The role of environmental sustainability in shaping the SDG

Environmental sustainability plays a critical role in shaping the global sustainability agenda, particularly in the realization of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). Carbon emissions, wastewater disposal, energy usage, and waste management remain the top concerns, alongside issues such as labour exploitation, institutional transparency, accountability principles, and community welfare.

Although conceptualized in the 1980s, sustainability became a significant focus in 2015 with the United Nations’ institution of the seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It addresses three critical dimensions of sustainability:

1. social,
2. environmental, and
3. organizational.

This study explores the role of environmental sustainability in shaping the SDGs, emphasizing its interconnections with social equity, economic development, and corporate governance.

Social sustainability takes precedence, with environmental sustainability following closely. In contrast, the organizational dimension receives the least emphasis among the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), likely due to the challenges associated with monitoring, enforcement, and measurement. Organizational sustainability is inherently subjective, as it is largely influenced by the moral values and ethical conduct of leaders (Zahari et al., 2024). Conversely, the progress of a country in achieving environmental and social goals can be more readily quantified. For instance, environmental performance can be assessed through metrics such as annual carbon dioxide emissions and hazardous waste generation, while social progress may be evaluated by examining indicators such as the proportion of the population living below the poverty line.

India’s automobile sector’s contribution to carbon emissions

The transport sector single-handedly contributes to 20% of global CO2 emissions (Ritchie and Roser, 2024). Of this, aviation accounts for about 12%, while the lion’s share- 46%- is claimed by road travel, majorly buses and passenger cars. The lowest contributors are rail transport and two-wheeler segments (European Parliament, 2019). In India, the auto sector is responsible for 14% of India’s Scope 1 emissions and 90% of total energy consumption (Kumar et al., 2022).

A sizeable chunk of India’s population depends on motorbikes and bicycles as a quick and cheap means of transportation. However, this is not good news for the environment as the two-wheeler segment emerged as the biggest energy consumer among all forms of passenger transport, including air (Kamboj et al., 2022). Policymakers and automakers have advocated for a switch to e-two-wheelers to reduce CO2 emissions, but research has shown inconclusive findings. According to (Weiss et al., 2015), electric bikes can only benefit the environment if natural gas or renewable energy is used as the source of electricity rather than coal, but in India, nearly 50% of the electricity needs are met by thermal power (NITI  Aayog, 2024), making electric vehicles’ role in environmental sustainability questionable.

In the short run, however, it is safe to assume that there will be no immediate relief from the electric vehicles segment as far as CO2 emissions are concerned. This is because of two main reasons- the public transition from combustion engine vehicles to electric vehicles is slow (The Economic Times, 2024), and research on electric vehicles’ ability to reduce emissions is disputed. The automobile sector, as a major contributor to carbon emissions, energy consumption, and resource utilization, has come under increasing scrutiny for its environmental impact. However, alongside environmental concerns, the sector also influences social and organizational sustainability, necessitating a holistic approach to sustainability assessment.

Environmental sustainability and its measuring tools

In the domain of sustainability, the environmental dimension has received significant attention. It emphasizes the responsible utilization of resources to meet present needs without compromising the quality of the environment for future generations (Patterson, 2024). Contemporary advocacy highlights the importance of utilizing renewable, recycled, and sustainably generated energy sources to mitigate harmful emissions into the atmosphere. This focus is critical given the increasing consumption of resources required to sustain human life.

In the United Nations’ Brundtland Commission held in 1987, environmental sustainability took precedence over the other two dimensions of sustainability as the issue of climate change took centre stage (United Nations, 2024). The report stated that critical global environmental problems were primarily the result of the enormous poverty of the South and the non-sustainable patterns of consumption and production in the North. It also called for a unified approach to equitable development and environmental protection, coining it “sustainable development”. Therefore, the governments of 140 countries around the world have pledged to address climate change with institutional laws which address environmental issues such as deforestation, emissions, water consumption, land use, and energy use.

However, there is no set framework for the interpretation and implementation of sustainability (Silva et al., 2024).  Some frameworks such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI, 2015) and OECD Manufacturing Toolkit provide detailed guidance for sustainability reporting but their implementation varies due to complex organizational structures and lack of a universal regulatory framework. Moreover, there is no universally accepted tool to measure it. This makes it difficult to decide on a benchmark for achieving environmental sustainability. However, several studies have proposed certain ‘indicators’ of sustainability. Sustainability indicators are “quantitative and/or qualitative measures that aim to interrelate and assess different areas of social, environmental, economic, institutional, and territorial development” (Moreno-Pires, 2014). In other words, they are measurements or metrics used to assess how well an organisation, community, or country is doing in terms of sustainability.

• Environmental indicators: Track things like air and water quality, energy use, and waste reduction.
• Social indicators: Measure factors such as education levels, health outcomes, and equality.
• Economic indicators: Focus on job creation, income levels, and financial stability.

Environmental sustainability indicators in discourse

Previous research has suggested several approaches to advance sustainable development, including the implementation of environmental management systems (Melnyk et al., 2003), the mandatory adoption of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) reporting (Lokuwaduge and Heenetigala, 2017), and increased investments in the research and development of sustainable technologies (Dagiliūtė and Liobikienė, 2015; Khan et al., 2022). In the context of ESG reporting, numerous scholars have proposed environmental sustainability indicators designed to evaluate environmental health and the efficacy of organizational practices aimed at fostering sustainability. Common indicators include air quality, water quality, soil quality, and energy usage.

The following table provides a comprehensive evaluation of critical studies conducted on environmental sustainability indicators at the institutional level. This analysis draws inspiration from the work of Okay et al. (2024), who developed a matrix to illustrate the indicators addressed by various researchers. Similarly, a matrix is employed to present the findings on environmental sustainability indicators; however, additional indicators have been identified and incorporated, while certain others have been excluded from Okay et al.’s (2024) original matrix due to collinearity concerns. For instance, ‘environmental policies’ are represented by ‘environmental management systems’ within the matrix, as the latter cannot exist without the former (Fet and Michelsen, 2023; ISO, 2024). Furthermore, the current table distinguishes itself from Okay et al.’s (2024) study by integrating a broader range of recent studies into the assessment matrix.

The below table is an extension of Okay et al.’s (2024) matrix of environmental indicators. It takes into consideration only those studies which were based in India.

Social sustainability in organisations and the tools used to assess it

Social responsibility is a lesser-talked-about dimension within the broader framework of sustainability. It covers the aspects related to the welfare of the society such as equitable growth, gender equality, poverty eradication, and education. According to (Boyer et al., 2016) its relative lack of popularity in discourse is due to the high level of complexity involved in accommodating the competing interests of different stakeholders and deciding the metrics for measuring some of the outcomes. Some examples of these conflicts are:

• Villagers of a certain region in India may value access to clean water and sanitation as environmental issues but the sustainability agenda may prioritise industrial growth and job creation.  
• Government programs aim to empower women through education and entrepreneurship. However local customs may resist these changes; rural India may view them as disruptive to established family and social structures.
• Efforts to modernise farming are intensifying. Modern farming techniques (such as high-yield seeds, pesticides, and mechanisation) are encouraged to increase productivity and support food security. However, traditional farmers often view these practices as unsustainable, causing soil degradation, reducing biodiversity, and harming local ecology. Many prefer organic and traditional methods that preserve soil health, creating a conflict with the agricultural sustainability agendas driven by productivity metrics.

Therefore, what counts as social sustainability depends on perspectives, norms, standards, and scale. Academic research on social sustainability has been diverse, ranging from the exploration of an integrated view of environmental, social, and organisational sustainability as opposed to standalone pillars (Boyer et al., 2016), social sustainability practices within organisations and its impact on global warming (Rank et al., 2022), and identifying measurable indicators for social sustainability (Baffoe and Mutisya, 2015; Okay et al., 2024; Pilane et al., 2024). It is an evolving domain of knowledge as our understanding of social phenomena undergoes continuous metamorphism.

Indicators of social sustainability in institutions

Although various definitions of social sustainability exist, the definition proposed by Koning (2001) is considered comprehensive. It defines social sustainability as the pursuit of a society that is ‘socially just, equal, without social exclusion, and with a decent quality of life or livelihood for all.’ The concept of quality of life encompasses the mental, physical, emotional, and financial well-being of individuals within a community. This includes not only the general population of a locality but also the employees and management within organizations, along with their work environment.

While a critical aspect of social sustainability, employee well-being has historically been the least prioritized dimension by businesses (Sadick and Kamardeen, 2020). However, many institutions now recognise the significance of fostering a positive and thriving work environment as part of their broader sustainability goals. Given its inherently subjective nature, the measurement and reporting of social sustainability within institutions are often approached in varied ways, reflecting the complexity and context-specific nature of this dimension.

Existing literature offers a range of insights on the subject, spanning theoretical frameworks such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI, 2015) and the institutional sustainability framework proposed by Labuschagne et al. (2005), as well as empirical studies (Husgafvel et al., 2015; Ibáñez-Forés et al., 2023; Mura et al., 2024). The table below provides a comprehensive list of social sustainability indicators at the institutional level, adopted by Okay et al. (2024).

The below table is an extension of Okay et al.’s (2024) study on social sustainability indicators. It takes into consideration only those studies which were based in India. Based on the observations from the 11 studies, it can be assessed that some of the most widely accepted social sustainability indicators in India are occupational health and safety, workforce and gender diversity, community development, education, training and development, human rights coverage, child and forced labour, Indigenous rights, fair wages, and compliance and ethics.

Sustainable development goals addressed by environmental and social sustainability indicators of organisations

It is evident from our assessment of environmental and social indicators of sustainability that there are many. Newer metrics will appear in the future as sustainability becomes more complex. (Hák et al., 2016) argue that there are many problems with this explosion: (a) that we need better, not more, indicators (b) there is no regulation or coordination among global nations on the fittest indicators and (c) there are too many sustainability frameworks to select relevant indicators. Therefore, there is a need to structure the indicators as per the 17 SDGs to “emphasise the linkages among the indicators thereby avoiding arbitrariness in the selection process”. The indicators assessed in this study are thus classified as per their linkages with the SDGs. We followed Hák et al.’s (2016) assumptions in the classification process which state that:

• SDGs and their targets are to be assessed using indicators
• The indicators should be relevant, i.e. closely linked to indicated facts.
• The indicators should also comprise other qualities (sound methodology, legitimacy, etc.).
• The indicator set should be of a “manageable size”.

We therefore excluded indicators which are not sufficiently explored in the domain of sustainable development, i.e. indicators covered by less than 20% of the studies considered in the above matrices. Accordingly, the linkages between the chosen indicators and the SDGs are represented below. SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) is excluded from this list as the information is missing in the company reports.

This information is also represented visually in the below matrix. As can be seen here, social indicators outdo environmental indicators in number.

Sustainability indicators for the Indian automobile industry

Since most of the studies reviewed in the above table included empirical examinations of manufacturing firms, one can generalize the findings for the automobile industry. A separate empirical review of Indian automobile firms’ environmental and social sustainability reporting practices was conducted for this study and yielded scant results. According to (Mishra et al., 2024), automobile companies’ adopted environmental sustainability approaches include the use of recyclable materials in the production process, reduction in energy utilization, reduction in water consumption, reduction in the disposal and recycling costs of hazardous wastes, and reduction in electricity usage, which lead to improvement in environment management systems, pollution control and biodiversity by around 70–80 per cent (Tillu et al., 2024) find that the environmental factors relevant to the sustainability cause in case of automobile industry include increased renewable energy and resources application (REA) via shift to renewable sources, switch to produce biofuels from agriculture/food waste, waste management practices, adoption of lifecycle assessment, tracking carbon emissions, and reducing risks caused by hazardous waste. Substantial empirical evidence on the selection of appropriate sustainability indicators for the automobile industry is therefore lacking, warranting further research.

References

• Aggarwal, P., Singh, A.K., 2019. CSR and sustainability reporting practices in India: an in-depth content analysis of top-listed companies. Soc. Responsib. J. 15, 1033–1053. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-03-2018-0078
• Ahi, P., Searcy, C., 2015. An analysis of metrics used to measure performance in green and sustainable supply chains. J. Clean. Prod. 86, 360–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.005
• Ajmal, M., Khan, M., Hussain, M., Helo, P., 2017. Conceptualizing and incorporating social sustainability in the business world: International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology: Vol 25, No 4. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 25.
• ALmanza, A., Corona, B., 2020. Using Social Life Cycle Assessment to analyze the contribution of products to the Sustainable Development Goals: a case study in the textile sector | The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assessments 25.
• Arukala, S.R., Pancharathi, R.K., Pulukuri, A.R., 2019. Evaluation of Sustainable Performance Indicators for the Built Environment Using AHP Approach. J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A 100, 619–631. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40030-019-00405-8
• Baffoe, G., Mutisya, E., 2015. Social sustainability: a review of indicators and empirical application. Environ. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 4, 242. https://doi.org/10.5296/emsd.v4i2.8399
• Bhatia, A., Tuli, S., 2017. Corporate attributes affecting sustainability reporting: an Indian perspective. Int. J. Law Manag. 59, 322–340. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLMA-11-2015-0057
• Boyer, R.H.W., Peterson, N.D., Arora, P., Caldwell, K., 2016. Five Approaches to Social Sustainability and an Integrated Way Forward. Sustainability 8, 878. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8090878
• Braam, G.J.M., Uit de Weerd, L., Hauck, M., Huijbregts, M.A.J., 2016. Determinants of corporate environmental reporting: the importance of environmental performance and assurance. J. Clean. Prod. 129, 724–734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.039
• Campos, L.M.S., de Melo Heizen, D.A., Verdinelli, M.A., Cauchick Miguel, P.A., 2015. Environmental performance indicators: a study on ISO 14001 certified companies. J. Clean. Prod. 99, 286–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.03.019
• Chardine-Baumann, E., Botta-Genoulaz, V., 2014. A framework for sustainable performance assessment of supply chain management practices. Comput. Ind. Eng. 76, 138–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2014.07.029
• Contini, G., Peruzzini, M., 2022. Sustainability and Industry 4.0: Definition of a Set of Key Performance Indicators for Manufacturing Companies. Sustainability 14, 11004. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141711004
• da Silva, B.A., Constantino, M., de Oliveira, O.S., dos Santos, S.A.L., Tabak, B.M., da Costa, R.B., 2019. New indicator for measuring the environmental sustainability of publicly traded companies: An innovation for the IPAT approach. J. Clean. Prod. 215, 354–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.039
• Dagiliūtė, R., Liobikienė, G., 2015. University contributions to environmental sustainability: challenges and opportunities from the Lithuanian case. J. Clean. Prod. 108, 891–899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.015
• Denčić-Mihajlov, K., Zeranski, S., 2017. DEVELOPMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS: APPROACHES, CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES. FACTA Univ. 14, 291–306.
• Digalwar, A.K., Dambhare, S., Saraswat, S., 2020. Social sustainability assessment framework for indian manufacturing industry. Mater. Today Proc., 2nd International Conference on Recent Advances in Materials & Manufacturing Technologies 28, 591–598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.12.226
• Dočekalová, M.P., Kocmanová, A., 2016. Composite indicator for measuring corporate sustainability. Ecol. Indic. 61, 612–623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.10.012
• Dragomir, V.D., 2018. How do we measure corporate environmental performance? A critical review. J. Clean. Prod. 196, 1124–1157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.014
• Duric, Z., Potočnik Topler, J., 2021. The Role of Performance and Environmental Sustainability Indicators in Hotel Competitiveness. Sustainability 13, 6574. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126574
• Erol, I., Sencer, S., Sari, R., 2011. A new fuzzy multi-criteria framework for measuring sustainability performance of a supply chain. Ecol. Econ. 70, 1088–1100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.01.001
• European Parliament, 2019. CO2 emissions from cars: facts and figures (infographics) [WWW Document]. Top. Eur. Parliam. URL https://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/en/article/20190313STO31218/co2-emissions-from-cars-facts-and-figures-infographics (accessed 11.1.24).
• Fet, A.M., Michelsen, O., 2023. Environmental Management Systems, in: Fet, A.M. (Ed.), Business Transitions: A Path to Sustainability: The CapSEM Model. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22245-0_7
• Fritz, M.M.C., Schöggl, J.-P., Baumgartner, R.J., 2017. Selected sustainability aspects for supply chain data exchange: Towards a supply chain-wide sustainability assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 141, 587–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.080
• Fuentes, M., Negrete, M., Herrera-León, S., Kraslawski, A., 2021. Classification of indicators measuring environmental sustainability of mining and processing of copper. Miner. Eng. 170, 107033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2021.107033
• García-Granero, E.M., Piedra-Muñoz, L., Galdeano-Gómez, E., 2018. Eco-innovation measurement: A review of firm performance indicators. J. Clean. Prod. 191, 304–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.215
• Giannakis, M., Dubey, R., Vlachos, I., Ju, Y., 2020. Supplier sustainability performance evaluation using the analytic network process. J. Clean. Prod. 247, 119439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119439
• Govindan, K., Khodaverdi, R., Jafarian, A., 2013. A fuzzy multi criteria approach for measuring sustainability performance of a supplier based on triple bottom line approach. J. Clean. Prod., Cleaner Production: initiatives and challenges for a sustainable world 47, 345–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.04.014
• Govindan, K., Shaw, M., Majumdar, A., 2021. Social sustainability tensions in multi-tier supply chain: A systematic literature review towards conceptual framework development – ScienceDirect. J. Clean. Prod. 279.
• GRI, 2015. EMPOWERING SUSTAINABLE DECISIONS. GRI, Amsterdam.
• Hák, T., Janoušková, S., Moldan, B., 2016. Sustainable Development Goals: A need for relevant indicators. Ecol. Indic. 60, 565–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.08.003
• Helleno, A.L., de Moraes, A.J.I., Simon, A.T., 2017. Integrating sustainability indicators and Lean Manufacturing to assess manufacturing processes: Application case studies in Brazilian industry. J. Clean. Prod. 153, 405–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.072
• Hertwich, E.G., Wood, R., 2018. The growing importance of scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions from industry. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 104013. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aae19a
• Husgafvel, R., Pajunen, N., Virtanen, K., Paavola, I.-L., Päällysaho, M., Inkinen, V., Heiskanen, K., Dahl, O., Ekroos, A., 2015. Social sustainability performance indicators – experiences from process industry. Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 8, 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2014.898711
• Ibáñez-Forés, V., Martínez-Sánchez, V., Valls-Val, K., Bovea, M.D., 2023. How do organisations communicate aspects related to their social performance? A proposed set of indicators and metrics for sustainability reporting. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 35, 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.10.024
• ISO, 2024. The benefits of implementing an environmental management system for your business [WWW Document]. ISO. URL https://www.iso.org/climate-change/environmental-management-system-ems (accessed 11.3.24).
• Ivo de Carvalho, M., Relvas, S., Barbosa-Póvoa, A.P., 2022. A roadmap for sustainability performance assessment in the context of Agri-Food Supply Chain. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 34, 565–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.10.001
• Jain, N., Singh, A.R., 2020. Sustainable supplier selection under must-be criteria through Fuzzy inference system. J. Clean. Prod. 248, 119275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119275
• Jayakrishna, K., Vinodh, S., Vimal, K.E.K., 2019. A conceptual framework for the assessment of sustainability indicators using IF-THEN rules approach: a case study. Int. J. Serv. Oper. Manag. 34, 361. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSOM.2019.103570
• Kamboj, P., Malyan, A., Kaur, H., Jain, H., Chaturvedi, V., 2022. India Transport Energy Outlook [WWW Document]. CEEW. URL https://www.ceew.in/publications/india-transport-energy-use-carbon-emissions-and-decarbonisation (accessed 11.1.24).
• Khan, S.A.R., Ponce, P., Yu, Z., Golpîra, H., Mathew, M., 2022. Environmental technology and wastewater treatment: Strategies to achieve environmental sustainability. Chemosphere 286, 131532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.131532
• Koning, J., 2001. Social Sustainability in a Globalizing World Context, theory and methodology explored. Presented at the UNESCO / MOST Meeting, The Hague.
• Kumar, A., A, R., 2020. An MCDM framework for assessment of social sustainability indicators of the freight transport industry under uncertainty. A multi-company perspective. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 33, 1023–1058. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-09-2019-0272
• Kumar, K., Prakash, A., 2019. Examination of sustainability reporting practices in Indian banking sector. Asian J. Sustain. Soc. Responsib. 4, 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41180-018-0022-2
• Kumar, M., Shao, Z., Braun, C., Bandivadekar, A., 2022. DECARBONIZING INDIA’S ROAD TRANSPORT: A META-ANALYSIS OF ROAD TRANSPORT EMISSIONS MODELS. ICCT.
• Kwatra, S., Kumar, A., Sharma, P., Sharma, S., Singhal, S., 2016. Benchmarking sustainability using indicators: An Indian case study. Ecol. Indic. 61, 928–940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.10.049
• Labuschagne, C., Brent, A., Erck, R., 2005. Assessing the Sustainability Performances of Industries. J. Clean. Prod. 13, 373–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2003.10.007
• Lodhia, S., Martin, N., 2014. Corporate Sustainability Indicators: an Australian Mining Case Study. J. Clean. Prod., Special Volume: The sustainability agenda of the minerals and energy supply and demand network: an integrative analysis of ecological, ethical, economic, and technological dimensions 84, 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.050
• Lokuwaduge, C., Heenetigala, K., 2017. Integrating Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Disclosure for a Sustainable Development: An Australian Study – Lokuwaduge – 2017 – Business Strategy and the Environment – Wiley Online Library. Bus. Strategy Environ. 26.
• Mani, V., Agrawal, R., Sharma, V., 2015. Supply Chain Social Sustainability: A Comparative Case Analysis in Indian Manufacturing Industries. Procedia – Soc. Behav. Sci., Operations Management in Digital Economy 189, 234–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.03.219
• Mani, V., Agrawal, R., Sharma, V., 2014. Supplier selection using social sustainability: AHP based approach in India. Int. Strateg. Manag. Rev. 2, 98–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ism.2014.10.003
• Mani, V., Gunasekaran, A., Papadopoulos, T., Hazen, B., Dubey, R., 2016. Supply chain social sustainability for developing nations: Evidence from India. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 111, 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.04.003
• Mata-Lima, H., Alvino-Borba, A., Akamatsu, K., Incau, B., Jard, J., da Silva, A.B., Morgado-Dias, F., 2016. Measuring an Organization’s Performance: The Road to Defining Sustainability Indicators. Environ. Qual. Manag. 26, 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1002/tqem.21487
• Melnyk, S.A., Sroufe, R.P., Calantone, R., 2003. Assessing the impact of environmental management systems on corporate and environmental performance. J. Oper. Manag. 21, 329–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(02)00109-2
• Mishra, T., Datta, P., Behara, B., 2024. Corporate environmental responsibility, fnancial performance and environmental outcomes in India: a review. Discov. Sustain. 5.
• Moreno-Pires, S., 2014. Indicators of Sustainability, in: Michalos, A.C. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 3209–3214. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_3380
• Mura, M., Longo, M., Boccali, F., Visani, F., Zanni, S., 2024. From outcomes to practices: Measuring the commitment to sustainability of organisations. Environ. Sci. Policy 160, 103868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103868
• Neri, A., Cagno, E., Lepri, M., Trianni, A., 2021. A triple bottom line balanced set of key performance indicators to measure the sustainability performance of industrial supply chains – ScienceDirect. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 26.
• Okay, N.C., Sencer, A., Taskin, N., 2024. Quantitative indicators for environmental and social sustainability performance assessment of the supply chain. Environ. Dev. Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-05210-3
• Orazalin, N., Mahmood, M., Narbaev, T., 2019. The impact of sustainability performance indicators on financial stability: evidence from the Russian oil and gas industry | Environmental Science and Pollution Research. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 26, 8157–8168.
• Park, K., Kremer, G., 2017. Text mining-based categorization and user perspective analysis of environmental sustainability indicators for manufacturing and service systems – ScienceDirect. Ecol. Indic. 72.
• Patterson, N., 2024. What is Environmental Sustainability? Goals With Examples [WWW Document]. URL https://www.snhu.edu/about-us/newsroom/stem/what-is-environmental-sustainability (accessed 11.3.24).
• Piecyk, M.I., Björklund, M., 2015. Logistics service providers and corporate social responsibility: sustainability reporting in the logistics industry. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 45, 459–485. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-08-2013-0228
• Pilane, P.M., Jordaan, H., Bahta, Y.T., 2024. A Systematic Review of Social Sustainability Indicators for Water Use along the Agricultural Value Chain. Hydrology 11, 72. https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology11050072
• Popovic, T., Barbosa-Póvoa, A., Kraslawski, A., Carvalho, A., 2018. Quantitative indicators for social sustainability assessment of supply chains – ScienceDirect. J. Clean. Prod. 180.
• Rahdari, A.H., Anvary Rostamy, A.A., 2015. Designing a general set of sustainability indicators at the corporate level. J. Clean. Prod. 108, 757–771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.108
• Rajesh, R., 2020. Exploring the sustainability performances of firms using environmental, social, and governance scores. J. Clean. Prod. 247, 119600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119600
• Rank, S., Contreras, F., Abid, G., 2022. Editorial: Social sustainability at work: A key to sustainable development in business. Front. Psychol. 13, 1108935. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1108935
• Rao, P., 2014. Measuring Environmental Performance across a Green Supply Chain: A Managerial Overview of Environmental Indicators. Vikalpa 39.
• Ritchie, H., Roser, M., 2024. Cars, planes, trains: where do CO₂ emissions from transport come from? Our World Data.
• Sadick, A.-M., Kamardeen, I., 2020. Enhancing employees’ performance and well-being with nature exposure embedded office workplace design. J. Build. Eng. 32, 101789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101789
• Saeed, M.A., Kersten, W., 2020. Sustainability performance assessment framework: a cross-industry multiple case study. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 27, 496–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2020.1764407
• Saraswat, S.K., Digalwar, A.K., 2021. Empirical investigation and validation of sustainability indicators for the assessment of energy sources in India. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 145, 111156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111156
• Sarkar, M.S.K., Sarker, M.N.I., Sadeka, S., Ali, I., Al-Amin, A.Q., 2024. Comparative analysis of environmental sustainability indicators: Insights from Japan, Bangladesh, and Thailand. Heliyon 10, e33362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e33362
• Severo, E.A., Guimarães, J.C.F. de, Dorion, E.C.H., Nodari, C.H., 2015. Cleaner production, environmental sustainability and organizational performance: an empirical study in the Brazilian Metal-Mechanic industry. J. Clean. Prod., Integrating Cleaner Production into Sustainability Strategies 96, 118–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.06.027
• Shen, L., Olfat, L., Govindan, K., Khodaverdi, R., Diabat, A., 2013. A fuzzy multi criteria approach for evaluating green supplier’s performance in green supply chain with linguistic preferences. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 74, 170–179.
• Silva, D.N., Wehrmeyer, W., Murphy, R., 2024. Development of a holistic framework for sustainability measurement: A case study of the tea sector. Clean. Prod. Lett. 7, 100072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clpl.2024.100072
• Stindt, D., 2017. A generic planning approach for sustainable supply chain management – How to integrate concepts and methods to address the issues of sustainability? J. Clean. Prod. 153, 146–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.126
• Tajbakhsh, A., Hassini, E., 2015. A data envelopment analysis approach to evaluate sustainability in supply chain networks. J. Clean. Prod., Decision-support models and tools for helping to make real progress to more sustainable societies 105, 74–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.054
• The Economic Times, 2024. India leads in electric vehicle sales amid global slowdown – The Economic Times. Econ. Times.
• Tillu, P.G., Digalwar, A.K., Singh, S.R., Reosekar, R.S., 2024. Towards sustainable automobile ecosystem in India: Integrated analysis of technical, economic, and ESG dimensions. Clean. Environ. Syst. 14, 100210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cesys.2024.100210
• United Nations, 2024. Sustainability [WWW Document]. U. N. URL https://www.un.org/en/academic-impact/sustainability (accessed 11.3.24).
• Vijayakumar, A., Mahmood, M., Gurmu, A., Kamardeen, I., Alam, S., 2022. Social sustainability indicators for road infrastructure projects: A systematic literature review, in: IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science. Presented at the World Building Congress, IOP, Montreal.
• Weiss, M., Dekker, P., Moro, A., Scholz, H., Patel, M.K., 2015. On the electrification of road transportation – A review of the environmental, economic, and social performance of electric two-wheelers. Transp. Res. Part Transp. Environ. 41, 348–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.09.007
• Winter, S., Lasch, R., 2016. Environmental and social criteria in supplier evaluation – Lessons from the fashion and apparel industry. J. Clean. Prod. 139, 175–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.201
• Yadava, R.N., Sinha, B., 2016. Scoring Sustainability Reports Using GRI 2011 Guidelines for Assessing Environmental, Economic, and Social Dimensions of Leading Public and Private Indian Companies. J. Bus. Ethics 138, 549–558. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2597-1
• Zahari, A., Said, J., Muhamad, N., Ramly, S., 2024. Ethical culture and leadership for sustainability and governance in public sector organisations within the ESG framework – ScienceDirect. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 10.