The article presents a literature overview of scientific and analytical insights into business sustainability assessment highlighted by both researchers and well-known international organizations. The key idea is to investigate different approaches to forming indicators for sustainability assessment. Therefore, the purpose of this article is the following: to research approaches to the formation and composition of indicators for assessing the enterprise’s sustainable development, given in international standards, ratings, indices, and scientific publications devoted to the study of a given issue; to develop indicators system for business sustainability analysis that meets the needs of Ukrainian enterprises; to argue the necessity to introduce into the scientific discourse the term “indicator for organizations sustainable development assessment” and specific criteria that fully reflects the main peculiarities of the enterprise’s sustainable development concept.
Today, there are many approaches to outlining indicators for assessing harmonious development, given in a number of international standards, generally accepted indices and ratings, research by domestic and foreign experts. At the same time, the activities of economic entities are affected by unpredictable environmental challenges, requests from a wide range of stakeholders, which, in turn, complicates the process of tracking and maintaining the harmonious development of the organization as a whole. The solution of the outlined problems is possible under the condition of application of relevant, crosscutting and systematic analysis of sustainable development, which will take into account both the multidimensional nature of the phenomenon, the existing conditions of enterprises and the level of implemented initiatives for such a development. The latter is ensured by the use of an adequate and representative system of indicators, which reflects both the peculiarities of the business sustainability and can be applied to various needs of the enterprise — both those that are only at the initial stage of adaptation of harmonious development ideas and those that implement outlined initiatives on a regular basis.
As the result, it was suggested to form an indicators system that includes a set of measures, constructed within five sustainability spheres (economy, social, environment, management, and culture) under three criteria — “effectiveness”, “development”, “stakeholder cooperation”. The final list of developed indexes is presented.
The main advantages of the developed system of indicators are: it allows the organization to collect and systematize comprehensive information about the aspects of the sustainable development (which reflect the main sustainability elements at the enterprise level, assess the existing situation with such development and the potential of the organization for the systematic its implementation), which can become the basis for benchmarking, in order to improve its existing development strategy as a whole; it contains quantitative and qualitative indicators, taking into account both the specifics of the object of research and the ways of collecting such information; it allows to analyze the current results of sustainability ideas implementation (indicators of criterion “effectiveness”) and to identify and monitor qualitative changes that have occurred in the organization, in the direction of supporting measures for such a development (criterion “development”).
- Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). Retrieved from: https://www.globalreporting.org/Pages/default.aspx (Accessed: 25.05.2020).
2. Staniškis, Jurgis & Arbaciauskas, Valdas (2019). Sustainability Performance Indicators for Industrial Enterprise Management. Environmental Research, Engineering and Management. No 2(48), 42-50. doi:10.5755/j01.erem.48.2.13.
3. Dow Jones Sustainability World Index. Retrieved from: https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/indices/equity/ dow-jones-sustainability-world-index/#overview (Accessed: 2.12. 2020).
4. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). Retrieved from: https://www.wbcsd.org (Accessed: 2.12. 2020).
5. MSCI KLD 400 SOCIAL INDEX METHODOLOGY. Retrieved from: https://www.msci.com/eqb/ methodology/meth_docs/MSCI_KLD_400_Social_Index_Methodology_May2018.pdf (Accessed: 2.02. 2021).
6. Artemenko V.B. (2006). Indykatory stiikoho sotsialno-ekonomichnoho rozvytku rehioniv. Rehionalna ekonomika. № 2., 90-97 (in Ukrainian).
7. Vasylchuk I. P. (2012). Otsinka diialnosti korporatsii v konteksti staloho rozvytku. Visnyk sotsialno- ekonomichnykh doslidzhen. Vyp. 2, 39-44 (in Ukrainian).
8. Dovhan L.Ie. ta Simchenko N.O. (2008). Suchasni aspekty staloho rozvytku mashynobudivnykh pidpryiemstv. Ekonomika ta upravlinnia pidpryiemstvamy mashynobudivnoi haluzi: problemy teorii ta praktyky, №3, 71 - 83 (in Ukrainian).
9. Kyrych N. B., Melnyk L.M., Pohaidak O. B.(2015).Stalyi rozvytok subiektiv hospodariuvannia:sutnist ta faktory vplyvu (Ievropeiski aktsenty). VISNYK EKONOMICHNOI NAUKY UKRAINY, №2, 151 - 155 (in Ukrainian).
10. Lopatynskyi Yu.M., Todoriuk S.I. (2015). Determinanty staloho rozvytku ahrarnykh pidpryiemstv: monohrafiia. Chernivtsi: Chernivetskyi nats. un-t., 220 (in Ukrainian).
11. Ahmad, S., Kuan, Y. W., & Rajoo, S. (2019). Sustainability indicators for manufacturing sectors: IMS. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 30(2), 312-334. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy. kingston.ac.uk/10.1108/JMTM-03-2018-0091.
12. Andrieu N, Piraux M, Tonneau JP (2007) Design of sustainability indicators of the production systems in Brazilian semi-arid area by the analysis of biomass flows. Int J Sustain Dev 10(1/2):2007.
13. Azapagic А., Perdan S. (2000) Indicators of Sustainable Development for Industry: A General Framework, Process Safety and Environmental Protection, Volume 78, Issue 4, 243-261, ISSN 0957-5820, https://doi.org/10.1205/095758200530763.
14. Bansal, P. (2005). Evolving sustainability: a longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic Management Journal. 26, 197-218. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics. Vol. 10(1). 58 - 75.
15. Feil, Alexandre & Quevedo, Daniela & Schreiber, Dusan. (2015). Selection and identification of the indicators for quickly measuring sustainability in micro and small furniture industries. Sustainable Production and Consumption. 3. 10.1016/j.spc.2015.08.006.
16. Hak, Tomas & Moldan, Bedřich & Dahl, Arthur. (2007). Sustainability Indicators: A Scientific Assessment. SCOPE 67.
17. Neely, A., Richards, H., Mills, J., Platts, K. and Bourne, M. (1997). Designing performance measures: a structured approach. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 17 No. 11, 1131-1152. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443579710177888.
18. Rahdari, Amir & Anvary Rostamy, Ali. (2015). Designing a General Set of Sustainability Indicators at the Corporate Level. Journal of Cleaner Production. 108. Doi:1-15. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.108.
19. Kamynskyi P. D. Udoskonalennia mekhanizmu staloho rozvytku promyslovoho pidpryiemstva v umovakh nestabilnoi koniunktury: avtoref. dys. kand. ekon. nauk: 08.06.01 / P.D. Kamynskyi ; Donets. derzh. un-t ekonomiky i torhivli im. M.Tuhan-Baranovskoho. Donetsk, 2004. 22 (in Ukrainian).
20. Melnyk L. H. (2005). Osnovy stiikoho rozvytku: Posibnyk dlia perepidhotovky fakhivtsiv. Sumy : Universytetska knyha (in Ukrainian).
21. Kharchuk V.Iu. (2020). Henezys poniattia "harmoniinyi rozvytok subiektiv hospodariuvannia". Menedzhment ta pidpryiemnytstvo v Ukraini: etapy stanovlennia i problemy rozvytku. Vyp. 2, N 2, 154-168 (in Ukrainian).
22. Kharchuk V.Iu. (2020). Metod obgruntuvannia ta vyokremlennia sfer harmoniinoho rozvytku pidpryiemstv. EKONOMIKA: realii chasu. N6 (52), 109 - 116 (in Ukrainian).
23. Kharchuk V., Omelianchuk A. (2020). Analysis of GRI and CSR Reports, submitted by Ukrainian Companies. Modern Economics, 24(2020), 200-204. https://doi.org/10.31521/modecon.V24(2020)-32 .
24. ISO 14001:2015 Environmental management systems - Requirements with guidance for use. Retrieved from: https://www.iso.org/standard/60857.html (Accessed: 22.02.2021).
25. ISO (2010), "ISO 26000 - social responsibility, Guidance for social responsibility: international organization for standardization". Retrieved from: www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/iso26000.htm (Accessed: 22.02.2021).
26. ISO (2013), "ISO/IEC 27001 - information security management". Retrieved from: https://www.iso.org/isoiec-27001-information-security.html (Accessed: 22.02.2021).
27. ISO (2017), "ISO 20121:2012 - event sustainability management systems - requirements with guidance for use". Retrieved from: https://www.iso.org/standard/54552.html (Accessed: 22.02.2021).
28. Nazarenko T.P. (2009). Analiz stanu naukovykh doslidzhen pytan marzhynalnoho analizu. Visn. ZhDTU. N 1 (47), 76 - 81 (in Ukrainian).
29. Nikitchenko O. Yu. (2013) Promyslova ekolohiia (konspekt lektsii dlia studentiv 3 kursu dennoi formy navchannia za napriamom pidhotovky 6.170202 "Okhorona pratsi"). Khark. nats. akad. misk. hosp-va. Kh.: KhNAMH, 164s. (in Ukrainian).
30. Orhanizatsiia Obiednanykh Natsii v Ukraini. Tsili staloho rozvytku 2016-2030.Retrieved from: http://www.un.org.ua/ua/tsili-rozvytku-tysiacholittia/tsili-staloho-rozv... (Accessed: 22.02.2021) (in Ukrainian).
31. Melnyk O. H. Systemy diahnostyky diialnosti mashynobudivnykh pidpryiemstv: polikryterialna kontseptsiia ta instrumentarii: [monohrafiia]. Lviv: Vydavnytstvo Natsionalnoho universytetu "Lvivska politekhnika", 2010. (in Ukrainian).
32. Azapagic А., Perdan S. (2000) Indicators of Sustainable Development for Industry: A General Framework, Process Safety and Environmental Protection, Volume 78, Issue 4, 243-261, ISSN 0957-5820, https://doi.org/10.1205/095758200530763.
33. Neely, Andy & Adams, Chris & Kennerley, Mike. (2002). The Performance Prism: The Scorecard for Measuring and Managing Business Success. Pearson Education, 377. ISBN: 0273653342.
34. Dočekalová, Marie Pavláková, and Alena Kocmanová. (2015). Composite Indicator for Measuring Corporate Sustainability. Ecological indicators. Vol. 61, 612-623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.10.012.
35. CorporateRegister. Retrieved from: https://www.corporateregister.com (Accessed: 22.02.2021).
36. Diversity and inclusion efforts that really work. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from: https://hbr.org/2020/05/diversity-and-inclusion-efforts-that-really-work (Accessed: 22.02.2021).