FORMATION AND RECOGNITION OF THE CRITERIAL CODE OF SUSTAINABLE ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT

FORMATION AND RECOGNITION OF THE CRITERIAL CODE OF SUSTAINABLE ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT

Alyona Aroshidze

candidate of economic sciences, associate Professor, Siberian Transport University,

Russia, Novosibirsk

Although the concept of sustainable development emerged as a macroeconomic and even global benchmark, to varying degrees and with different results, it almost immediately began to penetrate the activities of enterprises. At present, it is almost impossible to imagine a management that would not come across the principles of sustainable development. This does not mean that all enterprises fully implement them, but, undoubtedly, there is awareness of the concept of sustainable development and opportunities, tools, advantages, and difficulties of its introduction in their activities.

A special merit in this belongs to a wide range of studies on this topic. For example, only within the framework of Russian scientific research, eight key approaches to understanding the sustainable development of enterprises can be identified [1]. World practice makes the main emphasis on specific aspects of its provision. This refers to the tools and methods that are used by enterprises and characterize them from the standpoint of participating in the implementation of the concept of sustainable development.

Studying the research literature makes it possible to agree with Malesios et al. [2], who indicate a clearly insufficient elaboration of the issues of analysis of indicators of sustainable development of enterprises. At the same time, such an analysis is actually the basis not only for determining the current sustainability indicators but also for making managerial decisions to improve them.

In most cases, sustainable development is assessed at the macro- or mesolevel, for which various systems of indicators are proposed, and categories, subcategories, and attributes are distinguished [3]. Of course, attempts are being made to assess sustainable development or its impact on various aspects of society [4].

In practice, when conducting an assessment, industrial enterprises focus more on economic sustainability, overshadowing the social and environmental components [5], although principles for organizing the assessment are proposed [6, 7] expert systems are developed [8], and the most used indicators are systematized [9].

The conducted literature review allows us to make an intermediate conclusion about the validity of the hypothesis according to which the assessment of sustainable development of enterprises is of fundamental importance when introducing this concept into their practice. Note that the final result in the form of a simple integral indicator cannot be considered informative since it will not allow revealing the strengths and weaknesses in enterprise management, directly or indirectly linking the results of activities with the use of various “sustainable” practices, and identifying compliance with the stated goals in key areas.

The formation of this code and its further quantitative and qualitative characteristics are carried out in nine successive stages.

At the first stage, the information base of the assessment is formed: a scorecard that characterizes the constituent components in the context of sustainable development. In fact, four such scorecards are needed, within which the indicators must be built in a certain hierarchy; to this end, a weighting factor is assigned to each of them.

At the second stage, for each indicator, it is necessary to determine the boundaries of the equilibrium of several degrees, being in which means being in the stability zone. The lower boundary of equilibrium of the first degree is simultaneously the threshold boundary of the stability zone. The boundaries are set according to the criteria of reliability, dynamism, and acceptability for each indicator. In other words, detailed standards are determined, according to which it can be argued that an enterprise is to some extent capable of performing its functions and moving towards its goals while meeting the requirements of acceptability of changes and their nature and speed.

At the third stage, the indicators are normalized by awarding them points in accordance with being in a specific degree of equilibrium or nonequilibrium in terms of values. Thus, if the value of an indicator characterizing sustainable development in terms of a component is below the threshold, then it is awarded 1 point; if within the equilibrium boundaries of the first degree, 2 points; second degree, 3 points; and third degree, 4 points.

At the fourth stage, the normalized boundaries of the final equilibria are determined for a set of indicators. The lower boundary of the general nonequilibrium state is determined proceeding from the assumption that all indicators characterizing the component of sustainable development are in a nonequilibrium state, i.e., all of them were awarded 1 point. The sum of these scores, considering the weighting coefficient for each indicator, is the lower boundary of the general nonequilibrium state:

                                               (1)

where x_min – the lower boundary of the general nonequilibrium state;

а_i – the weighting coefficient of an indicator;

P_min – minimum score that can be assigned to an indicator;

n – the number of indicators.

The upper boundary of the stability zone is determined, on the contrary, on the basis of the assumption that all indicators characterizing the component of sustainable development are in equilibrium of the highest degree:

                                          (2)

where x_max – the upper boundary of the general nonequilibrium state;

а_i – the weighting coefficient of an indicator;

P_max – maximum score that can be assigned to an indicator;

n – the number of indicators.

Further, the width of the interval for the variation series is determined using the data of the maximum and minimum values and the required number of obtained groups. Thus, we can determine the threshold boundary of the stability zone, that is, the lower boundary of the first-degree equilibrium:

                                                 (3)

where x_th – the threshold boundary of the stability zone;

x_min – the lower boundary of the general nonequilibrium state;

I – the width of the interval for the variation series.

At the fifth stage, the total number of points is calculated for each of the four components of sustainable development for each of the three criteria in accordance with the actual scores of indicators:

                                               (4)

where x_c – the total number of points;

а_i – the weighting coefficient of an indicator;

P_c – the actual scores of indicators.

Stage six. Obviously, in the case of being in the zone of an equilibrium state, the following dependence operates between the actual total of points and the threshold value: the greater the distance between them, the higher the stability is. In the case of being in the zone of a nonequilibrium state, the goal is to move to the equilibrium zone; therefore, the closer the actual score to the threshold value, the lower the level of instability is. In this regard, reference distances can be determined, relative to which it is necessary to compare the actual distances (distance from the threshold value). The reference distance for the equilibrium  and nonequilibrium zones is calculated using formulas 5–6.

                                         (5)

where L_eq – the reference distance for the equilibrium zone;

x_max – the upper boundary of the general nonequilibrium state;

x_th – the threshold boundary of the stability zone.

                                       (6)

where L_dis – the reference distance for the nonequilibrium zone;

x_th – the threshold boundary of the stability zone;

x_min – the lower boundary of the general nonequilibrium state.

At the seventh stage, to determine the level of stability, it is necessary to compare the actual distance from the threshold boundary with the reference. Therefore, to calculate the final indicator of stability  or instability  of a component according to the criterion, it is necessary to use formulas 7–8.

 .                                                (7)

where S_d – the final indicator of stability;

L_c – the actual distance;

L_eq – the reference distance for the equilibrium zone.

 .                                            (8)

where IS_d – the final indicator of instability;

L_c – the actual distance;

L_dis – the reference distance for the nonequilibrium zone.

Stability indicators for components take positive values in the range from 0 to +1; instability, negative values in the range from –1 to 0.

At the eighth stage, the RDA code for sustainable development of the enterprise is formed and recognized. Since the indicators of stability/instability according to the criteria of reliability (r), dynamism (d), and acceptability (a) are calculated for all components (economic (EC), social (SL), ecological (ECL), information (IF)), it is possible to form an RDA code of sustainable development.

                    (9)

Based on the presented gradation of quantitative values, the RDA code of sustainable development has a certain form in terms of its qualitative characteristics. Above each code element, a designation is introduced regarding the change in values compared to the previous period (­ or ¯) and a special designation in case the current level is the result of a transition due to this change (T).

At the ninth stage, to expand the characteristics of the RDA code of sustainable enterprise development, it is necessary to conduct a statistical assessment of the obtained quantitative indicators by components and criteria for a certain period. The tasks of such an assessment are to find the trend of changes in the indicators of stability/instability of the components, the degree of its continuity, and the degree of variability in the rate of change. The statistical coefficients that most adequately contribute to the solution of these problems are the Spearman coefficient and the coefficient of variation of growth rates. Evaluation using these coefficients makes it possible to characterize the distance that was covered by the enterprise during the study period and the result of which is the level of stability/instability achieved at the end of the period.

Thus, the problem of sustainable development has not only remained on the agenda of the world community at all levels for several decades but is also becoming increasingly relevant in connection with modern trends. To orient enterprises towards the principles of sustainable development, various tools, methods, and models for ensuring sustainable development have been developed.

However, to understand the degree of success and the effectiveness of their integration into the activities of an enterprise, it is necessary to diagnose the quantitative values of indicators for the components of sustainable development and to interpret them qualitatively. The subject of such an assessment is the combination of parameters that have developed in the conditions and circumstances of the internal and external environment, which determine sustainable development by components and criteria.

The RDA code for sustainable enterprise development, which is formed according to the methodology presented by the author, reflects the three-criterion characteristics that the economic, social, environmental, and information components acquire. The application of the developed methodology at small and medium-sized industrial enterprises made it possible to obtain relevant results and confirmed its practical significance. It has been established that the most problematic is the information and environmental determinants of sustainable development. Enterprises experience the greatest difficulties in ensuring sustainability by the criteria of dynamism and acceptability. Detailed study and display of results for each component and criterion allowed us to display as accurately as possible the picture of the activities of enterprises from the standpoint of sustainable development. In their practice, this serves as a guideline for making managerial decisions within the organizational and economic mechanism of management.

References:

1. Aroshidze, A.A (2021). To the question of the components of sustainable development of enterprises. Economic Sciences. 196 (3): 55-59. doi: 10.14451/1.196.55.
2.  Malesios, C., De, D., Moursellas, A., Dey, P.K., Evangelinos, K. (2020). Sustainability performance analysis of small and medium sized enterprises: Criteria, methods and framework. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences. 100993.  doi: 10.1016/j.seps.2020.100993
3. Da Silva, J., Fernandes, V., Limont, M., Rauen, W.B. (2020). Sustainable development assessment from a capitals perspective: Analytical structure and indicator selection criteria. Journal of Environmental Management. 260: 110147.  doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110147
4. Gu, W., Zheng, X. (2021). An empirical study on the impact of sustainable entrepreneurship: Based on the environmental Kuznets model. Journal of Business Research. 123: 613-624.  doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.011
5. Trianni, A., Cagno, E., Neri, A., Howard, M. (2019). Measuring industrial sustainability performance: Empirical evidence from Italian and German manufacturing small and medium enterprises. Journal of Cleaner Production. 229: 1355-1376.  doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.076
6. Naderi, M., Ares, E., Peláez, G., Prieto, D., Araújo, M. (2019). Sustainable Operations Management for Industry 4.0 and its Social Return. IFAC-PapersOnLine. 52: 457-462.  doi: 10.1016/j.ifacol.2019.11.102
7. Nekhoroshkov, V., Aroshidze, A. (2019). Sustainable development of agricultural enterprises: economic component. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 403: 012228. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/403/1/012228
8. Singh, S., Olugu, E.U., Musa, S.N. (2016). Development of Sustainable Manufacturing Performance Evaluation Expert System for Small and Medium Enterprises. Procedia CIRP. 40: 608-613.  doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2016.01.142
9. Ike, M., Donovan, J.D., Topple, C., Masli, E.K. (2019). A holistic perspective on corporate sustainability from a management viewpoint: Evidence from Japanese manufacturing multinational enterprises. Journal of Cleaner Production. 216: 139-151.  doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.151