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Production and Consumption journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/spc

Selection and identification of the indicators for quickly measuring sustainability in micro and small furniture industries Alexandre André Feil ∗ , Daniela Muller de Quevedo, Dusan Schreiber Universidade Feevale, Pós-Graduação em Qualidade Ambiental, Endereço: ERS-239, 2755, CEP 93352-000, Vila Nova, Novo Hamburgo, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

A B S T R A C T

The continued existence of life on the planet depends on the quality of the environment, which is responsible for providing humanity’s basic resources. The concept of sustainability was thought up in order to create conditions for protecting the environment. It is founded on three main aspects, namely, social, economic, and environmental. Thus, the aim of this study is to identify and select a set of indicators in order to measure the industrial sustainability of the micro and small-sized furniture industry in particular. This study follows the qualitative/quantitative exploratory method, so the text mining technique was used in the literature review, and the Delphi method was used in the application of the survey, and in its analysis, the level of consensus and weighted average. The results present a set of twelve environmental indicators, seven social and seven economic, with a cut-off criterion for the environmental and social indicators in level of consensus ≥ 0.7 and weighted average ≥ 4.5, and for the economic indicators in LC ≥ 0.5 and WA ≥ 4.2. The selected indicators are in line with the desired qualities and necessary characteristics to make these industries more sustainable. It is concluded that the proposed set of indicators entails a holistic view which covers the triple bottom line, selected based on the criterion for quick measurement of sustainability and its specific application in micro and small furniture industries. Keywords: Indicators selection model; Sustainability indicators; Delphi method; Text mining technique; Rapid assessment c 2015 The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. ⃝

1.

Introduction

The transformations our planet is facing have disrupted the environmental balance, and human beings are the main cause of these changes, which include deforestation, extinction of animal species, pollution (of the water, soil, and air), greenhouse gases, changes in climate, global warming, exhausting of natural resources, and more. To Krajnc and Glavic (2003), these changes were brought on by unsustainable production and consumption on a global scale. The subject of sustainability, in particular, is therefore essential in

mitigating damage that human beings cause the environment (Chen et al., 2013). The aim of sustainability here is to encourage industries to measure and evaluate their pollution levels, and to identify the direction and changes necessary to reach sustainable equilibrium (Erol et al., 2009). The obstacle pointed out by Linnenluecke and Griffiths (2010) concerns the lack of knowledge of sustainable practices and measurement. Measuring sustainability with the use of performance indicators is the most effective way to go about it (Staniskis and Arbaciauskas, 2009). However, the identification and selection

∗ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A.A. Feil), [email protected] (D.M. de Quevedo), [email protected] (D. Schreiber). Received 13 June 2015; Received in revised form 19 August 2015; Accepted 24 August 2015; Published online 7 September 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2015.08.006 c 2015 The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. 2352-5509/⃝


of the indicators, besides being the essence of sustainable measurement, still requires a consensus in defining the ideal indicator and methodology for its measurement (Bork et al., 2014). Most studies on measuring corporate sustainability have been done on large organizations, without complementing the specificities of micro and small-sized companies. Micro and small-sized companies play a fundamental role in global economy (Aragón-Correa et al., 2008). Redmond et al. (2008) warn that the sum of the environmental impact caused by micro and small-sized companies is of greater intensity than that of large corporations. In the business world, industries are widely recognized as essential parts in the development and creation of wealth for human society (Herva et al., 2011) and as important sources of employment (Azapagic, 2004). On the other hand, industries are among the main sources of pollution, degradation, and overuse of natural resources (Herva et al., 2011), disturbances in landscape, and threats to the health and safety of workers and of the rest of society (Azapagic, 2004). Therefore, industries, as important social factors, ought to implement more sustainable production options (Azapagic and Perdan, 2000). Industries face the challenge of contributing to the well-being of the current generation, without compromising a better quality of life for future generations (Singh et al., 2007). In this context, the aim of this study is to identify and select a set of indicators to measure the industrial sustainability of micro and small-sized furniture industries. The reason for choosing the furniture sector is the fact that the production of furniture is among the ones that most drives global economy (Grael and Oliveira, 2010; Gabiati et al., 2014). It must also be noted that this sector features specific characteristics: intense environmental degradation, and high levels of waste in operational activities (Grael and Oliveira, 2010). To Lima and Silva (2005), and Ferreira and Gorayeb (2008), if the furniture industry, known for its high-volume consumption of raw forest materials, were exploited and utilized in a sustainable manner, the result would be reduced environmental impact; if this helped conserve native forests, it would prevent the use of rough lumber in civil construction and export. This study is therefore original and contributes to the exploration of the topic of sustainability, particularly in the preservation of the environment, which supports the current and future existence of the human species on this planet.

2.

Theoretical frame of reference

2.1.

Micro and small industries and sustainability

In Brazil, the classification of company sizes can be done using different criteria, such as the number of employees, billing, occupation, and more (Ricci, 2010; Vasconcelos, 2012). In this study, the classification of company sizes is based on IBGE (2015) and Sebrae (2015) criteria, which categorize it based on the number of employees and the occupation. These authors categorize micro companies as those that register up to 19 individuals working in the industry, and small companies as those with between 20 and 99 individuals working in the industry. Therefore, companies that employ not more than 99 individuals are considered micro and small industry companies. Micro and small-sized companies come with particularities due to their size, such as Leone (1991); Mintzberg (2003):

3 (2015) 34–44

35

(a) simple organizational structure; (b) lack of strict division of labor; (c) supervision is direct; (d) centralization of summit activities; (e) there is minimal management hierarchy; (f) deep integration among the local community; (g) own or family labor; (h) the power over decisions is attributed only to the chief executive; (i) procedures are not official; and (j) the use of training and planning is minimal. Management over micro and small-sized companies is jeopardized by Vasconcelos (2012): (a) Informality of administrative structure; (b) Information communication; (c) Lack of a defined strategy—the managers use their intuition (Lima et al., 2006; Ricci, 2010); and (e) Lack of resources, limiting the capacity of the managers and employees and the acquiring of technology. Micro and small industries also pollute the environment with their activities, despite not noticing the impact they are making (Mitchell et al., 2011). This lack of awareness has caused the implementation of sustainable attitudes to slow down (Mckeiver and Gadenne, 2005). Redmond et al. (2008) asserted that 39% of small companies do not believe they have any kind of negative impact on the environment, and that those that keep up with environmental matters take no further action than what is required by law. The environmental impact that can be attributed to micro and small-sized companies, specifically to the industrial sector, is estimated to be 64% in Europe (Calogirou et al., 2010). Thus, in light of this environmental impact, one can say that companies which are micro or small in size need to incorporate sustainability into their operations as well (Chen et al., 2014). Micro and small industries have advantages when compared to large corporations, in terms of the possibility of implementing environmental management and/or sustainability practices, such as Aragón-Correa et al. (2008): (a) the size of the business: micro and small industries react more quickly to business changes in terms of sustainability; (b) Reduced number of workers, which makes the implementation of the environmental or sustainable strategy easier, with lower costs of training and less bureaucracy; and (c) closer inter-departmental connection: there is more interaction between departments, allowing for better conditions of communication and the building of personal relationships, a unified culture, and a stronger identity. The disadvantages of micro and small industries as opposed to large corporations include: (a) reduced level of technical knowledge on matters of sustainability (Seuring et al., 2003; Condon, 2004); (b) precarious level of management and financial resources necessary to conduct management, the strategic attitude, the sector and location of the company (Redmond et al., 2008); and (c) reduced level of resources in terms of personnel, time, and capital required for the implementation of sustainability (Azapagic, 2003; Thiede et al., 2013). In this context, micro and small industries require specific guidelines for matters related to measuring and assessing sustainability (Borga et al., 2009). The amount of effort put into collecting the information and assessing sustainability in micro and small industries needs to be as little as possible (Azapagic, 2003). Also, a simpler structure of indicators needs to be developed for micro and small industries, because the structure used by large corporations is considered complex and time-consuming (Azapagic, 2004).

36


3 (2015) 34–44

Fig. 1 – Furniture supply chain. Label: (1) Solid Wood: sawn or lathed, green or dry (air or kiln-dried), or glued blocks. Eucalyptus and Pinus elliottii are the main types of wood used. (2) Panels: wood laminate, plywood, particle board, fiberboard (hard boards and MDF), and more. (3) Chemical Products: inks, varnishes, adhesives, resins, pastes, and more. (4) Plastics: plastic for injection, films, laminates, foams, components (handles, hinges, frames and tape). (5) Metals: flat or tubular steel and components (handles, hinges, and slides). (6) Veneer: textiles, with natural or artificial leathers. Other materials not described above: abrasives, welding, sewing material, bonding foam, plastic laminate, and more. Source: Brazil-IPT (2002, p. 47).

2.2. Characteristics of the Brazilian furniture industrial system In 2013, the total number of furniture industries was 18,248, and in the state of Rio Grande do Sul (RS) there were 2255 furniture industries (Rais, 2013). Micro and small industries engaged in the production of furniture represent on average 98%, while medium and large-sized companies represented 2% (Brde, 2006; Ferreira and Gorayeb, 2008). Almost all micro and small furniture industries are familyowned. They are limited in their management and financial resources, and face difficulties building and appropriating competitive advantages, so there has been a need for organization at furniture manufacturing plants (Ferreira and Gorayeb, 2008; Deimling, 2014). Argenta (2007) stresses that furniture industries are very much fragmented, with a high level of micro and small-sized companies, capital which is for the most part national, and a substantial amount of labor employment. These plants are mainly found in the cities of Bento Gonçalves (RS), São Bento do Sul (SC), Arapongas (PR), Mirassol, and Votuporanga (SP), as well as in Ubá and Linhares (ES) (Gabiati et al., 2014), and as such, this arrangement of production sites strengthens the production process between the companies. Furniture industries in Brazil make use of vertical production processes in their organization, developing various stages of production, from wood drying to assembly, to packaging of the final product (Brde, 2006). The production process is vertically integrated due to the reduced number of companies specializing in the production of parts or components (Deimling, 2014). The structure of furniture production, in the Brazilian sphere of activities, in the origin stage (Fig. 1), the main raw material used is wood from planted forests, such as pine and eucalyptus (Schneider et al., 2003; Argenta, 2007; Ferreira and Gorayeb, 2008). With regard to raw materials (Fig. 1), a

large variety of elements is used, from synthetic to metallic (Argenta, 2007). Furniture industries produce a wide variety of products, such as kitchen and bathroom supplies, upholstered furniture, and more, considering the market and technical accessibility. The segment supplies residential, office, and institutional clients (Gabiati et al., 2014; Sellitto et al., 2014; Deimling, 2014). The types of product come in straight segments or lathed (Gorini, 1998; Ferreira and Gorayeb, 2008). The furniture industry is segmented as well (Ferreira and Gorayeb, 2008): (a) predominantly raw material in production; (b) intended use; (c) organization implemented in the production process; and (d) the design of the furniture. The RS furniture plant specializes in the production of modular furniture and the main raw materials are MediumDensity Fiberboard (MDF), Medium-Density Particleboard (MDP), and hardwood (Schneider et al., 2003; Sellitto et al., 2014). Sindmóveis (2013) adds that the manufacturing of furniture using pine wood and metallic tubing lies on the smaller end of the scale. Thus, the furniture is divided up into: wooden, metal, plastic, and upholstered furniture (Deimling, 2014). In furniture industries, according to Schneider et al. (2003) and Lima and Silva (2005), there is a lack of information regarding the nature and quantity of generated waste in the production process. Schneider et al. (2003) point out significant generation of wood waste (sawdust, shavings, scraps), electrical power consumption to operate machinery, consumption of water (only in the painting process); generation of paint sludge (problems with disposal, many industries eliminate and even reduce this process by using panels decked with synthetic laminate and installing painting booths), among others of no less importance. Throughout the process of transforming wood, between 40 and 60% of the total roast volume is used (Olandoski, 2001). The generation of wood waste classified as firewood is made up of 71% of waste, 22% sawdust, and 7% shavings (Brito,


1995). Olandoski (2001) points out that a factor related to wood waste generation is the quality of the industrial process (sharpening and angle of the cutting tools, moisture content of the wood) and employees (qualification and training). Wood waste constitutes low-level pollution, but the storing of this waste is problematic, which leads to open-air burnings or burnings not intended to generate energy, and the release of gases into the atmosphere, which are potential pollutants (Lima and Silva, 2005). The waste generated by the use of wood includes dust, shavings, and chips; waste generated from the packaging of the raw material includes paper, plastics, metal scraps, paint cans, staples, metal bands, and more; and waste generated from the production process includes used sandpaper, swept up factory debris (miscellaneous, see raw material used, mixed), textiles, glass, metals, slag, and more; and the liquid waste generated includes paint solvents, paint sludge and water used during painting (Lima and Silva, 2005).

2.3. Selection and identification of indicators of sustainability for micro and small industry The purpose of having indicators of sustainability is to simplify information (Singh et al., 2012), quantify it (Veleva et al., 2001; Azapagic, 2004; Singh et al., 2012), analyze it (Singh et al., 2012) and to transmit complex information in a simpler manner (Azapagic, 2004; Patlitzianas et al., 2008; Singh et al., 2012), as well as to optimize original, pertinent information. These indicators form a simple, accessible solution for quick sustainability assessments (Linke et al., 2013). Thus, indicators of sustainability allow for the determination of whether an industry is close to or far from being sustainable (Veleva et al., 2001; Azapagic, 2004; Lodhia and Martin, 2014). It is not possible to measure all information of a given system using indicators of sustainability, regardless of the quantity and quality of the indicators used (Azapagic, 2004; Searcy et al., 2007; Lodhia and Martin, 2014; Chee Tahir and Darton, 2010). There are a number of desirable qualities which must be met in the process of selecting and identifying the indicators of sustainability, such as Bossel (1999), Veleva and Ellenbecker (2001), Searcy et al. (2007) and Patlitzianas et al. (2008): (a) information must be reliable (valid, available, accurate, accessible data); (b) measurable, reproducible, easy to apply and assess; (c) identified and selected in an open process with the participation of the stakeholders; (d) feasibly compared between companies temporally; (e) simple, yet meaningful, taking into account a set of indicators, main ones and additional ones; (f) measured qualitatively and quantitatively; (g) approached from a holistic point of view (from start to finish); (h) the content of the indicators must be clear, understandable, and transparent, and (i) must be flexible in terms of time and of an appropriate temporal and spatial scale. It is pointed out that the desirable quality of the indicators consists of main ones and additional ones, and such indicators may be selected and identified using top-down and bottom-up approaches, respectively (Lähtinen et al., 2014). In the top-down approach, the indicators are selected by experts and/or researchers, or based on literature reviews, and may be used in any company (Chee Tahir and Darton, 2010). In the bottom-up approach, the indicators may be identified by means of the systematic participation of various local stakeholders, as specific indicators for a given activity and/or company size (Kurka and Blackwood, 2013). Therefore,

3 (2015) 34–44

37

the selection and identification of indicators must be done in a mixed manner, selecting main indicators in a topdown manner and additional indicators using a bottom-up approach (Chee Tahir and Darton, 2010; Turcu, 2013). The approach for measuring the indicators of sustainability must coincide qualitatively (unquantifiable) and quantitatively (quantifiable) speaking (Dakaki et al., 2006; Staniskis and Arbaciauskas, 2009). The disadvantage of using the quantitative approach to measure sustainability in micro and small industries is the time spent, due to the complexity and necessary information to do the calculations (Kinderyte, 2010). The advantages of using the qualitative approach in this measurement for micro and small industries is its efficiency in terms of time, ease of use, and the fact that it is geared towards the creation of ideas on sustainability instead of precise evaluation (Kinderyte, 2008). The proper quality of the indicators, which are to be easy to apply and evaluate, is an item of importance when it comes to selecting and identifying the indicators of sustainability in micro and small companies, as the measurement of sustainability ought to be quick and easy (Chen et al., 2014). This tool for easy application must meet the following requirements (Chen et al., 2013, 2014): (a) a holistic view of sustainability (triple bottom line); (b) gathering and assessing sustainability information must be carried out quickly, within approximately two hours, due to limited personnel, time, and resources; and (c) the applicability of the tool must be broad, that is, with respect to the size and the activity, as it will thus allow for comparisons between companies. The indicators of sustainability must also feature, in addition to the proper qualities, specifications and/or characteristics taken from the studies by Veleva and Ellenbecker (2001), Patlitzianas et al. (2008), and take into account: (a) the followup and calculation period (year, quarter, two-month period or monthly); (b) the limit, that is, the level of applicability in the hierarchical organization (product line, installations, product life cycle and/or suppliers); (c) the unit of measurement (numbers, kilograms, tons, dollars, percentage, and hours); (d) type of measurement: adjusted (energy per product unit or service per year) or absolute (total energy per year in KWh), qualitative or quantitative; and Patlitzianas et al. (2008), in addition to (e) the unique alphanumerical indicator identification; (f) its name, describing its particular designation; (g) definition of the essential features and function; and (h) founded and referenced on a theoretical basis or pre-developed, with technical and scientific adequacy. Krajnc and Glavic (2003) and Lcsp (2015) identified a set of essential conditions that industries must adhere to in order to be sustainable: (a) reduction and conservation of the use of materials and energy in products and in the production system (Krajnc and Glavic, 2003; Herva et al., 2011); (b) reduction (elimination) of waste; (c) reuse (recycling) of defective products or ones at the end of their life cycle; (d) disposal of chemical substances, non recyclable products or production waste that might be a hazard to the environment and human health, in an environmentally appropriate sense; (e) the products and packages must be designed to be durable, safe, and environmentally friendly, along with the application of clean production technologies throughout the lifecycle; Lcsp (2015), in addition to the fact that (f) the safety, well-being, continuous development of talent and employee training must be a priority; and (g) the public surrounding the work site must be respected and accommodated in all things economic, social, cultural, and physical.

38


3 (2015) 34–44

Fig. 2 – Part of the presentation of the set of indicators using the Delphi method. Source: Authors, extracted from the survs software.

3.

Methods and procedures

The research method for this study is divided into two stages: (1) Literature review to identify the indicators of sustainability most often used in industrial companies; and (2) Use of the Delphi method to select the main indicators and to identify the additional indicators of sustainability.

3.1.

Literature review

The type of research, in terms of the approach, is qualiquantitative. In this study, the qualitative approach refers to the analysis and interpretation of textual information. The quantitative approach is tied to the use of statistical tools to gather information, such as frequency, for later analysis. The technical procedure carried out is the systematic review of the literature (see Ridley, 2008), observing the characteristics of a structured, transparent process. Thus, the results and analyses can be verified and may also be replicated by other researchers. The researched literature covers national and foreign publications in Portuguese and English, limited to scientific articles; there was no specific time frame. The keywords in English used in the periodical databases were sustainability, measuring, and industry; in Portuguese: sustainability, measuring, and industry. These three words were entered into the advanced search of the periodicals, and these words must appear in the title, abstract, and keywords. A total of 1077 scientific articles were gathered, distributed as such: Science Direct (24); Springer Link (595); Wiley Online Library (62); Scopus (229); CAPES periodical portal (in English, 110; in Portuguese, 53); and in the SciELO—Scientific Electronic Library Online (in English, 4; in Portuguese 0). These articles were gathered between December 10th and 15th, 2014. Once the gathering was completed, the titles and abstracts were read, selecting only articles that dealt with sustainability and triple bottom line, on an industry level, along with the selection of a table of indicators, with or without an index. This reading led to the selection of 23 scientific articles, distributed between 1998 and 2014, such as: Fiksel et al. (1998), Callens and Tyteca (1999), Azapagic and Perdan (2000), Veleva and Ellenbecker (2001), Seuring et al. (2003), Krajnc and Glavic (2003), Keeble et al. (2003), Azapagic (2003), Azapagic (2004), Krajnc and Glavic (2005), Labuschagne et al. (2005), Nordheim and Barrasso (2007), Singh et al. (2007), Delai and Takahashi (2008), Staniskis and Arbaciauskas (2009); Erol et al. (2009),

Kinderyte (2010), Lee and Saen (2012), Tokos et al. (2012), Zhou et al. (2012), Li et al. (2012), Linke et al. (2013), Bork et al. (2014) and Chen et al. (2014). The identification of the indicators for each of the aspects of the triple bottom line came to a total of 930 (with repetitions). All of these indicators were organized into sets, and with the use of text mining (see Feldman and Sanger, 2007), the expressions or words which appeared more frequently in these indicators were calculated. Textalyser was the tool used in the application of this technique, available online (http://textalyser.net/index.php?lang=en#analysis). The report generated using the Textalyser was reviewed to identify the most frequent words and/or expressions.

3.2.

Use of the Delphi method

The research at this stage has a qualitative and quantitative approach. The technical procedure used was the Delphi method, applied to interdisciplinary researchers (doctors only) to assess the relevance of the set of indicators determined by the text mining technique (Section 3.1), with a fivepoint likert scale (Fig. 2) (see Padilha, 2009 and Ribeiro and Heller, 2014). We chose the Delphi method because it meets the challenge of generating a set of balanced indicators of sustainability by integrating the knowledge of a group of interdisciplinary researchers with different opinions (Hwang et al., 2006). To Hugé et al. (2010), selecting a set of sustainability indicators based on researchers is considered the most relevant and the first step in developing a consistent framework of these indicators. The Delphi method was used according to the methodology applied by Seely et al. (1980), Miller (2001) and Hugé et al. (2010). These authors used the following procedure: (a) compiling a set of sustainability indicators through literature review; (b) using these previously selected indicators for a presentation to the researchers using the Delphi method; (c) from this presentation, researchers will give grade the relevance of the indicators using a likert scale. Thus, the review of the sustainability indicators present in Section 3.1 (text mining technique) was presented to the Feevale and UNIVATES researchers using the Delphi method so as to assess their degree of relevance. The set of indicators pre-selected by the text mining technique was divided into environmental, social and economic indicators; and each of these dimensions was split into aspects, for example, the environmental dimension into


the energy aspect (Fig. 2), and this aspect presents the energy indicators; for each aspect there was a blank space where the researchers could contribute by suggesting other relevant indicators, in addition to those found during the literature review. The set of indicators was made available to the researchers through the survs software (online), available at www.survs.com. This software was chosen for its ease of generating the reports of the respondents and for its information accessibility. The survey was available to all researchers at the Feevale University (114) and UNIVATES University Center (70) from different areas of knowledge (interdisciplinary). Contact was made by email, where there was a letter introducing the research and a link that led to the survey. The choice of this group of researchers was due to the fact that these universities (Feevale and UNIVATES) are the only ones with graduate programs (masters and doctorate) in the environmental area – Environmental Quality and Environment and development, respectively – in the state of Rio Grande South—Brazil (see Capes, 2015). In this sense, these researchers, besides their interdisciplinary view, conduct research and studies in the field of sustainability or related to it, especially in micro and small furniture enterprises. Before submitting the set of indicators to researchers at survs, the purpose of the study was described, as per Miller’s suggestion (2001), containing: (a) the origin of the pre-selected indicators; (b) the size and activity of the industry which the indicators that were being evaluated would be applied to, that is, the micro- and small-sized industries of up to 100 employees and the furniture industry in Bento Gonçalves—RS; (c) a description of the production process of these industries, from the types of raw materials used to the characterization of waste generated; (d) the idea that the indicators should obey the rapid assessment of the sustainability lasting around two hours; and (e) the benefits and harm to society and the environment caused by the furniture industry. The survey respondents were 22 researchers from different areas of knowledge such as: Business, Accounting, Engineering, Literature and Linguistics, Chemistry/Biochemistry, Health Sciences, Architecture, Economics, Biotechnology, Environmental Sciences, and Organizational Psychology. The validation of the number of respondents is justified because Wright and Giovinazzo (2000) state that this number can vary, but should observe a minimum of three participants; like in the studies by Choi and Sirakaya (2006) and Hugé et al. (2010), where the respondents were 25 and seven, respectively. The analysis of the indicators cut-off assessed by the 22 researchers was based on statistics, analysis of Weighted Average (WA) and the level of consensus (LC). These analyses are validated by Miller (2001) when he says that all studies using the Delphi method are satisfied with these tests. Thus, the environmental and social dimension indicators that had WA ≥ 0.7 and LC ≥ 4.5, and the indicators of the economic dimension that had WA ≥ 0.5 and LC ≥ 4.2 were selected to compose the set of indicators used to rapidly measure the sustainability of micro and small furniture companies. These cut-off parameters are validated by Salmond (1994) indicating that the LC can range from 0.5 to 0.8, thus indicators can be validated at the first round as long as there in a desirable LC in the answers. Furthermore, Scarparo et al. (2012) point out that the LC is a decision of the researcher, and that there is no standard rule for its determination. It is important to mention that the Delphi method is not a decisionmaking tool, but a tool for analysis; therefore, it does not aim

3 (2015) 34–44

39

to reach a definitive answer, but simply to assist in developing possible solutions, which agree with Kaynak and Macauley (1984) and Hugé et al. (2010). Chu and Hwang (2007) define that the minimum requirement for the cut-off point is a 0.7 level of consensus regarding a specific item in evaluation; in this way, for the environmental and social dimensions a cutoff of 0.7 was used, and in the economic dimension the cut-off was 0.5, agreeing with Salmond (1994). The differentiation of LC, in particular, in the economic dimension is the amount resulting from the evaluation indicators, since with a LC of 0.7 there would be only two indicators, which would be insufficient to assess economic sustainability. The WA used as the cut-off point by Choi and Sirakaya (2006), Chu and Hwang (2007) and Hugé et al. (2010) includes the parameter ≥ 3.5; in this sense, even using a LC of 0.5 in the economic dimension, its WA would be ≥4.2 in a scale of 1–5.

3.3.

Method and research limitations

The limitations of the method used in this study are linked to the use of the Delphi method and the choice of the research group. The Delphi method is not a decision-making tool, it only assists in a more accurate analysis of the selection of sustainability indicators for micro and small furniture companies. Therefore, a decision regarding the selection of indicators is done with the joint cut-off of WA and LC, which are set subjectively, although they agree with the literature. It should be noted that the number of selected indicators could increase or decrease by changing the cut-off point, but it should be understood that the idea of this study is the rapid assessment and thus the number of indicators should be reduced and include as much information in their assessment as possible. The group of researchers for applying the Delphi method evaluated the indicators based specifically on this group, but if another group had been chosen, for example, managers from furniture companies, the results of the WA and LC could have been different. However, it is emphasized that the idea of this study is precisely to perform an independent assessment, that is, outside the furniture industry, thus giving greater credibility to the selected indicators. The limitation of the research is that it only selected the indicators; it did not perform a case study to investigate and analyze the results of its practical application. It is noteworthy that the selected indicators in this research are valid only for evaluating industries belonging to the furniture segment of Bento Gonçalves—RS—Brazil. The selection of sustainability indicators in other furniture segments can use the methodology described in this study, which can lead to the selection of other indicators.

4.

Results and discussions

4.1.

Results and analyses of the literature review

The results obtained from the literature review are indicated in Table 1, with a total of 77 indicators, and show that the environmental indicators of sustainability (37) with the greatest frequency include effluents, emissions, products, power, raw materials, water, the environment, among others. These results are also mentioned in the essential conditions for industries regarding sustainability, a subject approached by Krajnc and Glavic (2003) and Herva et al. (2011), Bork et al.

40


3 (2015) 34–44

Table 1 – Main indicators obtained from a review of 23 scientific articles on industrial activity. Source: Authors. Environmental aspect

Social aspect

Economic aspect

Solid waste, specific and total Liquid waste, specific and total Hazardous waste Waste disposal Wastewater effluent Recycling of waste Atmospheric emissions [COx, NOx, SOx]

Employee turnover rate Lay-offs Creation of new jobs Employee satisfaction Employee training and development Employee education Serious and fatal accidents (frequency and number)

Substances that damage the ozone layer Air and rain acidification Greenhouse gases Recycling of products Reuse of products Packaging [biodegradable, reusable] Product disassembly following use Product durability Analysis of the life cycle of the product Development of green products Renewable energy consumption Non-renewable energy consumption Efficiency of energy consumed Extent of energy utilization Consumption of renewable materials Consumption of non-renewable materials Hazardous materials used Compliance with environmental regulations Environmental liabilities (fines, violations) Environmental certification Cost of compliance Protected areas Loss/reduction of biodiversity Environmental impact Restoration of contaminated soil System of environmental management Expenditure on environmental protection Innovation in environmental management Water consumption per source Eutrophication

Types of illnesses avoided Health and safety Suspension due to accidents Occupational illnesses Employee health evaluation Child labor Sexual harassment Violence Opportunity and equality Noise complaints Odor complaints Complaints of dust Customer satisfaction Product eco-labels Business ethics Corruption and/or bribery Charities and donations Quality of life Partnerships Dissemination of the results on sustainability Population growth Community projects Involving stakeholders in decision making Supplier assessment

(2014) and Lcsp (2015). Note that the greatest concern of these studies revolves around the stages involving the lifecycle of the product. This consideration is also made by Mayyas et al. (2012), who assert that the product cycle (from start to finish) begins with the extraction and processing of materials, then on to manufacturing, distribution, use, and lastly, at the end of the cycle, in its reuse or recycling. The social indicators (31) (Table 1) are most frequently related to the aspects which involve employment, training, education, health and safety, child and slave labor, complaints from customers and the community, ethics and integrity, local communities, and more. These aspects are also mentioned by Lcsp (2015) as essential aspects of sustainability, in terms of analyzing an industry on a social level. The economic indicators (9) cited most frequently concern the aspect of economic performance, market presence, and purchasing practices. It is stressed that the selection of adequate indicators of sustainability is the most important process in measuring sustainability, as it is not the number of indicators which interferes, but rather the quality of the selected indicators to demonstrate the positive and negative points of a complex system in a simple set of indicators and/or indices. This was also the finding of Erol et al. (2009). In this respect, Székely and Knirsch (2005) and Bork et al. (2014) emphasize that the method of rapidly assessing industrial sustainability

Revenue Operating profit Net profit Shareholder compensation Tax payments PIB contribution Operational costs and expenses Wages Local suppliers

must be easy to implement in the gathering of information (reliable data), practice, and indicate the actions to be taken by the company. However, the big challenge here is the lack of knowledge for an adequate selection of indicators of holistic sustainability, which is also pointed out by Tokos et al. (2012). The selected indicators consist of main indicators (topdown approach), which were identified using the literature— but which could also be obtained based on sets of indicators, such as the GRI, CSD, IChemE, ISO, among others. The selection of indicators using the literature affords the most suitability at an industrial level, since the sets of indicators (GRI, CSD, IChemE, ISO) usually consist of a large number of indicators, and in this case, include those which are applicable to commercial, service, and industrial companies.

4.2.

Results and analyses using the Delphi method

Applying the Delphi method to the 22 researchers (Feevale and UNIVATES) for assessing the sustainability indicators from Table 1 resulted in the selection of the environmental and social indicators that obtained a level of consensus ≥ 0.7 with a weighted average ≥ 4.5. The resulting indicators comprise these aspects (triple bottom line): environmental (12), social (7), and economic (7) (Table 2). No contribution was made by the researchers with regard to the additional indicators, so these indicators consist of main indicators


41

3 (2015) 34–44

Table 2 – Main and additional indicators obtained in a consensus using the Delphi method. Source: Authors. Dimensions and indicators

Likert scale

Environmental

5

Generation of dangerous waste Waste disposal Effluent treatment Recycling of waste Atmospheric emissions [Cox, NOx, SOx] Recycling of products Reuse of products Renewable energy consumption Efficiency of energy consumed Consuming renewable materials Adherence to environmental standards Water consumption

15 15 17 18 17 15 15 15 15 15 18 16

Social

5

Employee satisfaction Employee training and development Serious and fatal accidents (frequency and number) Employee health evaluation Child labor Complaints of dust Business ethics

14 14 14 15 14 14 14

Economic

5

Recipes Operating profit Net profit Tax payments Operational costs Comparison of the wages with the value set by the market Local suppliers

12 13 14 14 8 8 8

(top-down) and additional ones (bottom-up). This result might have been obtained by preforming a literature review (described in Section 2.1) to select the indicators, where these indicators already consisted of main and additional indicators, so only the number of indicators was reduced. The number of indicators selected under the environmental aspect is the largest, consisting of 46% of the indicators, regarding the social and the economic. This result is in accordance with the view of Low and Gleeson (2003), who stress that the environmental aspect must be the main priority, holding precedence over the social and economic aspects. It must be stressed that the environment is essential to the continued existence of human beings on the planet. It is noted that various indicators did not meet the level of consensus, included among which you have the generation of liquid waste, environmental management system, shareholder compensation, contribution to the GDP, revenue, odor complaints, types of illnesses avoided, compliance costs, hazardous materials used, and more. The exclusion of these indicators due to the lack of consensus may have occurred as a result of these indicators being difficult to measure, not adhering to furniture or micro/small industry activities, and requiring a great deal of time and funds to control, which is corroborated by Erol et al. (2009). The confirmation of the indicators (Table 2) must also be analyzed for the appropriate indicator qualities. These qualities in particular: having a database of accessible, accurate information, decided using an open process (stakeholders), simple, but meaningful, with a holistic view encompassing the entire lifecycle of the process, suggested by Bossel (1999), Veleva and Ellenbecker (2001), Azapagic (2004), Nordheim and

4

3

2

1

LC

WA

3 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1

0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7

4.5 4.6 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.8 4.7

3

2

1

LC

WA

1 0 1 1 1 0 0

0 0 0 0 3 0 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7

4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.3 4.7 4.6

4

3

2

1

LC

WA

6 6 5 5 11 11 10

2 2 1 1 1 1 3

1 0 1 1 1 1 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5

4.4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.2 4.2 4.2

4 6 5 3 4 6 6 6 6 5 4 5 4 6 7 6 5 3 7 6

Barrasso (2007), Searcy et al. (2007) and Patlitzianas et al. (2008), adhered to the indicators selected. Another comparative analysis was done which took into account essential conditions which industries need to observe in order to be sustainable, according to Krajnc and Glavic (2003) and Lcsp (2015): reduction and conservation of the use of energy put into products and the production system (Krajnc and Glavic, 2003; Herva et al., 2011); reduction (prevention) of waste, reuse (recycling) of products which are defective or at the end of their useful life, disposal of chemical substances, environmentally friendly products, health and safety, the continuous development of talent and employee training, respect for the local community, and an economic, social, cultural, and physical boost. Thus, this comparison also falls in line, corroborating the efficiency in selecting the indicators of sustainability. Thus, in the next steps it must be analyzed and observed that the effort employed in collecting and assessing information through the sustainability indicators in micro and small-sized industries must be minimal.

5.

Conclusion

The level of environmental quality is essential to the continued existence of life on the planet, because all of the resources necessary to support human and animal life come from the environment. The purpose of this study, therefore, is to select and identify a set of indicators for quickly measuring sustainability in the furniture industry.

42


The results show that the selection of a set of indicators by performing a literature review is efficient, given that effective indicators were selected for measuring industrial sustainability. However, this set of 77 indicators consisting of these aspects (triple bottom line) are indicated for use in all industries regardless of size or activity. In an attempt to select a set of indicators specifically for the activities of the furniture industry, the set obtained consisted of 26 indicators, and these were selected by researchers and are the most effective in rapidly assessing sustainability. It ought to be emphasized, then, that the quick measurement of sustainability is one of the specific criteria used as a parameter for reducing the number of indicators from 77 to 26, since primary purpose of these indicators is to quickly and easily measure sustainability for micro and small industries, which experience a lack of financial resources, capital, and labor. In future research, we suggest that a case study be performed in furniture companies to identify the qualitative and quantitative metrics, the normalization, the pondering and the sum of the indicators for generating a sustainability index. Thus, the time spent in applying these indicators and the results and contributions to the furniture industry could be assessed.

References Aragón-Correa, J.A., Hurtado-Torres, N., Sharma, S., GarciaMorales, V.J., 2008. Environmental strategy and performance in small firms: a resource-based perspective. J. Environ. Manag. 86, 88–103. Argenta, D.O.F., 2007. Alternatives for improving the production process of the furniture sector of Santa Maria/RS: Environmental impacts. Originally presented as a master’s dissertation in the Postgraduate Program in Production Engineering. Santa Maria Federal University. Azapagic, A., 2003. Systems approach to corporate sustainability: a general framework. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 81 (5), 303–316. Azapagic, A., 2004. Developing a framework for sustainable development indicators for the mining and minerals industry. J. Cleaner Prod. 12, 639–662. Azapagic, A., Perdan, S., 2000. Indicators of sustainable development for industry: a general framework. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 78 (4), 243–261. Borga, F., Citterio, A., Noci, G., Pizzurno, E., 2009. Sustainability report in small enterprises: case studies in Italian furniture companies. Bus. Strategy Environ. 18 (3), 162–176. Bork, C.A.S., de Souza, J.F., de Oliveira Gomes, J., Canhete, V.V.P., De Barba Jr, D.J., 2014. Methodological tools for assessing the sustainability index (SI) of industrial production processes. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 1–13. Bossel, H., 1999. Indicators for Sustainable Development: Theory, Method, Applications—A Report to the Balaton Group. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), Winnipeg. Brazil-IPT, 2002. Forest Product Division. Prospective Technology of the Furniture and Wood Production Chain. São Paulo: PBPT; STI; MDIC; ONUDI. Available at: http://www.desenvolvimento. gov.br/arquivos/dwnl_1196944420.pdf (accessed: 25.03.15). Brde, 2006. Far South Regional Development Bank. Florianópolis Branch. Planning Management. Analysis of the competitiveness of the leading production networks for furniture in the southern region of Brazil. Florianópolis: BRDE. Brito, E.O., 1995. Estimated production of waste in the Brazilian wood cutting and laminating industry. Rev. Madeira Curitiba 26, 34–39. Callens, I., Tyteca, D., 1999. Towards indicators of sustainable development for firms: a productive efficiency perspective. Ecol. Econ. 28 (1), 41–53.

3 (2015) 34–44

Calogirou, C., Sørensen, S., Larsen, P., Pedersen, K., Kristiansen, K.R., Mogensen, J., Alexopoulou, S., Papageorgiou, M., 2010. SMEs and the Environment in the European Union. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/busi-nessenvironment/files/main_report_en.pdf (accessed: 06.04.13). Capes, 2015. Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior. Available at: http://www.capes.gov.br/cursosrecomendados (accessed: 22.04.15). Chee Tahir, A., Darton, R.C., 2010. The process analysis method of selecting indicators to quantify the sustainability performance of a business operation. J. Cleaner Prod. 18, 1598–1607. Chen, D., Schudeleit, T., Posselt, G., Thiede, S., 2013. A state-ofthe-art review and evaluation of tools for factory sustainability assessment. Proceeded with CIRP, 9, pp. 85–90. Chen, D., Thiede, S., Schudeleit, T., Herrmann, C., 2014. A holistic and rapid sustainability assessment tool for manufacturing SMEs. CIRP Ann.—Manuf. Technol. 63 (1), 437–440. Choi, H.C., Sirakaya, E., 2006. Sustainability indicators for managing community tourism. Tourism Manage. 27 (6), 1274–1289. Chu, H.C., Hwang, G.J., 2007. A Delphi-based approach to developing expert systems with the cooperation of multiple experts. Expert Syst. Appl, Int. J. 34, 2826–2840. Condon, L., 2004. Sustainability and small to medium sized enterprises: how to engage them. Aust. J. Environ. Educ. 20 (1), 57–67. Dakaki, C., Grigoroudis, E., Stabouli, M., 2006. A risk assessment approach in selecting environmental performance indicators. Manag. Environ. Qual.: Int. J. 17 (2), 126–139. Deimling, M.F., 2014. A proposed structure of indicators for assessing the performance of value chains: the case of the Western Santa Catarina sector. Delai, I., Takahashi, S., 2008. A proposed model of reference for measuring corporate sustainability. RGSA—Rev. Gest. Soc. Ambient. 2 (1), 19–40. Erol, I., Cakar, N., Erel, D., Sari, R., 2009. Sustainability in the Turkish retailing industry. Sustain. Dev. 17 (1), 49–67. Feldman, R., Sanger, J., 2007. The Text Mining Handbook: Advanced Approaches in Analyzing Unstructured Data. Cambridge University Press. Ferreira, M.J.B., Gorayeb, D., 2008. Furniture industry sector followup report. Campinas: Unicamp, ABDI, 1. Fiksel, J., Mcdaniel, J., Spitzley, D., 1998. Measuring product sustainability. J. Sustain. Prod. Des. 7–18. Gabiati, J., Deimling, M.F., Barichello, R., 2014. Performance indicators: A study on the Western Santa Catarina furniture sector. In: International Administration Conference. 2014. Gorini, A., 1998. An outlook of the furniture sector in Brazil, with a focus on foreign competition in the industrial solid wood product chain. BNDES, 1998. Available at: http://www.bndes. gov.br/SiteBNDES/export/sites/default/bndes_pt/Galerias/ Arquivos/conhecimento/bnset/set801.pdf (accessed: 16.02.12). Grael, P.F.F., Oliveira, O.J., 2010. Systems which can be certified for environmental management and quality: practices for integration into companies in the furniture sector. Production 20 (1), 30–41. Herva, M., Franco, A., Carrasco, E.F., Roca, E., 2011. Review of corporate environmental indicators. J. Cleaner Prod. 19 (15), 1687–1699. IBGE, 2015 The Brazilian Institute for Geography and Statistics. Available at: http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/ economia/comercioeservico/pas/analisepas99.shtm (accessed:22.04.15). Hugé, J., Le Trinh, H., Hai, P.H., Kuilman, J., Hens, L., 2010. Sustainability indicators for clean development mechanism projects in Vietnam. Environ. Dev. Sustainability 12 (4), 561–571. Hwang, G.H., Chen, J.M., Hwang, G.J., Chu, H.C., 2006. A time scaleoriented approach for building medical expert systems. Expert Syst. Appl. 31, 299–308.


Keeble, J.J., Topiol, S., Berkeley, S., 2003. Using indicators to measure sustainability performance at a corporate and project level. J. Bus. Ethics 44 (2–3), 149–158. Kinderyte, L., 2008. Analysis and comparison of methodologies for corporate sustainability assessment. Environ. Res. Eng. Manag. 46 (4), 66–75. Kinderyte, L., 2010. Methodology of sustainability indicators determination for enterprise assessment. Environ. Res. Eng. Manag. 52 (2), 25–31. Krajnc, D., Glavic, P., 2003. Indicators of sustainable production. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 5, 279–288. Krajnc, D., Glavic, P., 2005. A model for integrated assessment of sustainable development. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 43 (2), 189–208. Kaynak, E., Macauley, J.A., 1984. The Delphi technique in the measurement of tourism market potential: The case of Nova Scotia. Tourism Manage. 5, 87–101. Kurka, T., Blackwood, D., 2013. Participatory selection of sustainability criteria and indicators for bio energy developments. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 24, 92–102. Labuschagne, C., Brent, A.C., Van Erck, R.P., 2005. Assessing the sustainability performances of industries. J. Cleaner Prod. 13 (4), 373–385. Lähtinen, K., Myllyviita, T., Leskinen, P., Pitkänen, S.K., 2014. A systematic literature review on indicators to assess local sustainability of forest energy production. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 40, 1202–1216. Lcsp, 2015. Lowell Center for Sustainable Production. What Is Sustainable Production? Avaliable from: http://www.sustainableproduction.org/abou.what.php (accessed 13.01.15). Lee, K., Saen, R.F., 2012. Measuring corporate sustainability management: a data envelopment analysis approach. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 140 (1), 219–226. Leone, N.M.C.P., 1991. The physical aspect of small and medium-sized companies (PME’S): looking for a homogenizing criterion. Rev. Adm. Empres. 31 (2), 53–59. Li, T., Zhang, H., Yuan, C., Liu, Z., Fan, C., 2012. A PCAbased method for construction of composite sustainability indicators. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 17 (5), 593–603. Lima, M.G., Araújo, L.C.G., Belderrain, M.C.N., 2006. O estudo da utilização de técnicas de gestão da produção pelas micro e pequenas empresas do arranjo produtivo local moveleiro da serra gaúcha. In: IX SIMPOI Simpósio de Administração da Produção, Logística e Operações Internacionais, São Paulo, Anais. Lima, E.G., Silva, D.A., 2005. Waste generated in wooden furniture industries situated at the Arapongas-PR furniture plant. Floresta 35 (1). Linke, B.S., Corman, G.J., Dornfeld, D.A., Tönissen, S., 2013. Sustainability indicators for discrete manufacturing processes applied to grinding technology. J. Manuf. Syst. 32 (4), 556–563. Linnenluecke, M.K., Griffiths, A., 2010. Corporate sustainability and organizational culture. J. World Bus. 45 (4), 357–366. Lodhia, S., Martin, N., 2014. Corporate sustainability indicators: an Australian mining case study. J. Cleaner Prod. 84, 107–115. Low, N., Gleeson, B., 2003. Making Urban Transportation Sustainable. Basingstoke. Palgrave/Macmillan, Hampshire, UK. Mayyas, A., Qattawi, A., Omar, M., Shan, D., 2012. Design for sustainability in automotive industry: A comprehensive review. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 16 (4), 1845–1862. Mckeiver, C., Gadenne, D., 2005. Environmental management systems in small and medium businesses. Int. Small Bus. J. 23 (5), 513–537. Miller, G., 2001. The development of indicators for sustainable tourism: results of a Delphi survey of tourism researchers. Tourism Manage. 22 (4), 351–362. Mintzberg, H., 2003. Creating Effective Organizations—Five Structural Configurations, second ed. Published by Atlas S. A., São Paulo. Mitchell, S., Dimache, P.O., Roche, T., 2011. The issue of waste in European manufacturing SMEs. In: Thirteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium, Sardinia, S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Italy.

3 (2015) 34–44

43

Nordheim, E., Barrasso, G., 2007. Sustainable development indicators of the European aluminium industry. J. Cleaner Prod. 15 (3), 275–279. Olandoski, D.P., 2001. Revenue, waste, and considerations regarding improvements in the hard wood industry processes Department of Agrarian Sciences, Paraná Federal University, Curitiba. Padilha, M.L.M.L., 2009. Indicators of sustainable development for the textile sector College of Public Health, São Paulo University, São Paulo. Patlitzianas, K.D., Doukas, H., Kagiannas, A.G., Psarras, J., 2008. Sustainable energy policy indicators: Review and recommendations. Renew. Energy 33 (5), 966–973. Rais, 2013. Annual Social Information Report. Available at: http://portal.mte.gov.br/rais/ (accessed: 22.04.15). Redmond, J., Walker, E., Wang, C., 2008. Issues for small businesses with waste management. J. Environ. Manag. 88, 275–285. Ribeiro, J.C.J., Heller, L., 2014. Environmental indicators for developing countries. Virtual library for sustainable development and environmental health. Available from: http: //www.bvsde.paho.org/bvsAIDIS/PuertoRico29/junque.pdf (accessed 01.02.14). Ricci, G.L., 2010. Desempenho e controle em pequenas e médias empresas Universidade de São Paulo. Ridley, D., 2008. The Literature Review: A Step-By-Step Guide for Students. Sage, London. Salmond, S.W., 1994. Orthopaedic nursing research priorities: a Delphi study. Orthop. Nurs. 13 (2), 31–45. Scarparo, A.F., Laus, A.M., Azevedo, A.L.D.C.S., Freitas, M.R.I.D., Gabriel, C.S., Chaves, L.D.P., 2012. Reflections on the use of the delphi technique in nursing. Rev. Rede Enferm. Nordeste-Rev. Rene 13 (1), 242–251. Schneider, V.E., Hilig, E., Pavoni, E.T., Rizzon, M.R., Bertolotto, L.A., 2003. Environmental management in the furniture industry— case study in the city of Bento Gonçalves. XXIII National Production Eng. Meeting-Ouro Preto, MG, Brasil, 21. Searcy, C., McCartney, D., Karapetrovic, S., 2007. Sustainable development indicators for the transmission system of an electric utility. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 14 (3), 135–151. Sebrae, 2015. Brazilian Support Service for Micro and Smallsized Companies—Sebrae. Available at: http://www.sebrae. com.br/Sebrae/Portal%20Sebrae/Estudos%20e%20Pesquisas/ Participacao%20das%20micro%20e%20pequenas% 20empresas.pdf (accessed: 22.04.15). Seely, R.L., Iglarsh, H., Edgell, D., 1980. Utilising the delphi technique at international conferences: A method for forecasting international tourism conditions. Travel Res. J. 1, 30–35. Sellitto, M.A., Rossatto, J.P., Luzzi, I., Pereira, G.M., Borchardt, M., 2014. Detailed analysis of factors that influence economic results in the Bento Gonçalves furniture cluster. Prod. Online Mag. 14 (4), 1192–1215. Seuring, S.A., Koplin, J., Behrens, T., Schneidewind, U., 2003. Sustainability assessment in the German detergent industry: from stakeholder involvement to sustainability indicators. Sustain. Dev. 11, 199–212. Sindmóveis, 2013. Furniture Industry Union of Bento Gonçalves. Sector Information. Brazil. Available at: http://www.sindmoveis.com.br/portal/downloads/ (accessed: 30.03.15). Singh, R., Murty, H., Gupta, S., Dikshit, A., 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, 281–299.

44


Staniskis, J.K., Arbaciauskas, V., 2009. Sustainability performance indicators for industrial enterprise management. Environ. Res. Eng. Manag. 48 (2), 42–50. Székely, F., Knirsch, M., 2005. Responsible leadership and corporate social responsibility: metrics for sustainable performance. Eur. Manag. J. 23 (6), 628–647. Thiede, S., Posselt, G., Herrmann, C., 2013. SME appropriate concept for continuously improving the energy and resource efficiency in manufacturing companies. CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Technol. 6 (3), 204–211. Tokos, H., Pintariè, Z.N., Krajnc, D., 2012. An integrated sustainability performance assessment and benchmarking of breweries. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 14 (2), 173–193. Turcu, C., 2013. Re-thinking sustainability indicators: local perspectives of urban sustainability. J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 56 (5), 695–719.

3 (2015) 34–44

Vasconcelos, P.H., 2012. Viability of implementing the indicators of sustainability of the GRI policy in the strategy for organizational sustainability in a network of micro and small-sized companies Postgraduate Program in Production Engineering, Paraná Federal University of Technology. Veleva, V., Ellenbecker, M., 2001. Indicators of sustainable production: A new tool for promoting business sustainability. New Solut. 11 (1), 41–62. Veleva, V., Hart, M., Greiner, T., Crumbley, C., 2001. Indicators of sustainable production. J. Cleaner Prod. 9 (5), 447–452. Wright, J.T.C., Giovinazzo, R.A., 2000. Delphi: a support tool for prospective planning. Adm. Res. Portf. 1 (12), 54–65. 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.