Journal of Applied Economic Research
ISSN 2712-7435
Methodological Toolkit for Environmental and Economic Assessment of Metallurgical Enterprise Activities
N.V. Starodubets, A.E. Grigoreva
Ural Federal University named after the First President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin, Ekaterinburg, Russia
Abstract
The growing impact on the environment from industrial enterprises, the depletion of non-renewable natural resources and the associated risks make it relevant to take into account the environmental performance indicators of the enterprise along with economic ones. The authors believe that it is possible to conduct an environmental and economic assessment of the enterprise using an integrated indicator. The purpose of this paper is to develop a methodological toolkit for conducting an integrated environmental and economic assessment of the activities of a metallurgical enterprise, which makes it possible to make both a retrospective assessment of the enterprise's activities, and a predictive one based on the parity between the economic and environmental spheres of the enterprise. An analysis of domestic and foreign literature showed the absence of a unified approach to environmental and economic assessment of industrial enterprises based on standard financial and environmental reporting, and non-financial reporting standards. The methodology proposed by the author includes two blocks of indicators: an environmental and an economic one. The environmental block is represented by indicators related to the environmental impact. The economic block includes various indicators of the profitability of the enterprise. The authors propose an approach to standardizing indicators and calculating the integral indicator of environmental and economic assessment for the period. A distinctive feature of the author's methodology is the development of a single indicator that combines heterogeneous and multidirectional indicators of the environmental and economic blocks, which makes it possible to assess how the state of the enterprise changes over time, considering the action of various factors and their influence on the changes occurring at the enterprise. The proposed methodology was tested in application to the Seversky pipe plant for the period of 2016–2018. It showed a deterioration in the final environmental and economic assessment of the enterprise's activities as per the indicators of the economic block. At the same time, almost all indicators of the ecological block improved over the period of observation. The result is attributed to the ongoing large-scale technological overhaul at the enterprise, aimed, in many respects, at reducing the impact on the environment and increasing the efficiency of the enterprise. The authors believe that after the completion of the modernization project, an increase in the production volume and a decrease in unit costs with a minimum impact on the environment will help to achieve a balance between the ecological and economic spheres of the enterprise.
Keywords
environmental impact; sustainable development; non-financial reporting; methodology for environmental and economic assessment of the enterprise
JEL classification
Q510References
1. Doorasamy, M. (2015). Environmental management tools. Environmental Economics, Vol. 6, Issue 2, 59–69.
2. Kelchevskaya, N.R., Chernenko, I.M., Popova, E.V. (2017). Vliyanie korporativnoi sotsial'noi otvetstvennosti na investitsionnuiu privlekatelnost rossiiskikh kompanii (The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on the Investment Attractiveness of the Russian Companies). Ekonomika regiona (Economy of the Region), Vol. 13, No. 1, 157–169. DOI: 10.17059/2017-1-15. (In Russ.).
3. Poff, D., Michalos, A. (2018). Encyclopedia of Business and Professional Ethics. Springer International Publishing AG, 318 p. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-23514-1_215-1.
4. Gnègnè, Y. (2009). Adjusted net saving and welfare change. Ecological Economics, Vol. 68, Issue 4, 1127–1139. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.08.002.
5. Hess, P. (2010). Determinants of the adjusted net saving rate in developing economies. International Review of Applied Economics, Vol. 24, Issue 5, 591–608. DOI: 10.1080/02692170903426070.
6. Megyesiova, S., Lieskovska, V. (2018). Analysis of the sustainable development indicators in the OECD countries. Sustainability, Vol. 10, Issue 12, 4554. DOI: 10.3390/su10124554.
7. Sachs, J., Schmidt-Traub, G., Kroll, C., Lafortune, G., Fuller, G., Woelm, F. (2020). The Sustainable Development Goals and COVID-19. Sustainable Development Report 2020. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 510 p. DOI: 10.18356/214e6642-en.
8. Diaz-Sarachaga, J.M., Jato-Espino D., Castro-Fresno, D. (2018). Is the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) index an adequate framework to measure the progress of the 2030 Agenda? Sustainable Development, Vol. 26, Issue 6, 663–671. DOI: 10.1002/sd.1735.
9. Kraak, M.J., Ricker, B., Engelhardt, Y. (2018). Challenges of mapping Sustainable Development Goals indicators data. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, Vol. 7, Issue 12, 482. DOI: 10.3390/ijgi7120482.
10. Hák, T., Janoušková, S., Moldan, B. (2016). Sustainable Development Goals: A need for relevant indicators. Ecological Indicators, Vol. 60, 565–573. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.08.003.
11. Bebbington, J., Unerman, J. (2018). Achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals: An enabling role for accounting research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 31, Issue 1, 2–24. DOI: 10.1108/AAAJ-05-2017-2929.
12. Girella, L., Zambon, S., Rossi, P. (2019). Reporting on sustainable development: A comparison of three Italian small and medium‐sized enterprises. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 26, Issue 4, 981–996. DOI: 10.1002/csr.1738.
13. Bakos, J., Siu, M., Orengo, A., Kasiri, N. (2020). An analysis of environmental sustainability in small & medium‐sized enterprises: Patterns and trends. Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 29, Issue 3, 1285–1296. DOI: 10.1002/bse.2433.
14. Elkington, J. (1999). Cannibals with Forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business sustainability. <st1:state w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">New York</st1:place></st1:state>, John Wiley & Sons, 425 p.
15. Schaltegger, S., Hörisch, J., Freeman, R.E. (2019). Business cases for sustainability: A stakeholder theory perspective. Organization & Environment, Vol. 32, Issue 3, 191–212. DOI: 10.1177/1086026617722882.
16. Hacking, T., Guthrie, P. (2008). A framework for clarifying the meaning of Triple Bottom-Line, Integrated, and Sustainability Assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 28, Issue 2-3, 73–89. DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2007.03.002.
17. Slaper, T.F., Hall, T.J. (2011). The Triple Bottom Line: What Is It and How Does It Work? Indiana Business Review, Vol. 86, Issue 1, 4–8.
18. Latapi, M., Johannsdottir, L., Davidsdottir, B. (2019). A literature review of the history and evolution of corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, Vol. 4. Issue 1, 1. DOI: 10.1186/s40991-018-0039-y.
19. Rimmel, G. (2020). Accounting for Sustainability. Routledge, 230 p. DOI: 10.4324/9781003037200.
20. Isaksson, R., Steimle, U. (2009). What does GRI-reporting tell us about corporate sustainability? TQM Journal, Vol. 21, Issue 2, 168–181. DOI: 10.1108/17542730910938155.
21. Feng, S.C., Joung, C.B. (2009). An Overview of a Proposed Measurement Infrastructure for Sustainable Manufacturing. Proceedings of the 7th Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing, Vol. 355, 360.
22. Kloepffer, W. (2008). Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 13, Issue 2, 89. DOI: 10.1065/lca2008.02.376.
23. Finkbeiner, M., Schau, E.M., Lehmann, A., Traverso, M. (2010). Towards Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment. Sustainability, Vol. 2, 3309–3322. DOI: 10.3390/su2103309.
24. Clift, R. (2003). Metrics for Supply Chain Sustainability. Clean Technology Environment Policy, Vol. 5, 240–247. DOI:10.1007/s10098-003-0220-0.
25. Moldavska, A., Welo, T. (2019). A Holistic Approach to Corporate Sustainability Assessment: Incorporating Sustainable Development Goals into Sustainable Manufacturing Performance Evaluation. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 50, 53–68. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmsy.2018.11.004.
26. Bossel, H. (1999). Indicators for Sustainable Development: Theory, Method, Applications. Winnipeg, International Institute for Sustainable Development, 138 p.
27. Pope, J., Annandale, D., Morrison-Saunders, A. (2004). Conceptualising Sustainability Assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 24, Issue 6, 595–616. DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2004.03.001.
28. Krajnc, D., Glavič, P. (2005). A Model for Integrated Assessment of Sustainable Development. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 43, Issue 2, 189–208. DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2004.06.002.
29. Paju, M., Heilala, J., Hentula, M., Heikkilä, A., Johansson, B., Leong, S., Lyons, K. (2010). Framework and indicators for a sustainable manufacturing mapping methodology. Proceedings of the 2010 Winter Simulation Conference. IEEE, 3411–3422. DOI: 10.1109/WSC.2010.5679031.
30. Merzlikina, G.S. (2019). Ekologo-ekonomicheskaia effektivnost' deiatel'nosti promyshlennogo predpriiatiia: otsenka i upravlenie (Environmental Economic Efficiency Of Industrial Enterprises: Evaluation And Management). Vestnik Astrakhanskogo gosudarstvennogo tekhnicheskogo universiteta. Seriia: Ekonomika (Vestnik Of Astrakhan State University. Series: Economics), No. 3, 7–20. DOI: 10.24143/2073-5537-2019-3-7-20. (In Russ.).
31. Epifantseva, E.I. (2015). Ekologo-ekonomicheskie mekhanizmy dostizheniia ustoichivogo razvitiia promyshlennogo predpriiatiia (Ecological economic mechanisms of accomplishing stable development of industrial companies). Baikal Research Journal, Vol. 6, No. 5, 5-5. DOI: 10.17150/2411-6262.2015.6(5).3. (In Russ.).
32. Kuznetsova, E.Iu., Kuznetsov, S.V. (2018) Formirovanie mekhanizma ustoichivogo razvitiia predpriiatiia (The Formation Mechanism of Sustainable Development of Enterprises). Vestnik UrFU. Seriia ekonomika i upravlenie (Bulletin of Ural Federal University. Series Economics and Management). Vol. 17, No. 1, 105–127. DOI: 10.15826/vestnik.2018.17.1.005. (In Russ.).
33. Karelov, A.S., Belik, I.S. (2011) Otsenka effektivnosti proizvodstva v usloviiakh ego ekologizatsii (Evaluating The Effectiveness Of Production In Terms Of Its Ecologization). Vestnik KemGU (Bulletin of Kemerovo State University), No. 4 (48), 248–254. (In Russ.).
34. Barishevsky, E.V., Velichko, E.G., Tskhovrebov, E.S., Niiazgulov, U.D. (2017). Voprosy ekologo-ekonomicheskoi otsenki investitsionnykh proektov po pererabotke otkhodov v stroitel'nuiu produktsiiu (Problems Of Environmental And Economical Assessment Of Investment Projects On Processing Wastes Into Construction Products). Vestnik MGSU, Vol. 12, Issue 3 (102), 260–272. DOI: 10.22227/1997-0935.2017.3.260-272. (In Russ.).
35. Karaeva, A.P., Magaril, E.R. (2020). Pokazateli prirodoemkosti proizvodstva energii kak instrument otsenki effektivnosti proektov v energetike (Environmental Capacity Indicators as a Tool for Evaluation of Energy Projects Efficiency). Journal of Applied Economic Research, Vol. 19, No. 2, 166–179. DOI: 10.15826/vestnik.2020.19.2.009. (In Russ.).
36. Petrova, E.E. (2012). Napravleniia analiza effektivnosti investitsionnykh proektov s uchetom vliianiia ekologicheskikh faktorov (Drifts Of Investment Projects Efficiency Analysis In View Of The Influence Of Ecological Factors). Vestnik Rossiiskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriia: Ekonomika (RUDN Journal of Economics), No. 2, 108–114. (In Russ.).
37. Belik, I.S., Starodubets, N.V., Ivlev, S.G., Zverev, S.O. (2018). Formirovanie investitsionnogo portfelia predpriiatiia v sootvetstvii s kriteriiami tsirkuliarnoi ekonomiki (Formation of the Investment Portfolio in Accordance with the Criteria of Circular Economy.). Vestnik UrFU. Seriia ekonomika i upravlenie (Bulletin of Ural Federal University. Series Economics and Management), Vol. 17, No. 6, 986–1004. DOI: 10.15826/vestnik.2018.17.6.044. (In Russ.).
38. Prokopov, F., Feoktistova, E. et al. (2015). Bazovye indikatory rezultativnosti. Rekomendatsii po ispolzovaniiu v praktike upravleniia i korporativnoi nefinansovoi otchetnosti [Basic Performance Indicators. Recommendations for Use in Management Practice and Corporate Non-Financial Reporting]. RSPP. (In Russ.).
About Authors
Starodubets Natalia Vladimirovna
Candidate of Economic Sciences, Associate Professor, Department of Economic Security of Industrial Complexes, School of Economics and Management, Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin, Ekaterinburg, Russia (620002, Ekaterinburg, Mira street, 19); ORCID 0000-0001-8687-2050; e-mail: n.v.starodubets@gmail.com.
Grigoreva Alena Evgenievna
Student, Department of Economic Security of Industrial Complexes, School of Economics and Management, Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin, Ekaterinburg, Russia (620002, Ekaterinburg, Mira street, 19); ORCID 0000-0002-5211-4283; e-mail:alen4grig@yandex.ru.
For citation
Starodubets N.V., Grigoreva A.E. Methodological Toolkit for Environmental and Economic Assessment of Metallurgical Enterprise Activities. Journal of Applied Economic Research, 2020, Vol. 19, No. 4, 565-584. DOI: 10.15826/vestnik.2020.19.4.026.
Article info
Received September 28, 2020; Revised October 25, 2020; Accepted November 5, 2020.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15826/vestnik.2020.19.4.026
Download full text article:
~610 KB, *.pdf
(Uploaded
14.12.2020)
Created / Updated: 2 September 2015 / 20 September 2021
© Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education «Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B.N.Yeltsin»
Remarks?
select the text and press:
Ctrl + Enter
Portal design: Artsofte
Contact us
Rector's Office
Rector, Dr. Victor Koksharov
Tel. +7 (343) 375-45-03, e-mail: rector@urfu.ru
Vice-Rector for International Relations, Dr. Maxim Khomyakov
Tel. +7 (343) 375-46-27, e-mail: Maksim.Khomyakov@urfu.ru