Banco Bradesco .... economic sectors whose values of RI are more than 95%. ... Figure 4: Values of RI of Studied Companies Grouped in Economic Sectors.
Proceedings of the 2011 Industrial Engineering Research Conference T. Doolen and E. Van Aken, eds.
Investigation on Use Sustainability Performance Measures by Brazilian Manufacturing Companies Roberto Antonio Martins Federal University of Sao Carlos Department of Industrial Engineering, Sao Carlos, SP, Brazil Juliano Bezerra de Araujo Axia Value Chain Co., Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Aldo Roberto Ometto Paulo Henrique Sant’ Anna Lentino University of Sao Paulo Department of Industrial Engineering, Sao Carlos, SP, Brazil Abstract Nowadays corporate sustainability is essential to the growth and survival of corporations around the world. Minimize or reduce the company’s externalities is not only a compliance to laws, but a source of economic advantage in many situations. Sustainability performance measures provide information on sustainability to decision markers and stakeholders. This paper aims to evaluate the use of sustainability performance measures in a group of Brazilian companies which are top performers on Brazilian Sustainability Guide published by Brazilian business magazine. The data source is the companies’ Sustainability Reports which use GRI model. The findings show the sustainable manufacturing strategy of studied companies attains eco-efficiency focusing on measuring the inputs and outputs of processes. Another finding points out the majority of companies need to improve their performance measures in order to increase their relevance index. They do not measure properly the most important aspects of GRI in their economic sector. The exception is the companies from Cosmetics and Chemical sectors.
Keywords Performance Measure, Sustainability, GRI, Sustainable Manufacturing Strategy
1. Introduction The drivers of sustainability push the companies around the world toward new ways of managing their operations. The main drivers are laws, rules, pressure by non-governmental organizations, economic gains, and so on. It is necessary to develop new principles and rules to contribute to sustainable development of economy and society. Some companies are more assertive to those demands while others only take reactive actions to comply minimally with rules [1,2,3]. The sustainability performance measures provide information about actual level the performance of organization in sustainability to decision makers and stakeholders. Those measures can also make possible comparisons with other companies or benchmarks. Such information is a reference to establish objectives, targets, and action plans. The choice of performance measures and targets can indicate the level of maturity and vision of organization toward sustainability. The vision and policies of organization toward sustainability are the foundations to select the performance measures [4]. Many companies around the world, including those with operations in Brazil, publish sustainability reports annually. Those publications include both the actions taken and the performance measures which will indicate the companies’ performance in terms of sustainability. The use of environmental performance measures can show how the organization is minimizing its externalities.
Martins, de Araujo, Ometto and Lentino Thus, this paper aims to evaluate the usage of sustainability performance measures by manufacturing companies which operates in Brazil. The main source of data is the sustainability reports published by companies. The sample is composed by the top performers on sustainability ranking published annually by Exame, Brazilian business magazine. The paper is organized as follow. The next section, Section 2, is a brief review on sustainability, including performance measures and reports. Section 3 presents the collected data from the sample and the data analysis. Finally, Section 4 provides the final remarks of this paper.
2. Literature Review The Figure 1 illustrates a summary of the evolution of sustainability strategies in industry. There are four different stages. All strategies for sustainable manufacturing have guidelines and distinct characteristics [1,2,3]. The first strategy aims to assess the extent to which the facilities or technologies meet the regulations, laws, or patterns of industries and associations, e.g., the total inventory of toxic wastes, occupational safety and health, for a cleaner air. For the second strategy, the guidelines are focused on the improvement of efficiency through a better use of resources and minimization of by-products production and emissions. Employee participation in programs to improve the efficiency of operations is critical to its success and it may still generate further competitive advantage for the company. The evolution towards a third strategy which is focused on supply chain extends the sustainable management of manufacturing outside the business boundaries. The goal is to consider the impacts generated throughout the life cycle of the product also considering other parts, i.e., suppliers, distributors and customers. When the issue involves sustainability, the responsibility of a company includes not only its processes, but also the activities caused by the demand of the company [1]. The supply chain management starts to assume, in addition to its traditional function of managing the flow of information, material and capital, also the function of creating sustainable value for the whole chain [2]. The fourth strategy to guide the manufacturing systems is focused on a more ambitious target, the adoption of sustainable business models. The idea is to add value to the product or service, but without negative ramifications for society and the environment. For this reason, a very strong basis in innovation is presented [3].
Figure 1 - Evolutionary Strategies for Sustainable Manufacturing. The performance measures are critical elements of any sustainability management system (SMS) framework. The most known framework for SMS is the “Triple Bottom Line” (TBL). In this framework, the organizational success is measured in three different dimensions: economic, social, and environmental. The sustainability is accomplished when economic and social dimensions are improved without exceeding the natural resources of Earth [5]. The sustainability performance measures summarize the facts quantitatively or qualitatively. They are grouped in absolute or relative measures. The value of first ones is measured directly, e.g., weight or volume of emissions of pollutants. The value of second ones is measured comparing the measured value to another value of interest or reference, e.g., volume of emissions of pollutants per quantity of manufactured products [6]. The performance measure selection is not a simple task. The literature is not clear how to proceed. However, a simple rule is to match the performance measures to the objectives and targets of organization [7]. Hence, relevance to the users and comprehensiveness of performance measures are criteria to select performance measures which will help evaluating the impacts of organization activities and processes on TBL dimensions. Sometimes the application of TBL is not enough. It is important to use others sustainability performance measurement frameworks like ISO 14031, WBCSD or ICHEME. This will approach better the different aspects of sustainability. The sustainability reports are useful for providing information about the organization´s actions toward mitigate its externalities. The report helps an organization to communicate its accomplishments to both internal and external interest groups. There are many guidelines to help preparing sustainability reports. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) is the most known guidelines. Different industries around the world use it [8]. In 1997, some non-profit organizations proposed GRI guidelines. The goal was to improve the quality, rigor and usefulness of sustainability reports. It facilitates transparency and accountability by organizations and provides stakeholders a universallyapplicable and comparable framework from which to understand disclosed information. The guidelines employ TBL
Martins, de Araujo, Ometto and Lentino framework suggesting the measurement of aspects and measures in the three dimensions. The GRI guidelines organize the report on category (dimension), aspect and indicator (performance measure). The Table 1 exhibits the aspects and performance indicators of GRI [7]. Table 1: Environmental Aspects and Performance Indicators according with GRI. Aspects Materials (EN1-2) Energy (EN3-7) Water (EN8-10) Biodiversity (EN11-15)
Emissions, Effluents, and Waste (EN16-25)
Products and Services (EN26-27) Compliance (EN28) Transport (EN29) Overall (EN30)
Performance Indicators (EN1) Materials used by weight or volume; (EN2) Percentage of materials used that are recycled input materials (EN3) Direct energy consumption by primary energy source; (EN4) Indirect energy consumption by primary source; (EN5) Energy saved due to conservation and efficiency improvements; (EN6) Initiatives to provide energy-efficient or renewable energy-based products and services, and reductions in energy requirements as a result of these initiatives; (EN7) Initiatives to reduce indirect energy consumption and reductions achieved (EN8) Total water withdrawal by source; (EN9) Water sources significantly affected by withdrawal of water; (EN10) Percentage and total volume of water recycled and reused (EN11) Location and size of land owned, leased, managed in, or adjacent to, protected areas and areas of high biodiversity value outside protected areas; (EN12) Description of significant impacts of activities, products, and services on biodiversity in protected areas and areas of high biodiversity value outside protected areas; (EN13) Habitats protected or restored; (EN14) Strategies, current actions, and future plans for managing impacts on biodiversity; (EN15) Number of IUCN Red List species and national conservation list species with habitats in areas affected by operations, by level of extinction risk (EN16) Total direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions by weight; (EN17) Other relevant indirect greenhouse gas emissions by weight; (EN18) Initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reductions achieved; (EN19) Emissions of ozone-depleting substances by weight; (EN20) NOx, SOx, and other significant air emissions by type and weight; (EN21) Total water discharge by quality and destination; (EN22) Total weight of waste by type and disposal method; (EN23) Total number and volume of significant spills; (EN24) Weight of transported, imported, exported, or treated waste deemed hazardous under the terms of the Basel Convention Annex I, II, III, and VIII, and percentage of transported waste shipped internationally; (EN25) Identity, size, protected status, and biodiversity value of water bodies and related habitats significantly affected by the reporting organization’s discharges of water and runoff (EN26) Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products and services, and extent of impact mitigation; (EN27) Percentage of products sold and their packaging materials that are reclaimed by category (EN28) Monetary value of significant fines and total number of non-monetary sanctions for non-compliance with environmental laws and regulations (EN29) Significant environmental impacts of transporting products and other goods and materials used for the organization’s operations, and transporting members of the workforce (EN30) Total environmental protection expenditures and investments by type
2. Research Method This paper utilizes the documentary research method. The sustainability reports published by Brazilian manufacturing companies are the main source of data. The population are approximately 300 companies which were cited on the most important guide of sustainability organized and published by Exame, one of most important Brazilian business magazines [9,10]. Annually Exame publishes the Sustainability Guide that ranks the companies. Different specialists on sustainability take part of board that elaborates the ranking. They judge the companies based on their practices in all dimensions of sustainability. This investigation focuses on top performers of 2008 and 2009 ranking. The Table 2 shows the eligible companies and their economic sectors. In order to make the sample more uniform, the service companies were excluded of sample. All manufacturing companies listed in Table 2 have published their sustainability reports using the GRI guidelines, except Masisa do Brasil. That company does not use GRI performance indicators, thus it was also excluded of sample. Therefore, the sample of this study is the companies listed in Table 2, except Masisa do Brasil.
3. Empirical Findings All companies of sample publish their sustainability reports. Most of them are available in the companies’ websites. Some were contacted to provide a copy of report. The reports were carefully read in order to collect the relevant data to the research. The data was stored in Excel® spreadsheet for future analysis. The Table 3 presents the data about the usage of performance measures by studied companies.
Martins, de Araujo, Ometto and Lentino Table 2: Eligible Manufacturing Companies for Studying Company AES Tietê Alcoa Amanco Brasil Anglo American Brasil Banco Bradesco Banco Itau Banco Real Basf Bunge Coelba Coelce Masisa Brasil
Sector Energy Metals Manufacturing Financial Financial Financial Financial Chemical Food Energy Energy Forestry
Company CPFL Energia EDP Energias do Brasil ELEKTRO Eletricidade e Serviços Natura Perdigao (BRF) Philips do Brasil Serasa Suzano Papel e Celulose Tetra Pak Usiminas Wal Mart Brasil Fibria
Sector Energy Energy Energy Cosmetic Food Electronic Financial Pulp and Paper Package Metals Retail Pulp and Paper
Table 3: Usage of GRI Performance Indicators (EN) by Studied Companies [11-28] EN - GRI Performance Indicators Companies AES Tietê Alcoa Amanco Brasil Basf Bunge Coelba Coelce CPFL Energia EDP Energia ELEKTRO Natura Perdigao (BRF) Philips do Brasil Suzano Tetra Pak Usiminas WalMart Brasil Fibria
01 l l l l l
l l l l l
l l l l l
02 03 l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
04 l l l l l
l
l
l l l
l l l l
05 06 07 08 09 10 l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
l l l
l l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l
l l l l l l
Caption: Use; Do Not Use The sustainability performance measures of Table 3 have different frequency of usage. The Figure 2 shows the frequency of usage of sustainability performance measures by studied companies. This allows identifying the most common performance measures of companies of sample. Among the thirty performance indicators proposed by GRI guidelines, six of them show high frequency of usage by more of 85% of studied companies. These performance measures are: EN03: Direct energy consumption by primary energy source; EN22: Total weight of waste by type and disposal method; EN08: Total water withdrawal by source; EN18: Initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reductions achieved; EN26: Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products and services, and extent of impact mitigation; and EN01: Materials used by weight or volume. The set of most used performance measures can help to identify the stages of evolution of sustainable manufacturing strategies (Figure 1) and to compute and analyze the relevance index for companies from different economic sectors and the potential of environmental impacts.
Martins, de Araujo, Ometto and Lentino
Use frequency by companies
16 14 12 10 8 6 4
17
100%
17 16
16
16
94% 94%
15 89% 89% 89%
83%
14
14
14
14 13
13
13
13
80%
13
78% 78% 78% 78%
12
12
12
72% 72% 72% 72% 72%
11
11
11
11
67% 67% 67%
10
10
60%
10
61% 61% 61% 61%
9 56% 56% 56%
8 50%
7 44%
6
6
40%
Percentage
18
39% 33% 33%
20%
2 0
0%
Figure 2: Environmental indicators use frequency analysis from selected companies [11-28] The performance indicators EN01, EN03 and EN08 are suitable for accomplishing the efficiency of facilities and technologies – the second stage of Figure 1. These indicators measure the inputs of manufacturing process aiming to improve the consumption of materials, energy and water. These performance measures are adequate to the strategy of accomplishing the eco-efficiency through either manufacturing the same quantity with consumption of less inputs or increase the quantity with consumption of same inputs. The performance indicators EN18, EN22 and EN26 are also suitable for accomplishing the efficiency of facilities and technologies – the second stage of Figure 1. However these indicators measure the outputs of manufacturing process aiming to reduce or even eliminate the sources of pollution in areas closed to the operations or more remote of plant. These performance measures are also adequate to the strategy of accomplishing the eco-efficiency through complying with requirements of rules, laws or pressure of organized groups. Those actions have impact on mitigation of company’s externalities. These two evidences lead to the conclusion that the majority of companies of sample is at least on the second stage of Figure 1 – “Efficiency of Facilities and Technologies”. They are focusing on both improving the consumption of inputs and reducing or eliminating the pollution caused by the outputs of their manufacturing processes [3,29,30]. Among the nine aspects of GRI guidelines (Table 1), four aspects are closed related to the third stage of sustainable manufacturing strategies – Products and Services that accounts the impact of usage of products; Transport that accounts the impacts of logistics and supply chain; Emissions, Effluents and Waste through EN17 accounts to the indirect greenhouse gas emissions; and Energy that accounts the indirect energy consumption (EN04) and initiatives to provide energy-efficient or renewable energy-based products and services (EN06, EN07). The Figure 3 exhibits the usage of performance measures related to relevant aspects of third stage of sustainable manufacturing strategies. At the first glance, among the aspects of Figure 3, Transport aspect has the second lowest attendance and Emissions, Effluents and Waste the third lowest, but the EN17 is the used by 67% of studied companies. It seems that the studied companies use performance measures which are not well suitable to the third stage of sustainable manufacturing strategies. Regarding with the other two aspects, there is no significant improvement besides the usage is better. With relation to Energy aspect, it has the same level of Products and Services aspect, but the performance measures EN04 e EN06 are used by 78% of companies of sample. Otherwise, the EN07 is only used by 44% of studied companies. Those evidences show that the companies of sample need to implement and use performance measure suitable to the third stage of sustainable manufacturing strategies – “Focus on Supply Chain and Product”. It does not mean the companies have not started implementing such type of strategy. The data do not allow concluding that. Either the companies have not implemented the strategy or they have not selected the right performance measures. This finding demands more investigation to better understand the situation.
Martins, de Araujo, Ometto and Lentino Another type of data analysis is the relevance of performance measures through the materiality test. A critical step during the elaboration of strategic plans is to focus on the real drivers of externalities. When a topic and related performance indicators are relevant, they should be reported to influence the decision makers. This is the principle of materiality. It assures that the information in a report will cover topics and performance measures that reflect the organization’s significant economic, environmental, and social impacts or that would substantively influence the assessments and decisions of stakeholders [7,29]. Environmental aspdects attendance
90% 80%
81%
78%
72% 72% 72%
70%
68%
64%
60%
61% 59%
50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Figure 3: Indicators use frequency sorted by types of environmental aspects [11-28] The Table 4 presents the relationships between the aspects of GRI, in the columns, and the economic sector of studied companies, in the rows. The x on intersection of column and row means the aspect is very important to that economic sector, e.g., for energy sector the most important aspects of GRI are materials, biodiversity, and emissions, effluents, and waste. Then, the performance measures of those three aspects are the most important to company of energy sector. Different references from literature review are the foundation to elaborate the Table 4 [31-38]. Table 4: GRI Aspects for Economic Sectors of Studied Companies [31-38] Economic Sector Energy Manufacturing Chemical Food Cosmetics Electronic Paper Metals Retail
Materials x x x
x
Energy
Water
x x x
x x x x
Biodiversity x
x x x
x
x x
Emissions, Effluents, and Waste x x x x x x x x x
Products and Services
Compliance
Transport
Overall
x x x x x
x
x
The Equation 1 exhibits the relevance index. It expresses the relation between the number of performance measures reported by company and the number of most important performance measures for each economic sector according with Table 4.
RI n (%)
IRn 100 (%) IPn
(1)
Where: RI is the relevance index; IR is the number of performance measures reported; IP is the number of most important performance measures for the economic sector. Figure 4 exhibits the values of IR, IP, and RI to all companies of sample grouped in the economic sectors. There is no uniformity of values of RI when it compares the values of all economic sectors. Actually it is possible to group
Martins, de Araujo, Ometto and Lentino the economic sectors in four clusters. The first one is composed by companies from Cosmetics and Chemical economic sectors whose values of RI are more than 95%. The second one is composed by companies from Paper, Retail, and Metals economic sectors whose values of RI range from 73% to 85%. The third group is composed by companies from Manufacturing, Food, and Energy economic sectors whose values of RI range from 57% to 63%. Finally, the last group is composed by companies from Electronic economic sector whose value of RI is 42%. The values of RI of last two groups are below of the values of first two ones. Retail
77%
Paper
Bus i nes s Sector Chemi cal Cosmetics El ectroni c Energy Food Manufacturing Metal s Pa per Reta i l
IR 21 15 8 11 12 13 15 20 10
IP RI 22 95% 15 100% 19 42% 17 63% 20 60% 22 57% 20 73% 23 85% 13 77%
23%
85%
Metals
15%
73%
Manufacturing
27%
57%
Food
43%
60%
Energy
40%
63%
Electronic
37%
42%
58%
Cosmetics
100%
Chemical
0%
95% 0%
20%
40%
Relevant
5% 60%
80%
100%
Not Relevant
Figure 4: Values of RI of Studied Companies Grouped in Economic Sectors. It means the companies of sample from Chemical, Cosmetics, Paper, Retail, and Metals economic sectors are materializing better their aspects than the companies of sample from Energy, Food, Manufacturing, and Electronics economic sectors. If the companies of sample which are not materializing well really have actions to minimize or even reduce their externalities, they need to change their performance measurement systems to capture the outcomes of their actions. If this is true, then their reports in sustainability lack important information about vital aspects in their economic sectors. If the maxim “you get what you measure”, then the companies of sample which are not materializing well are in trouble. They could not be focusing on aspects which are vital to mitigate the impact of their operations in the environment and society. They need to close this gap in order to improve their materiality. Certainly, more investigation is necessary to determine if the gap truly exists.
4. Final Remarks The investigation focus on manufacturing Brazilian companies which are top performers on sustainability according with Sustainability Guide published by one of most important Brazilian business magazine. The empirical findings shows the companies of sample are on second stage of sustainable manufacturing strategies – “Efficiency of Facilities and Technologies”. There is no evidence, based on performance indicators reported by those companies, their strategies are on next two stages. It means the top performers are concerned with use better their inputs (water, energy, material, for instance) and mitigate their externalities (reduce sources of pollution, for instance). The companies’ strategies attain the goal of eco-efficiency. Certainly, this is a good result but it is necessary to go further. Probably some companies are moving toward the third stage because some of them have reported performance measures in Products and Services, Transport, Emissions Effluents and Waste, and Energy aspects of GRI. However this is not uniform. The aspect Transport, for instance, presents the lowest attendance rate according with Figure 3. It is important to highlight if some companies are on third stage of sustainable manufacturing strategies, then their reports lack important information to decision makers and stakeholders. Those companies need to change as soon as possible their performance measurement systems selecting the adequate performance measures to show the performance on relevant aspects. Another interesting finding is the relevance analysis that shows the assertiveness of studied companies in selecting the right performance measures. The findings exhibit the materiality of companies clustering them in their economic sectors. The companies from Cosmetics and Chemical sector present the highest relevance index of sample, respectively 100% and 95%. The company from Electronic sector shows the lowest index of studied companies. According with Table 4, Cosmetics has 3 critical aspects while Electronic has 4 and Chemical 5. Then, the relevance index is not high because the company of Cosmetic sector has to comply with only 3 critical aspects. The findings
Martins, de Araujo, Ometto and Lentino point out the companies of sample from Cosmetic and Chemical sectors have selected better the right performance measures and taken proper actions in implementing their sustainable manufacturing strategies. Their relevance indexes are the highest of sample. The company from Cosmetic sector associates its brand to sustainability. In other hand, the minimization of externalities likely pushed the companies from Chemical sector. The materiality analysis shows the majority of companies needs to improve either their strategies or their performance measures. Although they are top performers in sustainability according with ranking, most of them, except the companies from Cosmetic and Chemical sector, present unsatisfactory relevance indexes.
References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38.
Hauschild, M., Jeswiet, J. and Alting, L., 2005, “From Life Cycle Assessment to Sustainable Production: Status and Perspectives”, CIRP Annals, 54, 2, 535-554. Seuring, S., Müller, M., 2008, “From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 1699-1710. Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C.K., Rangaswami, M.R., 2009, “Why Sustainability Is Now the Key Driver of Innovation”, Harvard Business Review, 87, 9. Hitchcock, D., Willard, M., 2008, The step-by-step guide to sustainability planning, Earthscan, London. Elkington, J., 1998, Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business, Grabiola Island, New Society Publishers. Veleva, V., Ellenbecker, M., 2001,”Indicators of sustainable production: framework and methodology”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 9, 519-549. Global Reporting Initiative, 2006, Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, Amsterdam. Schaltegger, S., Herzig, C., Kleiber, O., and Müller, J., 2002, Sustainability management in business enterprises, Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Bonn. Revista Exame, 2008, Guia Exame de Sustentabilidade 2008, Editora Abril, São Paulo. Revista Exame, 2009, Guia Exame de Sustentabilidade 2009, Editora Abril, São Paulo. AES Brasil, 2009, Relatório de Sustentabilidade 2009, Available at URL: http://www.grupoaesbrasil.com.br/. Alcoa Brasil, 2009, Relatório de Sustentabilidade 2009/2010, Available at URL: http://www.alcoa.com/. Amanco Brasil, 2009, Relatório de Sustentabilidade 2009, Available at URL: http://www.amanco.com.br/. Basf Brasil, 2009, Relatório de Sustentabilidade 2009, Available at URL: http://www.basf.com.br. Bunge Brasil, 2009, Relatório de Sustentabilidade 2009, Available at URL: http://www.bunge.com.br/. Coelba, 2009, Relatório de Sustentabilidade 2009, Available at URL: http:// www.coelba.com.br/. Coelce, 2008, Relatório de Sustentabilidade 2008, Available at URL: http:// www.coelce.com.br/. CPFL Energia, 2009, Relatório de Sustentabilidade 2009, Available at URL: http://www.cpfl.com.br. EDP no Brasil, 2009, Relatório de Sustentabilidade 2009, Available at URL: http://www.energiasdobrasil.com.br/. Elektro, 2009, Relatório de Sustentabilidade 2009, Available at URL: http:// www.elektro.com.br/. Natura, 2008, Relatório de Sustentabilidade 2008, Available at URL: http:///www.natura.net/. Perdigão, 2008, Relatório de Sustentabilidade 2008, Available at URL: http://www.perdigao.com.br/. Philips do Brasil, 2009, Relatório de Sustentabilidade 2009, Available at URL: http://www.sustentabilidade.philips.com.br/. Suzano, 2009, Relatório de Sustentabilidade 2009, Available at URL: http://www.suzano.com.br/. Tetra Pak, 2009, Relatório de Sustentabilidade 2009, Available at URL: http://www.tetrapak.com/. Usiminas, 2009, Relatório de Sustentabilidade 2009, Available at URL: http://www.usiminas.com/. Walmart do Brasil, 2009, Relatório de Sustentabilidade 2009, Available at URL: http://www.walmartsustentabilidade.com.br/. Fibria, 2009, Relatório de Sustentabilidade 2009, Available at URL: http://www.fibria.com.br/. Meyer, C., Kirby, J., 2010, “Leadership in the Age of Transparency”, Harvard Business Review. World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 1998, Cleaner Production and Eco-efficiency. Norgate, T.E., Jahanshahia, S., Rankina, W.J., 2007, “Assessing the environmental impact of metal production processes”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 15, 8-9, 838-848. Dincer, I., 1999, “Environmental impacts of energy”, Energy Policy, 27, 14, 845-854. Hussain, S., Yamaguchi, M., 2008, “Environmental reporting protocols for the cosmetics industry: a comparative analysis of Japanese and UK on-line publications”, Corporate Responsibility Research Conference, Belfast. Kroyer, G.T., 2004, “Impact of food processing on the environment - an overview”, Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft undTechnologie, 28, 6, 547-552. Lopes, E., Dias, A., Arroja, L., 2003, “Application of life cycle assessment to the Portuguese pulp and paper industry”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 11, 1, 51-59. InsiderGreen, 2009, Green retail and environment, Available at URL: http://www.insidergreen.com/. Burgessa, A.A., Brennan, D.J., 2001, “Application of life cycle assessment to chemical processes”, Chemical Engineering Science, 56, 8, 2589-2604. Environmental Protection Agency, 2010, Electronics: promoting and practicing environmental stewardship for electronic Products, Available at URL: http://www.epa.gov/
