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

ABSTRACT Companies have a central role in the transition towards more sustainable economic systems, as they are one of the major sources of environmental impacts, economic activity and social development. Various tools are available to support sustainability assessments, but there is little information on how suitable they are for company-level assessments and how companies use them in real-life applications. The article examines some of the commonly used tools and the utilisation of these tools in Finnish companies. A sample of seven tools was compiled: multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), material flow analysis, life cycle assessment (LCA), input–output models, sustainability indicators and indices, cost–benefit analysis (CBA) and optimisation methods. MCDA, LCA, CBA and optimisation methods were found to be successful with respect to many of the criteria used in the evaluation, but none of them was comprehensive. The assessment indicates that MCDA has the greatest potential to be successfully applied to support sustainability assessment, but solely applying MCDA is not suggested, since MCDA needs input from other tools and methods, in order to have reliable impact assessments. Finnish companies regularly employ sustainability criteria and indices, and a few construction companies had applied LCA, but utilisation of other tools was rare. The findings indicate that the tools frequently discussed in research are not actually used by companies. Expert-driven sustainability trials and user-friendly, simplified tools could be a solution to issues of accessibility in real-world applications.

[1]  W. Leontief.  Quantitative Input and Output Relations in the Economic Systems of the United States , 1936 .

[2]  Paul R. Ehrlich,et al.  The State of the Environment , 1983 .

[3]  G. H. Brundtland.  World Commission on environment and development , 1985 .

[4]  J. Last.  Our common future. , 1987, Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique.

[5]  Davis F. Taylor.  Employment-based analysis: an alternative methodology for project evaluation in developing regions, with an application to agriculture in Yucatan , 2001 .

[6]  Theodor J. Stewart,et al.  Multiple criteria decision analysis - an integrated approach , 2001 .

[7]  Fabio Iraldo,et al.  Achieving sustainability through environmental innovation: the role of SMEs , 2002, Int. J. Technol. Manag..

[8]  Robert U. Ayres,et al.  A Handbook of Industrial Ecology , 2002 .

[9]  Theodor J. Stewart,et al.  Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis , 2001 .

[10]  R. Brouwer,et al.  Integrated ecological, economic and social impact assessment of alternative flood control policies in the Netherlands , 2004 .

[11]  Thomas C. Maness,et al.  A multi-objective scenario evaluation model for sustainable forest management using criteria and indicators , 2004 .

[12]  J. C. Requena,et al.  Reconciling Sustainability and Discounting in Cost Benefit Analysis: a methodological proposal , 2007 .

[13]  Lode Vereeck,et al.  The affordability of sustainable entrepreneurship certification for SMEs , 2005 .

[14]  S. Mourato,et al.  Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment: Recent Developments , 2006 .

[15]  Guillermo A. Mendoza,et al.  Multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management: A critical review of methods and new modelling paradigms , 2006 .

[16]  R. Clift,et al.  Developing a sustainability framework for the assessment of bioenergy systems , 2007 .

[17]  Manasi Kumar,et al.  Valuation of the ecosystem services: A psycho-cultural perspective , 2008 .

[18]  Carlos Romero,et al.  Making forestry decisions with multiple criteria: A review and an assessment , 2008 .

[19]  M. El-Haram,et al.  A critical review of reductionist approaches for assessing the progress towards sustainability , 2008 .

[20]  Saurabh Gupta,et al.  An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies , 2009 .

[21]  F. Chapin,et al.  A safe operating space for humanity , 2009, Nature.

[22]  Adisa Azapagic,et al.  Options for broadening and deepening the LCA approaches , 2010 .

[23]  Chen Bin,et al.  An Input-output Model to Analyze Sector Linkages and CO2 Emissions , 2010 .

[24]  Alexandros Gasparatos,et al.  Embedded value systems in sustainability assessment tools and their implications. , 2010, Journal of environmental management.

[25]  Michael G. Lipsett,et al.  A Review of Sustainability Assessment and Sustainability/Environmental Rating Systems and Credit Weighting Tools , 2011 .

[26]  S. Lutter,et al.  Quo Vadis MRIO? Methodological, data and institutional requirements for multi-region input-output analysis , 2011 .

[27]  E. Rametsteiner,et al.  Sustainability indicator development-Science or political negotiation? , 2011 .

[28]  Callie W. Babbitt,et al.  Economic-balance hybrid LCA extended with uncertainty analysis: case study of a laptop computer , 2011 .

[29]  A. Kangas,et al.  Decision Support in Assessing the Sustainable Use of Forests and Other Natural Resources - A Comparative Review , 2011 .

[30]  Law,et al.  Waste Framework Directive , 2011 .

[31]  Bart Muys,et al.  Towards integrated sustainability assessment for energetic use of biomass: A state of the art evaluation of assessment tools , 2011 .

[32]  Tuomas Mattila,et al.  EE-IO modeling of the environmental impacts of Finnish imports using different data sources , 2011 .

[33]  Anssi Ahtikoski,et al.  Use of decision analysis interviews to support the sustainable use of the forests in Finnish Upper Lapland. , 2011, Journal of environmental management.

[34]  Pekka Leskinen,et al.  Uncertainty in environmentally conscious decision making: beer or wine? , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[35]  A. Bond,et al.  Sustainability assessment: the state of the art , 2012 .

[36]  Chang-Ping Yu,et al.  Using material/substance flow analysis to support sustainable development assessment: A literature review and outlook , 2012 .

[37]  Rodrigo Lozano,et al.  Towards better embedding sustainability into companies’ systems: an analysis of voluntary corporate initiatives , 2012 .

[38]  Marta Maria Sesana,et al.  Overview on life cycle methodologies and economic feasibility for nZEBs , 2013 .

[39]  Jari Lyytimäki,et al.  From sustainability to well-being: Lessons learned from the use of sustainable development indicators at national and EU level , 2013 .

[40]  Ralph Evins,et al.  A review of computational optimisation methods applied to sustainable building design , 2013 .

[41]  Pekka Leskinen,et al.  Sustainability assessment of wood-based bioenergy A methodological framework and a case-study , 2013 .

[42]  Tuomas Mattila,et al.  Sensitivity analysis of environmentally extended input–output models as a tool for building scenarios of sustainable development , 2013 .

[43]  Jorge de Brito,et al.  Refurbishment decision support tools review—Energy and life cycle as key aspects to sustainable refurbishment projects , 2013 .

[44]  Justin Kitzes,et al.  An Introduction to Environmentally-Extended Input-Output Analysis , 2013 .

[45]  J. de Brito,et al.  Refurbishment decision support tools: A review from a Portuguese user’s perspective , 2013 .

[46]  Pekka Leskinen,et al.  Social life cycle assessment of biodiesel production at three levels: a literature review and development needs , 2013 .

[47]  Nicolas Dechy,et al.  Using a multi-criteria decision aid methodology to implement sustainable development principles within an organization , 2013, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[48]  Riina Antikainen,et al.  The use of LCA studies and LCA outcomes in the decision-making processes of enterprises – discussion and conclusions on the basis of case studies , 2013 .

[49]  Ayyoob Sharifi,et al.  A critical review of seven selected neighborhood sustainability assessment tools , 2013 .

[50]  Ilmo Mäenpää,et al.  Identifying Key Sectors and Measures for a Transition towards a Low Resource Economy , 2013 .

[51]  Ivan Bolis,et al.  When sustainable development risks losing its meaning. Delimiting the concept with a comprehensive literature review and a conceptual model , 2014 .

[52]  Annika Kangas,et al.  Mixing methods – assessment of potential benefits for natural resources planning , 2014 .

[53]  Valtioneuvoston kanslia.  Programme of Prime Minister Alexander Stubb’s Government , 2014 .

[54]  Steven Van Passel,et al.  Bridging the gap between LCA, LCC and CBA as sustainability assessment tools , 2014 .

[55]  Denny K. S. Ng,et al.  Review of evolution, technology and sustainability assessments of biofuel production , 2014 .

[56]  E. Hansen,et al.  Sustainability-Oriented Innovation of SMEs: A Systematic Review , 2014 .

[57]  Niklas Egels-Zandén,et al.  Sustainable strategy formation at a Swedish industrial company: bridging the strategy-as-practice and sustainability gap , 2015 .

[58]  Kaisa Manninen,et al.  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) , 2015 .

[59]  S. Carpenter,et al.  Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet , 2015, Science.

[60]  Stefan Schaltegger,et al.  Environmental effects of sustainability management tools: An empirical analysis of large companies , 2015 .

[61]  R. Lunkes,et al.  Environmental impact management of Brazilian companies: analyzing factors that influence disclosure of waste, emissions, effluents, and other impacts , 2015 .

[62]  Paula Antunes,et al.  Assessment of corporate sustainability: study of hybrid relations using Hybrid Bottom Line model , 2015 .

[63]  Helmut Rechberger,et al.  Material Flow Analysis , 2016 .