Sustainability: Proposal of A Sustainability Index For The Automotive Industry

Sustainability 2015, 7, 2113-2144; doi:10.
3390/su7022113
OPEN ACCESS
sustainability
ISSN 2071-1050
www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Article
Proposal of a Sustainability Index for the Automotive Industry

Miguel F. Salvado 1,†, Susana G. Azevedo 2,†,*, João C. O. Matias 1,† and Luís M. Ferreira 3,†
1
Department of Electromechanical Engineering, University of Beira Interior, 6200-001 Covilhã,
Portugal; E-Mails: [email protected] (M.F.S.); [email protected] (J.C.O.M.)
2
UNIDEMI, Department of Management and Economics, University of Beira Interior,
6200-001 Covilhã, Portugal
3
GOVCOPP, Department of Economics, Management and Industrial Engineering (DEGEI),
University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal; E-Mail: [email protected]
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: [email protected];

Tel.: +351-275-319-654; Fax: +351-275-329-183.
Academic Editor: Giuseppe Ioppolo
Received: 10 November 2014 / Accepted: 9 February 2015 / Published: 16 February 2015
Abstract: In a scenario of increasing globalization, sustainable development has emerged

as an attractive and strategic issue for both countries and individual organizations and
their supply chains. Companies have faced different challenges in seeking to combine the
best economic performance with increased social and environmental responsibility.
Monitoring sustainability is essential for decision-making and management of activities
that comprise an organization’s system processes. Evaluation can be performed using
indices or a set of indicators. In addition to increasing organizational effectiveness and
improving competitiveness, customer service and profitability, it is also a crucial influence
on the development of business sustainability. This paper proposes a sustainability index
that provides companies with information about their level of economic, social and
environmental sustainability, showing their performance at both individual and supply chain
level. The importance of the indicators is assessed by using the Analytic Hierarchy Process
(AHP) methodology applied to a case study of a supply chain in the automotive industry.
The various stages experienced during the construction of the index are also shown.
The final results achieved are then presented and discussed in light of the objectives.
Sustainability 2015, 7 2114
Keywords: development sustainability; sustainability index; AHP; supply chain management
1. Introduction
Sustainable development has been presented as critical for businesses and countries where they
operate, contributing to the satisfaction of human needs and preserving the environment for present
and future generations. Thus, monitoring the level of sustainability has become a crucial part of
decision support in any management system. Policy makers from industry have paid increasing
attention to the implementation of sustainable development of business activities due to fierce
competition in the global market and rigorous environmental standards. Indicators of sustainable
development are recognized as useful tools for assessing and anticipating production performance and
trends, providing early warning information and helping avoid environmental, economic and social
damage, but are especially useful in supporting decision making [1].
Organizations face new challenges, not only as they seek the best economic performance but also in
their drive to be more environmentally and socially responsible. In other words, companies are
changing from a pure economic business perspective to one including more sustainable development,
adding more economic, social and environmental concerns to their business operations. The perspective
of sustainability has evolved from an internal focus on the company to a global perspective of the
supply chain [2].
Supply chain management is crucial not only in increasing organizational effectiveness,
competitiveness, customer service, and profitability, but also in influencing sustainable business
development. Companies must not only implement practices that promote the company and the efficiency
of the global supply chain, but also those that focus on social, economic and environmental issues [1].
In this paper, a sustainability index is proposed to allow individual companies and their respective
supply chains to gain information on their level of economic, social and environmental sustainability.
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) methodology is used to obtain the weights of the indicators and a
case study is performed to illustrate the application of the suggested sustainability index in an automotive
supply chain.
This paper begins with a theoretical framework in Section 2 which covers the different meanings
attributed to the concept of sustainability. Then, different measurement tools for obtaining an index of
sustainability are presented; the main tools related to corporate sustainability (indices of the
Commission on Sustainable Development, the Global Reporting Initiative, the Dow Jones Sustainability
Index, the triple bottom line and ETHOS and Ecoinvent indicators) are also described. Section 3
proposes a sustainability index that gives individual companies and their respective supply chains
information about their level of economic, social and environmental sustainability. A working
methodology to build the proposed index and consisting of five stages is suggested. Section 4 follows
the stages associated with the construction of the proposed sustainability index using a case study,
showing their results. Finally, a critical review and concluding remarks are drawn in the light of the
results of the sustainability index and suggestions for improvements are made.
1.1. Concept of Sustainability
Today, there is much discussion about how we define sustainability. Critics argue that the concept
cannot be “properly defined” [3]. According to Pinar et al. [4] sustainability is an elusive concept
being very rare to find two identical descriptions of its different components. Sustainable development
is a pattern of resource use that aims to meet human needs while preserving the environment so that
these needs can be met not only in the present but also for future generations. The term was used by
the World United Nations Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), which published
“Our Common Future” (also known as the Brundtland Report) [5]. It was the Commission that made
famous the definition of sustainable development as that which “meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. The report was inspired on
the results of the United Nations Conference about the Human Environment (the Stockholm
Conference), which had introduced environmental concerns into the development problem [6]. From a
corporate perspective, the WCED [5] definition suggests not only a focus on the economic aspects of a
business, but also a need to focus on the sustainability of natural resources companies and the
companies they serve. This fundamental requirement was the starting point for developing concepts for
the implementation of sustainability initiatives [7].
In other areas, the term “sustainability” has been defined in various disciplines, such as science
and engineering, operations management and social sciences [8]. Bithas and Christofakis [9] and
Fischer et al. [10] argue that there is no consensus on the operational content of environmentally
sustainable development.
The three dimensions of sustainability (social, environmental and economic) are most enlightening
when kept separate. Although there is some overlap between the three dimensions and some of their
links, they have been addressed separately by different disciplines. Social scientists defend that social
sustainability, and environmentalists have an important role in enhancing the sustainability area [11].
The approaches to the social dimension of sustainable development are diverse. As mentioned by
Martin [12], a specific definition of the social dimension of sustainable development is less clear. The
diversity of economic, social and cultural conditions of each country makes the development of a
uniform definition of social sustainability very difficult [13].
In general, there has been a strong focus on defining sustainability as a condition, and on measuring
it with a series of indicators. Social sustainability is a condition marked by the improvement of life in
communities, and a process within communities that can achieve this condition [14].
The basic understanding of the term “environmental sustainability”, established by Morelli [15],
essentially expands our common perception of human activity. This makes the connection more clearly
with the ecological concept of interdependence, thus delineating the limits of use of sustainability to
match the overlap of human activities with ecosystem functioning support.
From this perspective, the needs of the present generation are met without compromising the ability
of future generations to meet their needs means that the needs of resources and services for current and
future generations are met without compromising the health of the ecosystems that provided them [5].
The success and competitiveness of a company in the long term is the basis of its economic
dimension. In contrast to the social and environmental dimension, the economic dimension is primarily
quantitative in nature, being focused on the efficient use of resources to achieve a return on
investment [16].
The widely accepted definition of economic sustainability states that capital is preserved intact.
It has been used by accountants since the Middle Ages to allow traders to understand how much of
their sales revenue they and their families could consume. Thus, the modern definition of income is
already sustainable [17].
1.2. Sustainability Index
The concept of sustainable development has been quite important for the responsible by making
decisions in industry [1].
Delai and Takahashi [18] argue that the measurement of sustainability is a driver for the inclusion
of sustainability as an important issue in decision-making and organization system process activity.
The sustainability rating can be accomplished via an index or a set of indicators. The unit of
measurement used for sustainability is not relevant, since its function is the same: helping to take
responsible decisions to assess corporate performance in terms of sustainability, as well as providing
information that will enable future planning.
Several tools and indices for measuring corporate sustainability have been proposed, namely:
(i) Indicators of the Commission on Sustainable Development; (ii) Global Reporting Initiative;
(iii) Dow Jones Sustainability Index; (iv) Triple Bottom Line (TBL); (v) ETHOS indicators;
(vi) Ecoinvent 2000 and (vii) ISO 14031 indicators.
(i) The index of the Commission on Sustainable Development is a set of indicators for sustainable
development suggested by the UN in 1995. The main goal was to become the indicators of sustainable
development accessible to managers, explaining their methodologies [19]. It is a tool that follows
Brundtland’s concept of sustainable development and focuses on four dimensions of sustainability:
social, environmental, economic and institutional (Table 1). Since its beginning, the primary objective
of the Commission on Sustainable Development indicators has been to inform policy at national level.
In addition to using indicators to assess global progress towards sustainable development, many countries
successfully use them to measure success in their national sustainable development strategy. Beyond
this purpose, there are other important factors for selecting the indicators of sustainable development.
Table 1. Framework of the Commission on Sustainable Development indicators.

Commission on Sustainable Development—Indicators
Social Environmental Economic Institutional
Equity Atmosphere Economic structure Institutional framework
Health Earth Institutional capacity
Patterns of consumption and production
Education Oceans, seas and coasts
Habitation Fresh-water
Security Biodiversity
Population
Source: adapted from Singh et al. [1].
(ii) Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). This is a volunteer board with information on the economic,
environmental and social performance of an organization. Launched in 1997 by the Coalition for
Environmentally Responsible Economies (CERES) and the United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP), it aims to provide assistance to businesses and their associates in understanding and
communicating their contributions to sustainable development contributing by this way for improving
the quality and usefulness of sustainability reports. The GRI focuses on the Triple Bottom Line
concept, balancing the complex relationships between current economic, environmental and social
needs, in order not to jeopardize the future [20]. Some of the indicators suggested by the GRI are
present in Table 2.
Table 2. Structure of the Global Reporting Initiative indicators.

Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)
Category Economic Environmental
Economic performance Materials
Presence in the market Energy
Indirect economic impact Water
Practice of contracts Biodiversity
Emissions
Effluents and waste
Products and services
Compliance
Transport
Global
Environmental assessment of supplier
Environmental complaint mechanisms
Category Social
Sub-Category Labor practices Human rights Society Product
Responsibility
Labor management relations; Investment; Local communities; Customer health
Occupational safety Non-discrimination; Anti-corruption; and safety;
and health; Freedom of association Public policy; Products and
Training and education; and collective bargaining; Anticompetitive labelling
Diversity and equal Child labor; behavior; services;
opportunities; Forced or compulsory Compliance; Marketing
Equal pay for men labor Supplier assessment for communications;
and women; -Safety practices impact on society; Customer
Evaluation of supplier -Indigenous rights Complaint mechanisms privacy;
for labor practices; -Evaluation for impact on society Compliance
Labor practices -Human rights
complaint mechanisms assessment
of the supplier
-Human rights complaint
mechanisms
Source: adapted from GRI [20].
(iii) The Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI) is one of the most important sustainability indices.
It was launched in 1999 to track the performance of the global index of the top 10 per cent of
companies in the Dow Jones, leading in terms of corporate sustainability. According to this index,
sustainability means creating long-term value for shareholders by embracing opportunities and
managing risks deriving from economic, environmental and social developments (Table 3) [21]. Over
time, regional indices have also been created. The Dow Jones STOXX Sustainability Index (DJSSI)
for the sustainability leaders of Europe was created in 2001, the DJSI North America (DJSINA) was
created in 2005 and the Sustainability Index Dow Jones Asia Pacific was established in early 2009.
Performance of the company is easier controlled by assessing corporate sustainability, whose explicit
goal is to measure and verify the performance of corporate sustainability in financial terms [22].
Table 3. Examples from the structure of the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI).
Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI)
Social Environmental Economic
-Contribution of health outcomes -Biodiversity -Brand management
-Human capital development -Climate strategy -Risk and crisis management
-Practical work indicator -Environmental footprint
-Contentious issues -Environmental reports -Marketing practices
Source: adapted from DJSI [22].
(iv) The Triple Bottom Line (TBL/3BL) is an aggregated index to assess the sustainability
performance of companies (Table 4). Sustainability is the balance between financial growth and ethics
and fairness [23]. Sustainability should cover TBL/3BL, which considers environmental quality,
economic prosperity and social justice [24,25].
Table 4. Examples of Triple Bottom Line (TBL) indicators.

Indicators of TBL
Unemployment rate Concentration of sulfur dioxide Personal income
Female labor participation rate Selected priority pollutants Cost of underemployment
Average household income Excess nutrients
Percentage of the population with a Electricity consumption Size of establishment
post-secondary degree or certificate
Average time of journey Fossil fuel consumption Employment growth
Violent crimes per capita Solid waste management Distribution of employment
by sector
Health-adjusted life expectancy Hazardous waste management Percentage of firms in each sector
Concentration of nitrogen oxides Revenue per sector contributing
to gross state product
Source: adapted from Slaper and Hall [26].
(v) ETHOS indicators of social responsibility were launched in 2002, introducing a set of indicators
designed to help Brazilian companies learn and evaluate company management, with respect to
business practices, social responsibility, business strategy and monitoring the overall performance of
the company (Table 5) [27]. This guide to self-assessment and reporting focuses primarily on the
social aspects of sustainability and considers Corporate Social Responsibility as a way of management
while addressing competitiveness, sustainability and the needs of society [18].
Table 5. ETHOS indicators.

ETHOS Indicators
Social Environmental Economic Vision and strategy
Human rights Climate change Organizational governance Strategies for sustainability
Work practices Management and monitoring Operation and Value proposition—Business
of impact on ecosystem management practices model
services and biodiversity
Consumer issues Impact of consumption
Community outreach
and development
Source: Adapted from ETHOS [26].
The current generation of ETHOS indicators, presents a new approach to the management of
companies and seeks to integrate the principles and behaviors of corporate social responsibility and
environmental concerns into the traditional vision of sustainability focusing mainly on the economic
dimension (Figure 1). They are based on the concept of sustainable and responsible business which
still in development. In addition, ETHOS indicators are designed to integrate the guidelines on the GRI
sustainability reporting, the ISO 26000 Standard Social Responsibility standards and other initiatives.
Environmental Social
Dimension Dimension
Sustainability
Economic
Dimension
Traditional Dimension
“New” Dimensions
Figure 1. Sustainability Dimensions. (Source: adapted from Winter and Knemeyer [7].)
(vi) In late 2000, the Ecoinvent 2000 project was officially launched. Several Swiss federal offices
and research institutes of the ETH (Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule/Federal) Institute of
Technology agreed on a set of efforts to harmonize and update inventory life cycle data, based on life
cycle inventory (LCI) for use with life cycle assessment (LCA) [28]. There are several thousands of
LCI datasets in the areas of agriculture, energy, transport, biofuels, biomaterials, construction and
packaging materials, base and precious metals and metals processing supply as well as waste treatment.
The databases aim to support and improve the environmental performance of different products,
processes and services from different organizations.
The Ecoinvent establishes and provides a scientific evaluation of LCA and Life Cycle Management
(LCM) data and services for the industry, consultants, public authorities and research institutions [29].
(vii) ISO 14031 indicators cover environmental management, environmental performance and
evaluation guidelines. The standards laid down by ISO 14031 provide guidance on the design and use
of environmental performance evaluation for an organization. It is applicable to all organizations,
regardless of type, size, location and complexity. Many organizations found ways to understand,
demonstrate and improve their environmental performance.
Environmental performance evaluation is the theme of this international standard. This is an internal
management system, providing reliable and verifiable information on an ongoing basis to determine
whether an organization’s environmental performance is meeting the criteria established by the
organization’s management.
This international standard describes two broad categories of indicators for environmental performance
evaluation (Table 6): environmental performance indicators and environmental conditions indicators.
Table 6. ISO 14031 indicators.

ISO 14031 Indicators
Environmental Performance Indicators Environmental Condition Indicators
Performance management indicators;
Provides information about the state of
Provides information about management efforts in
the environment, which may be affected
order to influence the environmental performance
by the organization.
of the organization’s operations.
Operational performance indicators;
Provides information about the environmental
performance of the organization’s operations
Source: adapted from ISO 14031:2013 [30].
2. Proposal of a Sustainability Index
This section proposes a sustainability index that provides companies with information about their
level of economic, social and environmental sustainability, both for the individual company’s
operations and for the supply chain. Thus, it is possible to identify priority areas for action and changes
to behavior that can contribute to improve sustainability and competitiveness. It is important to note
that the proposal of a sustainability index represents an economic opportunity for companies and
corresponding supply chains to improve their competitive advantage since it contributes for enhancing
companies image, reputation and revenues gained [31,32]. Knowing that, the assessment of a
sustainability index can be an important driver in integrating sustainability into the core business
practices of companies and to view the subject as an essential long-term performance factor on radar of
investors [33].
In this regard, the Figure 2 is proposed to illustrate a framework composed by five stages.
Stage 1—Selection of sustainability indicators
Stage 2—Determination of indicator weights
Stage 3—Normalization of indicators
Stage 4—Choose the aggregation method
Stage 5—Index construction
Figure 2. Stages to build the sustainability index.
The following is a brief explanation of each stage.
2.1. Stage 1—Selection of Sustainability Indicators
The lack of a coherent framework linking what it is to be sustained to specific measurable variables
is a critical barrier to better understanding progress toward sustainability Indicators perform various
functions which may lead to better decisions and more effective actions to simplify, clarify and make
aggregation more accessible. They can help not only to incorporate knowledge on physics and social
science in decision-making [34,35], but also can help to measure and calibrate progress towards the
goals of sustainable development. They may also prevent economic, social and environmental setbacks
and are useful tools for communicating ideas, thoughts and values [19].
Another issue challenging sustainability measurement is the lack of consensus on sustainability
indicators [23,36,37]. The inability of existing frameworks to guide selection of indicators has been
recognized by several authors [38–40].
The selection of appropriate criteria and indicators of sustainability and sustainable development is
a technical and normative decision since the search for indicators is guided more by what can be
measured (a technical issue) than by what should be measured (a normative issue) [41].
Some tailored sustainability indicator sets have been developed [42–46], however only few have an
integrative focus measuring environmental, economic and social dimensions [42,46,47]. Also, some
sets of sustainability indicators do not address some key issues related to air, water quality biodiversity
and their impacts on whole value chain. Moreover, some indicators focus on management practices
(means) not on its results (ends) [41].
Furthermore, from the point of view of Martin [12] and Dowse [48] sustainability measures and
reports, in most cases, have little relevance to the daily realities of business. Bearing in mind this, a
different set of sustainability indicators is suggested in this work (Table 7) attending to the following
methodology/criteria: (1) the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) is adopted balancing the relationships between
economic, environmental, and social needs; (2) the social and economic indicators are selected having
as reference the version G4 of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI); (3) the environmental indicators
are selected from the proposed operational indicators of the ISO 14031; and (4) a set of mandatory
characteristics of the selected indicators was followed (objectives, understandable, worktables and
measurable indicators).
Table 7. Sustainability indicators proposed.

Dimension of Sustainability Ii, j Unit of
Source
Sustainability Indicators Measure
Number of
G4-LA6 Acidi− The lower
accidents per year Quantity
Accident rate (TA) the better
by organization
Loss of productivity Prodlosti− The lower
G4—LA7 %
by organization i the best (−)
G4—LA12 Composition
of governance bodies and
% contracted women breakdown of employees Womi+ The bigger
%
by the organization i per employee category the better (+)
according to gender, age, and
other indicators of diversity
Social
% temporary workers TempWi− The lower
G4—LA2 G4—LA4 %
by organization i the better (−)
G4—LA6 Type of injury
Absenteeism rate and injury rates, diseases, Absti− The lower
%
by organization i lost days, absenteeism and the better (−)
work-related deaths
G4—LA1 Total number and
Rotation of workers TurnOvi− The lower
rate of new employee hires Quantity
by organization i the better (−)
and employee turnover
% people with
Peopespi+ The
special needs G4—LA12 %
higher the better (+)
by organization i
G4—EC1 (operating costs +
Direct economic
salaries and employee
value generated €
benefits + payment to
and distributed
suppliers of capital)
Economic
Keeble et al. [49], Seuring
R&D expenditures €
et al. [50], Welford et al. [51]
Number of
Szekely and Knirsch [52] Quantity
persons employed
Rate of ResNDi+ The higher
ISO 14031 %
non-hazardous waste the better (+)
Rate of ResDi− The lower
ISO 14031 %
hazardous waste the better (−)
Amount of water
Environmental Wati− The lower
consumed per year in ISO 14031 m3
the better (−)
industrial processes
G4—EN3 Power
Amount of energy Energi − The lower
consumption within the kW/h
used per year the better (−)
organization ISO 14031
2.2. Stage 2—Determination of Indicator Weights
The relative importance of indicators becomes a source of contention when companies’ decision
makers have different point of views and are interested in different indicators. However, the weights of
the indicators can be computed through statistical models, or from participatory methods and conjoint
analysis [53]. In this case, the participatory method is proposed, more specifically the Analytic
Hierarchy Process (AHP).
AHP is one of the techniques that assists decision makers in solving complex problems by
organizing thoughts, experiences, knowledge and judgment in a hierarchical structure and guiding
them through a sequence of paired comparison judgments [54]. The AHP method has been widely
used to incorporate the qualitative and quantitative considerations of human perception [55].
AHP methodology is capable of converting human perception into a numerical value of importance.
Basically, AHP involves comparing pairs to a number of different criteria after dividing the criteria
into a hierarchy of multiple levels [56]. These factors will be compared to each other in a matrix, as
shown in Table 8.
Table 8. Pairwise comparisons of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

A B C D
A 1 X12 X13 1/X14
B 1/X12 1 X23 X24
C 1/X13 1/X23 1 1/X34
D X14 1/X24 X34 1
A, B, C and D are the factors and X12, X13 and X14 are compared to the value of the pairs AB, AC
and DC, respectively. The value is obtained from a basic range of absolute numbers in order to capture
human perceptions regarding qualitative and quantitative attributes.
After all the matrices are formed, the relative weights and the maximum eigenvalue (λmax) for each
matrix are calculated. The λmax value is used to calculate the consistency (CR) ratio of the estimated
vector in order to validate the array of paired comparison. The CR is calculated according to the
following steps:
(1)—Calculate the relative weights and λmax for each matrix of order n
(2)—Calculate the consistency index (CI) for each matrix of order n, using the formula (1);
λmax  n
[CI  ] (1)
n 1
(3)—CR is then calculated using the formula (2)
CI
[CR  ] (2)
RI
where the random consistency index (RI) varies depending on the order of the matrix [52].
Theoretically the importance of each indicator should be equal for all companies belonging to the
same supply chain. This assumption makes possible performing benchmarking analysis and guarantees
that all the companies belonging to the same supply chain are using the same instrument to assess their
level of sustainability. To assure that the suggested weights for each indicator reflect the reality of the
automotive industry, the AHP technique with a panel of academics and professionals from different
tiers of the automotive supply chain is suggested. It is also important to note that the same instrument
should be used to calculate the sustainability index among suppliers belonging to the same tier of the
automotive supply chain otherwise it is not possible to make comparisons between them.
2.3. Stage 3—Normalization of the Indicators
Normalization is necessary since the indicators are usually expressed in different units [53]. In this
case, the Min-Max method is used for the normalization of indicators. According to this method, each
indicator with a positive impact on the sustainability ( Ii, j ) is normalized using the following
Equation (3):
 I i, j  I i, jMIN

I Ni , j  (3)
I i, MAX
j  I i, MIN
j

where: I Ni , j —is the normalized indicator i for the dimension of sustainability j with positive impact on
sustainability;
Ii, j —represents the indicator i for the dimension of sustainability j with positive impact
on sustainability;
Ii, MIN
j —represents the lowest value of the indicator i for the dimension of sustainability j with
positive impact on sustainability. That is Ii, MIN
j = min Ii, j
Ii, MAX
j —represents the highest value of the indicator i for the dimension of sustainability j with
positive impact on sustainability. That is Ii, MAX
j = max Ii, j
Normalization of indicators with negative impact on sustainability is calculated using the following
Equation (4):
I i, j  I i, MIN
I Ni , j  j
(4)
I i, MAX
j  I i, MIN
j

where: I Ni , j —is the normalized indicator i for the dimension of sustainability j with negative impact on
sustainability;
Ii, j —represents the indicator i for the dimension of sustainability j with negative impact
on sustainability;
Ii, MIN
j —represents the lowest value of the indicator i for the dimension of sustainability j with
negative impact on sustainability.
Ii, MAX
j —represents the highest value of the indicator i for the dimension of sustainability j with
negative impact on sustainability.
2.4. Stage 4—Choose the Aggregation Method
In this case, the aggregation method selected is the additive weighting method. Nardo et al. [57]
report that in the linear additive aggregation method the indicators must have the same unit of
measurement, which implies that poor performance in some indicators can be compensated by high
values of other indicators. Zhou et al. [58] report that the transparency and ease of understanding of
the additive weighting method has been justified by its wide use by non-specialists. Since the additive
weighting method is a linear model, it is only applicable if independence exists between the variables.
However, if the assumption of independence between variables is not breached, the additive weighting
method would give results very close to the optimal value function [59]. In this situation, Nardo et al. [57]
argue that the model could be applied, but the resulting aggregate indicator may be biased.
The proposed model for evaluating the behavior of the supply chain in terms of the IC_SUSTJ model
can be used by supply chain managers, taking into account that:
- The set of economic, social and environmental practices should reflect the type of supply chain
- The weight of the practice and paradigms must be obtained through AHP
- The independence of the variables must be checked for the aggregated additive weighting index
to be correctly interpreted.
2.5. Stage 5—Index Construction
Figure 3 shows the three sub-indices proposed for the economic (Ii1), social (Ii2) and environmental
(Ii3) dimensions, represented respectively by economic indicators ( I1E,1 … IiE,1 ), social indicators
( I1S, 2 … IiS, 2 ) and environmental indicators ( I1A,3 … IiA,3 ).
Sub-Indices Indicators
I1E,1
Weight of Economic (Ii1) …
Economic
practices (Wi1) IiE,1
Corporate I1S, 2
Sustainability Social (Ii2) …
Index (IC_SUST) Weight of IiS,2
Social practices
(Wi2)
I1A,3
Weight of …
Environmental
Environmental
(Ii3) IiA,3
practices (Wi3)
Figure 3. Hierarchical scheme for computing the corporate sustainability Index.

For each company j sub-indices (Is) may be aggregated with the corresponding indicator according
to the following Equation (5):
I S  j  
 i1 i1
 
f  W x I j,... W
iy  1
x  I
 iy  1
 j, W x  I  j

 iy  iy   (5)
where:
(Is)j—is the behavior of company j according to the sustainability dimension s;
(Iis)j—is the value of the indicator i associated to the dimension of sustainability s for company j;
y represents the indicators considered for each model;
(Wis) is the weight of the indicator i for the sub-index associated to the dimension of sustainability s.
As stated above in Section 2.2, the importance of each indicator should be equal for all companies
belonging to the same supply chain. The total sustainability index for each company is given by the
Equation (6).
I C _ SUSTj  f Wi1 x I i1  j ,Wi 2 x I i 2  j , Wi 3 x I i 3  j  (6)
where: (Is)j denotes the behavior of dimension s (associated to each sub-index) for each company j
and Wi1, Wi2, Wi3 are the weights for each considered sub-index. The IC_SUSTj assumes values between 0
(not sustainable) to 1 (extremely sustainable).
After establishing the index for each company, it is also possible to achieve the same result for the
supply chain but using information from all companies belonging to it. Using the supply chain as the unit
of analysis, the sustainability index for the supply chain can be computed through the following equation:

n
j 1
( Ii) j
SCIs = (7)
n
In Equation (7), n represents the number of companies that make up a certain supply chain, while
(Is)j is the behavior of company j in terms of sub-indices I1, I2 and I3.
Finally, the use of this index for a particular supply chain (IC_SUSTSC) is a function of the indicators
of sustainability for each weighted sub-indices (Equation (8)).
IC_SUSTSC = f (Wi1 × SCIi1, Wi2 × SCIi2, Wi3 × SCIi3) (8)
The various items SCIsi indicate the behavior of the supply chain in accordance with sub-indices;
Wsi corresponds to the weight of each sub-index (environmental, economic and social). These
contributions symbolize the importance of each sub-index/behavior to the s of the supply chain.
3. Determination of Sustainability: Case Study
Since the main goal of this research involves the application of a sustainability index, a case study
of a supply chain in the SC AUTO group, was chosen. The research company belongs to the
automotive industry but because of confidentiality reasons its real name will be omitted and will be
named as “AUTO”. The company was selected attending to the following factors: (i) its relevance for
the Portuguese automotive industry; (ii) It is a membership of a large automotive group; (iii) it is
recognized in the Portuguese industry as a reference in subjects related to sustainability; (iv) it is
strongly interested in developing an instrument to support the assessment of the sustainability level of
its supply chain; (v) willingness to collaborate with this research; and (iv) its geographical proximity to
ensure the right conditions for the research team. The case study selection was made on the basis of
“planned opportunism”, which is to say there was an anticipation of gaining access to secondary
data [60]. Case selection is often opportunistic, given that it is frequently difficult to find suitable case
studies that allow insight into the research topic, and those that can be pursued often emerge from
existing contacts a researcher has with an industry [61].
The analysis focuses on the upstream supply chain, specifically on their suppliers. Being so, a
database of 146 active suppliers with whom the company works directly was provided. Of those, only
46 will be included in the research sample, since only these provided data on the sustainability
indicators studied in this work, allowing the application of the sustainability index. To gauge the
importance of sustainability indicators, a survey was performed using the AHP methodology.
In this context, this research intends to verify the contribution of the economic, environmental and
social sustainability dimensions for the overall sustainability of the automotive supply chain. Then, this
research intends to investigate the importance of the different indicators with respect to social, economic
and environmental dimensions, evaluating each measure of sustainability in the automotive supply chain.
3.1. Profile of Case-Study Companies
Given the research design the SC AUTO group was chosen as an example of a supply chain in the
European automotive industry. The company is a multinational conglomerate located in various
countries, representative of major automotive markets. Overall, their production and development
relies on electronic and mechanical locking systems, authorization systems, passive entry systems,
vehicle access systems, door systems and handling systems for airbags and the rear of vehicles. The
company has a relevant international market share and is the global leader in this segment.
The research company has approximately 350 employees, and applies locksets and mounts latches
to steering columns using modern technology and a network of domestic partnerships. The company
focuses its upstream supply chain specifically on its providers. From the 146 active suppliers 46 are
included in this study for the application of the suggested sustainability index.
This study comprises companies producing components for the automotive industry (Table 9).
Table 9 summarizes the profile of the research companies according to the main product produced and
the standards and certificates. For confidentiality reasons a fictitious name was assigned to them.
Table 9. Companies profile.

Main Product Produced Standards/Certifications
company 1 Parts for the automobile industry ISO 9001, ISO 14001
company 2 n.a. ISO 9001
company 3 Tapes ISO 9001
company 4 Panels and handles ISO 9001, ISO/TS 16949
company 5 Stamping parts and carbon steel ISO 9001, ISO/TS 16949
company 7 Compression springs, extension and torsion ISO 9001, ISO/TS 16949, ISO 14001
company 8 n.a. ISO 9001, ISO/TS 16949, ISO 14001
company 9 Wiring ISO 9001, ISO/TS 16949, ISO 14001
company 10 Plastic parts ISO 9001, ISO/TS 16949, ISO 14001
Table 9. Cont.
Main Product Produced Standards/Certifications
company 11 Rotary light switches ISO 9001, ISO/TS 16949, ISO 14001
company 13 Parts for the automotive industry ISO 9001, ISO/TS 16949
company 14 Keys ISO 9001
company 15 Plastic parts ISO 9001, ISO/TS 16949
company 16 Connections/accessories ISO/TS 16949
company 17 Electronic components ISO 9001, ISO/TS 16949, ISO 14001
company 18 Parts for braking systems and safety ISO 9001, ISO/TS 16949, ISO 14001
company 19 Transformation components ISO 9001, ISO/TS 16949
company 20 Compression springs ISO 9001
ISO 9001, ISO/TS 16949, ISO 14001,
company 21 n.a.
OHSAS 18001
company 22 n.a. ISO 9001, ISO/TS 16949, ISO 14001
company 23 Springs ISO 9001, ISO 14001
company 24 Several devices/batteries ISO 9001, ISO 14001
company 25 Dyeing ISO 9001, ISO 14001
company 27 n.a. ISO/TS 16949, ISO 14001
company 28 Casting ISO/TS 16949
company 29 Lubricants for engines ISO 9001, ISO 14001
company 30 Dyeing ISO 9001, ISO 14001
company 31 Grilles, radiators ISO 9001, ISO/TS 16949, ISO 14001
company 32 Plastic bags
company 33 Sealants ISO 9001
company 34 Covers for motor cars ISO/TS 16949, ISO 14001
ISO 9001, ISO/TS 16949, ISO 14001,
company 35 n.a.
OHSAS 18001
company 36 n.a. ISO/TS 16949, ISO 14001
ISO 9001, ISO/TS 16949, ISO 14001,
company 37 Integrated circuits
OHSAS 18001
company 38 Metal products EC-1624/04
company 40 Keys ISO 9001, ISO 14001
company 41 Paper labels ISO 9001
company 42 Moving parts ISO 9001, ISO/TS 16949
company 43 Plastic injection components ISO 9001, ISO/TS 16949
company 44 Casting ISO 9001, ISO/TS 16949
company 45 Casting ISO/TS 16949
company 46 Fineblanking ISO 9001, ISO/TS 16949
Note: n.a. = there is no information.
According to Table 9, almost all companies work to produce parts for the automotive industry,
such as compression springs, plastic parts and dyeing the electronic components. Regarding the
standards and certificates, it appears that the ISO 9001 and the Quality Management Systems are used
by almost all companies.
Other standards that exist in some companies are ISO 14001, Environmental Management Systems
and ISO/TS 16946 (this is a specification for meeting the requirements of car manufacturers, especially
quality, cost and delivery just in time (JIT)) and OHSAS 18001 Safety and Health Management
Systems at Work.
The relationship between members of an automobile supply chain is unique. The automakers have
great flexibility because they have full control of the manufacturing cycle (from product design to
assembly, through the supply of parts) and, in some situations, the processes of supplying. Although
the substantial supply of parts and components to original equipment manufacturers is primarily
ensured by direct suppliers, their range is limited and the same supply can be extended to second-level
suppliers, and the purchase of materials and elements by the first level can only be made through
approved/certified suppliers [60].
3.2. Application of the Framework for Building a Sustainability Index
To determine the sustainability index, the five stages previously defined in Section 3 are applied.
3.2.1. Stage 1—Selection of Sustainability Indicators
In this first stage, the aim is to select indicators for further evaluation; as such, it is also necessary to
take into account the unit of measure. The indicators used in this case study and the corresponding unit
of measures are the ones previously defined in Table 7.
3.2.2. Stage 2—Determination of Indicator Weights
The AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) methodology is an intuitive tool for formulating and analyzing
decisions. Applying AHP contributes to provide solutions to specific types of problems involving the
prioritization of potential alternative options by making pair-wise comparisons of a set of elements.
This formula has already been applied to a number of decision-making issues, in particular issues
related to the automotive sector [62]. The weights were determined through a meeting that one of the
researchers had with the purchasing and environmental manager of the company. The pair-wise
comparisons inherent to the AHP application was performed as a team exercise and the final decision
was reached by consensus [63–65]. The three academics also answered the questionnaire but only with
the purpose of testing it. It was possible to produce a coherent and consistent table (Table 10) besides
the small sample, since it only serves to illustrate the application.
Analyzing the results of Table 10, it can be seen that to the economic dimension (I1) is given
greatest importance with a weight of 66%, while the social dimension was considered least important
at 13%. For the social dimension indicators, the number of accidents per year ( I1S, 2 ) was seen as the
most important with a weight of 33%, while the percentage of women employed ( I 2S,2 ) was considered
least important at 5%. For the economic dimension, the “direct economic value generated and
distributed” ( I1E,1 ) was rated as the most important indicator with a weight of 72%, while the number of
persons employed ( I3E,1 ) was considered the least important with a weight of 12%. Finally, the
evaluation indicators for the environmental dimension ranked the rate of hazardous waste ( I 2A,3 ) with
the greatest importance at 38% and the quantity of water consumed per year in industrial processes
( I3A,3 ) was considered the least important at 16%.
Table 10. Determination of weights for the three dimensions of sustainability.

Variables Statistics
AHP model Ranking Weight
I1 Economic 1 0.66
I3 Environmental 2 0.21
I2 Social 3 0.13
Number (n) 3
Average ratings (total) 3.67
Eigenvalue (λ)—average value 3.11
Consistency ratio (CR)—average value 0.12
α—average value 0.1
Social Ranking Weight
S
I1, 2 Number of accidents per year 2 0.33
I 2S,2 % women contractors 6 0.05
I3S, 2 % temporary workers 4 0.09
S
I 4, 2 Rate of absenteeism 3 0.11
S
I 5, 2 Rotation of workers 3 0.10
S
I 6, 2 % people with special needs 2 0.32
Number (n) 6
Economic Ranking Weight
E
I Direct economic value generated and distributed
1,1 1 0.72
I 2E,1 R & D expenditures 2 0.16
I3E,1 Number of persons employed 3 0.12
Number (n) 3
Consistency Ratio (CR)—average value 0.42
Environmental Ranking Weight
A
I1,3 Rate of non-hazardous waste 2 0.26
A
I 2, 3 Rate of hazardous waste 2 0.38
A
I 3,3 Quantity of water consumed per year in industrial
3 0.16
processes
I 4A,3 Amount of energy used per year 3 0.20
Number (n) 4
Table 10. Cont.

Variables Statistics
Environmental Ranking Weight
3.2.3. Stage 3—Normalization of the Indicators
Since the indicators are expressed in different units, normalization is necessary (Equation (3)). This
makes possible to integrate the selected indicators into an aggregated index for sustainability assessment.
Using the Excel spreadsheet it was possible to obtain the normalized indicators. Normalization of
the indicators for economic dimension was not included due to lack of data from the SC AUTO.
In Table 11 the normalized indicators of social and environmental dimensions are present using
Equation (3).
Table 11. Normalization of indicators.

        
I N1, 2 I N 2, 2 I N 3, 2 I N 4, 2 I N 5, 2 I N 6, 2 I N1,3 I N 2, 3 I N 3,3 I N ,1
company 1 n.a. 0.250 0 0.470 0.017 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
company 2 0 0.625 0.046 0 0 0 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
company 3 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0 1 n.a. n.a.
company 4 0.286 0.594 0.275 0.626 1 0.299 0.147 0.853 0.0003 n.a.
company 5 0.071 0.050 0.435 0.336 0.012 0.299 0.029 0.971 0.0001 n.a.
company 6 0 0.515 0 0 0.006 0.878 0 1 n.a. n.a.
company 7 n.a. 0.375 0.343 0.418 n.a. n.a. 0.044 0.956 0.0005 n.a.
company 8 0.095 0.834 0.975 0.196 0.001 0 n.a. 0.943 n.a. n.a.
company 9 0.881 0.359 0.261 0.835 0.339 0.111 0.030 0.957 0.0007 n.a.
company 10 0.047 0.550 0.046 0.311 0.062 0.299 0.039 0.962 0.0003 n.a.
company 11 1 0.938 0.229 0.802 n.a. n.a. 0.029 0.971 0.0011 n.a.
company 12 0 0.625 0.046 0 0 0 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
company 13 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
company 14 0.476 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.368 0.632 0.0076 n.a.
company 15 0.024 0.600 0.114 0.104 0.006 0.149 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
company 16 n.a. n.a. 0 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.0312 n.a.
company 17 0.138 n.a. 0.458 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.051 0.949 8.55 × 10−5 n.a.
company 18 0.095 0.250 0.229 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
company 19 0.143 0.313 1 0.104 0.017 0.448 0.001 0.999 n.a. n.a.
company 20 0.024 0.500 0 0.522 0.056 0.597 0 1 0 n.a.
company 21 0 0.163 0.080 0.460 n.a. n.a. 0.001 0.997 0.0052 n.a.
company 22 0 0.315 n.a. 0.157 0.020 n.a. 0 1 0.9999 n.a.
company 23 0 0 n.a. 0.052 0 0 0.003 0.997 n.a. n.a.
company 24 0.214 0.354 0.465 0.418 0.014 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
company 25 n.a. n.a. 0.229 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Table 11. Cont.

        
I N1, 2 I N 2, 2 I N 3, 2 I N 4, 2 I N 5, 2 I N 6, 2 I N1,3 I N 2, 3 I N 3,3 I N ,1
company 26 0 1 0 n.a. n.a. 0 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
company 27 0.167 0.384 n.a. 0.552 0.013 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
company 28 0.095 0.386 0.069 0.376 0.038 0.746 0.191 0.809 0.0002 n.a.
company 29 0.167 0.250 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.299 0.853 0.147 0.0002 n.a.
company 30 n.a. n.a. 0 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
company 31 n.a. 0.434 0.053 0.470 n.a. n.a. 0.978 0.022 n.a. n.a.
company 32 0 n.a. 0.297 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
company 33 0 0.325 n.a. n.a. 0 0.149 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
company 34 0.286 0.469 0.664 0.337 n.a. 0 0 1 0.0019 n.a.
company 35 0.452 0.600 0.229 0.416 0.040 0.001 0.006 0.994 0.0006 n.a.
company 36 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.082 0.932 n.a. n.a.
company 37 0.119 0.913 0.664 0.908 0.015 0 0.001 0.999 0.0346 n.a.
company 38 0.048 0.150 0.229 0.240 n.a. 0 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
company 39 0.024 0.625 n.a. 0.008 0.565 0 n.a. n.a. 0.0009 n.a.
company 40 0.667 0.225 0.343 0.418 0.028 0 1 0 0.0038 n.a.
company 41 0.048 0.125 0.114 0.001 n.a. 0 0 1 n.a. n.a.
company 42 0.048 0.150 0.343 0.835 0.056 0 0 1 n.a. n.a.
company 43 0.286 0.538 0.389 n.a. 0.001 0.746 n.a. n.a. 0.0005 n.a.
company 44 n.a. 0.500 0.343 1 0.073 0.299 0 1 0.0003 n.a.
company 45 0.119 0.236 0.178 0.522 0.011 0.746 0.118 0.882 0.0001 n.a.
company 46 0.857 0.375 0.572 0.470 0.023 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
3.2.4. Stage 4—Aggregation Method
Before aggregating the data it is necessary to determine the behavior of its distribution, especially
checking to see if the data are correlated. Using the Excel spreadsheet, correlations were calculated
between indicators of the social and environmental dimensions (Tables 12 and 13 respectively). Since
it was not possible to obtain the normalized values of the economic dimension (due to lack of data
from the SC AUTO), this was not considered.
Table 12. Correlations between the social dimension indicators.

Social
S S
I 1, 2 I 2, 2 I3S, 2 I 4S,2 I5S, 2 I6S,2
I1S, 2 1
I 2S,2 0.147 1
S
I 3, 2 0.122 0.256 1
S
I 4, 2 0.530 0.149 0.257 1
S
I 5, 2 0.128 0.147 0.035 0.143 1
S
I 6, 2 −0.092 −0.157 −0.182 0.077 −0.059 1
Table 13. Correlations between the environmental dimension indicators.

Environmental
A
I
1,3 I 2A,3 I3A,3 I 4A,3
I1A,3 1
A
I 2, 3 −0.999 1
A
I 3,3 −0.136 0.137 1
A
I 4, 3 −0.182 0.193 −0.187 1
The correlation coefficient values range from −1 to 1 indicating respectively the extremes of the
array of perfect negative and positive ratios. In this case the correlation coefficient is −0.02 which
indicates that the indicators of the three dimensions (environmental, social and economic) are not
related. According to Figure 4 most of the variables were not significantly correlated. Thus, the
sub-indicators are independent of one another, which makes possible that a linear additive aggregation
paradigm can be applied. As can be seen from Tables 14 and 15 correlation coefficients between the
different indicators are not correlated allowing the use of the linear aggregation method.
Figure 4. Linear data aggregation.
Table 14. Social sub-index by company.

Social Sub-Index
S S S
I
1, 2 WS1 I 2, 2 WS2 I 3, 2 WS3 I 4S,2 WS4 I5S, 2 WS5 I6S, 2 WS6 TOTAL
company 1 n.a. 0.33 0.250 0.05 0 0.09 0.470 0.11 3 0.10 1 0.32 0.386
company 2 0 0.33 0.625 0.05 0.046 0.09 0 0.11 0 0.10 0 0.32 0.035
company 3 n.a. 0.33 n.a. 0.05 n.a. 0.09 n.a. 0.11 n.a. 0.10 n.a. 0.32 n.a.
Table 14. Cont.

Social Sub-Index
S S
I
1, 2 WS1 I 2, 2 WS2 I3S, 2 WS3 I 4S,2 WS4 I5S, 2 WS5 I6S,2 WS6 TOTAL
company 4 0.286 0.33 0.594 0.05 0.275 0.09 0.626 0.11 177 0.10 0.299 0.32 0.413
company 5 0.071 0.33 0.050 0.05 0.435 0.09 0.336 0.11 2.2 0.10 0.299 0.32 0.199
company 6 0 0.33 0.515 0.05 0 0.09 0 0.11 1 0.10 0.878 0.32 0.307
company 7 n.a. 0.33 0.375 0.05 0.343 0.09 0.418 0.11 n.a. 0.10 n.a. 0.32 0.096
company 8 0.095 0.33 0.834 0.05 0.975 0.09 0.196 0.11 0.04 0.10 0 0.32 0.183
company 9 0.881 0.33 0.359 0.05 0.261 0.09 0.835 0.11 60 0.10 0.111 0.32 0.494
company 10 0.047 0.33 0.550 0.05 0.046 0.09 0.311 0.11 11 0.10 0.299 0.32 0.183
company 11 1 0.33 0.938 0.05 0.229 0.09 0.802 0.11 n.a. 0.10 n.a. 0.32 0.486
company 12 0 0.33 0.625 0.05 0.046 0.09 0 0.11 0 0.10 0 0.32 0.035
company 14 0.476 0.33 n.a. 0.05 n.a. 0.09 n.a. 0.11 n.a. 0.10 n.a. 0.32 0.157
company 15 0.024 0.33 0.600 0.05 0.114 0.09 0.104 0.11 1 0.10 0.149 0.32 0.108
company 16 n.a. 0.33 n.a. 0.05 0 0.09 n.a. 0.11 n.a. 0.10 n.a. 0.32 n.a.
company 17 0.138 0.33 n.a. 0.05 0.458 0.09 n.a. 0.11 n.a. 0.10 n.a. 0.32 0.046
company 18 0.095 0.33 0.250 0.05 0.229 0.09 n.a. 0.11 n.a. 0.10 n.a. 0.32 0.054
company 19 0.143 0.33 0.313 0.05 1 0.09 0.104 0.11 3 0.10 0.448 0.32 0.219
company 20 0.024 0.33 0.500 0.05 0 0.09 0.522 0.11 10 0.10 0.597 0.32 0.328
company 21 0 0.33 0.163 0.05 0.080 0.09 0.460 0.11 n.a. 0.10 n.a. 0.32 0.079
company 22 0 0.33 0.315 0.05 n.a. 0.09 0.157 0.11 3.6 0.10 n.a. 0.32 0.125
company 23 0 0.33 0 0.05 n.a. 0.09 0.052 0.11 0 0.10 0 0.32 0.006
company 24 0.214 0.33 0.354 0.05 0.465 0.09 0.418 0.11 2.4 0.10 n.a. 0.32 0.143
company 25 n.a. 0.33 n.a. 0.05 0.229 0.09 n.a. 0.11 n.a. 0.10 n.a. 0.32 n.a.
company 26 0 0.33 1 0.05 0 0.09 n.a. 0.11 n.a. 0.10 0 0.32 0.050
company 27 0.167 0.33 0.384 0.05 n.a. 0.09 0.552 0.11 2.36 0.10 n.a. 0.32 0.178
company 28 0.095 0.33 0.386 0.05 0.069 0.09 0.376 0.11 6.8 0.10 0.746 0.32 0.355
company 29 0.167 0.33 0.250 0.05 n.a. 0.09 n.a. 0.11 n.a. 0.10 0.299 0.32 0.163
company 30 n.a. 0.33 n.a. 0.05 0 0.09 n.a. 0.11 n.a. 0.10 n.a. 0.32 n.a.
company 31 n.a. 0.33 0.434 0.05 0.053 0.09 0.470 0.11 n.a. 0.10 n.a. 0.32 0.080
company 32 0 0.33 n.a. 0.05 0.297 0.09 n.a. 0.11 n.a. 0.10 n.a. 0.32 n.a.
company 33 0 0.33 0.325 0.05 n.a. 0.09 n.a. 0.11 0 0.10 0.149 0.32 0.064
company 34 0.286 0.33 0.469 0.05 0.664 0.09 0.337 0.11 n.a. 0.10 0 0.32 0.160
company 35 0.452 0.33 0.600 0.05 0.229 0.09 0.416 0.11 7 0.10 0.001 0.32 0.256
company 37 0.119 0.33 0.913 0.05 0.664 0.09 0.908 0.11 2.7 0.10 0 0.32 0.246
company 38 0.048 0.33 0.150 0.05 0.229 0.09 0.240 0.11 n.a. 0.10 0 0.32 0.070
company 39 0.024 0.33 0.625 0.05 n.a. 0.09 0.008 0.11 100 0.10 0 0.32 0.097
company 40 0.667 0.33 0.225 0.05 0.343 0.09 0.418 0.11 5 0.10 0 0.32 0.311
company 41 0.048 0.33 0.125 0.05 0.114 0.09 0.001 0.11 n.a. 0.10 0 0.32 0.032
company 42 0.048 0.33 0.150 0.05 0.343 0.09 0.835 0.11 10 0.10 0 0.32 0.152
company 43 0.286 0.33 0.538 0.05 0.389 0.09 n.a. 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.746 0.32 0.395
company 44 n.a. 0.33 0.500 0.05 0.343 0.09 1 0.11 13 0.10 0.299 0.32 0.269
company 45 0.119 0.33 0.236 0.05 0.178 0.09 0.522 0.11 2 0.10 0.746 0.32 0.365
company 46 0.857 0.33 0.375 0.05 0.572 0.09 0.470 0.11 4 0.10 n.a. 0.32 0.407
Table 15. Environmental sub-index by company.

Environmental Sub-Index
A A
I1,3 WA1 I 2, 3 WA2 I3A,3 WA3 I 4A,3 WA4 TOTAL
company 1 n.a. 0.26 n.a. 0.38 n.a. 0.16 6.16 × 10−9 0.20 1.23 × 10−9
company 2 n.a. 0.26 n.a. 0.38 n.a. 0.16 n.a. 0.20 n.a.
company 3 0 0.26 1 0.38 n.a. 0.16 n.a. 0.20 0.380
company 4 0.147 0.26 0.853 0.38 0.0003 0.16 3.15 × 10−9 0.20 0.362
company 5 0.029 0.26 0.971 0.38 0.0001 0.16 0.0003 0.20 0.378
company 6 0 0.26 1 0.38 n.a. 0.16 0 0.20 0.380
company 7 0.044 0.26 0.956 0.38 0.0005 0.16 3.4 × 10−6 0.20 0.375
company 8 n.a. 0.26 0.943 0.38 n.a. 0.16 n.a. 0.20 0.358
company 9 0.030 0.26 0.957 0.38 0.0007 0.16 0.0197 0.20 0.375
company 10 0.039 0.26 0.962 0.38 0.0003 0.16 n.a. 0.20 0.366
company 11 0.029 0.26 0.971 0.38 0.0011 0.16 5.31 × 10−8 0.20 0.376
company 14 0.368 0.26 0.632 0.38 0.0076 0.16 3.67 × 10−1° 0.20 0.337
company 16 n.a. 0.26 n.a. 0.38 0.0312 0.16 n.a. 0.20 0.005
company 17 0.051 0.26 0.949 0.38 8.55 × 10−5 0.16 n.a. 0.20 0.374
company 19 0.001 0.26 0.999 0.38 n.a. 0.16 6.05 × 10−7 0.20 0.380
company 20 0 0.26 1 0.38 0 0.16 n.a. 0.20 0.380
company 21 0.001 0.26 0.997 0.38 0.0052 0.16 2.37 × 10−7 0.20 0.380
company 22 0 0.26 1 0.38 0.9999 0.16 0.0002 0.20 0.540
company 23 0.003 0.26 0.997 0.38 n.a. 0.16 9.86 × 10−8 0.20 0.380
company 27 n.a. 0.26 n.a. 0.38 n.a. 0.16 6.26 × 10−6 0.20 1.25 × 10−6
company 28 0.191 0.26 0.809 0.38 0.0002 0.16 0.0419 0.20 0.365
company 29 0.853 0.26 0.147 0.38 0.0002 0.16 8.5 × 10−7 0.20 0.278
company 31 0.978 0.26 0.022 0.38 n.a. 0.16 n.a. 0.20 0.263
company 34 0 0.26 1 0.38 0.0019 0.16 3.15 × 10−6 0.20 0.380
company 35 0.006 0.26 0.994 0.38 0.0006 0.16 8.11 × 10−6 0.20 0.380
company 36 0.082 0.26 0.932 0.38 n.a. 0.16 n.a. 0.20 0.376
company 37 0.001 0.26 0.999 0.38 0.0346 0.16 1 0.20 0.585
company 38 n.a. 0.26 n.a. 0.38 n.a. 0.16 4.76 × 10−7 0.20 9.52 × 10−8
company 39 n.a. 0.26 n.a. 0.38 0.0009 0.16 4.62 × 10−7 0.20 0.0001
company 40 1 0.26 0 0.38 0.0038 0.16 6.8 × 10−7 0.20 0.261
company 41 0 0.26 1 0.38 n.a. 0.16 0.0006 0.20 0.380
company 42 0 0.26 1 0.38 n.a. 0.16 n.a. 0.20 0.380
company 43 n.a. 0.26 n.a. 0.38 0.0005 0.16 0.0229 0.20 0.005
company 44 0 0.26 1 0.38 0.0003 0.16 1.37 × 10−5 0.20 0.380
company 45 0.118 0.26 0.882 0.38 0.0001 0.16 1.87 × 10−5 0.20 0.368
3.2.5. Stage 4—Index Construction
Once weights determined and indicators normalized, the sustainability index can be computed, both
for the individual company and for the supply chain.
The social and environmental sub-indices (Tables 14 and 15) were determined using the worksheet
in Excel according to the following equation:
I S  j  
 i1
 
f  W x I j,... W
i1 iy  1
x  I
 iy  1
 j, W x  I  j

 iy  iy   (9)
where (Ii1)j, corresponds to the value of the indicator removed from the normalization table (Table 11);
and Wi1 is the value of the corresponding weight for each indicator. As there is no data on the
indicators of the economic sub-index it was not used in the construction of the sustainability index.
Computing the social and environmental sub-index for each company allows companies to be
ranked at the social and environmental level. The analyze of the social sub-index in Table 14 shows
that firms 2, 12, 17, 23, 26 and 41 have the lowest values, indicating that these are the ones where the
social dimension is less representative. Companies 4, 9, 11 and 46 have the highest values representing
the companies that are most relevant to the social dimension. It is possible to obtain the sub-index of
social sustainability for the entire supply chain by adding the sub-indices of each individual company.
Analyzing the environmental sub-index for companies in Table 15 it appears that firms 1, 27, 38
and 39 have the lowest values (and thus can be seen as least important) in the environmental
dimension. Companies 22 and 37 have the highest values and thus are relatively most important in the
environmental dimension. The sub-index of environmental sustainability for the entire chain can be
obtained by adding the sub-indices for each individual company.
Once the sub-indices had been calculated by company, the overall sustainability index for the
company was computed summing each sub-index (social sub-index + economic sub-index +
environmental sub-index) (Table 16).
Table 16. Total sustainability index by company.

Social Economic Environmental Total Sustainability
Sub-Index Sub-Index Sub-Index Index by Company
−9
company 1 0.386 n.a. 1.23 × 10 0.386
company 2 0.035 n.a. n.a. 0.035
company 3 n.a. n.a. 0.380 0.38
company 4 0.413 n.a. 0.362 0.776
company 5 0.199 n.a. 0.378 0.576
company 6 0.307 n.a. 0.380 0.687
company 7 0.096 n.a. 0.375 0.470
company 8 0.183 n.a. 0.358 0.541
company 9 0.494 n.a. 0.375 0.869
company 10 0.183 n.a. 0.366 0.549
company 11 0.486 n.a. 0.376 0.862
company 12 0.035 n.a. n.a. 0.035
company 13 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
company 14 0.157 n.a. 0.337 0.494
Table 16. Cont.

Social Economic Environmental Total Sustainability
Sub-Index Sub-Index Sub-Index Index by Company
company 15 0.108 n.a. n.a. 0.108
company 16 n.a. n.a. 0.005 0.005
company 17 0.046 n.a. 0.374 0.419
company 18 0.054 n.a. n.a. 0.054
company 19 0.219 n.a. 0.380 0.599
company 20 0.328 n.a. 0.380 0.708
company 21 0.079 n.a. 0.380 0.459
company 22 0.125 n.a. 0.540 0.665
company 23 0.006 n.a. 0.380 0.385
company 24 0.143 n.a. n.a. 0.143
company 26 0.050 n.a. n.a. 0.050
company 27 0.178 n.a. 1.25 × 10−6 0.178
company 28 0.355 n.a. 0.365 0.721
company 29 0.163 n.a. 0.278 0.441
company 31 0.080 n.a. 0.263 0.342
company 33 0.064 n.a. n.a. 0.064
company 34 0.160 n.a. 0.380 0.540
company 35 0.256 n.a. 0.380 0.636
company 36 n.a. n.a. 0.376 0.376
company 37 0.246 n.a. 0.585 0.831
company 38 0.070 n.a. 9.52 × 10−8 0.070
company 39 0.097 n.a. 0.0001 0.097
company 40 0.311 n.a. 0.261 0.572
company 41 0.032 n.a. 0.380 0.412
company 42 0.152 n.a. 0.380 0.532
company 43 0.395 n.a. 0.005 0.400
company 44 0.269 n.a. 0.380 0.649
company 45 0.365 n.a. 0.368 0.730
company 46 0.407 n.a. n.a. 0.407
Looking at the total index of sustainability by company in Table 16 it reveals that those companies
that have the highest sustainability index are numbers 9, 11 and 37. These companies have a
sustainability index closest to the maximum value of 1, showing that they are relatively the most
sustainable. In contrast, the least important companies in terms of sustainability are numbers 27, 38
and 39 (scoring closest to 0).
To determine the behavior of the supply chain for each dimension (Table 17) the Equation (10)
was used.

n
( Ii) j
SCIs = j 1 (10)
n

n
where j 1
( Ii) j represents the value of the sum of each sub-index, and n is the number of companies
in the supply chain under study.
Table 17. Behavior of the supply chain for each dimension.

n
( Ii) j

n
j 1
( Ii) j n SCI =s
j 1
n
Sub-index
Social 7.731 46 0.168
Environmental 10.523 46 0.229
Economic n.a. n.a. n.a.
Analyzing the behavior of the supply chain for each dimension (Table 17) it could be stated that
the social sub-index is the least important with a value of 0.168 (closest to 0) and the environmental
sub-index is most important with a value of 0.229 (closest to 1).
Again using the Excel spreadsheet, the sustainability index for the supply chain was calculated
using the following function:
IC_SUSTSC = f (Wi1 × SCIi1, Wi2 × SCIi2, Wi3 × SCIi3) (11)
where SCIi is the value retrieved from Table 17 which relates to the behavior of the supply chain for
each dimension, and Wi is the weight of each reporting indicator.
Table 18 shows the sustainability index for the supply chain. While the environmental dimension is
more sustainable (with a value of 0.048) and the social dimension is less sustainable (with a value of
0.022) both values represent low levels of sustainability. In total a value of 0.070 was obtained, which
shows that this index has a low level of sustainability; it can be concluded therefore that the
environmental and social dimensions are both priority areas for changing certain behaviors with the
aim of becoming supply chains more sustainable and thus also more competitive. However, due to the
lack of economic data and constraints in obtaining responses to the questionnaire, which are essential
for determining the weights of dimensions, only a partial conclusion can be drawn, requiring a more
thorough analysis. However, given that the weights obtained for the economic indicators were the
highest values, it can be assumed that this would be the factor of greatest relevance to the sustainability
of the supply chain.
Table 18. Index of sustainability to the supply chain.

Sub-index SCIi Wi IC_SUSTSC
Social 0.168 0.13 0.022
Environmental 0.229 0.21 0.048
Economic n.a. 0.66 n.a.
Total 0.070
4. Conclusions
Sustainability presents a new purpose and an attractive and strategic issue, not only at a national
level, but also for individual organizations and supply chains. Sustainability refers to the management
of the three associated dimensions: economic, social and environmental.
In this study the construction of a sustainability index is proposed that consists of five stages. In the
first stage, the selection of sustainability indicators is performed by choosing indicators that contribute
to the evaluation of each sustainability dimension. The second stage uses the AHP method and a
questionnaire was prepared for professionals and academics for determining the weights for each
indicator. Once the level of importance for each indicator is determined, the third stage associated to
the normalization of indicators is performed using the minimum–maximum method. The fourth stage
derives from the application of the linear additive aggregation method. Finally, as part of the
construction of the index it is possible to obtain an index by company, a sub-index for each
sustainability dimension and an index of overall sustainability by company and supply chain.
The suggested sustainability index was then tested in a real case study. The application of the
suggested index in this case study made possible to conclude that there is a low level of sustainability
and more focus needs to be given to the social and environmental dimensions to affect future changes
in behavior. However, due to the lack of economic data and constraints in obtaining responses to the
questionnaire, which are essential for determining the weights of dimensions, only a partial conclusion
can be drawn, requiring a more detailed analysis.
The proposed framework is easy to use by professionals from the automotive industry and
understandable, representing also an important contribution for supporting managers in decision-makings
related to sustainability issues. Moreover a set of indicators reflecting the social, economic and
environmental dimensions of sustainability is suggested which could be deployed by SC' managers to
make their supply chains more sustainable. In addition the application of the proposed framework
could encourage SC managers to discuss on why they consider some sustainability indicators more
important for the sustainability of their supply chains, but in some cases, they do not work on their
improvement. This framework makes also easier to determine whether the efforts of individual
companies are effective in improving sustainability of supply chains.
This method allows an assessment of the sustainability of the supply chain and, at the same time,
the opportunity to improve business performance The proposed integration could represent a best
solution to achieve the sustainability in line with the Theory of Industrial Ecology [66]. In this context,
the theory of Industrial Ecology represents a powerful analytical tool for describing the flows of
material and energy that connect business and the natural world. According to this theory exists a
continuous loop between materials and energy flowing between natural and industrial systems in three
stages. First, natural materials are extracted from the earth and converted into raw materials and
mechanical energy. Second, these raw materials and energy flows are worked into useable and saleable
products. Third, resulting products are distributed, consumed or used, and disposed of by consumers.
All three of these stages produce waste that becomes pollution. In sum, the focus of analysis is the
interconnected processes of raw material extraction, the production of goods, the use of those goods,
and the management of the resulting wastes [67] reflecting also a supply chain perspective.
As a result, managers can adjust company behavior in accordance with the level of sustainability
reached in the index and improve their economic, social and environmental performance. The supply
chain sustainability index can help managers improve competitiveness and accountability for their own
company and the sector, reflecting stakeholders’ expectations. In addition, it enables a benchmarking
analysis to be performed by checking the best and worst performances of the companies within the
supply chain, while at the same time makes possible to rank companies attending to their economic,
social and environmental behavior.
Limitations of this study include the lack of responses from academics and professionals for
determining the weights of indicators and the lack of data for indicators associated to economic dimension.
As a suggestion for future research, this index could be applied to other supply chains, thus helping
verify the potential of this tool. The proposed index could also be used to evaluate interactions between
parallel supply chains. It is also important to conduct benchmarking analysis, and analysis of supply
chains belonging to the same sector or to sectors less concerned with sustainability issues. Moreover,
it will be interesting to perform the same approach however involving other players of the automotive
supply chain in the weighting of the sustainability indicators.
Acknowledgments
This research is supported by the Center for Mechanical and Aerospace Science and Technologies
(C-MAST) of the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technologies (FCT).
Author Contributions
Miguel F. Salvado was responsible for the literature review and for writing the first draft of the
manuscript. Susana G. Azevedo worked on the design of the study and also the suggested
sustainability index. João C. O. Matias was responsible for methodological issues and was also
involved in the preparation of the manuscript for its submission. Luís M. Ferreira was responsible for
data collection and analysis and interpretation of the results.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Singh, R.K.; Murty, H.R.; Gupta, S.K. An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies.
Ecol. Indic. 2012, 15, 281–299.
2. Seuring, S.; Muller, M. From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply
chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 2008, 16, 1699–1710.
3. Costanza, R.; Patten, B.C. Defining and predicting sustainability. Ecol. Econ. 1995, 15, 193–196.
4. Pinar, M.; Cruciani, C.; Giove, S.; Sostero, M. Constructing the FEEM Sustainability Index:
A Choquet-Integral Application; Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei: Venice, Italy, 2013.
5. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). Our Common Future; Oxford
Paperbacks: New York, NY, USA, 1987.
6. Taticchi, P.; Carbone, P.; Albino, V. Corporate Sustainability; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2013.
7. Winter, M.; Knemeyer, A.M. Exploring the integration of sustainability and supply chain
management: Current state and opportunities for future inquiry. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag.
2013, 43, 18–38.
8. Linton, J.D.; Klassen, R.; Jayaraman, V. Sustainable supply chains: An introduction. J. Oper.
Manag. 2007, 25, 1075–1082.
9. Bithas K.P.; Christofakis, M. Environmentally sustainable cities: Critical review and operational
conditions. Sustain. Dev. 2006, 14, 177–189.
10. Fischer, J.; Manning, A.D.; Steffen, W. Mind the sustainability gap. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2007, 22,
321–624.
11. Goodland, R.; Daly, H. Environmental Sustainability: Universal and Non-Negotiable. Ecol. Appl.
1996, 6, 1002–1017.
12. Martin, J.P. The Social Dimensions of Sustainable Development. In Proceedings of the European
Social Agenda and EU International Partners, Brussels, Belgium, 20–21 November 2001; p. 94.
13. Moldan, B.; Janouskova, S.; Hák, T. How to understand and measure environmental sustainability:
Indicators and targets. Ecol. Indic. 2011, 17, 4–13.
14. Mckenzie, S. Social Sustainability: Towards Some Definitions; Hawke Research Institute
Working Paper Series 27; Hawke Research Institute: Adelaide, Australia, 2004.
15. Morelli, J. Environmental Sustainability: A Definition for Environmental Professionals. J. Environ.
Sustain. 2011, 1, 19–27.
16. Rumelt, R.P. Strategy, Structure, and Economic Performance; Harvard University Press:
Cambridge, MA, USA, 1974.
17. Hicks, J.R. Value and Capital; Clarendon: Oxford, UK, 1946.
18. Delai, I.; Takahashi, S. Sustainability measurement system: A reference model proposal.
Soc. Responsib. J. 2011, 7, 438–471.
19. Commission on Sustainability Development. Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines
and Methodologies. Available online: http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd.htm (accessed on 12
June 2014).
20. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Available online:
http://www.globalreportinginitiative.org (accessed on 14 July 2014).
21. Jones, S. Notes of the University of Sydney Pacioli Society: Sustainability reporting in Australia:
An empirical overview. Abacus 2005, 41, 211–216.
22. Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes (DJSI). Dow Jones Sustainability World Index Guide;
RobecoSAM AG: Zurich, Switzerland, 2013.
23. Wang, L. A methodology of Sustainability, Accountability and Management for Industrial
Enterprises. Master’s Thesis, Faculty of Graduate School, the State University of New York at
Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA, 2005.
24. Elkington, J. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of the 21st Century Business;
Capstone: Oxford, UK, 1997; p. 402.
25. Willard, B. The Sustainability Advantage: Seven Business Case Benefits of a Triple Bottom Line;
New Society: Gabriola Island, BC, Canada, 2002.
26. Slaper, T.; Hall, T. The Triple Bottom Line: What Is It and How Does It Work? Indiana University
Kelley School of Business, Indiana Business Research Center: Bloomington, IN, USA, 2011.
27. ETHOS. Indicadores ETHOS para Negócios Sustentáveis e Responsáveis. Available online:
http://www.ethos.org.br (accessed on 24 June 2014). (In Portuguese)
28. Frischknecht, R.; Jungbluth, N.; Althaus, H.J.; Bauer, C., Doka, G.; Dones, R.; Hellweg, S.;
Hischier, R.; Humbert, S.; Margni, M.; et al. Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment
Methods; Ecoinvent Report No. 3, v2.0; Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories: Dübendorf,
Switzerland, 2007.
29. ECOINVENT. Data Quality Guidelines for the Ecoinvent Database Version 3. Available online:
http://www.ecoinvent.org (accessed on 10 April 2014).
30. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Environmental Management—Environmental
Performance Evaluation—Guidelines; ISO 14031:2013; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013.
31. Yang, C.L.; Lin, S.P.; Sheu, C. Mediated effect of environment management on manufacturing
competitiveness: An empirical study. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2010, 123, 210–220.
32. López, M.V.; Garcia, A.; Rodriguez, L. Sustainable Development and Corporate Performance:
A Study Based on the Dow Jones Sustainability Index. J. Bus. Ethics 2007, 75, 285–300.
33. KPMG. Corporate Sustainability: A Progress Report. Available online: http://www.kpmg.com/
Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/corporate-sustainability-v2.pdf
(accessed on 3 September 2014).
34. Clift, R. Metrics for supply chain sustainability. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2003, 5, 240–247.
35. Touslfas, G.T.; Pappis, C.P. A model for supply chains environmental performance analysis and
decision making. J. Clean. Prod. 2008, 16, 1647–1657.
36. Sikdar, S.K. Sustainable development and sustainability metrics. Am. Inst. Chem. Eng. J. 2003,
49, 1928–1932.
37. Searcy, C.; Karapetrovic, S.; McCartney, D. Designing sustainable development indicators:
Analysis for a case utility. Measur. Bus. Excell. 2005, 9, 33–41.
38. Bossel, H. Indicators for Sustainable Development: Theory, Method, Applications; International
Institute for Sustainable Development: Winnipeg, MB, Canada, 1999; p. 124.
39. McCool, S.; Stankey, G. Representing the future: A framework for evaluating the utility of
indicators in the search for sustainable forest management. In Criteria and Indicators for
Sustainable Forest Management; Raison, R.J., Brown, A.G., Flinn, D.W., Eds.; CAB International:
Wallingford, UK, 2001; pp. 93–109.
40. Maclaren, V.W. Urban sustainability reporting. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 1996, 62, 184–202.
41. Mccool, S.F.; Stankey, G.H. Indicators of Sustainability: Challenges and Opportunities at the
Interface of Science and Policy. Environ. Manag. 2004, 33, 294–305.
42. Veleva, V.; Ellenbecker, M. Indicators of sustainable production: Framework and methodology.
J. Clean. Prod. 2001, 9, 519–549.
43. Krajnc, D.; Glavic, P. Indicators of sustainable development. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy
2003, 5, 279–288.
44. Azapagic, A. Developing a framework for sustainable development indicators for the mining and
minerals industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2004, 12, 639–662.
45. Krajnc, D.; Glavic, P. A model for integrated assessment of sustainable development.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2005, 43, 189–208.
46. Labuschagne, C.; Brent, A.C.; van Erck, R.P.G. Assessing the sustainability performance of
industries. J. Clean. Prod. 2005, 13, 373–385.
47. Singh, R.K.; Murty, H.R.; Gupta, S.K.; Dikshit, A.K. An overview of sustainability assessment
methodologies. Ecol. Indic. 2009, 9, 189–212.
48. Dowse, J. Making CR measurement meaningful to the rest of the business. Corp. Responsib.
Manag. 2005, 1, 14–21.
49. Keeble, J.J.; Topiol, S.; Berkely, S. Using indicators to measure sustainability performance at a
corporate and project level. J. Bus. Ethics 2003, 44, 149–158.
50. Seuring, S.A.; Koplin, J.; Behrens, T.; Schneidewind, U. Sustainability assessment in the German
detergent industry: From stakeholder involvement to sustainability indicators. Sustain. Dev. 2003,
11, 199–212.
51. Welford, R.; Young, W.; Itterhus, B. Towards sustainable production and consumption: A literature
review and conceptual framework for the service sector. Eco-Manag. Audit. 1998, 5, 38–56.
52. Szekely, F.; Knirsch, M. Responsible leadership and corporate social responsibility: Metrics for
sustainable performance. Eur. Manag. J. 2005, 23, 628–647.
53. Zhou, L.; Tokos, H.; Krajnc, D.; Yang, Y. Sustainability performance evaluation in industry by
composite sustainability index. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2012, 14, 789–803.
54. Al-Barqawi, H.; Zayed, T. Infrastructure Management: Integrated AHP/ANN Model to Evaluate
Municipal Water Mains Performance. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2008, 14, 305–318.
55. Kumar, S.; Parashar, N.; Haleem, A. Analytical hierarchy process applied to vendor selection
problem: Small scale, medium scale and large scale industries. Bus. Intell. J. 2009, 2, 355–362.
56. Hassan, M.; Saman, M.; Sharif, S.; Omar, B. An Integrated MA-AHP Approach for Selecting the
Highest Sustainability Index of a New Product. Procedia—Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 57, 236–242.
57. Nardo, M.; Saisana, M.; Saltelli, A.; Tarantola, S. Tools for Composite Indicators Building;
European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2005.
58. Zhou, P.; Ang, B.; Poh, K. Comparing aggregating methods for constructing the composite
environmental index: An objective measure. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 3, 305–311.
59. Farmer, T.A. Testing the robustness of multi-attribute utility theory in an applied setting. Decis. Sci.
1987, 18, 178–193.
60. Pettigrew, A.M. Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. Organ. Sci. 1990, 1,
267–292.
61. Seuring, S. Case Study research in supply chains: An outline and three examples. In Research
Methodologies in Supply Chain Management; Kotzab, H., Seuring, S., Muller, M., Reiner, G.,
Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2005; pp. 235–250.
62. Azevedo, S.G.; Govindan, K.; Carvalho, H.; Cruz-Machado, V. An integrated model to assess the
leanness and agility of the automotive industry. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2012, 66, 85–94.
63. Muerza, V.D.; Arcocha, E.L.; Moreno-Jiménez, J.M. The multicriteria selection of products in
technological diversification strategies: An application to the Spanish automotive industry based
on AHP. Prod. Plan. Control 2013, 25, 715–728.
64. Byun, D.-H. The AHP approach for selecting an automobile purchase model. Inf. Manag. 2001,
38, 289–297.
65. Coyle, G. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP); Pearson Education Limited: New York, NY,
USA, 2004.
66. Ioppolo, G.; Cucurachi, S.; Salomone, R.; Saija, G.; Ciraolo, L. Industrial Ecology and
Environmental Lean Management: Lights and Shadows. Sustainability 2014, 6, 6362–6376.
67. Friedman, R. When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. J. Ind. Ecol. 2000, 3, 15–19.
© 2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Sustainability: Proposal of A Sustainability Index For The Automotive Industry

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability: Proposal of A Sustainability Index For The Automotive Industry

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability: Proposal of A Sustainability Index For The Automotive Industry

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 2015, 7, 2113-2144; doi:10.

Proposal of a Sustainability Index for the Automotive Industry

* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: [email protected];

Academic Editor: Giuseppe Ioppolo

Received: 10 November 2014 / Accepted: 9 February 2015 / Published: 16 February 2015

Abstract: In a scenario of increasing globalization, sustainable development has emerged

Keywords: development sustainability; sustainability index; AHP; supply chain management

1.1. Concept of Sustainability

1.2. Sustainability Index

Table 1. Framework of the Commission on Sustainable Development indicators.

Table 2. Structure of the Global Reporting Initiative indicators.

Table 4. Examples of Triple Bottom Line (TBL) indicators.

Table 5. ETHOS indicators.

Table 6. ISO 14031 indicators.

2. Proposal of a Sustainability Index

Stage 1—Selection of sustainability indicators

Stage 2—Determination of indicator weights

Stage 3—Normalization of indicators

Stage 4—Choose the aggregation method

Stage 5—Index construction

Figure 2. Stages to build the sustainability index.

The following is a brief explanation of each stage.

2.1. Stage 1—Selection of Sustainability Indicators

Table 7. Sustainability indicators proposed.

2.2. Stage 2—Determination of Indicator Weights

Table 8. Pairwise comparisons of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

(3)—CR is then calculated using the formula (2)

2.3. Stage 3—Normalization of the Indicators

 I i, j  I i, jMIN

2.4. Stage 4—Choose the Aggregation Method

2.5. Stage 5—Index Construction

Figure 3. Hierarchical scheme for computing the corporate sustainability Index.

3. Determination of Sustainability: Case Study

3.1. Profile of Case-Study Companies

Table 9. Companies profile.

3.2. Application of the Framework for Building a Sustainability Index

3.2.1. Stage 1—Selection of Sustainability Indicators

3.2.2. Stage 2—Determination of Indicator Weights

Table 10. Determination of weights for the three dimensions of sustainability.

Table 10. Cont.

3.2.3. Stage 3—Normalization of the Indicators

Table 11. Normalization of indicators.

Table 11. Cont.

3.2.4. Stage 4—Aggregation Method

Table 12. Correlations between the social dimension indicators.

Table 13. Correlations between the environmental dimension indicators.

Figure 4. Linear data aggregation.

Table 14. Social sub-index by company.

Table 14. Cont.

Table 15. Environmental sub-index by company.

3.2.5. Stage 4—Index Construction

Table 16. Total sustainability index by company.

Table 16. Cont.

Table 17. Behavior of the supply chain for each dimension.

Table 18. Index of sustainability to the supply chain.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

You might also like