Sustainability assessment tools – their comprehensiveness and utilisation in company-level sustainability assessments in Finland

References

• Akola E, Havupalo N. 2013. Restructuring in SMEs: Finland. [cited 2016 May 24]. Available from: https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ef_files/pubdocs/2012/476/en/4/EF12476EN.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Belton V, Stewart. 2002. Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Benoît C, editors. 2009. Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. Paris: United Nations Environment Programme.
   Google Scholar
• Biondi V, Iraldo F, Meredith S. 2002. Achieving sustainability through environmental innovation: the role of SMEs. Int J Tech Manag. 24:612–626.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolis I, Morioka SN, Sznelwar LI. 2014. When sustainable development risks losing its meaning. Delimiting the concept with a comprehensive literature review and a conceptual model. J Clean Prod. 83:7–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bond A, Morrison-Saunders A, Pope J. 2012. Sustainability assessment: the state of the art. Imp Ass Proj Appraisal. 30:53–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bringezu S, Moriguchi Y. 2002. Material flow analysis. In: Ayres R, Ayres L, editor. A handbook of industrial ecology. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar; p. 79–90.
   Google Scholar
• Brouwer R, van Ek R. 2004. Integrated ecological, economic and social impact assessment of alternative flood control policies in the Netherlands. Ecol Econ. 50:1–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buytaert V, Muys B, Devriendt N, Pelkmans L, Kretzschmar JG, Samson R. 2011. Towards integrated sustainability assessment for energetic use of biomass: a state of the art evaluation of assessment tools. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 15:3918–3933.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crals E, Vereeck L. 2005. The affordability of sustainable entrepreneurship certification for SMEs. Int J Sustainable Dev World Ecol. 12:173–183.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• da Rosa FS, Guesser T, Hein N, Pfitscherc ES, João Lunkesc RJ. 2013. Environmental impact management of Brazilian companies: analyzing factors that influence disclosure of waste, emissions, effluents, and other impacts. J Clean Prod. 96:1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Deng L, Babbitt CW, Williams ED. 2011. Economic-balance hybrid LCA extended with uncertainty analysis: case study of a laptop computer. J Clean Prod. 19:1198–1206.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diaz-Balteiro L, Romero C. 2008. Making forestry decisions with multiple criteria: a review and an assessment. For Ecol Manag. 255(8–9):3222–3241.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egels-Zandén N, Rosén M. 2015. Sustainable strategy formation at a Swedish industrial company: bridging the strategy-as-practice and sustainability gap. J Clean Prod. 96:139–147.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elghali L, Clifta R, Sinclair P, Panoutsou C, Bauen A. 2007. Developing a sustainability framework for the assessment of bioenergy systems. Energy Policy. 35:6075–6083.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European union. 2016. Waste framework directive (2008/98/EC). [cited 2014 May 25]. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/construction_demolition.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Evins R. 2013. A review of computational optimisation methods applied to sustainable building design. Renew Sust Ener Rev. 22:230–245.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira J, Pinheiro MD, de Brito J. 2013. Refurbishment decision support tools review—Energy and life cycle as key aspects to sustainable refurbishment projects. Constr Build Mater. 49:425–447.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finnish Government. 2014. Programme of Prime Minister Alexander Stubb’s Government. 24 June 2014. [cited 2014 Oct 22]. Available from: http://valtioneuvosto.fi/hallitus/hallitusohjelma/pdf-stubb/en.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Gasparatos A. 2010. Embedded value systems in sustainability assessment tools and their implications. J Environ Manage. 91:1613–1622.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gasparatos A, El-Haram M, Horner M. 2008. A critical review of reductionist approaches for assessing the progress towards sustainability. Environ Impact Asses. 28:286–311.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Global Reporting Initiative. 2013. G4 sustainability reporting quidelines. Amsterdam: Global Reporting Initiative; p. 94.
   Google Scholar
• Häkkinen T, Antikainen R, Vares S, Tonteri H. 2013. The use of LCA studies and LCA outcomes in the decision-making processes of enterprises – discussion and conclusions on the basis of case studies. Int J Prod Lifecyc Manag. 6:250–269.
   Google Scholar
• Hinterberger F, Giljum S, Hammer M. 2003. Material Flow Accounting and Analysis (MFA). A valuable tool for analyses of society-nature interrelationships. Entry prepared for the Internet Encyclopedia of Ecol Econ Vienna: Sustainable Europe Research Institute (SERI).
   Google Scholar
• Hoogmartens R, Van Passel S, Van Acker K, Dubois M. 2014. Bridging the gap between LCA, LCC and CBA as sustainability assessment tools. Environ Impact Asses. 48:27–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hörisch J, Ortas E, Schaltegger S, Álvare I. 2015. Environmental effects of sustainability management tools: an empirical analysis of large companies. Ecol Econ. 120:241–249.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang C-L, Vause J, Ma H-W, Yu C-P. 2012. Using material/substance flow analysis to support sustainable development assessment: A literature review and outlook. Resour Conserv Recy. 68:104–116.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [ISO] International Organization for Standardization. 2006. Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and framework no. European standard EN ISO 14040. Geneva: International Organization for Standarization.
   Google Scholar
• Jeswani HK, Azapagic A, Schepelmann P, Ritthoff M. 2010. Options for broadening and deepening the LCA approaches. J Clean Prod. 18:120–127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Judl J, Mattila T, Manninen K, Antikainen R. 2015. Life cycle assessment and ecodesign in a day - Lessons learned from a series of LCA clinics for start-ups and small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Reports of the Finnish Environment Institute 18/2015. Helsinki: Finnish Environment Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Kitzes J. 2013. An introduction to environmentally-extended input-output analysis. Resources. 2:489–503.
   Google Scholar
• Klewitz J, Hansen EG. 2014. Sustainability-oriented innovation of SMEs: a systematic review. J Clean Prod. 65:57–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koskela S, Mäenpää I, Seppälä J, Mattila T, Korhonen MJ. 2011. EE-IO modeling of the environmental impacts of Finnish imports using different data sources. Ecol Econ. 70:2341–2349.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koskela S, Mattila T, Antikainen R, Mäenpää I. 2013. Identifying key sectors and measures for a transition towards a low resource economy. Resources. 2:151–166.
   Google Scholar
• Kumar M, Kumar P. 2008. Valuation of the ecosystem services: A psycho-cultural perspective. Ecol Econ. 64:808–819.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leontief W. 1936. Quantitative input–output relations in the economic system of the United States. Rev Econ Stat. 18:100–125.
   Google Scholar
• Liew WH, Hassim MH, Ng DKS. 2014. Review of evolution, technology and sustainability assessments of biofuel production. J Clean Prod. 71:11–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liping J, Bin C. 2010. International society for environmental information sciences 2010 annual conference (ISEIS) an input-output model to analyze sector linkages and CO2 emissions. Procedia. Environ Sci. 2:1841–1845.
   Google Scholar
• Lozano R. 2012. Towards better embedding sustainability into companies’ systems: an analysis of voluntary corporate initiatives. J Clean Prod. 25:14–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macombe C, Leskinen P, Feschet P, Antikainen R. 2013. Social life cycle assessment of biodiesel production at three levels: a literature review and development needs. J Clean Prod. 52:205–216.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maness T, Farrell R. 2004. A multi-objective scenario evaluation model for sustainable forest management using criteria and indicators. Can J For Res. 34:2004–2017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mattila T, Koskela S, Seppälä J, Mäenpää I. 2013. Sensitivity analysis of environmentally extended input–output models as a tool for building scenarios of sustainable development. Ecol Econ. 86:148–155.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mattila T, Leskinen P, Soimakallio S, Sironen S. 2012. Uncertainty in environmentally conscious decision making: beer or wine? Int J Life Cycle Ass. 17:696–705.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mendoza GA, Martins H. 2006. Multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management: a critical review of methods and new modeling paradigms. Forest Ecol Manag. 230:1–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merad M, Dechya N, Serir L, Grabisch M, Marcel F. 2013. Using a multi-criteria decision aid methodology to implement sustainable development principles within an organization. Eur J Oper Res. 224:603–613.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ministry of Employment and the Economy. 2014. Government strategy to promote cleantech business in Finland. [cited 2014 Oct 22]. Available from: https://www.tem.fi/files/40668/Government_Strategy_to_Promote_Cleantech_Business_in_Finland.pdf https://www.tem.fi/files/40668/Government_Strategy_to_Promote_Cleantech_Business_in_Finland.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of environment. 2014. The national Climate Change Act (609/2015). [cited 2016 May 24]. Available from: http://www.ym.fi/en-us/the_environment/climate_and_air/mitigation_of_climate_change/national_climate_policy.
   Google Scholar
• Mustajoki J, Saarikoski H, Marttunen M, Ahtikoski A, Hallikainen V, Helle T, Hyppönen M, Jokinen M, Naskali A, Tuulentie S, et al. 2011. Use of decision analysis interviews to support the sustainable use of the forests in Finnish upper lapland. J Environ Manage. 92:1550–1563.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myllyviita T, Hujala T, Kangas A, Eyvindson K, Sironen S, Leskinen P, Kurttila M. 2014. Mixing methods – assessment of potential benefits for natural resources planning. Scand J Forest Res. 29:20–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myllyviita T, Hujala T, Kangas A, Leskinen P. 2011. Decision support in assessing the sustainable use of forests and other natural resources - a comparative review. Open For Sci J. 4:24–41.
   Google Scholar
• Myllyviita T, Leskinen P, Lähtinen K, Pasanen K, Sironen S, Kähkönen T, Sikanen L. 2013. Sustainability assessment of wood-based bioenergy–A methodological framework and a case-study. Biomass Bioenerg. 59:293–299.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearce D, Atkinson G, Mourato S. 2006. Cost-benefit analysis and the environment - recent developments. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; 318 p.
   Google Scholar
• Poveda CA, Lipsett MG. 2011. A review of sustainability assessment and sustainability/environmental rating systems and credit weighting tools. J Sustainable Dev. 4:36–55.
   Google Scholar
• Putkuri E, Lindholm M, Peltonen A. 2013. The state of the environment. SYKE Publications 1. Finnish Environment Institute. Available form: https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/42691
   Google Scholar
• Rametsteiner E, Pülzl H, Alkan-Olsson J, Frederiksen P. 2011. Sustainability indicator development—Science or political negotiation? Ecol Indic. 11:61–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rinne J, Lyytimäki J, Kautto P. 2013. From sustainability to well-being: lessons learned from the use of sustainable development indicators at national and EU level. Ecol Indic. 35:35–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin FS, Lambin EF, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber HJ, et al. 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature. 461:472–475.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sáez CA, Requena JC. 2007. Reconciling sustainability and discounting in cost-benefit analysis: a methodological proposal. Ecol Econ. 60:712–725.
   Google Scholar
• Sesana MM, Salvalai G. 2013. Overview on life cycle methodologies and economic feasibility fornZEBs. Build Environ. 67:211–216.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharifi A, Murayama A. 2013. A critical review of seven selected neighborhood sustainability assessment tools. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 38:73–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silvestre WJ, Antunes P, Amaro A, Leal W. 2015. Assessment of corporate sustainability: study of hybrid relations using Hybrid Bottom Line model. Int J Sustainable Dev World Ecol. 22:302–312.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh RK, Guptac SK, Dikshitc AK. 2012. An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecol Indic. 15:281–299.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SOER. 2015. A comprehensive assessment of the European environment’s state, trends and prospects, in a global context. [cited 2015 Mar 27]. Available from: http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer.
   Google Scholar
• Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockström J, Cornell SE, Fetzer I, Bennett EM, Biggs R, Carpenter SR, de Vries W, de Wit CA, et al. 2015. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science. 347:1259855.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor DF. 2001. Employment-based analysis: an alternative methodology for project evaluation in developing regions, with an application to agriculture in Yucatan. Ecol Econ. 36:249–262.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiedmann T, Wilting HC, Lenzen M, Lutter S, Palm V. 2011. Quo vadis MRIO? Methodological, data and institutional requirements for multi-region input–output analysis. Ecol Econ. 70:1937–1945.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar