Hojnik et al 2020 Sustainability indicators for

Journal of Cleaner Production 249 (2020) 119368
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Cleaner Production
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro
Sustainability indicators for the yachting industry: Empirical
conceptualization
Jana Hojnik a, *, Roberto Biloslavo a, Lucia Cicero b, Maria Rosita Cagnina b
a
b
University of Primorska, Faculty of Management, Cankarjeva 5, 6000, Koper, Slovenia
University of Udine, Department of Economics and Statistics, Via Tomadini, 30/a - 33100 Udine e Italy
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 10 January 2019
Received in revised form
25 October 2019
Accepted 17 November 2019
Available online 20 November 2019
Sustainable development has gained attention in recent years not only among academics but has also
become widespread among enterprises, which have realized that their operation should address environmental and societal prosperity as well as economics. However, something cannot be managed
without measuring it, and this also applies to sustainability. When conducting a systematic literature
review on sustainability indicators (SIs) for the yachting industry, their absence is observed; this must be
rectified if enterprises from the yachting industry wish to operate sustainably. Therefore, the research
question posited in this research is following: which are the most suitable SIs for small and mediumsized enterprises (SMEs) operating in the yachting industry and its related three business sectors (i.e.,
yacht-related service sector, yacht-related manufacturing, and yacht-related maritime infrastructure)?
After collecting the sustainable indicators evidenced in the literature, a literature review was completed
with indicators from other international initiatives and provided a restricted list to be first verified
through peer review (expert judgment) with academics from France, Italy, and Slovenia. Afterward, the
list of SIs was tested by conducting interviews with 18 SMEs from the yachting industry in Croatia,
Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia, and Spain, asking them about the appropriateness and relevance
of the proposed SIs. According to their feedback, the proposed SIs were revised and adapted to suit their
needs and specific aspects. The final list of SIs for the yachting industry consists of 33 SIs for the yachtrelated service industry, 38 for the yacht-related manufacturing industry and 38 for the yacht-related
maritime infrastructure industry. The SIs were finally categorized based on both Triple-Bottom-Line
(TBL) concept and an operational typology of indicators: input, process, output, and outcome. By suggesting the SIs for the yachting industry, this study aims at helping SMEs in identifying “hot spots” by
developing their own sustainability assessment system, being able to develop relevant sustainability
reports and increase stakeholders’ engagement.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Handling editor: Tomas B. Ramos
Keywords:
Sustainability indicator
Yachting industry
Yacht-related manufacturing industry
Yacht-related service sector
Yacht-related maritime infrastructure
Small and medium enterprises
1. Introduction
Sustainable development (SD) represents one of the main
challenges of the 21st century and its importance for all enterprises,
both large and small, has increased in recent years (Moore and
Manring, 2009; Klewitz and Hansen, 2014; Hsu et al., 2017;
Gasbarro et al., 2018). Due to the limitation of natural resources
(Meadows and Randers, 2004), the current production and consumption paradigm needs immediate changes to enable global SD.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J. Hojnik), [email protected]
(R. Biloslavo), [email protected] (L. Cicero), [email protected]
(M.R. Cagnina).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119368
0959-6526/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
In 2008, in its report on SD, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 2008) claimed that at “the
core of sustainable development is the need to consider ‘three
pillars’ together: society, the economy and the environment. […]
Social well-being and economic well-being feed off each other, and
the whole game depends on a healthy biosphere in which to exist”.
SD is, however, not only a philosophy to be studied and analyzed,
but a practical concept that needs to be put in practice and
monitored.
1.1. Measuring sustainability
Operationalizing sustainability practices requires the implementation of management concepts, systems, and instruments, i.e.,
2
J. Hojnik et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 249 (2020) 119368
sustainability management tools (Johnson and Schaltegger, 2016).
As Johnson and Schaltegger (2016) state, sustainable management
tools include a wide range of environmental, social, and integrative
tools, such as environmental and social audits, eco-efficiency analyses, life-cycle assessments (LCAs), environmental and social
management systems, and sustainability reports. Several authors
have emphasized that well-organized sustainability management
requires the use of tools to effectively measure, manage, and
communicate sustainability issues (Morioka and de Carvalho,
2016). For others, the improvement of sustainability management
and performance can be an opportunity for an enterprise’s development and growth rather than a threat (Hsu et al., 2017). According to the assumption that “you cannot manage what you do
not measure” (Ehrenfeld, 2008) if they want “to manage sustainable operations or to be sustainable should have a performance
measurement system that is able to measure sustainability performance” (Morioka and de Carvalho, 2016). Ramos and Caeiro
(2010) recognized that there are many ways to measure sustainability performance and that each of them provides potentially
useful, though different, insights for policymakers, academics, and
the general public. However, according to H
ak et al. (2007) “even
within the measurable, the quality of indicators is determined
largely by the way reality is translated into measures and data, be
they quantitative or qualitative.” Though the literature on sustainable performance (that includes measuring, managing, and
reporting) does not often coincide with that on sustainability indicators (SIs) (Morioka and de Carvalho, 2016), the latter represents
the primary tool to assess sustainability performance (Bell and
Morse, 2008; Rahdari and Rostamy, 2015; Helleno et al., 2017;
Hsu et al., 2017). SIs require specific qualitative or quantitative information concerning the economic, environmental, and social
performance linked with the enterprise, which are generally
comparable over time, to evidence the chronological change, and
among enterprises within the same industry. As part of sustainability assessment systems, SIs can represent powerful decisionsupporting tools that foster SD (Waas et al., 2014). In other
words, indicators are communication tools regarding the degree of
sustainability of the firms.
Responding to these aims, practitioners’ tools have been created
and adopted to enhance the sustainability of enterprises. Most of
them follow the Triple-Bottom-Line (TBL) concept, which provides
a consistent and balanced framework on economic, social, and
environmental lines for measuring the performance and the success of enterprises (Goel, 2010; Alhaddi, 2015) while others cover
only one aspect of sustainability. In sum, sustainability management tools include besides sustainability indicators also
sustainability-oriented objectives and ensure appropriate weighing
of environmental objectives against economic and social ones as
well as the allocation of adequate financial resources. These tools
often include visions, objectives, strategies and the accumulation of
knowledge that are supposed to frame organizational efforts towards environmental and social integration, while leaving it to
individual organization to develop concrete pathways to operationalize them according to the well-known quality management
PDCA cycle (i.e., Plan, Do, Check, Act) (ISO 9001, 2019). The sustainability indicators represent the basis of everything and help
enterprises to check the current state of their effects on society,
environment and economics. When those are developed and
monitored, enterprises report them (communicate to public as
well) and at even higher level of complexity the sustainability
management tools come into place. Since there is a hierarchy, going
from less complex to more complex, i.e. starting with SIs, followed
by reports and finalizing with tools, and lack of SIs for yachting
industry has been acknowledged, this manuscript aimed to develop
and propose SIs for enterprises from yachting industry.
1.2. Development of sustainability indicators and SMEs
Many governments and agencies have dedicated substantial
k et al.,
resources to the development and testing of indicators (Ha
2007; UN, 2007), and a large amount of literature on the assessment tools for SD has been developed at the policy level (e.g. Bell
and Morse, 2008; Welfens et al., 2016). Nonetheless, at the corporate level, many contributions have attempted to develop industryspecific sets of SIs, while far fewer studies concentrated on creating
general sets of SIs (e.g., Rahdari and Rostamy, 2015), and few
n and Font, 2013; Reverte et al., 2016; Hsu et al.,
studies (Tamajo
2017) are involved in tailoring a set of indicators for measuring
the sustainability of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). In
the existing literature, most studies on sustainability performance
focus on large enterprises (see the review of Morioka and de
Carvalho, 2016), though SMEs generally have significant importance in the global economy. SMEs represent 99.8% of all businesses
in the EU and about 80% of global business (Moore and Manring,
2009; European Commission, 2017), “with the percentage varying
and Boiral, 2016). In
according to the definition of SMEs” (Chasse
this research, SMEs are defined according to the European Commission 2003/361/CE, (number of employees < 250, and turnover < 50 million euros; European Commission, 2019). Although
SMEs, taken individually, are smaller and have less impact on the
environment than larger businesses do, collectively they do have a
significant negative impact on the environment and society (Revell
et al., 2010). Since they contribute 64% of the environmental impact
in the EU (European Commission, 2014), more attention should be
dedicated to them, also regarding the monitoring or measurement
of sustainability. SMEs have their distinct features; it is usually
emphasized that SMEs face more resource constraints (i.e., financial, physical, and human) due to their size than large enterprises
do (Hsu et al., 2017).
Nevertheless, researchers (e.g., Kardos, 2012) also recognize
SMEs as a driving force for innovation, entrepreneurial spirit, and
competitiveness; therefore, SMEs represent a key to achieving SD
goals. However, the shortage of resources that characterizes SMEs
can make sustainability management and performance more like a
threat than an opportunity for an enterprise’s development and
growth (Hsu et al., 2017). Recent empirical studies have recognized
an increasing number of SMEs involved in sustainability initiatives
and Boiral, 2017) and various tools
(Revell et al., 2010, Chasse
designed for SMEs have emerged, such the Sustainability Environmental Reporting System (Perrini and Tencati, 2006) or more
general ones, such as environmental management systems according to the ISO 14001 standard (Zorpas, 2010). Nevertheless, as
Johnson and Schaltegger (2016) documented in their literature
review, in light of empirical evidence, SMEs have a low rate of
implementation of sustainable management tools. Indeed, among
SMEs, sustainability is often considered a source of costs, rather
than benefits, and SMEs’ managers are often unwilling to be
involved in SD and implement needed changes for applying it
and Boiral, 2017). Because of the heterogeneity within the
(Chasse
SME context, both in terms of size (micro/small/medium) and in
terms of sector, Johnson and Schaltegger (2016) report an academic
call for the further development of sector-specific tools and indicators (Friedman and Miles, 2002; Maijala and Pohjola, 2006;
Bradford and Fraser, 2008; Lee, 2009).
1.3. Sustainability and yachting industry
Enterprise practices dealing with sustainability could be
impacting specifically in those sectors that are strictly related to
natural environmental conditions. This is the case of the yachting
industry, in which the need for leisure boating affects the
J. Hojnik et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 249 (2020) 119368
environment both directly (i.e., during the experience of boating)
and indirectly (i.e., through yacht-related manufacture and service
activities). The International Council of Marine Industry Associations (ICOMIA) estimates that in 2017 the global boating industry
consisted of over 100,000 enterprises, mainly SMEs, the majority of
which are engaged in refit, repair, and maintenance services; they
have over one million direct employees, with over 100,000 employees engaged in boat and engine manufacturing across the
industry’s 27 most important markets; and more than 45 billion
euros of turnover (ICOMIA, 2018). The European Union is the second largest market in the world with approximately 32,000 enterprises, of which 97% are SMEs, over 280,000 direct employees
and 20 billion euros of turnover (European Commission, 2017b). In
the Mediterranean area more specifically, yacht-related manufacture, services, and infrastructure show a high degree of importance
for local economies and communities (e.g., Diakomihalis and Lagos,
2008) and the identification of SIs for the yachting industry could
support yachting SMEs in assessing and implementing their sustainability, which can be of critical importance for their future
economic success as well as in relation with their different
stakeholders.
Given these premises, the focus of this research is on the sustainability of European yachting industry SMEs concentrated on the
Mediterranean coast (European Commission, 2017b). The overall
value chain within yachting industry, however, contains multiple
dimensions and different types of market players. According to the
life-cycle stage, manufacturing together with the supply industry is
present in the first production stage, while services and marinas are
present in the second use stage. Marinas and ports pertain to
maritime infrastructure and have an important impact on local
environment in physical as well as in social sense (Klein and Zviely,
2001). Acknowledging the aforementioned gaps and respecting the
sectorial specifics of yachting industry, the research question is the
following: Which are the most suitable sustainability indicators (SIs)
for SMEs that operate in the yacht-related service sector, yachtrelated manufacturing, and yacht-related maritime infrastructure?
The aim is to derive the list of SIs for three types of sectors within the
yachting industry, namely: 1) yacht-related manufacturing sector
(i.e., ship design, shipbuilding, ship components (motors, sails,
plants, navigation instruments), ship accessories (furniture, tapestry, equipment), accessories for boat users (nautical clothing, various
accessories)); 2) yacht-related service sector (repair, refit and
maintenance, financial services, brokers, charters, other marine and
nautical agencies, retailers of ship components, retailers of ship
accessories (boat-oriented, user-oriented)); and 3) yacht-related
maritime infrastructure (marinas and ports). This research aims to
help SMEs in identifying “hot spots” and in being able to develop
sustainability reports and stakeholders’ engagement. Thus, a list of
economic, social, and environmental indicators compatible with the
general indicators, like the one proposed by the Global Reporting
Initiative (GRI), together with a number of industry-specific indicators to reflect the characteristics of the industry and be eligible
for SMEs’ needs, is proposed.
The article is structured as follows: a detailed overview on
materials and methods (Section 2); a literature review on the basis
of the research work (Section 3); a presentation and the discussion
of the results by the empirical study conveyed through a list of SIs
for yacht-related manufacturing, the yacht-related service sector,
and yacht-related maritime infrastructure (Section 4), and finally,
concluding remarks with study limitations and future research
directions (Section 5).
2. Material and methods
In this section, the study methodology regarding the collection
3
and systematization of SIs for enterprises (2.1), the analysis and
proposal of SIs (2.2) and, finally, the test and refinement of SIs (2.3)
are presented.
2.1. Collection and systematization of SIs for enterprises
In the first phase of the research, a literature review has been
conducted, focusing on SIs in the dimensions of TBL: economic,
environmental, and social dimensions. The literature review had
the purpose of screening the state-of-the-art of the research on SIs,
both generally and specifically in the context of the yachting industry. Fig. 1 illustrates all steps followed by the research team in
order to collect the indicators.
At first, the inclusion/exclusion criteria for the systematic literature review and for the review protocol were defined (Table 1), as
suggested by Jesson et al. (2011).
In the literature review only scientific papers accessible through
the Science Direct database were included, which provides a solid
basis for literature review on SIs; books and book chapters were
deliberately neglected, since not all of them were accessible to the
research team. The period covered is from 2007 until 2017; this was
chosen in order to cover the most recent articles, concepts, and
ideas, by considering the fact that the topic has received enormous
attention from decision makers and academics (Helleno et al.,
2017). Within the Science Direct database, the focus was on
selecting papers containing a list of selected keywords in their titles, abstracts, or keywords (see Fig. 1).
Thereafter, as the second step, the selected keywords (Fig. 1)
with keywords relating to the yachting industry (e.g., “yachting,”
etc.) were combined, but no results from the combination of the
two groups were detected. This is clearly a symptom of a research
gap on the theme of SIs within the context of the yachting industry.
The initial pool of papers encompassed 2351 papers. In the third
step, three independent researchers screened and reviewed the
initial pool of papers to detect papers corresponding to the required
topic, i.e., related to SIs in organizations. The pool of papers was
divided among three researchers and the results were integrated
into a single report by adding the information in the excel file (by
sharing the same review protocol). This process led to a pool of 50
articles (see Appendix for the complete list).
In the fourth step of the literature review, 50 papers have been
reviewed, based on the following criteria: either empirically or
conceptually proposing or testing the list of SIs; developed or tested
SIs on the enterprise level focusing on all three dimensions of
sustainability (i.e., economic, environmental, and social). After this
step, the 16 papers that fit all of the abovementioned criteria were
analyzed and useful information for each reference recorded in an
Excel file, such as proposed SIs, sector, type/size of enterprises, and
research design.
As the final step of the collection phase, both BISNODE GVIN and
the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) were consulted in order to
enrich the SI list derived from the academic literature review with
well-established practitioner tools. For instance, BISNODE is
specialized in producing high-quality business, credit, and market
information, thus relevant for indicators that reflect the economic
view of sustainability. BISNODE GVIN thus includes the following
data: financial and comparative analysis of enterprises, financial
data and annual reports, court hearings and announcements,
ownership structure of enterprises, which public tenders enterprises acquired, conducted public procurements, taxpayers, insolvency information, non-profit module, etc. (BISNODE, 2019b). They
operate in 19 European countries and, through their strategic
partner Dun & Bradstreet, they deliver local and global quality data
to enterprises, government agencies, organizations, and municipalities (BISNODE, 2019a). BISNODE GVIN is the tool used for the
4
J. Hojnik et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 249 (2020) 119368
Fig. 1. Collection process of SIs for enterprises.
Table 1
The selection criteria of the systematic review.
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Format: journal article
Search keywords included in title, abstract, or keywords
Period: 2007e2017
Sustainability topics with no focus on SIs
SIs not for enterprises
Environmental indicators only
Social indicators only
Economic indicators only
purpose to identify the most suitable economic SIs for the yachting
industry, since it offers a holistic view of enterprises’ condition with
detailed financial data among others (BISNODE, 2019b). In contrast,
the sustainability reporting promoted by the Global Reporting
Initiative (GRI) Standards is about an organization’s practice of
publicly reporting on economic, environmental, and/or social
impact, and hence its contribution e positive or negative e towards
the goal of sustainable development since 1997 (GSSB, 2016). The
GRI standards were included in the research, because the GRI
reporting framework is the most trusted and widely used in the
world (GRI, 2019). Furthermore, it is based on multi-stakeholder
engagement, representing the best combination of technical
expertise and diversity of experience to address the needs of both
report makers and users. Moreover, of the world’s largest 250
corporations, 92% report on their sustainability performance, and
74% of these use GRI’s standards to do so. GRI also works with
governments, international organizations and capital markets and,
as a result, 35 countries use GRI in their sustainability policies and
J. Hojnik et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 249 (2020) 119368
look to their guidance as the world’s most widely used sustainability reporting standards (GRI, 2019). The GRI Standards are the
first global standards for sustainability reporting, in addition, they
feature a modular, interrelated structure, and represent the global
best practice for reporting on a range of economic, environmental
and social impacts (GSSB, 2016). We have focused and adapted SIs
from the GRI’s topic-specific standards, namely economic (GRI
200), environmental (GRI 300) and social (GRI 400) (GSSB, 2016).
The economic dimension encompasses economic performance,
market presence, indirect economic impacts, procurement practices, anti-corruption, and anti-competitive behavior (GSSB, 2016).
The environmental dimension comprises materials, energy, water,
biodiversity, emissions, effluents and waste, environmental
compliance and supplier environmental assessment (GSSB, 2016).
While the social dimension consists of indicators pertaining to
employment, labor/management relations, occupational health
and safety, training and education, diversity and equal opportunity,
non-discrimination, freedom of association and collective bargaining, child labor, forced or compulsory labor, security practices,
rights of indigenous people, human rights assessment, local communities, supplier social assessment, public policy, customer health
safety, marketing and labeling, customer privacy, and socioeconomic compliance (GSSB, 2016). We opted for those two practitioner sources, since GRI is well-known worldwide and employed,
and BISNODE is specialized in financial/economic reporting.
2.2. Analysis and proposal of SIs for yachting enterprises
In the final step of the literature review, different existing and
applied indicators to identify which ones best fit the yachting industry have been compared. In greater detail, a list of SIs based on
16 research papers was proposed, by combining the SIs from the
literature with SIs proposed by GRI and by complementing economic ones from BISNODE GVIN. The set of 36 GRI Sustainability
Reporting Standards from GRI’s latest document (GSSB, 2016) was
considered to focus and adapt the SIs pertaining to economic dimensions of sustainability (e.g., 201 Economic performance), the
environmental dimension of sustainability (e.g., 301 Materials, 302
Energy, 303 Water, 304 Biodiversity, 305 Emissions, 306 Effluents
and waste, 308 Supplier environmental assessment) and finally the
social dimension of sustainability (e.g., 401 Employment, 403
Occupational health and safety, 404 Training and education, 405
Diversity and equal opportunity, 406 Non-discrimination, 414
Supplier social assessment). The BISNODE GVIN source was
employed to obtain indicators pertaining to the economic dimension of sustainability, which were as follows: profit/loss, earnings
before interests and tax (EBITDA), and revenues in foreign markets.
After collecting the SIs, they were verified to identify the most
relevant and suitable for the yachting industry, with the aim to
prepare the list of SIs for three types of sectors within the yachting
industry, namely: yacht-related manufacturing sector, yachtrelated service sector and yacht-related maritime infrastructure.
Respecting their sectorial specifics, consequently three different
lists of SIs to be tested and refined, have been prepared. For the
yacht-related service industry, 32 SIs were proposed, while for the
yacht-related manufacturing industry, 38 SIs were proposed;
finally, for the maritime infrastructure, 36 SIs were proposed.
5
2.3. The test and refinement of SIs for yachting enterprises
In the spirit of testing the proposed lists of SIs, first a peer review
(expert judgment) has been conducted. A pool of three academics
from the University of Primorska (Slovenia), the University of Udine
(Italy), and Kedge Business School (France) were involved based on
their expertise on sustainability studies in management and on
yachting SMEs. The three academics were not involved in the
literature review phase. Expert judgment is a methodological
technique suitable to verify both the validity and the understanding
of measurement items (Crocker and Algina, 2008) and, as such, it
suited well a preliminary test phase of the indicators. The threestage process, as suggested by Campbell et al. (2013), has been
applied. In the first stage, a list of SIs was developed based on the
literature review presented above and sent to the three aforementioned academics. They independently reviewed them according to the relevance of SIs for yachting SMEs.
In this second stage, the method of negotiated agreement to
reconcile the differences (Campbell et al., 2013), has been used. In a
negotiated approach, the researchers actively discuss their
respective codes with an aim to arrive at a final version in which
most, if not all, codes have been brought into alignment (Garrison
et al., 2006). The three academics met via an audio-conference in
order to reconcile each view. If they agreed at the SI and its sector
inclusion, then they immediately moved to the next SI. If, at any
time, they disagreed about a SI or sector, they discussed their reasons for having chosen differently/having different opinion. If they
came to an agreement on the SI and sector, they changed their list of
SIs in accordance. If the academics could not reach agreement, they
marked the SI as such and moved to the next one. Later their
returned back to the SI in question. The discussions resulted in
either at least two academics agreed on the SI in the form proposed
or changed somehow, or the SI was skipped, or the academics
agreed upon a completely different one. The negotiation process
was a very slow, arduous task requiring each academic to advocate
for his/her SI view. Considering that the research is exploratory in
nature, in which generating new insights is the primary concern
(Morrissey, 1974), the negotiated agreement approach is appropriate. At the end of the second stage, a full agreement on all three
categories of SIs has been reached.
In the third stage, the final list of SIs, which was confirmed by
the three academics, was developed. The final list of SIs was not
different from the proposed one in the number of SIs, but some
indicators were reworded and redefined.
Afterward, interviews were conducted with SMEs from the
yachting industry in Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Portugal,
Slovenia, and Spain, asking them about the relevance of the proposed SIs. Table 2 shows that the purposive sample was composed
by 18 SMEs, involved in testing the proposed SIs: among them, five
SMEs are from the yacht-related service industry, five SMEs are
from the yacht-related manufacturing industry, and eight SMEs are
involved in maritime infrastructure. Finally, 18 interviews with top
managers of 18 SMEs were conducted. Top managers of SMEs were
interviewed, since SMEs do not usually employ a person that deals
only with sustainable development of their enterprise because of
their resource constraints. Top manager was, therefore, considered
as the most knowledgeable person in enterprise about all three
Table 2
Sample characteristics.
Sector
SMEs
Country of origin (number of SMEs)
Yacht-related service SMEs
Yacht-related manufacturing SMEs
Yacht-related maritime infrastructure SMEs
5
5
8
Croatia (1); Cyprus (1); Italy (1); Portugal (1); Slovenia (1)
Croatia (1); Cyprus (1); Italy (1); Portugal (2)
Croatia (1); Cyprus (1); Greece (1); Italy (1); Portugal (1); Slovenia (1); Spain (2)
6
J. Hojnik et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 249 (2020) 119368
aspects of sustainable development; and thus, suitable to comment
on the proposed list of SIs.
All the interviews were conducted in person with SMEs in
February and March 2018. The interviews were structured, in the
sense that the interviewers used a factsheet with the proposed SIs.
Moreover, SMEs were willing to cooperate in interviews and give
feedback on the proposed SIs. They found the proposed SIs to be
relevant, and worthwhile for taking into consideration for future
collection, although most of the proposed SIs are currently not
collected or monitored by them. The SMEs did not complain about
the number of SIs to be followed.
According to interviewees’ opinions, the list of SIs was revised
and emerging sector-specific SIs were added. The analysis of interviews was based on how many times each SI has been deemed
(and thus marked) as relevant. Moreover, if a SI has one or more
asterisks (*), it means it has been confirmed by one or more enterprises. If a SI is without an asterisk, it means that not one enterprise within feedback testing deemed it to be relevant, while if SI
is in italics it means that enterprises could express an opinion that a
certain indicator depends on the type of enterprise (e.g., if an enterprise is internationalized). In such a way, it was possible to refine
the initial lists by adding valuable information gathered directly
from the professionals of the industry. Finally, it was elaborated the
final list of SIs according to both the TBL perspective and adapted
operational indicator typologies (i.e., input, output, outcome and
process), such as the ones proposed by Clark and Brennan (2012),
Schultze and Trommer (2012), and Mio (2013). Operational indicator typologies conceive environmental performance as a multidimensional construct representing the extent to which enterprises
meet the environmental expectations of their stakeholders (e.g.,
owners, employees, consumers, government, environmental advocates, contracting partners, etc.) (Schultze and Trommer, 2012).
Mio (2013) divided the indicator typologies into scenario indicators
(indicators targeted at representing the context of reference), input
indicators (represents the resources that the institution makes use
of in the realization of the activity), activity indicators (allows
quantification of the volume of activities realized by the institution), output indicators (express the results of the activity carried
out by the institution), and outcome indicators (expresses the
impact on stakeholders produced by the institution actions). The
added value of such division lies in the combination of indicators
pertaining to different TBL dimensions and introducing intersecting
indicators, which represent a balanced picture of stakeholders’
expectations. In the field of sustainability, the impact on stakeholders (e.g., improved well-being of the local community) is
crucial; thus, it is expressed by outcome indicators. Input and
output indicators evaluate the resources and the results, respectively, while processes take into account the changes in products
and processes from the sustainability perspective.
3. Theory e literature review
As introduced in the previous methodological section, a systematic literature review was employed to outline SIs present in
managerial studies thus far. Table 3 illustrates the 16 references
adopted for listing SIs.
It clearly emerges from the literature review that no definitions
for SIs are structured and widely diffused among studies, whereas
most research studies address their efforts in the specification of
quantitative estimations of sustainability dimensions according to
the TBL (see references listed in Table 3). Table 3 shows that the
majority of papers have been published in the Journal of Cleaner
Production (6), followed by Ecological Indicators (2). The research is
in the majority empirical (15), often with a quantitative research
design (10). Nonetheless, the use of case study methodology also
finds a place in selected literature (Helleno et al., 2017). Most of the
studies deal with either the manufacturing or service sectors,
ranging from industrial subsectors (e.g., automotive) to service
contexts (e.g., tourism enterprises, hospitality sector), although no
study reports investigation within the yachting industry. Furthermore, as a highlight in Table 3, few examples are focused on SIs in
n and Font, 2013; Reverte et al., 2016; Hsu et al.,
SMEs (Tamajo
2017).
Several works appear to be linked to investigation of corporate
n and Font,
social responsibility (Skouloudis et al., 2012; Tamajo
zquez and
2013; Benavides-Velasco et al., 2014; Gallardo-Va
Sanchez-Hernandez, 2014; Yu et al., 2015; Delgado Ferraz and
zquez, 2016; Reverte et al., 2016). From this perspecGallardo-Va
tive, SIs are employed as measures of enterprises’ performance
according to both the TBL and their social role at a wider extent. In
some cases, they are also linked with studies on Total Quality
Management (Benavides-Velasco et al., 2014). Moreover, SIs are
Table 3
Main references adopted for listing SIs.
No.
Authors
Year of
publication
Journal
Research Design (Qualitative (QL);
Quantitative (QN); Mixed (MM))
Conceptual/Empirical
Enterprise
size
1
Agrawal et al.
2016
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
MM
Large
2
Benavides-Velasco et al.
2014
QN
3
4
5
6
2016
2015
2016
2014
QN
MM
QN
QN
empirical
empirical
empirical
empirical
7
8
9
10
Cegarra-Navarro et al.
Chen et al.
Delgado Ferraz et al.
zquez and
Gallardo-Va
Sanchez-Hernandez
Helleno et al.
Hsu et al.
Joumard and Nicolas
Nikolaou and Tsalis
International Journal of Hospitality
Management
European Management Journal
Resources Policy
Journal of Cleaner Production
Journal of Cleaner Production
conceptual and
empirical
empirical
2017
2017
2010
2013
Journal of Cleaner Production
Journal of Cleaner Production
Ecological Indicators
Ecological Indicators
QN
MM
QL
QN
11
12
13
14
15
Rahdari and Rostamy
Reverte et al.
Skouloudis et al.
n and Font
Tamajo
Ting et al.
2015
2016
2012
2013
2015
Journal of Cleaner Production
Journal of Cleaner Production
Journal of Air Transport Management
Tourism Management Perspectives
Aquaculture
QL
QN
QL
QN
QN
16
Yu et al.
2015
The Social Science Journal
QN
empirical
empirical
conceptual
theoretical and
empirical
empirical
empirical
empirical
empirical
theoretical and
empirical
empirical
Note:/means not specified.
/
/
Large
/
Medium
and large
Large
SMEs
/
/
/
Mostly SMEs
/
SMEs
/
Mixed
J. Hojnik et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 249 (2020) 119368
included as key performance indicators from both managerial and
technical points of view, for instance, when matched with lean
manufacturing (Helleno et al., 2017).
In the context of SIs, economic and financial attributes
commonly refer to:
- cost optimization (Ting et al., 2015; Agrawal et al., 2016; Helleno
et al., 2017; Hsu et al., 2017),
n and Font, 2013; Benavides- sustainable supply chain (Tamajo
zquez and SanchezVelasco et al., 2014; Gallardo-Va
Hernandez, 2014; Rahdari and Rostamy, 2015; Reverte et al.,
2016; Hsu et al., 2017),
- quality standards (Gallardo-V
azquez and Sanchez-Hernandez,
2014; Cegarra-Navarro et al., 2016; Reverte et al., 2016;
Helleno et al., 2017; Hsu et al., 2017).
Regarding environmental indicators, Moldan et al. (2012)
argued that environmental sustainability has its basis on both
renewable and non-renewable resources, as well as waste
absorptive capacity, which provide benefits to people and thus
improve their welfare. Environmental indicators could also include:
- measures for resource consumption, such as energy savings and
the use of alternative sources of energy (Skouloudis et al., 2012;
n and Font, 2013; Benavides-Velasco et al., 2014;
Tamajo
zquez and Sanchez-Hernandez, 2014; Chen et al.,
Gallardo-Va
2015; Rahdari and Rostamy, 2015; Ting et al., 2015; Yu et al.,
2015; Agrawal et al., 2016; Delgado Ferraz and Gallardozquez, 2016; Reverte et al., 2016; Helleno et al., 2017; Hsu
Va
et al., 2017);
- forms of environmental management systems, for instance
n and
compliance with environmental certifications (Tamajo
zquez and Sanchez-Hernandez, 2014;
Font, 2013; Gallardo-Va
Chen et al., 2015; Rahdari and Rostamy, 2015; Ting et al., 2015;
Agrawal et al., 2016; Reverte et al., 2016; Helleno et al., 2017;
Hsu et al., 2017);
- the control of pollution production, such as monitoring emissions (Skouloudis et al., 2012; Benavides-Velasco et al., 2014;
zquez and Sanchez-Hernandez, 2014; Chen et al.,
Gallardo-Va
2015; Rahdari and Rostamy, 2015; Yu et al., 2015; Agrawal
et al., 2016; Reverte et al., 2016; Hsu et al., 2017);
- the preservation of natural habitat and biodiversity (Skouloudis
n and Font, 2013; Benavides-Velasco et al.,
et al., 2012; Tamajo
zquez and Sanchez-Hernandez, 2014; Chen
2014; Gallardo-Va
et al., 2015; Ting et al., 2015; Yu et al., 2015; Rahdari and
zquez, 2016;
Rostamy, 2015; Delgado Ferraz and Gallardo-Va
Helleno et al., 2017; Hsu et al., 2017).
7
Rostamy, 2015; Ting et al., 2015; Yu et al., 2015; Agrawal et al.,
2016; Cegarra-Navarro et al., 2016; Delgado Ferraz and
zquez, 2016; Reverte et al., 2016; Helleno et al.,
Gallardo-Va
2017; Hsu et al., 2017),
- health and safety issues, dealing with employees, customers and
local community (Skouloudis et al., 2012; Benavides-Velasco
zquez and Sanchez-Hernandez, 2014;
et al., 2014; Gallardo-Va
Chen et al., 2015; Rahdari and Rostamy, 2015; Ting et al., 2015;
Yu et al., 2015; Agrawal et al., 2016; Cegarra-Navarro et al., 2016;
Reverte et al., 2016; Helleno et al., 2017; Hsu et al., 2017).
In conclusion, from the literature review, several SIs emerge as
expressions of the sustainability of enterprises according to the TBL.
In the following section, the results of the empirical phase will be
presented and discussed by linking findings to previous studies on
the field.
4. Results and discussion
In the following sub-section (4.1), they are proposed lists of SIs
for three sectors pertaining to the yachting industry (service,
manufacturing and maritime infrastructure) and the results of
testing the proposed SIs with SMEs. In Section 4.2, the final list of
SIs for yacht-related manufacturing, the yacht-related service
sector and yacht-related maritime infrastructure is elaborated
within the TBL dimensions and adapted operational indicator typologies, such as the ones proposed by Clark and Brennan (2012),
Schultze and Trommer (2012), and Mio (2013) in order to provide
an original revision of SIs. The section concludes with an overall
discussion of results (4.3).
4.1. Qualitative testing of proposed SIs for yacht-related industry
Initially, 32 SIs were proposed for the yacht-related service industry, 38 for manufacturing, and 36 for maritime infrastructure
(Table 4). After testing the proposed SIs with SMEs, four additional
SIs were suggested by SMEs for the service industry, three additional ones for manufacturing, and six additional ones for maritime
infrastructure. Table 4 shows the resulting comparison of SIs for the
three sectors of the yachting industry.
Finally, it was outlined the final version of SIs for the yachtrelated service sector, manufacturing, and maritime infrastructure
enterprises by applying an adapted framework of operational indicators (Clark and Brennan, 2012; Schultze and Trommer, 2012;
Mio, 2013). The next section (4.2) presents the final result
accordingly.
4.2. Final list of SIs for yachting enterprises
Social indicators mainly referred to:
n and Font, 2013;
- the relationship with local community (Tamajo
zquez and Sanchez-Hernandez, 2014; Chen et al.,
Gallardo-Va
2015; Yu et al., 2015; Agrawal et al., 2016; Delgado Ferraz and
zquez, 2016; Reverte et al., 2016; Helleno et al.,
Gallardo-Va
2017; Hsu et al., 2017), through philanthropy and the partici n and Font,
pation to social projects of the community (Tamajo
zquez and Sanchez-Hernandez, 2014;
2013; Gallardo-Va
Rahdari and Rostamy, 2015; Cegarra-Navarro et al., 2016;
Reverte et al., 2016; Helleno et al., 2017),
- conservation of the cultural heritage and local traditional values
n and Font, 2013; Benavides-Velasco et al., 2014),
(Tamajo
- employment practices, in particular to prevent discrimination in
n and Font,
work environments (Skouloudis et al., 2012; Tamajo
2013; Benavides-Velasco et al., 2014; Gallardo-V
azquez and
Sanchez-Hernandez, 2014; Chen et al., 2015; Rahdari and
For the yacht-related service industry, the final list comprises in
total 33 SIs. All the proposed SIs for the yacht-related service sector,
were retained, since SMEs, through their feedback, deemed all of
them to be relevant. Furthermore, inventory turnover has been
added, since it was suggested by one project partner, and remodified some indicators as suggested by testing with SMEs.
For the yacht-related manufacturing industry, 38 SIs were
confirmed by SMEs and are thus present in the final list of Sis. All
the SIs were retained, since the selected SMEs were all deemed to
be relevant during the testing, while some other changes of indicators occurred in response to enterprises’ feedback.
For maritime infrastructure, 38 SIs were confirmed and accepted
at the end of testing with SMEs. Some indicators were revised according to the SMEs’ feedback. In addition, two indicators proposed
by SMEs were added during the testing, as follows: Number of
social events organized aiming to promote the facilities; and
8
J. Hojnik et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 249 (2020) 119368
Table 4
SIs for yacht-related industry (i.e., service, manufacturing, and maritime infrastructure).
Dimensions of
sustainability
Yacht-related SERVICE industry
Yacht-related MANUFACTURING industry
Yacht-related MARITIME INFRASTRUCTURE
Economic
Profitability
Profit/Loss ***
Return on investment (ROI) **
Earnings before interests and tax (EBITDA) **
Percentage of revenues in foreign markets ***
Added value
Newly created value (i.e., gross profit (net profit
plus tax on profit) þ salaries þ all workforcerelated costs like bonuses, scholarships,
rewards, gifts, etc.) **
Proposed indicators by SMEs:
Inventory turnover
Profit/Loss in the last 5 years
Profitability
Profit/loss ***
Return on investment (ROI) ***
Earnings before interests and tax (EBITDA) ***
Percentage of revenues in foreign markets ***
Added value
Newly created value (i.e., gross profit (net profit
plus tax on profit) þ salaries þ all workforcerelated costs like bonuses, scholarships,
rewards, gifts, etc.) ***
Efficiency
Inventory turnover **
Proposed indicator by SMEs:
Profit/loss in the last 5 years
Profitability
Profit/loss ***
Revenue/sq. meter of space ***
Return on investment (ROI) ***
Earnings before interests and tax (EBITDA) **
Added value
Newly created value (i.e., gross profit (net profit
plus tax on profit) þ salaries þ all workforcerelated costs like bonuses, scholarships,
rewards, gifts, etc.) ***
Proposed indicator by SMEs:
Profit/Loss in the last 5 years
Environmental
Supplier environmental assessment
Percentage of suppliers that demonstrate high
environmental standards **
Energy consumption
Number of initiatives to reduce electric energy
consumption ***
Percentage of energy saved due to conservation
and efficiency improvements *
Electricity consumption in kWh
Total energy consumption in kWh *
Percentage of renewable sources of energy
concerning the total consumption of energy *
Water consumption and recycled
Number of initiatives to reduce water
consumption **
Total volume of water consumption *
Percentage of water recycled and reused by the
organization *
Recycled materials
Percentage of recycled or renewable materials
***
Emissions
Number of initiatives to reduce emissions ***
Waste
Number of initiatives to reduce effluents and
waste ***
Proposed indicators by SMEs:
Investments made in renewable sources of
energy
Investments made in relation to water
recycling/reusing
Supplier environmental assessment
Percentage of suppliers that demonstrate high
environmental standards ***
Energy consumption
Number of initiatives to reduce electric energy
consumption ***
Percentage of energy saved due to conservation
and efficiency improvements ***
Electricity consumption in kWh ***
Total energy consumption in kWh ***
Total fuel consumption from non-renewable
sources **
Total fuel consumption from renewable sources **
Percentage of renewable sources of energy
concerning the total consumption of energy **
Water consumption and recycled
Number of initiatives to reduce water
consumption ***
Total volume of water consumption ***
Percentage of water recycled and reused by the
organization ***
Recycled materials
Percentage of recycled or renewable materials
***
Percentage of hazardous materials ***
Emissions
Number of initiatives to reduce emissions ***
Reduction in gas emissions in percentage ***
Waste
Number of initiatives to reduce effluents and
waste ***
Reduction of production waste in percentage ***
Proposed indicators by SMEs:
Investments made in renewable sources of
energy
Investments made in relation to water
recycling/reusing
Supplier environmental assessment
Percentage of suppliers that demonstrate high
environmental standards ***
Energy consumption
Percentage of energy saved due to conservation
and efficiency improvements ***
Number of initiatives to reduce electric energy
consumption ***
Electricity consumption in kWh ***
Percentage of renewable sources of energy
concerning the total consumption of energy ***
Water consumption and recycled
Number of initiatives to reduce water
consumption ***
Total volume of water consumption ***
Percentage of water recycled and reused by the
organization ***
Percentage of recycled or renewable materials
***
Emissions
Number of initiatives to reduce emissions ***
Reduction in gas emissions in percentage *
Waste and spills
Number of initiatives to reduce effluents and
waste ***
Number of significant spills **
Biodiversity
Number of strategies for managing impacts on
biodiversity ***
Percentage of green areas that marina or port
occupies in regard to entire area ***
Proposed indicators by SMEs:
Number of controls on water cleanliness and
quality
Investments made in renewable sources of
energy
Investments made in relation to water
recycling/reusing
Social
Suppliers
Percentage of suppliers that demonstrate
ethical employment and trading policies *
Percentage of local suppliers ***
Occupational health and safety
Number of accidents/injuries at work per year
***
Percentage of days of sick leave in the total
number of working days **
Number of initiatives related to work and life
balance (e.g., certificates such as family-friendly
enterprise, promotion of work and life balance,
etc.) **
Diversity and equal opportunity
Number of initiatives to ensure diversity and
equal opportunities and to prevent
discrimination in the workplace *
Percentage of employees with disabilities *
Percentage of female employees **
Percentage of employees from local
Suppliers
Percentage of suppliers that demonstrate ethical
employment and trading policies **
Percentage of local suppliers ***
Occupational health and safety
Number of accidents/injuries at work ***
Percentage of days of sick leave in the total
number of working days **
Number of initiatives related to work and life
balance (e.g., certificates such as family-friendly
enterprise, promotion of work and life balance,
etc.) ***
Diversity and equal opportunity
Number of initiatives to ensure diversity and
equal opportunities and to prevent
discrimination in the workplace **
Percentage of employees with disabilities **
Percentage of female employees ***
Percentage of employees from local
communities ***
Suppliers
Percentage of suppliers that demonstrate
ethical employment and trading policies *
Percentage of local suppliers ***
Occupational health and safety
Number of accidents/injuries at work ***
Percentage of days of sick leave in the total
number of working days *
Number of initiatives related to work and life
balance (e.g., certificates such as family-friendly
enterprise, promotion of work and life balance,
etc.) ***
Diversity and equal opportunity
Number of initiatives to ensure diversity and
equal opportunities and to prevent
discrimination in the workplace ***
Percentage of employees with disabilities ***
Percentage of female employees ***
Percentage of employees from local
communities ***
J. Hojnik et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 249 (2020) 119368
9
Table 4 (continued )
Dimensions of
sustainability
Yacht-related SERVICE industry
Yacht-related MANUFACTURING industry
Yacht-related MARITIME INFRASTRUCTURE
communities ***
Training and education
Number of training or education courses that
have been organized for employees ***
Percentage of all employees involved in training
and education courses ***
Employment
Paying wages above the industry average e
specify how much in percentage **
Percentage of employee turnover **
Percentage of growth of new employee hires *
Donations
Donations as percentage of revenues *
Training and education
Number of training or education courses that
have been organized for employees ***
Percentage of all employees involved in training
and education courses ***
Employment
Paying wages above the industry average e
specify how much in percentage ***
Percentage of employee turnover **
Percentage of growth of new employee hires ***
Donations
Donations as percentage of revenues ***
Training and education
Number of training or education courses that
have been organized for employees ***
Percentage of all employees involved in training
and education course ***
Employment
Paying wages above the industry average e
specify how much in percentage **
Percentage of employee turnover*
Percentage of growth of new employee hires ***
Donations
Donations as percentage of revenues ***
Port-city integration
Number of port-city integration initiatives in
order to improve quality of life in local
communities ***
Proposed indicators by SMEs:
Number of social events organized aiming to
promote the facilities
Number of activities organized aiming to
integrate socially disadvantaged sectors
Note: (*) e one enterprise deemed indicator as relevant;- (**) e two enterprises deemed indicator as relevant;- (***) e three or more enterprises deemed indicator as relevant;indicator written in italics means that enterprises expressed that certain indicator depends on the type of enterprise.
Number of controls on water cleanliness and quality. Table 5 shows
the modification of SIs proposed by SMEs.
Table 6 shows SIs for yacht-related service (33 SIs), manufacturing
(38 SIs), and maritime infrastructure (38 SIs) categorized according
to both the TBL and the operational indicator typology that entails:
input, process, output, and outcome-oriented indicators.
4.3. Overall discussion of results
SIs for the yachting industry were developed and proposed
based on a systematic literature review of scientific papers from the
Science Direct database, complemented with SIs from GRI and
BISNODE GVIN, and tested with both academics and SMEs. At the
end of the research process, the final list of SIs are presented within
a double-fold framework on sustainability, i.e. applying the typical
TBL perspective (i.e., economic, environmental, and social dimensions) and an adapted operational indicator typology on sustainability impact.
Within the final list of SIs certain categories of SIs based on GRI
standards remained essentially the same with only slight
Table 5
Modifications of proposed SIs.
Sustainability indicators
Profit/Loss
Electricity consumption in kWh
Total fuel consumption from
non-renewable sources
Total fuel consumption from
renewable sources
Reduction in gas emissions in
percentage
Reduction of production waste
inpercentage
Number of accidents/injuries at
work
Number of initiatives related to
work and life balance (e.g.,
certificates such as familyfriendly enterprise,
promotion of work and life
balance, etc.)
Donations as percentage of
revenues
Number of port-city integration
initiatives in order to
improve the quality of life in
local communities
Modification of indicator or added SI
Yacht-related
SERVICE industry
Yacht-related
MANUFACTURING
industry
Yacht-related
MARITIME
INFRASTRUCTURE
Inventory turnover
Profit/Loss in the last 5 years
Trend of electricity consumption in kWh in the last 3 years
Total energy/electricity consumption from non-renewable sources
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Total energy/electricity consumption from renewable sources
C
Reduction in gas emissions in percentage in the last 3 years
C
Reduction of production waste inpercentage in the last 3 years
C
Number of controls on water cleanliness and quality
Number of accidents/injuries at work per year
C
C
C
C
Number of initiatives related to work and life balance” (e.g.,
certificates such as family-friendly enterprise, promotion of work
and life balance, maternity/paternity policy applied by the
organization in comparison to what national legislation
stipulates, etc.
C
C
C
Donations and/or sponsorships as percentage of revenues
C
C
C
Number of marina/port-city integration initiatives in order to
improve the quality of life in local communities
C
Number of social events organized aiming to promote the
facilities
C
Note: written in bold means that has been modified/something added to the previously proposed SI.
10
J. Hojnik et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 249 (2020) 119368
Table 6
Final list of SIs for yacht-related manufacturing sector, service sector and maritime infrastructure.
Yacht-related
MARITIME
INFRASTRUCTURE
Dimensions of
sustainability
Typology of
operational
indicators
Sustainability indicators
Yacht-related
SERVICE industry
Yacht-related
MANUFACTURING
industry
Economic
dimension
Input
Inventory turnover
C
C
Output
Profit/Loss in the last 5 years
Return on investment (ROI)
Earnings before interests and tax (EBITDA)
Percentage of revenues in foreign markets
Revenue/sq. meter of space
Newly created value (i.e., gross profit (net profit plus tax on
profit) þ salaries þ all workforce-related costs like bonuses,
scholarships, rewards, gifts, etc.)
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Trend of electricity consumption in kWh in the last 3 years
Percentage of renewable sources of energy concerning the total
consumption of energy
Total volume of water consumption
Percentage of recycled or renewable materials
Total energy consumption in kWh
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Output/Outcome
Environmental
dimension
Input
Process
Output
Outcome
Social dimension
Input
Process
Output/outcome
Outcome
Total energy/electricity consumption from non-renewable
sources
Total energy/electricity consumption from renewable
sources
Percentage of hazardous materials
Percentage of green areas that marina or port occupies in
regard to entire area
Number of initiatives to reduce electric energy consumption
Percentage of energy saved due to conservation and efficiency
improvements
Number of initiatives to reduce water consumption
Percentage of water recycled and reused by the organization
Percentage of suppliers that demonstrate high environmental
standards
Number of controls on water cleanliness and quality
Number of initiatives to reduce emissions
Number of initiatives to reduce effluents and waste
Reduction in gas emissions in percentage in the last three
years
Reduction of production waste inpercentage in the last three
years
Number of significant spills
Number of strategies for managing impacts on biodiversity
Percentage of employees with disabilities
Percentage of female employees
Percentage of employees from local communities
Percentage of local suppliers
Percentage of suppliers that demonstrate ethical employment
and trading policies
Number of accidents/injuries at work per year
Percentage of days of sick leave in the total number of working
days
Percentage of growth of new employee hires
Percentage of employee turnover
Number of training or education courses that have been
organized for employees
Percentage of all employees involved in training and education
courses
Number of initiatives related to work and life balance (e.g.,
certificates such as family-friendly enterprise, promotion of
work and life balance, maternity/paternity policy applied by the
organization in comparison to what national legislation
stipulates, etc.)
Number of initiatives to ensure diversity and equal
opportunities and to prevent discrimination in the workplace
Paying wages above the industry average e specify how much
in percentage
Donations and/or sponsorships as percentage of revenues
Number of marina/port-city integration initiatives in order
to improve the quality of life in local communities
Number of social events organized aiming to promote the
facilities
Note: indicators written in bold mean that those are sector-specific.
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
J. Hojnik et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 249 (2020) 119368
modifications, such as the percentage of recycled or renewable
materials; energy consumption and energy reduction; water recycled and reused. The category of GRI Standards pertaining to
biodiversity as well as the category of emissions has been partially
used and adapted. Moreover, the following categories of GRI standards were also partially used and adapted to the yachting SMEs:
category effluents and waste (e.g., significant spills); supplier
environmental assessment; category of employment; occupational
health and safety; training and education; local communities, and
category supplier social assessment. Related to the economic
dimension of SIs we used the BISNODE GVIN and their financial
indicators to complement those from the literature review and GRI
standards. We used the following financial indicators from BISNODE GVIN: profit/loss, EBITDA (i.e., Earnings Before Interest,
Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization) and revenues in foreign
markets. However, the previously mentioned indicators have been
slightly modified to fit the yachting industry and their peculiarities.
Therefore, to the profit/loss has been added in the last five years
based on the SMEs’ feedback, EBITDA remained the same and for
the revenues in foreign markets we added “percentage of”. While
due to yachting industry specifics we added also based on results of
literature review, experts’ opinion and SMEs’ feedback return on
investment, inventory turnover, newly created value and revenue/
sq. meter of space.
According to the final elaboration of results (Table 6), the economic dimension especially develops output and outcome related
indicators, such as profit/loss, ROI, EBITDA, and newly created
value, at the largest part common for the three subsectors. The
inventory turnover, related to input typology, seems to be more
relevant for both the service and manufacturing yachting SMEs,
rather than in maritime infrastructure SMEs, for the nature of their
business activities, i.e. maritime infrastructure has its equipment
(fixed or long-term asset) in place and is mostly concerned about
their maintenance, while service and especially manufacturing
based their business processes on current or short-term assets in
order to run day-to-day operations where their turnover has an
important economical implication. The same happens for the percentage of revenues in foreign markets as an output indicator. In
this sense, cost optimization and internationalization appear to
have a different relevance according to the specific business sector
in the yachting industry. SMEs in maritime infrastructure deal with
a locally-based market mostly, since their nature as infrastructure
let them be connected to the specific geographical area in which
they are based on. With regard to manufacturing, there is evidence
that revenues in foreign markets impact in the turnover more than
domestic ones for the Italian shipbuilding industry (Ivaldi, 2014).
Input indicators are present in the environmental dimension in
the relationship with energy, water, and material consumption.
Differences among the three subsectors emerge in manufacturing,
given the higher requirement of energy/electricity and materials
for manufacture production rather than other business activities.
Indeed, costs related to energy and materials are particularly
impacting in the manufacturing enterprises. In maritime infrastructure, the land as a resource plays a role in the indicator of this
typology, given the fact that the space occupancy is a necessary
element to build a marina. Most of the environmental indicators
deal with process indicators, including all the initiatives aiming at
reducing consumption and at recycling, with only one difference
among sectors (i.e., Number of controls on water cleanliness and
quality for the maritime sector). Output indicators differ in
manufacturing and maritime infrastructure, where the control of
pollution and emissions recalls what emerged from the literature as
n and Font,
a typical environmental-related indicator (e.g., Tamajo
2013; Ting et al., 2015). Moreover, for maritime infrastructure,
biodiversity is provided as an outcome indicator. Indeed, yacht
11
tourism may highly affect environmental sustainability, given the
impact of improper boat operations, garbage and oil disposals,
emissions and anchoring on near-shore marine ecosystems (Hall,
2001; Mill, 2008; Sari et al., 2016). Enterprises in the service
sector often do not handle a physical product like the
manufacturing sector does and thus they should focus on the
different kinds of strategies, such as reverse logistics, reuse and
remanufacturing, that are valued by the manufacturing sector
(Chiarini, 2014). As well the research findings of Chiarini (2014)
demonstrate that service enterprises differ from manufacturing
enterprises regarding the amount of available knowledge about the
supply chain processes and their impacts on environmental
sustainability.
Finally, the social dimension includes all types of indicators (i.e.,
input, process, output, and outcome), mostly dealing with
employment practices and the local community (e.g., Rahdary and
Rostami, 2015; Reverte et al., 2016). More specifically, input indicators referred to the type of employees. Process indicators entail
both supply-related characteristics (e.g., local product, ethical policies by suppliers) as well as employment-related activities.
Training and education cover both output and outcome indicators,
while outcome indicators referred to social initiatives aiming at
developing better working conditions. Differences are recorded in
the outcome indicators for maritime infrastructure, for which the
enterprise integration with the surrounding community plays a
relevant role as an SI. Such enterprises indeed are highly dependent
on the geographical area in which they conduct their business (i.e.,
a marina may not be moved elsewhere) and therefore it could be
understandable the urgency of maintaining a sustainable relationship with the surrounding community in order to keep their
business alive.
In conclusion, even though some SIs are related to one specific
yacht-related sector, most indicators are more generally related to
TBL and important for all parts of the value chain of yachting industry. Yachting SMEs are often subcontractors of end-user enterprises of large dimension, whose requirements in terms of cost,
quality and sustainability standards may drive the enhancement of
competitiveness by SMEs. It follows that the adoption of SIs
coherent with these requirements could enable the monitor of
critical success factors from a sustainability-based view.
5. Conclusions
SIs are an essential element for implementing proactive sustainability management in SMEs, whereas sustainability is often
viewed as a cost rather than a benefit, and owners-managers delay
and Boiral, 2017).
or otherwise hinder its implementation (Chasse
Nonetheless, a lack of SIs for SMEs operating in the yachting industry is observed. Thus, the research purpose was to identify
which are the most suitable SIs for SMEs that operate in the yachtrelated service sector, yacht-related manufacturing, and yachtrelated maritime infrastructure.
To respond to the research question, a systematic literature review was conducted, the collection of SIs systemized, and those SIs
obtained from international standards, such as GRI and BISNODE
GVIN, were added. To preliminarily test the initial list of SIs, a peer
review (expert judgment) took place, and afterward, 18 yachting
SMEs from 7 countries gave their feedback on the relevance of the
proposed SIs. According to the interviewees’ feedback, the list of SIs
was revised and completed with additional sector-specific SIs. The
final list of SIs comprises 33 SIs for yacht-related service, 38 SIs for
manufacturing, and 38 SIs for maritime infrastructure, categorized
according to both the TBL and the operational indicator typology
that entails: input, process, output, and outcome-oriented indicators. SMEs can benefit from the use of SIs in many ways. First,
12
J. Hojnik et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 249 (2020) 119368
by using the proposed SIs, they would be able to assess their performance pertaining to the economic, environmental, and social
dimensions. Moreover, annual and continuous assessment of sustainability may disclose relevant issues that SMEs could have easily
overlooked without following and evaluating SIs. Second, the use of
SIs helps SMEs in the yachting industry in identifying the main
trends in the sector in which they operate and facilitates reporting
on the state of SD to their employees, stakeholders, and the general
public.
The main limitation of the research is to have deliberately
neglected books and books chapters in the literature review, by
focusing on scientific papers only. Thus, a future advancement of
this research would be included in the literature review books and
books chapters and enlarging the research to other databases.
Another limitation pertains to the feasibility aspect of implementing the proposed SIs by SMEs. The indicators set for sustainability
measurement, according to TBL lines and the operational indicator
typology, is only the first step of process and may be seen as an
organizational and educational tool for the yachting SMEs that
want to introduce sustainability issues in their operational practices and in their strategic view. As such, the measurement of
progress against goals in sustainable practices feeds into the
management of sustainability and in a wide manner in the strategic
management of the firm. It is concerned with ensuring alignment at
two levels: the first between institutional policy sustainability and
practice of firms, and then between strategic objectives of sustainability of the single enterprise and its achievement. Therefore,
future research should focus on testing the proposed and finalized
list of SIs for the feasibility of the other steps.
Future research should take place in empirical testing of the
feasibility aspect related to the proposed SIs based on SMEs and
finding the way to enable SMEs to achieve sustainable performance
and support entrepreneurs’ decision-making processes regarding
resource allocation and monitoring of the allocation impact according to the list of proposed SIs. Proposed indicators can also be
condensed and aggregated into a single metric, commonly referred
to as “index”; this would be a sustainability index for the yachting
industry or its specific subsectors. The objective is to provide a tool
for moving towards a concrete zero-impact economy, avoiding
pollution, as well as wasted time, resources, and energy. This tool
would thus enable SMEs to communicate their SD not only to the
public, but also to policy-makers and, with its widespread use,
eventually become a benchmark tool in the yachting industry, with
which all SMEs could gather the information about the trends in
the industry and compare their level with other competitors from
their sector. In addition, the performance in sustainability is
advanced as all the efforts/improvements made could be easily
seen by SMEs, and any shortcomings can be rectified by having a
validated and reliable tool for assessment.
Funding
This work was supported by the Interreg Mediterranean Project
iBLUE, project co-financed by the European Regional Development
Fund.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the contributions of the project
partners of Interreg Mediterranean Project iBLUE for data collection
and peer review. We thus thank Official Chamber of Commerce,
Industry and Shipping of Seville, CCCI - Cyprus Chamber of Commerce and Industry, RCDI - Development and Innovation Network
Lisbon, STEP RI - Science and Technology Park of the University of
Rijeka, LCCI - Lasithi Chamber of Commerce and KEDGE Business
School.
The authors would like to thank the five anonymous reviewers
for their insightful and helpful comments.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119368.
References
Agrawal, S., Singh, R.K., Murtaza, Q., 2016. Outsourcing decisions in reverse logistics: sustainable balanced scorecard and graph theoretic approach. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 108, 41e53.
Alhaddi, H., 2015. Triple bottom line and sustainability: a literature review. Business
and Management Studies 1 (2), 6e10.
Bell, S., Morse, S., 2008. Sustainability Indicators: Measuring the Immeasurable?
Earthscan, London.
Benavides-Velasco, C.A., Quintana-García, C., Marchante-Lara, M., 2014. Total quality
management, corporate social responsibility and performance in the hotel industry. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 41, 77e87.
BISNODE, 2019a. About bisnode. Available online. https://www.bisnode.com/.
(Accessed 25 March 2019).
BISNODE, 2019b. BISNODE GVIN. Available online. https://www.bisnode.si/
produkti/bisnode-gvin/. (Accessed 21 August 2019).
Bradford, J., Fraser, E.D., 2008. Local authorities, climate change and small and
medium enterprises: identifying effective policy instruments to reduce energy
use and carbon emissions. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 15 (3),
156e172.
Campbell, J.L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., Pedersen, O.K., 2013. Coding in-depth
semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability
and agreement. Sociol. Methods Res. 42 (3), 294e320.
mez-Melero, E., Wensley, A.K., 2016. Linking
Cegarra-Navarro, J.G., Reverte, C., Go
social and economic responsibilities with financial performance: the role of
innovation. Eur. Manag. J. 34 (5), 530e539.
, S., Boiral, O., 2017. Legitimizing corporate (un) sustainability: a case study of
Chasse
passive SMEs. Organ. Environ. 30 (4), 324e345.
Chen, R.H., Lin, Y., Tseng, M.L., 2015. Multicriteria analysis of sustainable development indicators in the construction minerals industry in China. Resour. Policy
46, 123e133.
Chiarini, A., 2014. Strategies for developing an environmentally sustainable supply
chain: differences between manufacturing and service sectors. Bus. Strateg.
Environ. 23, 493e504.
Clark, C., Brennan, L., 2012. Entrepreneurship with social value: a conceptual model
for performance measurement. Acad. Enterpren. J. 18 (2), 17.
Crocker, L., Algina, J., 2008. Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory.
Cengage Learning, Mason, OH.
Delgado Ferraz, F.A., Gallardo-V
azquez, D., 2016. Measurement tool to assess the
relationship between corporate social responsibility, training practices and
business performance. J. Clean. Prod. 129, 659e672.
Diakomihalis, M.N., Lagos, D.G., 2008. Estimation of the economic impacts of
yachting in Greece via the tourism satellite account. Tour. Econ. 14 (4), 871e887.
Ehrenfeld, J.R., 2008. Sustainability needs to be attained, not managed. Sustain. Sci.
Pract. Policy 4 (2), 1e3.
European Commission, 2017. Annual report on European SMEs. https://ec.europa.
eu/growth/smes/business-friendly-environment/performance-review_en?pk_
source¼ec_newsroom&pk_medium¼link&pk_campaign¼spr17#annualreport. (Accessed 5 October 2018).
European Commission, 2017b. Assessment of the Impact of Business Development
Improvements Around Nautical Tourism. https://publications.europa.eu/en/
publication-detail/-/publication/473c0b82-18f9-11e7-808e-01aa75ed71a1/
language-en. (Accessed 27 March 2019).
European Commission, 2014. SMEs and the Environment in the European Union.
https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/aa507ab81a2a-4bf1-86de-5a60d14a3977#. (Accessed 27 March 2019).
European Commission, 2019. What is an SME? https://ec.europa.eu/growth/smes/
business-friendly-environment/sme-definition_en. (Accessed 3 April 2019).
Friedman, A.L., Miles, S., 2002. SMEs and the environment: evaluating dissemination routes and handholding levels. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 11, 324e341.
Garrison, D.R., Cleveland-Innesb, M., Kooleb, M., Kappelman, J., 2006. Revisiting
methodological issues in transcript analysis: negotiated coding and reliability.
Internet High Educ. 9, 1e8.
Gallardo-V
azquez, D., Sanchez-Hernandez, M.I., 2014. Measuring Corporate Social
Responsibility for competitive success at a regional level. J. Clean. Prod. 72,
J. Hojnik et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 249 (2020) 119368
14e22.
Gasbarro, F., Rizzi, F., Frey, M., 2018. Sustainable institutional entrepreneurship in
practice: insights from SMEs in the clean energy sector in Tuscany (Italy). International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 24 (2), 476e498.
Global Sustainability Standards Board (GSSB), 2016. Consolidated Set of GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards 2016. www.globalreporting.org/standards.
(Accessed 5 October 2018).
Goel, P., 2010. Triple bottom line reporting: an analytical approach for corporate
sustainability. Journal of Finance, Accounting & Management 1 (1), 27e42.
GRI, 2019. GRI and sustainability reporting. https://www.globalreporting.org/
information/sustainability-reporting/Pages/gri-standards.aspx. (Accessed 27
March 2019).
k, T., Moldan, B., Dahl, A.L. (Eds.), 2007. Sustainability Indicators: a Scientific
Ha
Assessment, vol. 67. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Hall, C.M., 2001. Trend in ocean and coastal tourism: the end of the last frontier?
Ocean Coast Manag. 44 (9), 601e618.
Helleno, A.L., de Moraes, A.J.I., Simon, A.T., 2017. Integrating sustainability indicators
and Lean Manufacturing to assess manufacturing processes: application case
studies in Brazilian industry. J. Clean. Prod. 153, 405e416.
Hsu, C.H., Chang, A.Y., Luo, W., 2017. Identifying key performance factors for sustainability development of SMEseintegrating QFD and fuzzy MADM methods.
J. Clean. Prod. 161, 629e645.
ICOMIA, 2018. Recreational Boating Industry Statistics. (Accessed 23 December
2017).
ISO 9001 e Quality management knowledge center, 2019. The Plan Do Check Act
(PDCA)
Cycle.
http://9001quality.com/plan-do-check-act-pcda-iso-9001/.
(Accessed 23 October 2019).
Ivaldi, E., 2014. Yachting and nautical tourism in Italy: an analysis of the sector from
the years of maximum expansion to the years of deep crisis. J. Empir. Econ. 2
(1), 29e45.
Jesson, J.K., Matheson, L., Lacey, F.M., 2011. Doing Your Literature Review. Traditional
and Systematic Techniques. SAGE Publications, London.
Johnson, M.P., Schaltegger, S., 2016. Two decades of sustainability management
tools for SMEs: how far have we come? J. Small Bus. Manag. 54 (2), 481e505.
Joumard, R., Nicolas, J.P., 2010. Transport project assessment methodology within
the framework of sustainable development. Ecol. Indicat. 10, 136e142.
Kardos, M., 2012. The Relationship between entrepreneurship, innovation and
sustainable development. Research on European Union Countries. Procedia
Economics and Finance 3, 1030e1035.
Klein, M., Zviely, D., 2001. The environmental impact of marina development on
adjacent beaches: a case study of the Herzliya marina, Israel. Appl. Geogr. 21,
145e156.
Klewitz, J., Hansen, E.G., 2014. Sustainability-oriented innovation of SMEs: a systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 65, 57e75.
Lee, K.H., 2009. Why and how to adopt green management into business organizations? The case study of Korean SMEs in the manufacturing industry. Manag.
Decis. 47 (7), 1101e1121.
Maijala, A., Pohjola, T., 2006. Web-based environmental management systems for
SMEs: enhancing the diffusion of environmental management in the transportation sector. In: Schaltegger, S., Bennett, M., Burritt, R. (Eds.), Sustainability
Accounting and Reporting. Springer Publishing, London, pp. 655e677.
Meadows, D., Randers, J., 2004. The Limits to Growth: the 30-year Update. Routledge, London.
Mill, R.C., 2008. Resorts: Management and Operations. John Wiley, Sons Inc.,
Hoboken, NJ.
Mio, C., 2013. Towards a Sustainable University: the Ca’ Foscari Experience. Palgrave
13
Macmillan, UK.
k, T., 2012. How to understand and measure enviMoldan, B., Janouskov
a, S., Ha
ronmental sustainability: indicators and targets. Ecol. Indicat. 17, 4e13.
Moore, S.B., Manring, S.L., 2009. Strategy development in small and medium sized
enterprises for sustainability and increased value creation. J. Clean. Prod. 17 (2),
276e282.
Morioka, S.N., de Carvalho, M.M., 2016. A systematic literature review towards a
conceptual framework for integrating sustainability performance into business.
J. Clean. Prod. 136, 134e146.
Morrissey, E.R., 1974. Sources of error in the coding of questionnaire data. Sociol.
Methods Res. 3 (2), 209e232.
Nikolaou, I.E., Tsalis, T.A., 2013. Development of a sustainable balanced scorecard
framework. Ecol. Indicat. 34, 76e86.
OECD, 2008. Sustainable development. Linking economy, society, environment.
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/sustainable-development_
9789264055742-en. (Accessed 27 March 2019).
Perrini, F., Tencati, A., 2006. Sustainability and stakeholder management: the need
for new corporate performance evaluation and reporting systems. Bus. Strateg.
Environ. 15 (5), 296e308.
Rahdari, A.H., Rostamy, A.A.A., 2015. Designing a general set of sustainability indicators at the corporate level. J. Clean. Prod. 108, 757e771.
Ramos, B., Caeiro, S., 2010. Meta-performance evaluation of sustainability indicators. Ecol. Indicat. 10, 157e166.
Revell, A., Stokes, D., Chen, H., 2010. Small businesses and the environment: turning
over a new leaf? Bus. Strateg. Environ. 19 (5), 273e288.
mez-Melero, E., Cegarra-Navarro, J.G., 2016. The influence of corpoReverte, C., Go
rate social responsibility practices on organizational performance: evidence
from Eco-Responsible Spanish firms. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 2870e2884.
Sari, F.O., Bulut, C., Pirnar, I., 2016. Adaptation of hospitality service quality scales for
marina services. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 54, 95e103.
Schultze, W., Trommer, R., 2012. The concept of environmental performance and its
measurement in empirical studies. Journal of Management Control 22 (4),
375e412.
Skouloudis, A., Evangelinos, K., Moraitis, S., 2012. Accountability and stakeholder
engagement in the airport industry: an assessment of airports’ CSR reports.
J. Air Transp. Manag. 18 (1), 16e20.
n, L.G., Font, X., 2013. Corporate social responsibility in tourism small and
Tamajo
medium enterprises evidence from Europe and Latin America. Tourism Management Perspectives 7, 38e46.
Ting, K.H., Lin, K.L., Jhan, H.T., Huang, T.J., Wang, C.M., Liu, W.H., 2015. Application of
a sustainable fisheries development indicator system for Taiwan’s aquaculture
industry. Aquaculture 437, 398e407.
United Nations, 2007. Indicators for Sustainable Development. http://www.un.org/
esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/guidelines.pdf. (Accessed 5 October 2018).
, J., Block, T., Wright, T., Benitez-Capistros, F., Verbruggen, A., 2014.
Waas, T., Huge
Sustainability assessment and indicators: tools in a decision-making strategy
for sustainable development. Sustainability 6 (9), 5512e5534.
Welfens, P.J.J., Perret, J.K., Irawan, T., Yushkova, E., 2016. Towards Global Sustainability Issues, New Indicators and Economic Policy. Springer International
Publishing, Switzerland.
Yu, Y., Choi, Y., Zhang, N., 2015. Strategic corporate sustainability performance of
Chinese state-owned listed firms: a meta-frontier generalized directional distance function approach. Soc. Sci. J. 52 (3), 300e310.
Zorpas, A., 2010. Environmental management systems as sustainable tools in the
way of life for the SMEs and VSMEs. Bioresour. Technol. 101 (6), 1544e1557.