Sustainability assessment tools–their comprehensiveness and utilisation in company-level sustainability assessments in Finland

International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 2017, Pages 236-247

  Myllyviita, Tanja ^a   Antikainen, Riina ^a   Leskinen, Pekka ^a  

^a FINNISH ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE   (Finland)

Author keywords

Companies; comprehensiveness; decision analysis; sustainability assessment tools; sustainability reporting

Indexed keywords

ACCESSIBILITY; CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION ANALYSIS; ECONOMIC ACTIVITY; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATOR; EXPERT SYSTEM; INPUT-OUTPUT ANALYSIS; LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS; MATERIAL FLOW ANALYSIS; OPTIMIZATION; SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT; SUSTAINABILITY;

FINLAND;

EID: 84978472518     PISSN: 13504509     EISSN: 17452627     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13504509.2016.1204636     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Akola E, Havupalo N., 2013. Restructuring in SMEs:Finland. [cited 2016 May24]. Available from:https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ef_files/pubdocs/2012/476/en/4/EF12476EN.pdf.
2. Belton V, Stewart. 2002. Multiple criteria decision analysis:an integrated approach. Dordrecht:Springer Science & Business Media.
3. Benoît C, editors. 2009. Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. Paris:United Nations Environment Programme.
4. Biondi V, Iraldo F, Meredith S., 2002. Achieving sustainability through environmental innovation:the role of SMEs. Int J Tech Manag. 24:612–626.
5. Bolis I, Morioka SN, Sznelwar LI. 2014. When sustainable development risks losing its meaning. Delimiting the concept with a comprehensive literature review and a conceptual model. J Clean Prod. 83:7–20.
6. Bond A, Morrison-Saunders A, Pope J. 2012. Sustainability assessment:the state of the art. Imp Ass Proj Appraisal. 30:53–62.
7. Bringezu S, Moriguchi Y. 2002. Material flow analysis. In:Ayres R, Ayres L, editor. A handbook of industrial ecology. Cheltenham, UK:Edward Elgar; p. 79–90.
8. Brouwer R, van Ek R. 2004. Integrated ecological, economic and social impact assessment of alternative flood control policies in the Netherlands. Ecol Econ. 50:1–21.
9. Buytaert V, Muys B, Devriendt N, Pelkmans L, Kretzschmar JG, Samson R. 2011. Towards integrated sustainability assessment for energetic use of biomass:a state of the art evaluation of assessment tools. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 15:3918–3933.
10. Crals E, Vereeck L. 2005. The affordability of sustainable entrepreneurship certification for SMEs. Int J Sustainable Dev World Ecol. 12:173–183.
11. da Rosa FS, Guesser T, Hein N, Pfitscherc ES, João Lunkesc RJ. 2013. Environmental impact management of Brazilian companies:analyzing factors that influence disclosure of waste, emissions, effluents, and other impacts. J Clean Prod. 96:1–13.
12. Deng L, Babbitt CW, Williams ED. 2011. Economic-balance hybrid LCA extended with uncertainty analysis:case study of a laptop computer. J Clean Prod. 19:1198–1206.
13. Diaz-Balteiro L, Romero C. 2008. Making forestry decisions with multiple criteria:a review and an assessment. For Ecol Manag. 255(8–9):3222–3241.
14. Egels-Zandén N, Rosén M. 2015. Sustainable strategy formation at a Swedish industrial company:bridging the strategy-as-practice and sustainability gap. J Clean Prod. 96:139–147.
15. Elghali L, Clifta R, Sinclair P, Panoutsou C, Bauen A. 2007. Developing a sustainability framework for the assessment of bioenergy systems. Energy Policy. 35:6075–6083.
16. European union. 2016. Waste framework directive (2008/98/EC). [cited 2014 May25]. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/construction_demolition.htm.
17. Evins R. 2013. A review of computational optimisation methods applied to sustainable building design. Renew Sust Ener Rev. 22:230–245.
18. Ferreira J, Pinheiro MD, de Brito J. 2013. Refurbishment decision support tools review—Energy and life cycle as key aspects to sustainable refurbishment projects. Constr Build Mater. 49:425–447.
19. Finnish Government. 2014. Programme of Prime Minister Alexander Stubb’s Government. 24 June 2014. [cited 2014 Oct22].Available from:http://valtioneuvosto.fi/hallitus/hallitusohjelma/pdf-stubb/en.pdf.
20. Gasparatos A. 2010. Embedded value systems in sustainability assessment tools and their implications. J Environ Manage. 91:1613–1622.
21. Gasparatos A, El-Haram M, Horner M. 2008. A critical review of reductionist approaches for assessing the progress towards sustainability. Environ Impact Asses. 28:286–311.
22. Global Reporting Initiative. 2013. G4 sustainability reporting quidelines. Amsterdam:Global Reporting Initiative; p. 94.
23. Häkkinen T, Antikainen R, Vares S, Tonteri H. 2013. The use of LCA studies and LCA outcomes in the decision-making processes of enterprises–discussion and conclusions on the basis of case studies. Int J Prod Lifecyc Manag. 6:250–269.
24. Hinterberger F, Giljum S, Hammer M. 2003. Material Flow Accounting and Analysis (MFA). A valuable tool for analyses of society-nature interrelationships. Entry prepared for the Internet Encyclopedia of Ecol Econ Vienna:Sustainable Europe Research Institute (SERI).
25. Hoogmartens R, Van Passel S, Van Acker K, Dubois M. 2014. Bridging the gap between LCA, LCC and CBA as sustainability assessment tools. Environ Impact Asses. 48:27–33.
26. Hörisch J, Ortas E, Schaltegger S, Álvare I. 2015. Environmental effects of sustainability management tools:an empirical analysis of large companies. Ecol Econ. 120:241–249.
27. Huang C-L, Vause J, Ma H-W, Yu C-P. 2012. Using material/substance flow analysis to support sustainable development assessment:A literature review and outlook. Resour Conserv Recy. 68:104–116.
28. [ISO] International Organization for Standardization. 2006. Environmental management–Life cycle assessment–Principles and framework no. European standard EN ISO 14040. Geneva:International Organization for Standarization.
29. Jeswani HK, Azapagic A, Schepelmann P, Ritthoff M. 2010. Options for broadening and deepening the LCA approaches. J Clean Prod. 18:120–127.
30. Judl J, Mattila T, Manninen K, Antikainen R., 2015. Life cycle assessment and ecodesign in a day - Lessons learned from a series of LCA clinics for start-ups and small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Reports of the Finnish Environment Institute 18/2015. Helsinki:Finnish Environment Institute.
31. Kitzes J. 2013. An introduction to environmentally-extended input-output analysis. Resources. 2:489–503.
32. Klewitz J, Hansen EG. 2014. Sustainability-oriented innovation of SMEs:a systematic review. J Clean Prod. 65:57–75.
33. Koskela S, Mäenpää I, Seppälä J, Mattila T, Korhonen MJ. 2011. EE-IO modeling of the environmental impacts of Finnish imports using different data sources. Ecol Econ. 70:2341–2349.
34. Koskela S, Mattila T, Antikainen R, Mäenpää I. 2013. Identifying key sectors and measures for a transition towards a low resource economy. Resources. 2:151–166.
35. Kumar M, Kumar P. 2008. Valuation of the ecosystem services:A psycho-cultural perspective. Ecol Econ. 64:808–819.
36. Leontief W. 1936. Quantitative input–output relations in the economic system of the United States. Rev Econ Stat. 18:100–125.
37. Liew WH, Hassim MH, Ng DKS. 2014. Review of evolution, technology and sustainability assessments of biofuel production. J Clean Prod. 71:11–29.
38. Liping J, Bin C. 2010. International society for environmental information sciences 2010 annual conference (ISEIS) an input-output model to analyze sector linkages and CO2 emissions. Procedia. Environ Sci. 2:1841–1845.
39. Lozano R. 2012. Towards better embedding sustainability into companies’ systems:an analysis of voluntary corporate initiatives. J Clean Prod. 25:14–26.
40. Macombe C, Leskinen P, Feschet P, Antikainen R. 2013. Social life cycle assessment of biodiesel production at three levels:a literature review and development needs. J Clean Prod. 52:205–216.
41. Maness T, Farrell R. 2004. A multi-objective scenario evaluation model for sustainable forest management using criteria and indicators. Can J For Res. 34:2004–2017.
42. Mattila T, Koskela S, Seppälä J, Mäenpää I. 2013. Sensitivity analysis of environmentally extended input–output models as a tool for building scenarios of sustainable development. Ecol Econ. 86:148–155.
43. Mattila T, Leskinen P, Soimakallio S, Sironen S. 2012. Uncertainty in environmentally conscious decision making:beer or wine? Int J Life Cycle Ass. 17:696–705.
44. Mendoza GA, Martins H. 2006. Multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management:a critical review of methods and new modeling paradigms. Forest Ecol Manag. 230:1–22.
45. Merad M, Dechya N, Serir L, Grabisch M, Marcel F. 2013. Using a multi-criteria decision aid methodology to implement sustainable development principles within an organization. Eur J Oper Res. 224:603–613.
46. Ministry of Employment and the Economy. 2014. Government strategy to promote cleantech business in Finland. [cited 2014 Oct22]. Available from:https://www.tem.fi/files/40668/Government_Strategy_to_Promote_Cleantech_Business_in_Finland.pdf https://www.tem.fi/files/40668/Government_Strategy_to_Promote_Cleantech_Business_in_Finland.pdf.
47. Ministry of environment. 2014. The national Climate Change Act (609/2015). [cited 2016 May24]. Available from:http://www.ym.fi/en-us/the_environment/climate_and_air/mitigation_of_climate_change/national_climate_policy.
48. Mustajoki J, Saarikoski H, Marttunen M, Ahtikoski A, Hallikainen V, Helle T, Hyppönen M, Jokinen M, Naskali A, Tuulentie S, et al. 2011. Use of decision analysis interviews to support the sustainable use of the forests in Finnish upper lapland. J Environ Manage. 92:1550–1563.
49. Myllyviita T, Hujala T, Kangas A, Eyvindson K, Sironen S, Leskinen P, Kurttila M. 2014. Mixing methods–assessment of potential benefits for natural resources planning. Scand J Forest Res. 29:20–29.
50. Myllyviita T, Hujala T, Kangas A, Leskinen P. 2011. Decision support in assessing the sustainable use of forests and other natural resources - a comparative review. Open For Sci J. 4:24–41.
51. Myllyviita T, Leskinen P, Lähtinen K, Pasanen K, Sironen S, Kähkönen T, Sikanen L. 2013. Sustainability assessment of wood-based bioenergy–A methodological framework and a case-study. Biomass Bioenerg. 59:293–299.
52. Pearce D, Atkinson G, Mourato S., 2006. Cost-benefit analysis and the environment - recent developments. Paris:Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; 318 p.
53. Poveda CA, Lipsett MG. 2011. A review of sustainability assessment and sustainability/environmental rating systems and credit weighting tools. J Sustainable Dev. 4:36–55.
54. Putkuri E, Lindholm M, Peltonen A., 2013. The state of the environment. SYKE Publications 1. Finnish Environment Institute. Available form:https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/42691
55. Rametsteiner E, Pülzl H, Alkan-Olsson J, Frederiksen P. 2011. Sustainability indicator development—Science or political negotiation? Ecol Indic. 11:61–70.
56. Rinne J, Lyytimäki J, Kautto P. 2013. From sustainability to well-being:lessons learned from the use of sustainable development indicators at national and EU level. Ecol Indic. 35:35–42.
57. Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin FS, Lambin EF, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber HJ, et al. 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature. 461:472–475.
58. Sáez CA, Requena JC. 2007. Reconciling sustainability and discounting in cost-benefit analysis:a methodological proposal. Ecol Econ. 60:712–725.
59. Sesana MM, Salvalai G. 2013. Overview on life cycle methodologies and economic feasibility fornZEBs. Build Environ. 67:211–216.
60. Sharifi A, Murayama A. 2013. A critical review of seven selected neighborhood sustainability assessment tools. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 38:73–87.
61. Silvestre WJ, Antunes P, Amaro A, Leal W. 2015. Assessment of corporate sustainability:study of hybrid relations using Hybrid Bottom Line model. Int J Sustainable Dev World Ecol. 22:302–312.
62. Singh RK, Guptac SK, Dikshitc AK. 2012. An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecol Indic. 15:281–299.
63. SOER. 2015. A comprehensive assessment of the European environment’s state, trends and prospects, in a global context. [cited 2015 Mar27]. Available from:http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer.
64. Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockström J, Cornell SE, Fetzer I, Bennett EM, Biggs R, Carpenter SR, de Vries W, de Wit CA, et al. 2015. Planetary boundaries:guiding human development on a changing planet. Science. 347:1259855.
65. Taylor DF. 2001. Employment-based analysis:an alternative methodology for project evaluation in developing regions, with an application to agriculture in Yucatan. Ecol Econ. 36:249–262.
66. Wiedmann T, Wilting HC, Lenzen M, Lutter S, Palm V. 2011. Quo vadis MRIO? Methodological, data and institutional requirements for multi-region input–output analysis. Ecol Econ. 70:1937–1945.
67. World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our common future. Oxford:Oxford University Press.