Sustainable Development Model For The Automotive Industry: Sustainability

sustainability
Article
Sustainable Development Model for the
Automotive Industry
Lucian-Ionel Cioca 1,2 , Larisa Ivascu 2,3, * , Attila Turi 3 , Alin Artene 3, * and
George Artur Găman 4
1 Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Faculty of Engineering, Lucian Blaga University of
Sibiu, Bd. Victoriei No. 10, 550024 Sibiu, Romania; [email protected]
2 Academy of Romanian Scientists, 3 Ilfov Street, Sector 5, 010071 Bucharest, Romania
3 Department of Management, Faculty of Management in Production and Transportation, Politehnica
University of Timisoara, via Victoria Square No. 2, 300006 Timisoara, Romania; [email protected]
4 National Institute for Research and Development in Mine Safety and Protection to Explosion–INSEMEX
Petroşani, 32-34 General Vasile Milea Street, 332047 Petroşani, Romania; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected] (L.I.); [email protected] (A.A.)

Received: 22 September 2019; Accepted: 12 November 2019; Published: 15 November 2019
Abstract: The relationship between sustainability and business has become one of the central debates
at the national and international level in both industrialized and emerging countries. A series
of existing business models lack some critical aspects. The automotive industry strongly affects
economic development, requiring rethinking business models in order to reduce their impact on the
environment. An evaluation of the websites of the major automotive industry companies shows
they have reported sustainability (through different methods) and present various practices in
implementing organizational sustainability (OS). This paper aims to present a new business model for
the automotive industry that takes into account the three dimensions of sustainability and emphasizes
the importance of involving stakeholders in the OS approach. This model is developed based upon
the literature review of three focus groups with a participation of 33 automotive industry members, of
which three are highly-skilled experts of the industry. The proposed sustainable development model
is scientifically relevant as it considers that all dimensions of sustainability exist and aims to increase
organizational capacity for sustainable organizational development. It is also relevant from a practical
point of view because it has been developed and validated by industry experts with automotive
industry companies, taking into account the industrial, technical, and technological requirements for
organizational sustainability assessment. The findings of this research will guide shareholders and
managers in planning and developing organizational strategies.
Keywords: sustainability; SGDs; innovation; stakeholder; shareholder; competitiveness; industrial

sustainability; sustainable strategy
1. Introduction
Concerns at the international level regarding the environment and social development are an
important part of the business activity [1,2]. Business activities are considered to be some of the main
reasons for environmental pollution, and this issue has become important in the evaluation of the
roles that shareholders and their organizations have. According to sectors, after electricity and heat
production, the manufacturing sector is the one that generates the highest levels of CO2 , both at the
European Union level as well as in Romania [1]. More recently, greater attention has been given
in understanding the impact of large companies on society. The literature on sustainable business
practices has focused on large companies, such as multinational companies, in which individual
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6447; doi:10.3390/su11226447 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2019, 11, 6447 2 of 22
impacts are significant [2–6]. Under the pressure of market regulations and procedural requirements,
large manufacturing companies have started to report their efforts and involvement in sustainable
development according to standards established on an international level. Small and medium-sized
enterprises (SMEs), on the other hand, play an important role in enabling efficiency within the economic
structure and social stability for developed and emerging economies. These companies undertake
substantial approaches to expand and communicate their sustainability efforts to stakeholders, but
their implications remain limited [2–4].
Many studies on sustainable development show that OS in small companies has, as a consequence,
potential gains and improved financial results only at the conceptual level, with no real results in
the annual financial reports [1–4]. As a concept, organizational sustainability addresses the issue of
changing the vision and mission, structure, processes, and organizational activities so as to produce
more of what the organization wants (i.e., sustainable) and less of what the organization does not
want (i.e., unsustainable) to increase organizational competitiveness and reduce the environmental
impact [1]. OS has become a concern for companies due to several advantages, especially regarding the
image they generate and process efficiency. The implications of the organizations should be reflected
in those three dimensions: economic, social, and environmental [3–8].
However, if OS application aims to apply clear tools and methods, then results are visible (e.g.,
using clean production or Kanban contributed to the improvement of financial and production results
by 12%, implementing international environmental and quality standards contributed in making the
production process 3% more efficient). The application of clean production has contributed to the
improvement of production results [9]. In the field of information technology (IT), the implementation
of the 14,000 family of standards has contributed to “green IT” [8].
In this respect, other studies demonstrate that the application of tools that contribute to streamlining
processes and reducing environmental impact have real outcomes within organizations [6–10].
When evaluating the practices of Romanian companies, according to the National Institute of
Statistics (NIS), it can be observed that those that apply and report their OS are in a percentage of: 21%
of micro, small, and medium-sized companies and 87% of large companies (by large company we
understand: average number of employees exceeds 250, annual turnover exceeds 50 million euros,
assets over 43 million euros). Since there is no model of OS development, in Romania, most of the
companies’ implications were outlined by using a model developed within the company, according to
its characteristics [7]. Based on the fact that there is no national model (on any sector), which takes into
account the characteristics of the Romanian market, and the automotive industry is the industry with
the highest share of employees and turnover, and generates as a sector 16.90% of the CO2 emissions
at the national level (being a major polluter), the present research analyzes the automotive industry
sector [1,7]. Currently, the industry in Romania has a share of 23.2% of the Gross Domestic Product
(GDP)—according to the data of the National Institute of Statistics, more than the contribution of
trade (18.2%), construction (3.9%), and agriculture (4.9%) [7]. The automotive industry has undergone
a radical change in recent years as a result of new technologies introduced (electric cars and other
solutions for energy efficiency). It is a constantly developing industry that has considerable potential
for improving environmental conditions and enabling more efficient use of its resources.
The present paper aims to evaluate the sustainability practices of large companies with
headquarters or subsidiaries in Romania, from the automotive field, to identify the most important
aspects of OS that should be included in the proposal of a new model for the implementation of
sustainability in the automotive industry. This model is presented at the level of graphic schemes, in
stages, based on market research in this industry, workshops, and the development of principles by the
authors based on the other research and the 2030 Agenda. The purpose of this paper is to contribute,
theoretically, in developing a model in the automotive industry with stakeholder awareness, and
practically, to involve the companies in validating and accepting a model for OS.
2. Research Methodology
2.1. Focus Group Method

A focus group is a qualitative research technique used by companies for marketing research
purposes. The group is made up of a small number of participants, usually from six to 12 people, from
the target market of a company. Consumers are gathered and led by discussions about important
company topics or elements subject to being improved. This method has been around since the 1920s
when focus groups were used to collect different market information [11], and in the 1950s to evaluate
the public’s response to war propaganda [12–14].
Focus groups provide information on how stakeholders think and provide a deeper understanding
of the phenomena and activities studied. This method collects a large amount of information, compared
to surveys that generally address closed questions, which limit the feedback. It thus obtains in-depth
information, aimed at the objective of the marketing research; from a cost perspective, focus groups can
be expensive and involve more resources [12–17]. Focus groups enable the operator with the ability
to capture deep and complex information about the target topic. Advantages of this method include
group interaction and non-verbal communication [17]. Group interaction between target respondents,
during focus groups, may encourage participants to make connections with various concepts through
discussions that may not occur during individual interviews, thus leading to important information
that can be collected. If there is a qualified facilitator, he or she may encourage these group interactions,
and the data collected may be comprehensive. Non-verbal communication is also important in the
process of data collection. Participants in a focus group may respond very differently to a topic. A topic
related to gender equity, for example, can provoke intense discussions among female participants,
while male participants withdraw from the discussion. This type of interaction represents observational
data for analytical purposes. Also, non-verbal language can underline important reactions to an
important topic (how the respondent looks at or how he or she interacts with others, etc.) [12–17].
In the field of sustainability, focus groups are often used because the responses expected from
the respondents are based on their experience, with sustainability being a development direction
and not a destination. The topics covered by the concept of sustainability involve creativity and
communication [13–18]. The advantages of using a focus group in OS research are:
• The possibility of appointing a qualified facilitator to encourage interactions between the

members present;
• The interaction between the participating members leads to complex debates that generate
new results;
• Non-verbal communication regarding a concept that proves to be approached by organizations as
a result of an imposition from the business environment;
• Sustainability is intensely debated by researchers, and so far, no concrete performance indicators
and tools for implementation have been established. Therefore, the debates are appropriate to
address this concept.
2.2. Data Collection

The purpose of this study is to highlight the attitude and perception of respondents regarding
certain key elements, which is one of the traditional uses of the focus group method [11]. The research
objectives led to the selection of persons with experience in OS from organizations in the automotive
field. In order to obtain results, the sample should be chosen correctly and cover the target market
respondents [11]. The sample of the present research consists of companies that are active in the
automotive field. To encourage focus group discussions, a facilitator was appointed for each focus
group (the financial results of the selected companies were evaluated, and 3 individuals from the
companies with the best results were designated as experts/facilitators). Three focus groups were
organized, the structure of which is presented below. Each focus group includes companies that make
auto parts, components, and consumables. The overall topic of the focus groups was related to the
most important aspects of OS that should be included in the proposal of a new model. The participants
are general managers, production managers, and production specialists. The companies they work for
are foreign companies with branches in Romania, which produce different car parts, components, and
consumables. The selection criteria were the location of the branch, the average number of employees
to exceed 250, the annual turnover to exceed 50 million euros, and the assets to be over 43 million
euros. The activity fields of the 33 companies and of the facilitators/experts are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Focus groups’ structure and activity fields of companies.
Focus Group 1 Focus Group 2 Focus Group 3

Company 1—multifunction steering
Company 1—electronic control modules,
wheel switches, light-block switches,
vacuum pumps, accelerator pedals, and Company 1—car tires
climate control systems, and center
electric power control modules
console control elements
Company 2—headlamps, fog
Company 2—injection components, Company 2—assemblies, engine
lamps, additional stop lamps, and
electronics, car wiring components
truck headlights
Company 3—car seats and interior Company 3—automation, control
Company 3—anti-vibration components
elements systems
Company 4—tires, electronic
Company 4—car wiring Company 4—car wiring
components
Company 5—rubber and plastic
Company 5—steering wheels, seat belts Company 5—trailer components
components
Company 6—car ceiling
Company 6—electric cables Company 6—car wiring
components
Company 7—car lighting Company 7—cable protection Company 7—electric systems, cables
Company 8—chair control systems, Company 8—hydraulic braking
Company 8—car ornaments
integrated window modules equipment
Company 9—high precision
Company 9—chassis solutions,
Company 9—upholstery components and systems for engines,
steering, powertrain, torsion bars
transmission, and chassis applications
Company 10—automotive control
Company 10—electric cables Company 10—electric systems, cables
units, electronics, research center
Company 11—radiators, condensers
Company 11—sintered
Company 11—alternators and air conditioning systems,
mechanical parts, and spark plugs
compressors, exhaust
Facilitator—electronic modules (general Facilitator—rubber and plastic Facilitator—high precision components
manager) components (general shareholder) and systems for engines (manager)
In order to standardize the discussions within the three focus groups, the three moderators
followed the same specific procedures, which were printed and distributed only to the facilitators.
The instructions were designed, on the one hand, to reflect the purpose of the study and, on the other
hand, to allow for a different group dynamic. The presentation for all participants in the form of a
single group, before the beginning of the individual group sessions, provided general information
about the study, and a series of questions were presented on which the discussions were to focus upon,
as shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Topics of discussion.
Common Questions Discussed in Questions Discussed in Questions Discussed in Questions Discussed in

the Three Focus Groups Focus Group 1 Focus Group 2 Focus Group 3
Knowing the OS concept
Sustainability is important for the
Periodicity of reporting
strategic practices of the Appreciation of the
sustainability Interest of stakeholders
organization company’s maturity
Main organizational in OS
5 tools used for OS level
advantage Shareholder OS approval
Training employees regarding OS Strategic planning
OS results within the OS reporting costs
3 objectives targeted by OS Stakeholder interests
organization
3 benefits after adopting OS3
disadvantages of OS
2.3. Stages of Present Reserach

Based on the advantages of using focus groups, the details of data collection, and the main theme
of analysis, a series of stages for conducting the research have been established. This research was
based on the following methodology with the following steps:
1. Listing of the literature based on empirical experience, with qualitative research. Based on
this inventory, we identified and structured: 2030 Agenda principles, sustainability objectives,
sustainable development models, stakeholder engagement models in sustainable development.
Based on these qualitative assessments, 15 important principles for organizational sustainability
applicable to the automotive industry were mapped. These principles underpin the development
of the sustainability model proposed in this paper.
2. Analyzing focus group data, in which 33 employees were invited. This market research was
conducted in order to identify the most important aspects of OS that should be included in the
proposal of a new model. Three focus groups were made, each person being present just one time.
Each focus group had a duration of 90 min and was coordinated by a facilitator/an expert (the
expert was chosen from the categories: shareholders, manager, or general manager by the authors,
according to the proven skills on the OS). There were 7 questions established for discussions, and
3 questions were established by each expert who coordinated the interviewed group. The sample
consisted of all large (multinational) companies with branches in Romania.
3. Using logical diagrams to describe the steps of the proposed model.
4. Conducting 3 in-depth interviews to prevalidate the proposed model. The interviews were
conducted with the three experts from point 2.
5. Validating the proposed model within the largest automotive industry company in the Western
Region of Romania.
6. Evaluating and analyzing the results and suggesting future research.
2.4. Details of the Company Evaluated

Organizational sustainability implies the evaluation of the three responsibilities: economic, social,
and environmental [17–21]. For the proposed model, a series of areas related to these responsibilities
have been defined and are structured in Table 3. These areas have been established according
to the particularities of the automotive domain, following the organized focus groups. As this
industry generates a considerable amount of greenhouse gases, the participating specialists and
experts considered these fields comprehensive and relevant for the assessment of organizational
sustainability. Each domain has a series of indicators. A score is assigned to each indicator, in line
with the team’s appreciation in stage 1, then the field’s score is calculated as the arithmetic mean, and
finally, the company’s total score is calculated. The score obtained is the input data for the next stage.
Each indicator is assigned a score of 1—not implemented, up to 7—fully implemented. If the indicator
does not apply, zero is given.
Table 3. Organizational sustainability (OS) responsibilities and domains.
Responsibility Domain Number of Indicators

financial stability 10
developed partnerships 5
Economic
organizational efficiency 8
capacity to reduce production time 7
Social communication and human resource 20
environment 15
Environment waste management capacity 15
greenhouse gas reduction 5
2.5. Validating the Proposed Model

The proposed model was validated on a company from the automotive field with an average
number of employees of 4000, an annual turnover exceeding 400 million euros, and assets exceeding
400 million euros. To validate the model, the necessary data from the company were used, and
the evaluation was done with managers and specialists from 5 departments. The semi-quantitative
assessment of the indicators was constituted from the arithmetic mean of the evaluations of the
5 specialists. The elements of strategic management were sourced from the company’s website.
The vision is “The company aims to become a world leader in the automotive industry, based on the
principles of durability.” The mission includes key elements, ranging from employees to caring for the
community, customers, and suppliers.
3. 2030 Agenda, Principles, and Objectives

By approving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainability in 2015 (2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development), 193 member states committed themselves to ensuring economic growth, social inclusion,
and protecting the environment. This document is the most complex project aimed at eliminating
extreme poverty, maintaining economic balance, reducing inequalities, and protecting the planet [12].
It includes 17 principles (17 Sustainable Development Goals—17 SDGs) and 169 targets. The essential
principles [8–14] of the 2030 Agenda are:
• Universality: the area of application is universal; it refers to all countries and can be applied at
any time.
• Leaving no one behind: the agenda supports anyone, no matter where they are and what the
environmental conditions are.
• Interconnectedness and indivisibility: interconnection and indivisibility of its 17 SDGs to any entity.
• Inclusiveness: supporting the participation of any market segment, irrespective of race, ethnicity,
identity, or interests.
• Multi-stakeholder partnerships: developing communication across multiple partnerships
that facilitate the exchange of knowledge, experience, technology, and facilitate the use of
organizational resources.
In line with the 17 principles of 2030 Agenda and the 169 targets, the authors proposed 15 principles
applicable to the automotive industry that have been underlying in developing the model for the
automotive industry [1,2]. These principles target, in combination, the 17 SDGs (see Table 4).
These principles are used, in implementation phases, within the proposed model. The principles have
been developed in line with the automotive industry’s functionalities.
Table 4. The 15 principles of sustainability proposed, and the implications and objectives of Agenda
2030 covered by them, after [2].
No. Principle Implication Goal

Putting into operation activities that are in line
S1 Interests of stakeholders SDG1, SDG12
with stakeholders’ strategic plans.
Reducing the toxic impact of the workplace on
S2 Reduction of toxicity SDG4, SDG5
employees.
S3 Reducing operator overload Reducing operator overload on production jobs
Reducing process losses contributes to
S4 Reducing resources SDG9, SDG12
improving financial results.
Increasing production capacity as a result of
S5 Time efficiency SDG9, SDG12
reducing activities time
The company has to reduce its waiting time to
S6 Reducing waiting time SDG9, SDG12
improve its production capacity.
Reducing fixed costs contributes to the
S7 Monitoring fixed costs SDG12, SDG17
efficiency of the production activities
Stakeholder engagement in Strategic planning should take into account the
S8 SDG6, SDG8, SDG17
strategic decisions functions of sustainable development
Supporting community Company involvement in society contributes to
S9 SDG2, SDG3, SDG16
activities improving living conditions
By training human resources, the company’s
S10 Training human resources SDG4, SDG5
performance level is improved.
Corporate Social CSR actions improve employee wellbeing and
S11 SDG 1, SDG10
Responsibility (CSR) improve public image
Reducing the amount of waste generated
S12 Increasing recycling capacity contributes to reducing the organizational SDG14, SDG15
impact on the environment
Increasing the capacity of the
Waste management functions generate added
S13 reuse, remanufacturing, SDG7, SDG12
value for the organization
reconditioning
Increasing the capacity to generate energy and
Reducing energy
S14 reducing energy consumption contribute to SDG9, SDG13
consumption
protecting the environment
The implication of the company în this activity
S15 Greenhouse gas reduction SDG11, SDG13
leads to reducing pollution to the environment.
4. Theoretical Grounding
Organizational sustainability practices vary according to company size, level of business maturity,
complexity of business processes, strategic planning, organizational structure, and stakeholder interests
(mostly of the shareholders) [8–11]. From this perspective, organizations plan and operate their
activities on medium and long-term based on the OS principles [9], innovation, and tools for improving
and implementing sustainability in their business activity [18]. Organizations that plan and implement
sustainability practices report and control their involvement by delivering sustainability reports.
Sustainability reports have grown in popularity, with the most widely known report being the Global
Reporting Initiative (GRI), used and accepted internationally. There are no legal impositions in reporting
on sustainability, so each organization uses its own reporting model. The accepted national and
international report is the GRI, especially in large companies [18–21]. This reporting of sustainability is
not required by law, but many times, the OS practices approach is imposed by stakeholders (mainly
business partners and customers) [18–23]. Organizational practices differ from one domain to another,
from one organization to another, depending on the ability to transfer knowledge [23–30].
4.1. The Importance of Stakeholder Involvement in Organizational Sustainability

Stakeholder involvement in the decision-making process is a useful way to explore stakeholder
satisfaction and increase their interest in business regulations [31–33]. Few studies on stakeholders’
expectations of OS have been identified by various authors. It is recommended to use the stakeholder
theory to achieve performance in organizational sustainability [33–36]. Stakeholder theory was first
introduced in 1984 by Edward Freeman and addresses the interaction between specific groups of
individuals and their interests based on the organization. From this moment on, a series of stakeholder
theories have emerged regarding the organization. In the latest studies [33–36], it is shown that
stakeholders must advance this concept and take the most effective organizational measures to
contribute to building a better future. Stakeholder management must have a positive responsibility to
promote sustainability. Involvement in sustainable development is not mandatory for organizations,
so stakeholders will accept involvement in OS only if they see an economic benefit. [36–45]. It is
specified that different stakeholders have different expectations within a company, and relationships
may be different. There is no unified theory of stakeholder roles, but there are multiple theories
regarding organizational conflicts, stress, or health conditions. Stakeholder roles can be grouped so that
organizational goals are achieved. At the same time, groups of common expectations of stakeholders
can be created regarding the process of implementing sustainable development. There is also a
knowledge gap in the misunderstanding of the usefulness of indicators for managers [45–48]. Although
stakeholders play a key role in organizational sustainability and its evaluation, their expectations still
remain unclear [48–50].
The performance in terms of sustainability is insufficient for their needs, which are mostly
transposed into financial results. In view of the large and growing number of publications in this field,
we can say that there is a great difference between research and practice. This fact is supported by
authors’ concerns over the years, the results of the research carried out within the focus groups and
the existing data at the NIS. This part of the paper aims to identify the common part of the types of
stakeholders who accept and adopt the activities of OS [11–20].
There are a series of models presented regarding the implications of the stakeholders in OS [11–16].
Some models classify stakeholders according to their interests and present mechanisms for solving
the interconnection [11,13], others divide stakeholder typologies into categories according to their
interests [51], whilst others identify interactions based upon stakeholder interests [52–58]. In Table 5,
models of stakeholder engagement in sustainable development are presented. These models claim
that stakeholders’ interests are different in the context of organizational development and need to be
addressed separately. From the perspective of sustainable development, shareholders’ interests need
to be addressed in a complex manner by integrating OS principles from the strategic planning phase
(from defining the vision, mission, and strategic objectives) [46].
Table 5. Models of stakeholder involvement in sustainable development.
Authors Model Description

The research identifies three challenges related to the interaction of stakeholder
and OS relations: strengthening the specific interests of stakeholders’ sustainable
development, creating mutual sustainability interests based on this particular
Hoerisch et al., 2014 [27] interest, and empowering stakeholders to act as intermediaries for nature and
sustainable development. Three interdependent mechanisms are suggested to
help solve interconnection: education, regulation, and the creation of sustainable
values with stakeholders.
Stakeholders have a direct, indirect, or enabling impact. The stakeholders that
have a direct impact are: consumers, customers, and employees; stakeholders
Apte and Sheth, 2017 [28]
with an indirect impact are: government, organizations, and media. Investors,
suppliers, and communities are tangential to OS principles.
Table 5. Cont.
Authors Model Description

Stakeholders reinforce their ability to engage in sustainable development based
Poponi et al., 2019 [29]
on incentives and financial opportunities.
Stakeholders share their influences on putting the OS into operation in two large
Iamkovaia et al., 2019 [30] categories: direct, from the inside of the company and indirect, from the outside
the company.
This study evaluates stakeholders’ interests according to the performance of the
Canh et al., 2019 [31] employed actions. Research has been carried out on a sample of Vietnamese
production firms over the period 2011–2013.
This research distinguishes stakeholders and their expectations with regard to
their various roles in the process of evaluating and controlling sustainability
Silva et al., 2019 [32] performance: standards-setting factors, information providers, affected
stakeholders, decision-makers, and recipients. The analysis of individual roles
reveals that stakeholders’ expectations are rarely specifically taken into account.
4.2. Methods and Tools for Sustainable Development

Organizational sustainability is of interest to many of the national and international companies.
As noted above, applying and implementing OS can lead to a series of organizational benefits (increasing
production efficiency, improving financial results, developing green technology information, and
others [1–10]). The approach and involvement in OS are often realized as a condition of organizational
collaboration (between stakeholders). OS is a direction that can help decision makers from organizations
decide what actions need to be taken to contribute to reducing the impact on the environment and
in the development of a sustainable society. Several studies have been conducted on the evaluation
of OS and the implementation of its methods [45–53]. Most of the models developed are based on
the three responsibilities of economic, environmental, and social sustainability [42–45]. Generally, the
evaluation methods of the OS are developed by using a set of key indicators [44]. Several studies
evaluating the efficiency of production activities and sustainability have been carried out [44,45].
Other studies are based on the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) in determining energy efficiency to
reduce the impact on the environment by production. In other studies, we find that the neural
network and neuro-fuzzy approaches are used for production sustainability. The results of this study
showed that the neuro-fuzzy approach could provide more accurate results compared to the neural
network approach. The sustainability assessment model through Fuzzy Evaluation (SAFE) is one of
the best-known sustainability systems [48].
Another research presented the sustainability assessment method using a fuzzy logic approach.
Their method was mainly based on two responsibilities: social and environmental. The selected
indicators are also provided in the GRI reporting. Their method was applied to measure the
sustainability of the development of 15 countries: Mozambique, Colombia, Canada, Germany, China,
India, Greece, Japan, Madagascar, Senegal, Australia, the Philippines, Switzerland, South Africa, and
the United States. For each indicator, they considered a triangular member function and used Matlab.
The SAFE model was subsequently extended by introducing sustainability thresholds and compiling
the bases of SAFE rules algebraically. A new sustainability assessment method was developed using
the Neuro-Fuzzy approach (ANFIS) [44]. All these models and methods require knowledge, involve
infrastructure resources, and a considerable transfer of knowledge. For the automotive industry, many
approaches and methods are of a qualitative nature and fail to consider, in a holistic manner, all three
pillars of the triple bottom line [53–58]. Many manufacturers often focus on the economic aspect
and the associated benefits. In automotive, the selection of materials is emphasized and represents
a starting point for approaching and improving the sustainability of the industry. Holistically, there
are many other variables and processes involved in the manufacturing of cars that can contribute to
improving production conditions. One way to evaluate the increased capacity for sustainability of
these processes and products is through the use of decision analysis. Decision analysis tools used
include the criteria decision analysis (MCDA), which is very close to the thinking of shareholders and
other stakeholders. The methods of evaluation and approach are different, depending on the industry,
but often the choice is made according to the held knowledge, the allocated time, and the obtained
benefits. Often, the qualitative methods are approached through assessments using scales due to the
ease of use and the minimum knowledge that needs to be held [53–57].
The automotive field is a developed one, with collaborations existing between different continents.
Thus, the environmental challenges are numerous. A major change in the auto industry is necessary
to meet increasingly demanding environmental regulations worldwide. A central component of
greenhouse gas generation is the internal combustion engine, associated with emissions, fossil fuel
consumption, and noise. As a requirement of more and more countries, complex actions have been
taken in the production activities of this industry to improve the products. Significant amounts of
resources have been invested in the development of fuel vehicles, in which the fuel cell replaces the
combustion engine [54–56].
At present, a debated issue is the way in which the sustainable development of the organization
can be assessed [17]. There are many different methods and tools for measuring sustainability, and
each of these offers potentially useful information, albeit different, for decisions [18]. These tools
are known internationally and fundamentel, and published studies show that there are economic
benefits, especially [52–58]. Such tools are International Standards Organization (ISO, mainly: ISO
14000 series—Environmental Protection Oriented, ISO 9000 series—Quality Oriented, ISO 45000
series—Health and Safety Oriented, ISO 27000 series—Information Security Oriented), Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA):
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970—Safety and Health Oriented; British Standards Institution
(BSI): OHSAS 18000 series—Health and Safety Oriented), 7 Wastes, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA),
Eco-design, Learning curve, Value Stream Mapping (VSM), US Environment Protection Agency
(EPA); Lean and Environment Toolkit—Environment Protection Oriented; Lean, Energy and Climate
Toolkit—Environment Protection and Resource Preservation Oriented; European Union (EU) Standards:
Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS)—Environment Protection Oriented, Health and Safety
at Work Act, 7 Waste; Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment—LCSA; Resource Efficient and Cleaner
Production—RECP, Kaizen, Just-In-Time (JIT), Cellular Manufacturing, Single Minute Exchange of Dies
(SMED), Standardized Work, and Total Preventive Maintenance (TPM), Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA),
and Problem Solving, Sort—Set In order-Shine—Standardize-Sustain (5S), Six Sigma, Jidoka, Gemba
Walk, Kaikaku, Shop Floor Management (SFM), Bottleneck Analysis (related to clean production–lean
production) [6–10]. Thus, one of the ways in which large organizations try to maintain competitiveness
is to seek and implement sustainable practices involving different approaches to innovation [7].
These matters can help improve organizational image, improve resource utilization, and create the
conditions for gaining a real competitive advantage [8].
Despite this variety of tools and methods, the assessment criteria and indicators of durability
almost always play a fundamental role in any durability assessment [27]. The criteria for the assessment
of sustainability are found in the literature; there is currently no framework agreed upon by automotive
experts and other stakeholders (especially shareholders) on which key criteria should be found in the
OS rating scheme. Point by point, regarding the field of activity and organizational dimension, there
are a number of models for sustainability assessment.
5. Results
The three focus group sessions took place between January and May 2019. Out of these, two were
conducted within the university (F1 and F2), and a meeting was held within a company A on which the
proposed model was validated. The results of the focus group one are presented in Table 6. The expert,
chosen among the 11 participants, was the general manager of the most important multinational
company in Romania. It can be noticed that the majority of respondents were aware of the concept
of sustainability, feel it is important (95%), and know the tools for putting the OS into operation.
The objectives targeted by the respondents relate to innovation, responsible production, and sustainable
jobs. The first expert chose to discuss issues regarding the periodicity of reporting sustainability, the
main organizational advantage, and the discussion of OS results within the organization. The results
obtained in the focus groups are presented systematically in accordance with the expected results
(only the important information used to develop the evaluation method is presented). The key actions
described by the respondents were extracted to better shape the proposed model.
Table 6. Synthesis of the results obtained in focus group F1 with 11 companies of the automotive industry.
No. Question Discussed Key Actions Identified

89% of the participants know the concept and have applied it
1 Knowing the OS concept
within the company they work for.
Sustainability is important for the 95% replied in the affirmative and consider sustainability as an
2
strategic practices of the organization integral part of the vision and mission.
ISO Standard, LCSA, RECP, problem solving, sustainable
3 5 tools used for OS
indicators.
47% of participants were trained on the principles, objectives, and
4 Training employees regarding OS
tools of the OS, and the rest were self-educated.
Decent work and economic growth (69.23%); industry innovation
5 3 objectives targeted by OS and infrastructure (64.62%); and responsible consumption and
production (61.54%) (multiple answer).
Improving the quality of processes and operations (55%),
6 3 benefits after adopting OS
standardizing activities (23%), teamwork (76%).
7 3 disadvantages of OS Cost, time, unprepared employees.
In 70% of cases, reporting is done annually, whereas in 30% of
8 Periodicity of reporting sustainability
cases, it is done once every two years.
The following advantages have been mentioned: strategic
9 Main organizational advantage planning in line with OS objectives (40%), motivation of human
resources (30%), and reduction of production waste (30%).
Over 70% of the first group’s members responded that it had
10 OS results within the organization
visible results within the organization.
The next focus group was made up of 11 companies operating in the automotive field, and the
expert was the youngest manager. The results obtained within this focus group are presented in Table 7.
The second expert chose for discussion topics based on the interest of stakeholders in OS, shareholder
involvement and OS approval, and OS reporting costs.

81% of the participants know the concept, have studied it, and
1 Knowing the OS concept
have applied it within the company they work for.
Sustainability is important for the 84% replied in the affirmative and consider OS as being an
2
strategic practices of the organization important direction for the company.
Lean manufacturing (Kanban, 5S), ISO Standard, LCSA,
problem solving, sustainable indicators.
4 Training employees regarding OS 30% were trained, whilst 70% were self-educated.
Process and Material Losses Reduction, Increasing Resource
Efficiency and Customer Satisfaction (83.08%), Cost Reduction
5 3 objectives targeted by OS
and Increasing Product Quality (80.00%), and Productivity
Improvement and Company Image Improvement (78.46%).
Work standardization (70%), improving public image (20%),
6 3 benefits after adopting OS
visual management (10%).
Cost, training employees, and the infrastructure related to
7 3 disadvantages of OS
information technology.
Table 7. Cont.

Shareholders from within the company are involved directly
8 Interest of stakeholders in OS
or indirectly in OS.
In 85% of cases, shareholders approve of OS and take its
9 Shareholder OS approval
principles into consideration when defining strategic planning.
Expenditures are covered by internal funds and are supported
10 OS reporting costs
by shareholders.
The next focus group was made up of 11 companies operating in the automotive field, and the
chosen expert was the most important shareholder according to the turnover achieved in the previous
year. The results obtained in this focus group are presented in Table 8. The expert of this target
group chose three directions for the discussions: the appreciation of the company’s maturity level, the
strategic planning, and stakeholder interests.

95% of the participants know the concept, and 81% have
1 Knowing the OS concept applied it within the company they work for, whilst 13% apply
it partially.
Sustainability is important for the 80% replied in the affirmative and consider sustainability as an
2
strategic practices of the organization integral part of the vision and mission.
ISO Standard, sustainable indicators, LCSA,
environment-related tools, Waste Management
The majority of employees, 83%, were self-educated. The
4 Training employees regarding OS
organization does not have resources for training.
Improving the activity processes (71%), attracting new
5 3 objectives targeted by OS
collaborators (89%), improving public image (54%).
Improving the quality of processes and operations (75%),
6 3 benefits after adopting OS increasing recycling capacity (53%), increasing employees’
interest in the company.
Lack of reporting required by legislation, lack of information
7 3 disadvantages of OS and ambiguity triggered by the lack of indicators for
evaluation, internationally endorsed.
Appreciation of the company’s maturity Companies have reached the maturity level regarding
8
level organizational activity.
In 91% of cases, strategic planning takes OS objectives into
9 Strategic planning
consideration.
Stakeholder interests are partially aligned with OS objectives.
10 Stakeholder interests
In 65% of statements, shareholders support investments in OS.
The results obtained within these focus groups were correlated with the 15 principles developed
for the automotive industry. The matrix of the principles resulting from the intersection of the results
obtained after the focus groups and the meetings with experts are presented in Table 6. An “x” was
marked if the focus group discussions intersected with the principles developed and presented in
Table 9. Table 9 also includes the column for the implementation phase of the principle within the
proposed model (which is presented in Section 5).
Table 9. Matrix of principles applicable in the automotive industry following the presented focus groups.
Phase of
No. Principle Focus Group 1 Focus Group 2 Focus Group 3
Implementation
S1 Interests of stakeholders 1 x x x
S2 Reduction of toxicity 2 x
S3 Reducing operator overload 2 x x x
S4 Reducing resources 2 x x x
S5 Time efficiency 2 x x
S6 Reducing waiting time 2 x x x
S7 Monitoring fixed costs 2 x
Stakeholder engagement in
S8 1 x x x
strategic decisions
Supporting community
S9 2 x x x
activities
S10 Training human resources 2 x x x
Corporate Social
S11 2 x x x
Responsibility (CSR)
S12 Increasing recycling capacity 2 x x
Increasing the capacity of the
S13 reuse, remanufacturing, 2 x x
reconditioning
S14 Reducing energy consumption 2 x x x
S15 Greenhouse gas reduction 2 x x x
6. Sustainability Model Proposed for the Automotive Industry

The characteristics of the automotive industry are: qualifications of human resources, innovation,
high complexity, standardization, reputation, high technology, high quality products, and others.
The operations and processes of the industry are quite complex, being much technologized. The level
of innovation is high, and the standardization of processes and activities is important [18–21]. The level
of knowledge is high, and collaborations with universities are intense [22–25]. The quality of
the products is considered to be high, and training human resources is carried out continuously.
Throughout the entire automotive industry, cost-cutting efforts and approaches are emphasized [23–27].
The automotive industry is a complex system of connections, direct and indirect products, and
interactions in order to create economic value [35]. As this industry has a significant impact on the
environment, economy, and people [45], it also plays a significant role in sustainable development.
Vehicle and auto parts manufacturing companies are evaluated by regulatory agencies to ensure they
meet environmental standards and reduce the impact on both products and their manufacturing
processes [23]. This pressure led them to adopt innovative business strategies and prime information
and communication technologies to achieve environmental and economic performance goals [25].
Implementing sustainable development helps them reduce their organizational impact on the
environment, economy, and society.
The model proposed for the automotive industry is based on the following: evaluation of the
principles and targets of sustainable development found in the literature and the results of the focus
groups conducted with the representatives of the automotive industry. This model includes four stages,
as follows:
(1) The understanding and assessment of organizational capacity for sustainable
development—identifying, evaluating, and understanding the factors affecting the development
of a program for launching sustainable development.
(2) Evaluating the activities launched for sustainable development—identifying and evaluating the
activities undertaken for the OS.
(3) Generating the report of the evaluation—generating the report based upon the organizational
assessment.
(4) The action plan of the organization—developing an action plan to increase the likelihood of OS.
6.1. Stage of Understanding and Assessment of Organizational Capacity for Sustainable Development
All the organizational information used at this stage is retrieved from the evaluated company
(vision, mission, and organizational objectives). They are elements of strategic planning. Organizational
assessment begins with elements of strategic management [59]. The vision being a projection of the
business in the future, which underlines what the company wants to become, and it is essential for it to
suggest organizational sustainability [47,57–59]. The mission is another strategic element that includes
the basic elements of the business’ existence. These refer to innovation, employees, customers, markets,
technology, environmental responsibility, products, philosophy, and the relationships with collaborators.
They are elements that must express the sustainability of the business [57–59]. These elements are
evaluated to identify whether they are based on the principles of sustainable development. The first
step in the proposed model is to consider the elements related to the functional requirements of
strategic planning. It assesses the current state and future design (vision) of the organization. At this
stage, the following steps are taken, as shown in Figure 1:
1a. Input data is used: vision, mission, and the organizational strategic objectives.
1b. Check that the input data from point (1) integrates the principles of sustainable development.
1c. In the event that the input data does not integrate elements of sustainability, a focus group
with the stakeholders is organized to understand their interests (emphasis is put on understanding the
interests of stakeholders). After that, the strategic plan is checked to be in line with the OS objectives.
1d. Check whether there was a previous sustainability report. If it exists, it is retained for
comparison purposes, if not, it will be mentioned that no previous reporting exists. A team is
established to implement the OS activities.
Figure 1. Stage 1 of the model proposed for sustainable development in the automotive industry.
6.2. Evaluating the Activities Launched for Sustainable Development

The evaluation stage of the sustainability indicators is one of the most important. In the models
proposed for the assessment of organizational sustainability [17,22,35] the number of indicators
differs depending on the company’s field of the activity. For automotive, the emphasis is placed on
the impact of the raw materials used and the emissions generated [59]. That is why the economic
and environmental dimensions include more indicators. These indicators relate to the reduction of
production costs and time, zero waste, the amount of energy consumed, the amount of industrial waste
generated, and others, which are important indicators [59]. For the proposed model, 80 indicators
were established, divided into domains for the three sustainability responsibilities. The division into
domains was made for the ease of evaluation. At this stage, eight domains are evaluated according
to a set of defined indicators. The domains evaluated are environment, financial stability, developed
partnerships, organizational efficiency, waste management capacity, capacity to reduce production
time, greenhouse gas reduction, and communication and human resource. The steps of this stage are
shown in Figure 2, as follows:
2a. Data from the company is collected, and the members of the team are identified in order
to apply scores for the following domains: environment, financial stability, developed partnerships,
organizational efficiency, and waste management capacity, capacity to reduce production time,
greenhouse gas reduction, and communication.
2b. The domain “environment” is assessed, and its corresponding score is calculated.
2c. The domain “financial stability” is assessed, and its corresponding score is calculated.
2d. The domain “developed partnerships” is assessed, and its corresponding score is calculated.
2e. The domain “organizational efficiency” is assessed, and its corresponding score is calculated.
2f. The domain “waste management capacity” is assessed, and its corresponding score is calculated.
2g. The domain “capacity to reduce production time” is assessed, and its corresponding score
is calculated.
2h. The domain “greenhouse gas reduction” is assessed, and its corresponding score is calculated.
2i. The domain “communication” is assessed, and its corresponding score is calculated.
2j. The total score of OS is calculated.
6.3. Generating the Report of the Evaluation

The stage of generating a report is important in management and for the decision makers in
the company [19]. Obtaining a report that can be looked into by stakeholders contributes to future
decisions and can convince the shareholders of the benefits of sustainable development [19,22,35].
Models of sustainability assessment, like management models, end with the stage of generating an
organizational footprint that encompasses its situation and leads to new solutions for increasing
competitiveness [59,60]. In the proposed model as well, the last step is to generate a report. Depending
on the score obtained in the previous stage, a report is generated, which is based upon a series of
organizational strategies and integrates the methods, techniques, and methodologies for OS in the
automotive industry. In view of the final score, the following steps are taken, as shown in Figure 3:
3a. The team meets for the planning activity.
3b. The mission and vision of the organization are reexamined.
3c. The proposed tools for implementing sustainable development are examined.
3d. The elements that need to be maintained, eliminated, or adapted are determined.
3e. The sustainability domains are prioritized.
3f. The action plan is transcribed to be line with the specificity of the organization.
6.4. The Action Plan of the Organization

After obtaining an in-depth overview, the organization proceeds to propose solutions in accordance
with those suggested within the report [22,35]. Systematizing an action plan is an important step in
increasing organizational competitiveness [35]. This action plan must be developed in accordance with
organizational strategies and organizational objectives [59]. For the proposed model, at this stage,
the plan and activities prioritized in stage three are transcribed. The proposed plan is controlled and
monitored until the organizational re-evaluation.
6.5. Case Study: A Large Multinational Company

Within this section, the proposed model has been validated on one of the most important
multinational companies in the automotive industry. The results of this validation are presented in
Table 10.
Table 10. Validation of the proposed model.
Step Implication The Situation within the Organization

The company’s vision integrates OS elements stating that “The
The vision, mission, and
company aims to become a world leader in the automotive
organizational goals are identified.
1a/1b industry, based on the principles of durability.” The mission
They can be found on the company’s
includes key elements, ranging from employees to caring for
website.
the community, customers, and suppliers.
Within the discussions with the shareholders, a disposition
The importance of sustainability for
1c towards the OS is noticed if improved financial results are also
the company
achieved.
A check was carried out to see whether there was a previous
sustainability report. There was an earlier report.
Sustainability was reported between 2010–2019. The way of
reporting differs. In the first years, a qualitative type
Status of previous reporting of assessment was carried out on the basis of evaluating the
1d
sustainability internal and external environment, whereas the GRI reporting
was used in the last three years. The report is retained, and the
team for the next stage is identified as being formed by the
leaders of the production, development, warehouse, sales,
financial-accounting, and human resource teams.
All data has been identified, and there is a representative for
2a. Data from the company is collected.
each domain.
A score of E = 4.0 is obtained. This value places the company
above the average implications in the protection of the
2b Environment domain €
environment; however, actions for improvement are still
necessary.
Table 10. Cont.
Step Implication The Situation within the Organization

A score of FS = 3.8 is obtained. This score is average, meaning
2c Financial stability domain (FS)
that financial stability can be improved.
A score of P = 5.4 is obtained. As can be observed for the
development of partnerships, the company obtains an above
2d Developed partnerships domain (P)
average score, being proof of the good relationship with its
partners.
A score of EO = 5.8 is obtained. Organizational efficiency is
proven by the organization, the score being positioned in the
2e Organizational efficiency domain (EO)
upper half of the total implementation (towards the maximum
of 7).
A score of WM = 6.4 is obtained. The capacity for waste
Waste management capacity domain
2f management obtains a maximum score, which means that this
(WM)
company has good waste management.
A score of TR = 4.4 is obtained. The capacity to reduce time
Capacity to reduce production time
2g positions the company slightly above the average maximum
domain (TR)
value of the domain.
A score of GHG = 3.0 is obtained. The value of the domain is
Greenhouse gas reduction (GHG)
2h lower, being evidence of generating a large quantity of
domain
greenhouse gases.
A score of C = 4.0 is obtained. Communication is positioned
2i Communication domain (C) within the domains that need to be improved, due to the score
obtained.
TOS = 4.6. This obtained score, above average, highlights the
The total score of OS is calculated
2j fact that the organization has to improve some of its domains
(TOS)
to reach the maximum value of 7.
The team was reunited, and the mission was reformulated by
The team meets for the planning
3a, 3b adding elements related to equal opportunity at the workplace
activity.
and ethics in promoting human resources.
The tools used for implementing sustainable development
The proposed tools for implementing
were examined, and it was revealed that the following were
3c sustainable development are
used: 5S, Kanban, Kaizen, RCEP, problem solving, and waste
examined.
management.
The elements that need to be The elements that need to be maintained, eliminated, or
3d maintained, eliminated, or adapted adapted are determined. It is shown that communication
are determined. needs to be intensified within the organization.
The sustainability domains are prioritized, with the domain of
The sustainability domains are
3e “organizational efficiency” being established as the most
prioritized.
important.
The action plan is transcribed and aligned with the specificity
3f The action plan is transcribed. of the organization. A new report was obtained, which will be
implemented within the organization.
7. Discussion
By using the previously presented model with the three experts who moderated the three focus
groups, the following deficiencies of the proposed model were found: the interests of the shareholders
must be concatenated with the OS priorities, the tool does not include its own procedures related to
the OS, and the transcription of the plan may take longer. To address these changes, the authors will
develop an open-access online platform. Following the research, it is observed that the companies in
the automotive industry are aware of the organizational sustainability as long as there are legislative
regulations, demands from the collaborators, or financial benefits. The facilitators of the three focus
groups challenged members of the focus groups to answer the challenges of specific questions for each
group (three questions). These questions were selected based on the previous answers and based on
the experience of the facilitators. The main benefits obtained by the organizations were: increasing
the quality of processes, work standardization, and increasing recycling capacity. The meetings have
outlined that the benefits of OS exist, but in most cases, costs, time, and the lack of knowledge lead to a
lack of implementing the concept. Conducting external training, OS education in higher education,
or open collaboration of organizations with universities could contribute to increase the interest of
organizations for OS and reduce costs (with education and the barrier of a new concept for employees).
From the perspective of the obtained results, it can be noticed that:
• Compared with some models [18,25], the proposed one emphasizes the need for environmental
impact assessment in order to improve environmental indicators;
• The proposed model uses the experience of specialists from the automotive industry to define the
indicators and the domains that need to be evaluated [18,25,45];
• Evaluating elements of strategic management (starting from vision, mission, to objectives) is
important for proposing a new model [49];
• Appreciating the level of maturity of the company, strategic planning, and the stakeholders’
interest are important dimensions for organizational sustainability;
• The 15 proposed principles cover the 2030 Agenda principles, and they identify themselves with
the objectives of the companies from the automotive industry;
• Stakeholder models show that the interests of OS are different, as shareholders should be interested
directly in sustainability. Their direct interest could lead to improving financial results if we take
into consideration a longer period of time;
• The three conducted focus groups with employees from the automotive industry, have highlighted
that: over 80% of participants were aware of the sustainability concept, the training part was
mainly done by self-education, the tools used for OS are numerous (ranging from implemented
international standards to clean production tools such as lean), and the stakeholders target
financial results;
• From the conducted focus groups, it can be concluded that most organizations are aware of
organizational sustainability as long as it is required by environmental regulations (e.g., waste
management) and ISO standards, which are the norm in the auto industry and in situations
where a friendly behavior towards the environment is considered economically beneficial for
the company;
• Another important aspect is the one related to the economic benefits. In the case of the OS approach
within the organizations, economic benefits are usually recorded (decent work and economic
growth; industry innovation and infrastructure; and responsible consumption and production;
process and material losses reduction, increasing resource efficiency and customer satisfaction,
cost reduction and increasing product quality, productivity improvement and company image
improvement, et al.). In the event that these economic benefits would not exist, the interviewees
appreciated that the organizational involvement would be minimal or lacking. The implications
of organizations for sustainable practices exist, as long as there are economic benefits;
• The results obtained within the focus groups underly the knowledge development basis for the
proposed sustainable development model;
• Validating the tool within one of the most important companies of the automotive industry has
strengthened the correctness of the proposed logic and has helped make modifications related to:
the number of indicators used for each domain. These indicators are taken over from the GRI
type reporting of sustainability;
• For large multinational companies, the implementation and execution of the concept is usually
done at the headquarters areas. That is why the decision to use a new model must be accompanied
by a strong motivational driving force;
• The free use of a proposed model can be, for starters, a good motivational driving force for
companies in the automotive field;
• For the multinational companies in the automotive field, the concept of sustainable development
is a well-known one. The decisions of the implementation of the different concepts are made in
headquarters, where the know-how is supported;
• Developing sustainable strategies is a priority for these companies;
• The homogeneity of the groups has led to expected results that outline the idea that these companies
are open to aligning with international imperatives as long as they have an economic benefit;
• The barriers in implementing the proposed model are relative to the motivational factors and to
the communication with the headquarters of the companies;
• The economic benefits are the imperatives that contribute to implementing the concept of
sustainable development in organizations;
• The shareholders of multinational companies must be convinced of the economic benefits of OS.
8. Conclusions
In this article, we have demonstrated the benefits of sustainability in economic, social, and
environmental areas [28]. Even if sometimes assessing sustainability can be difficult, the resulted
benefits will source a lasting competitive advantage. Evaluation is sometimes difficult because there
may be a number of barriers, such as lack of staff training, too much time spent on one evaluation,
lack of trust by employees in sustainability, and others. These aspects listed here have also been
encountered in the current case study evaluation.
Using focus groups as a research method for the concept of OS has proved to be very efficient
because, during the debates, the respondents were encouraged to participate with as many opinions as
possible. Within these focus groups, over 80% of the stakeholders were aware of the importance of
sustainable development, but they would only implement it if it enabled economic benefits. Depending
on the field of activity and vision of the company, numerous and varied methods and tools are applied
by companies to improve the efficient use of resources. The implementation of some tools or concepts in
large organizations is done at headquarters, which is usually outside of Romania. That is why, in these
companies, a number of concepts related to organizational competitiveness are already implemented.
The concept of sustainability is known in the automotive field, which is why the use of focus groups
was a good choice for identifying the main directions to be included in the proposed tool. This tool has
been validated on a well-known company, but in the future, extending this framework to the level
of several industries is considered, and its evaluation will be performed exclusively online based on
identification data that will also retain the organization’s history (previous sustainability reports).
Validating this variant contributes to broadening the horizon of research and lays the foundation for
the research team to develop an integrated tool applied across different industries.
The concept of sustainable development is not fully defined yet, and there are no concrete
indicators set, which is why these debates have led to the configuration of eight domains comprising
the 80 evaluated indicators. The established domains are related to the three responsibilities and
contribute to a better understanding of the evaluation process [60,61].
Companies from the automotive sector are among those that generate a large amount of greenhouse
gases. Therefore, the implementation of various actions for the protection of the environment and the
efficiency of these related activities are demanded by stakeholders. OS is a well-known concept in
these companies. There are a number of tools to enhance the capacity for sustainable development,
but there is no universal model for OS assessment. Therefore, this paper proposes a model for this
industry whilst future research will aim to develop other models applicable in other industries, based
upon the current proposed model.
Author Contributions: All authors contributed equally to the research presented in this paper and to the
preparation of the final manuscript.
Funding: This work was partially supported by research grant GNaC2018-ARUT, no. 1359/01.02.2019, financed
by Politehnica University of Timisoara. Project financed from Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu research
grants LBUS-IRG-2018-04.
Acknowledgments: The authors want to acknowledge the support of Politehnica University of Timisoara, Faculty
of Management in Production and Transportation, and Management Department, Department of Industrial
Engineering and Management, Faculty of Engineering, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Academy of Romanian
Scientists for administrative and technical support, for the use of the infrastructure, for allowing to create a new
tool for research and didactic use. We want to also acknowledge the support of industry in the region for helpful
discussions and survey responses.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Cioca, L.-I.; Ivascu, L.; Rada, E.C.; Torretta, V.; Ionescu, G. Sustainable Development and Technological
Impact on CO2 Reducing Conditions in Romania. Sustainability 2015, 7, 1637–1650. [CrossRef]
2. Prashar, A. Towards sustainable development in industrial small and Medium-sized Enterprises: An energy
sustainability approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 235, 977–996. [CrossRef]
3. Arruda, L.R.; de Jesus Lameira, V.; Quelhas, O.L.G.; Pereira, F.N. Sustainability in the Brazilian heavy
construction industry: An analysis of organizational practices. Sustainability 2013, 5, 4312–4328. [CrossRef]
4. Chang, D.S.; Chen, S.H.; Hsu, C.W.; Hu, A.H. Identifying strategic factors of the implantation CSR in the
airline industry: The case of Asia-Pacific airlines. Sustainability 2015, 7, 7762–7783. [CrossRef]
5. Garcia-Torres, S.; Rey-Garcia, M.; Albareda-Vivo, L. Effective Disclosure in the Fast-Fashion Industry: From
Sustainability Reporting to Action. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2256. [CrossRef]
6. Batista, A.A.D.S.; Francisco, A.C.D. Organizational Sustainability Practices: A Study of the Firms Listed by
the Corporate Sustainability Index. Sustainability 2018, 10, 226. [CrossRef]
7. National Institute of Statistics, Statistical Data. Available online: http://statistici.insse.ro:8077/tempo-online/
(accessed on 27 August 2019).
8. Patón-Romero, J.D.; Baldassarre, M.T.; Rodríguez, M.; Piattini, M. Application of ISO 14000 to Information
Technology Governance and Management. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 2019, 65, 180–202. [CrossRef]
9. Simoes, P.; Marques, R. On the economic performance of the waste sector. A literature review. J. Environ.
Manag. 2012, 106, 40–47.
10. Tăucean, I.M.; Tămăs, ilă, M.; Ivascu, L.; Miclea, S, .; Negrut, , M. Integrating Sustainability and Lean: SLIM
Method and Enterprise Game Proposed. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2103. [CrossRef]
11. Bogardus, E. The group interview. J. Appl. Sociol. 1926, 10, 372–382.
12. Merton, R.; Fisk, M.; Kendall, P. The Focused Interview: A Report of the Bureau of Applied Social Research;
Columbia University: New York, NY, USA, 1956.
13. Kitzinger, J. The methodology of Focus Groups: The importance of interaction between research participants.
Sociol. Health Illn. 1994, 16, 104–121. [CrossRef]
14. Morgan, D.L. Focus Groups. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1996, 22, 129–152. [CrossRef]
15. Skop, E. The Methodological Potential of Focus Groups in Population Geography. Popul. Space Place 2006,
12, 113–124. [CrossRef]
16. Giannetti, B.F.; Sevegnani, F.; Almeida, C.; Agostinho, F.; Moreno, R.R.; Liu, G.G. Five sector sustainability
model: A proposal for assessing sustainability of production systems. Ecol. Model. J. 2019, 406, 98–108.
[CrossRef]
17. Säynäjoki, E.S.; Heinonen, J.; Junnila, S. The power of urban planning on environmental sustainability: A
focus group study in Finland. Sustainability 2014, 6, 6622–6643. [CrossRef]
18. Opazo-Basáez, M.; Vendrell-Herrero, F.; Bustinza, O. Uncovering productivity gains of digital and green
servitization: Implications from the automotive industry. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1524. [CrossRef]
19. Rodríguez-Olalla, A.; Avilés-Palacios, C. Integrating Sustainability in Organisations: An Activity-Based
Sustainability Model. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1072. [CrossRef]
20. Siew, R.Y.J. A Review of Corporate Sustainability Reporting Tools (SRTs). J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 164, 180–195.
[CrossRef]
21. Amui, L.B.L.; Jabbour, C.J.C.; de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L.; Kannan, D. Sustainability as a Dynamic Organizational
Capability: A Systematic Review and a Future Agenda toward a Sustainable Transition. J. Clean. Prod. 2017,
142, 308–322. [CrossRef]
22. Baviera-Puig, A.; Gómez-Navarro, T.; García-Melón, M.; García-Martínez, G. Assessing the Communication
Quality of CSR Reports. A Case Study on Four Spanish Food Companies. Sustainability 2015, 7, 11010–11031.
23. Falle, S.; Rauter, R.; Engert, S.; Baumgartner, R.J. Sustainability Management with the Sustainability Balanced
Scorecard in Smes: Findings from an Austrian Case Study. Sustainability 2016, 8, 545. [CrossRef]
24. Klewitz, J.; Hansen, E.G. Sustainability-oriented innovation of SMEs: A Systematic Review. J. Clean. Prod.
2014, 65, 57–75. [CrossRef]
25. Osterwalder, A.Y.; Pigneur, Y.; Tucci, C.L. Clarifying Business Models: Origins, Present, and Future of the
Concept. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2005, 15, 1–40. [CrossRef]
26. Pawar, K.S.; Beltagui, A.; Riedel, J.C.K.H. The PSO Triangle: Designing Product, Service and Organisation to
Create Value. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2009, 29, 468–493. [CrossRef]
27. Hoerisch, J.; Freeman, R.E.; Schaltegger, S. Applying Stakeholder Theory in Sustainability Management Links,
Similarities, Dissimilarities, and a Conceptual Framework. Organ. Environ. 2014, 27, 328–346. [CrossRef]
28. Apte, S.; Sheth, J. Developing the Sustainable Edge. Lead. Lead. 2017, 48–53. [CrossRef]
29. Poponi, S.; Colantoni, A.; Cividino, S.R.; Mosconi, E.M. The Stakeholders’ Perspective within the B Corp
Certification for a Circular Approach. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1584. [CrossRef]
30. Iamkovaia, M.; Arcila, M.; Cardoso Martins, F.; Izquierdo, A. Sustainable Development of Coastal Food
Services. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3728. [CrossRef]
31. Canh, N.T.; Liem, N.T.; Thu, P.A.; Khuong, N.V. The Impact of Innovation on the Firm Performance and
Corporate Social Responsibility of Vietnamese Manufacturing Firms. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3666. [CrossRef]
32. Jasinski, D.; Meredith, J.; Kirwan, K. A Comprehensive Review of Full Cost Accounting Methods and Their
Applicability to the Automotive Industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 108 Pt A, 1123–1139. [CrossRef]
33. Wu, S.; Guo, J.; Shi, G.; Li, J.; Lu, C. Laboratory-Based Investigation into Stress Corrosion Cracking of Cable
Bolts. Materials 2019, 12, 2146. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
34. Van Belleghem, B.; van den Heede, P.; van Tittelboom, K.; de Belie, N. Quantification of the Service Life
Extension and Environmental Benefit of Chloride Exposed Self-Healing Concrete. Materials 2017, 10, 5.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
35. Ramos, T.B.; Caeiro, S. Meta-performance Evaluation of Sustainability Indicators. Ecol. Indic. 2010,
10, 157–166. [CrossRef]
36. Rezaee, Z. Corporate sustainability: Theoretical and Integrated Strategic Imperative and Pragmatic Approach.
J. Bus. Inq. 2017, 16, 60–87.
37. Olugu, E.U.; Wong, K.Y.; Shaharoun, A.M. Development of Key Performance Measures for the Automobile
Green Supply Chain. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2011, 55, 567–579. [CrossRef]
38. Steen, B. A Systematic Approach to Environmental Priority Strategies in Product Development (EPS): Version
2000-General System Characteristics; Centre for Environmental Assessment of Products and Material Systems:
Goteborg, Sweden, 1999.
39. Arena, M.; Azzone, G.; Conte, A. A Streamlined LCA Framework to Support Early Decision Making in
Vehicle Development. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 41, 105–113. [CrossRef]
40. Benoît, C.; Norris, G.A.; Valdivia, S.; Ciroth, A.; Moberg, A.; Bos, U.; Prakash, S.; Ugaya, C.; Beck, T.
The Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products: Just in Time! Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2010,
15, 156–163. [CrossRef]
41. Subic, A.; Koopmans, L. Global Green Car Learning Clusters. Int. J. Veh. Des. 2010, 53, 36–53. [CrossRef]
42. Akadiri, P.O.; Olomolaiye, P.O. Development of Sustainable Assessment Criteria for Building Materials
Selection. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2012, 19, 666–687. [CrossRef]
43. Aravossis, K.G.; Kapsalis, V.C.; Kyriakopoulos, G.L.; Xouleis, T.G. Development of a Holistic Assessment
Framework for Industrial Organizations. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3946. [CrossRef]
44. Motamedi, P.; Bargozin, H.; Pourafshary, P. Management of Implementation of Nanotechnology in Upstream
Oil Industry: An Analytic Hierarchy Process Analysis. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 2018, 140, 052908. [CrossRef]
45. Abu-Rayash, A.; Dincer, I. Sustainability assessment of energy systems: A novel integrated model.
J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 212, 1098–1116. [CrossRef]
46. Ahmadi, H.B.; Kusi-Sarpong, S.; Rezaei, J. Assessing the social sustainability of supply chains using Best
Worst Method. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 126, 99–106. [CrossRef]
47. An, D.; Xi, B.; Ren, J.; Ren, X.; Zhang, W.; Wang, Y.; Dong, L. Multi-criteria sustainability assessment of
urban sludge treatment technologies: Method and case study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 128, 546–554.
[CrossRef]
48. Andriantiatsaholiniaina, L.A.; Kouikoglou, V.S.; Phillis, Y.A. Evaluating strategies for sustainable
development: Fuzzy logic reasoning and sensitivity analysis. Ecol. Econ. 2004, 48, 149–172. [CrossRef]
49. Coss, S.; Rebillard, C.; Verda, V.; Le Corre, O. Sustainability assessment of energy services using complex
multi-layer system models. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 23–38. [CrossRef]
50. Svensson, G.; Ferro, C.; Høgevold, N.; Padin, C.; Varela, J.C.S.; Sarstedt, M. Framing the triple bottom line
approach: Direct and mediation effects between economic, social and environmental elements. J. Clean. Prod.
2018, 197, 972–991. [CrossRef]
51. Zhao, L.; Zha, Y.; Zhuang, Y.; Liang, L. Data envelopment analysis for sustainability evaluation in China:
Tackling the economic, environmental, and social dimensions. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2018, 275, 1083–1095.
[CrossRef]
52. Tan, Y.; Shuai, C.; Jiao, L.; Shen, L. An adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) approach for measuring
country sustainability performance. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2017, 65, 29–40. [CrossRef]
53. Mani, M.; Johansson, B.; Lyons, K.W.; Sriram, R.D.; Ameta, G. Simulation andanalysis for sustainable product
development. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2013, 18, 1129–1136. [CrossRef]
54. Marchese, D.; Reynolds, E.; Bates, M.E.; Morgan, H.; Clark, S.S.; Linkov, I. Resilience and sustainability:
Similarities and differences in environmental management applications. Sci. Total Environ 2018, 613–614,
1275–1283. [CrossRef]
55. Mayyas, A.; Qattawi, A.; Omar, M.; Shan, D. Design for sustainability inautomotive industry: A
comprehensive review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 1845–1862. [CrossRef]
56. McAuley, J.W. Global sustainability and key needs in future automotive design. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003,
37, 5414–5416. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
57. Zhu, Q.; Lujia, F.; Mayyas, A.; Omar, M.A.; Al-Hammadi, Y.; Al Saleh, S. Production energy optimization
using low dynamic programming, a decisionsupport tool for sustainable manufacturing. J. Clean. Prod. 2015,
105, 178–183. [CrossRef]
58. Donaldson, T.; Preston, L.E. The stakeholder theory of the corporation. Concepts, evidence, and implications.
Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 65–91. [CrossRef]
59. Dreyer, L.C.; Hauschild, M.Z.; Schierbeck, J. Characterisation of social impactsin LCA. Part 2: Implementation
in six company case studies. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2010, 15, 385–402. [CrossRef]
60. Efroymson, R.A.; Dale, V.H.; Kline, K.L.; McBride, A.C.; Bielicki, J.M.; Smith, R.L.; Parish, E.S.; Schweizer, P.E.;
Shaw, D.M. Environmental indicators of biofuel sustainability: What about context? Environ. Manag. 2013,
51, 291–306. [CrossRef]
61. Ekener-Petersen, E.; Moberg, A. Potential hotspots identified by social LCAe Part 2: Reflections on a study of
a complex product. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2013, 18, 144–154. [CrossRef]
© 2019 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
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Sustainable Development Model For The Automotive Industry: Sustainability

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainable Development Model For The Automotive Industry: Sustainability

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

Sustainable Development Model For The Automotive Industry: Sustainability

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Keywords: sustainability; SGDs; innovation; stakeholder; shareholder; competitiveness; industrial

Sustainability 2019, 11, 6447; doi:10.3390/su11226447 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

2.1. Focus Group Method

• The possibility of appointing a qualified facilitator to encourage interactions between the

2.2. Data Collection

Table 1. Focus groups’ structure and activity fields of companies.

Focus Group 1 Focus Group 2 Focus Group 3

Table 2. Topics of discussion.

Common Questions Discussed in Questions Discussed in Questions Discussed in Questions Discussed in

2.3. Stages of Present Reserach

2.4. Details of the Company Evaluated

Table 3. Organizational sustainability (OS) responsibilities and domains.

Responsibility Domain Number of Indicators

2.5. Validating the Proposed Model

3. 2030 Agenda, Principles, and Objectives

No. Principle Implication Goal

4.1. The Importance of Stakeholder Involvement in Organizational Sustainability

Table 5. Models of stakeholder involvement in sustainable development.

Authors Model Description

Authors Model Description

4.2. Methods and Tools for Sustainable Development

No. Question Discussed Key Actions Identified

No. Question Discussed Key Actions Identified

No. Question Discussed Key Actions Identified

No. Question Discussed Key Actions Identified

6. Sustainability Model Proposed for the Automotive Industry

6.2. Evaluating the Activities Launched for Sustainable Development

6.3. Generating the Report of the Evaluation

6.4. The Action Plan of the Organization

6.5. Case Study: A Large Multinational Company

Table 10. Validation of the proposed model.

Step Implication The Situation within the Organization

Table 10. Cont.

Step Implication The Situation within the Organization

You might also like