IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aiy/jnjaer/v19y2020i4p565-584.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Methodological Toolkit for Environmental and Economic Assessment of Metallurgical Enterprise Activities

Author

Listed:
  • N.V. Starodubets
  • A.E. Grigoreva

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.

Suggested Citation

  • N.V. Starodubets & A.E. Grigoreva, 2020. "Methodological Toolkit for Environmental and Economic Assessment of Metallurgical Enterprise Activities," Journal of Applied Economic Research, Graduate School of Economics and Management, Ural Federal University, vol. 19(4), pages 565-584.
    • Handle: RePEc:aiy:jnjaer:v:19:y:2020:i:4:p:565-584
    DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15826/vestnik.2020.19.4.026
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journalaer.ru//fileadmin/user_upload/site_15934/2020/07_Starodubec_Grigoreva.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/http://dx.doi.org/10.15826/vestnik.2020.19.4.026?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Laura Girella & Stefano Zambon & Paola Rossi, 2019. "Reporting on sustainable development: A comparison of three Italian small and medium‐sized enterprises," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 981-996, July.
    2. Joseph Bakos & Michele Siu & Adalberto Orengo & Narges Kasiri, 2020. "An analysis of environmental sustainability in small & medium‐sized enterprises: Patterns and trends," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 1285-1296, March.
    3. Mauricio Andrés Latapí Agudelo & Lára Jóhannsdóttir & Brynhildur Davídsdóttir, 2019. "A literature review of the history and evolution of corporate social responsibility," International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 1-23, December.
    4. Krajnc, Damjan & Glavič, Peter, 2005. "A model for integrated assessment of sustainable development," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 189-208.
    5. Peter Hess, 2010. "Determinants of the adjusted net saving rate in developing economies," International Review of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(5), pages 591-608.
    6. Silvia Megyesiova & Vanda Lieskovska, 2018. "Analysis of the Sustainable Development Indicators in the OECD Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, December.
    7. Natalia Kelchevskaya & Ilia Chernenko & Ekaterina Popova, 2017. "The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on the Investment Attractiveness of the Russian Companies," Economy of region, Centre for Economic Security, Institute of Economics of Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, vol. 1(1), pages 157-169.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Isabel‐María García‐Sánchez & Cristina‐Andrea Araújo‐Bernardo, 2020. "What colour is the corporate social responsibility report? Structural visual rhetoric, impression management strategies, and stakeholder engagement," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 1117-1142, March.
    2. Jean Bonnet & Eva Coll-Martínez & Patricia Renou-Maissant, 2021. "Evaluating Sustainable Development by Composite Index: Evidence from French Departments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-23, January.
    3. Indra de Soysa, 2022. "Economic freedom vs. egalitarianism: An empirical test of weak & strong sustainability, 1970–2017," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(2), pages 236-268, May.
    4. Vlada VITUNSKIENE & Vida DABKIENE, 2016. "Framework for assessing the farm relative sustainability: a Lithuanian case study," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 62(3), pages 134-148.
    5. Joel A. Martínez-Regalado & Cinthia Leonora Murillo-Avalos & Purificación Vicente-Galindo & Mónica Jiménez-Hernández & José Luis Vicente-Villardón, 2021. "Using HJ-Biplot and External Logistic Biplot as Machine Learning Methods for Corporate Social Responsibility Practices for Sustainable Development," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(20), pages 1-16, October.
    6. Osman, Ibrahim H. & Zablith, Fouad, 2021. "Re-evaluating electronic government development index to monitor the transformation toward achieving sustainable development goals," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 426-440.
    7. Lekan Damilola Ojo & Onaopepo Adeniyi & Olajide Emmanuel Ogundimu & Olasunkanmi Ososanmi Alaba, 2022. "Rethinking Green Supply Chain Management Practices Impact on Company Performance: A Close-Up Insight," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-19, October.
    8. Zainorfarah Zainuddin & Mohammad Iranmanesh & Ming‐Lang Tseng & Behzad Foroughi & Tengku Adeline Adura Tengku Hamzah, 2021. "Clean development mechanism implementation: External and organizational factors drives expected business benefits," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(8), pages 3444-3453, December.
    9. Marko Selakovic, 2020. "Typology of Business-Related Fake News Online: A Literature Review," GATR Journals jmmr259, Global Academy of Training and Research (GATR) Enterprise.
    10. Zhifeng Wu & Senjing Zhai & Jiangtao Hong & Yibin Zhang & Keren Shi, 2018. "Building Sustainable Supply Chains for Organizations Based on QFD: A Case Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-12, December.
    11. Masahiro Hosoda, 2022. "Adoption of integrated reporting and changes to internal mechanisms in Japanese companies," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(2), pages 421-434, March.
    12. Vítor João Pereira Domingues Martinho, 2021. "Impact of Covid‐19 on the convergence of GDP per capita in OECD countries," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(S1), pages 55-72, November.
    13. Silvia Iacuzzi & Rubens Pauluzzo, 2024. "Looking for missing outcomes: accounting for intellectual capital and value creation in ecosystems," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 28(4), pages 1117-1149, December.
    14. Thais Thiesen & Mahadev G. Bhat & Hong Liu & Roberto Rovira, 2022. "An Ecosystem Service Approach to Assessing Agro-Ecosystems in Urban Landscapes," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-23, March.
    15. Silvia Megyesiova & Vanda Lieskovska, 2019. "Premature Mortality for Chronic Diseases in the EU Member States," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(20), pages 1-23, October.
    16. van Krevel, Charan, 2021. "Does natural capital depletion hamper sustainable development? Panel data evidence," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    17. Mitzi Isabel Cubilla‐Montilla & Purificación Galindo‐Villardón & Ana Belén Nieto‐Librero & María Purificación Vicente Galindo & Isabel María García‐Sánchez, 2020. "What companies do not disclose about their environmental policy and what institutional pressures may do to respect," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 1181-1197, May.
    18. Marek Sieminski & Ewa Wedrowska & Krzysztof Krukowski, 2020. "Cultural Aspect of Social Responsibility Implementation in SMEs," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(3), pages 68-84.
    19. Simone Pizzi & Francesco Rosati & Andrea Venturelli, 2021. "The determinants of business contribution to the 2030 Agenda: Introducing the SDG Reporting Score," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 404-421, January.
    20. Patrizia Gazzola & Stefano Amelio & Daniele Grechi & Chiara Alleruzzo, 2022. "Culture and sustainable development: The role of merger and acquisition in Italian B Corps," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5), pages 1546-1559, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    environmental impact; sustainable development; non-financial reporting; methodology for environmental and economic assessment of the enterprise;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aiy:jnjaer:v:19:y:2020:i:4:p:565-584. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Natalia Starodubets (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/seurfru.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.