TY - JOUR
T1 - A framework of sustainable consumption and production from the production perspective
T2 - Application to Thailand and Vietnam
AU - Yagi, Michiyuki
AU - Kokubu, Katsuhiko
N1 - Funding Information:
We thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions. This research was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant numbers JP17K12856 and JP16H03679 and the Environment Research and Technology Development Fund ( S-16 ) of the Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency , Japan (Grant number JPMEERF16S11600). We also would like to thank Dr. Nguyen Thi Bich Hue (Foreign Trade University, Vietnam) for her assistance in the questionnaire survey in Vietnam.
Funding Information:
Meanwhile, in Thailand, EMS (60%), EMA (72%), and MF management (58%) have spread to some extent, and EMCS appears to have been introduced slightly (i.e., correlating MF management with the cost rate and profitability). To further disseminate EMCS, there are two options. One is to promote EMS/EMA in a step-by-step fashion as a foundation for EMCS because EMCS is not standardized, unlike EMS/EMA. Another is to support directly the implementation of EMCS in conjunction with MFCA and MCS (Kokubu and Nagasaka, 2019), just as MFCA has been implemented through some initiatives by the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry in Japan (Kokubu and Kitada, 2015) and by the Asian Productivity Organization (2018) in Asian countries. With MFCA and MCS, firms can find inefficient processes to improve as a premise for their efficiency approach.Regarding the discussion in the academic SCP, certain firms seem to have implemented MF management (both countries) and the efficiency approach (EMCS in Thailand), possibly because the SDGs approach is seen as beneficial to a business (Pedersen, 2018). However, firms still cannot afford to implement the systemic approach (Bengtsson et al., 2018) and cannot be ?big D? actors (Scheyvens et al., 2016). The estimation results of this study are part of the SCP scheme (e.g., Lukman et al., 2016; Vergragt et al., 2014, 2016) and the existing SCP policies (e.g., Akenji and Bengtsson, 2014; Brodhag, 2010; Geels et al., 2015; Stevens, 2010). For example, Dobes's (2016) initial review for SCP could be more effective than this study's model in terms of actual business improvement. However, thus far, such evidence for the SCP-via-SDGs approach has not been explicitly derived from the academic SCP. Note that the results of this study partially support Dubey et al. (2016), which argued that top management participation for SCP is affected by normative pressures (e.g., B-to-B business) and mimetic pressures (e.g., market competition) and that information sharing (EMA) and reducing behavioral uncertainty among the stakeholders (e.g., EMS) are important for SCP implementation (MF management).We thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions. This research was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant numbers JP17K12856 and JP16H03679 and the Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (S-16) of the Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency, Japan (Grant number JPMEERF16S11600). We also would like to thank Dr. Nguyen Thi Bich Hue (Foreign Trade University, Vietnam) for her assistance in the questionnaire survey in Vietnam.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd
PY - 2020/12/10
Y1 - 2020/12/10
N2 - In the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted by the United Nations (UN), goal 12 (“ensure sustainable consumption and production [SCP] patterns”) has eight outcome targets (12.1–12.8) and three targets for the means of implementation (MoI) (12.a–12.c). This “SCP-via-SDGs” approach is a much narrower, specific concept based on historical agreements that range from the Stockholm conference (1972) to the 10-Year Framework of Programmes (10YFP) (2012–2022). Meanwhile, “the academic SCP” is a highly interdisciplinary and complex approach that pursues an answer to what sustainability is, and it has not explicitly provided the SCP-via-SDGs framework at present. Thus, this study proposes a five-by-five framework for the SCP-via-SDGs approach from the production perspective (i.e., for individual firms), following the literature on corporate environmental management. The five stages (I–V) consider environmental management systems (EMS; I. strategy and process) for target 12.4, environmental management accounting (EMA; II. accounting and disclosure) for 12.6, and environmental management control systems (EMCS; III. financial, IV. environmental, and V. overall performance) for 12.2. Meanwhile, the five factors (1–5) consider the baseline and material flow (MF) factors (total waste, hazardous waste, raw materials used, and recycled waste) for targets 12.3 and 12.5. As an application, this study surveyed non-financial listed firms in Vietnam and compared the results to a previous study on Thailand. The results show that the firms are more likely to be at stage III (financial performance of EMCS) in Thailand and stage I or II (EMS or EMA) in Vietnam, suggesting that each market requires its own SCP policies, depending on the economic growth of each.
AB - In the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted by the United Nations (UN), goal 12 (“ensure sustainable consumption and production [SCP] patterns”) has eight outcome targets (12.1–12.8) and three targets for the means of implementation (MoI) (12.a–12.c). This “SCP-via-SDGs” approach is a much narrower, specific concept based on historical agreements that range from the Stockholm conference (1972) to the 10-Year Framework of Programmes (10YFP) (2012–2022). Meanwhile, “the academic SCP” is a highly interdisciplinary and complex approach that pursues an answer to what sustainability is, and it has not explicitly provided the SCP-via-SDGs framework at present. Thus, this study proposes a five-by-five framework for the SCP-via-SDGs approach from the production perspective (i.e., for individual firms), following the literature on corporate environmental management. The five stages (I–V) consider environmental management systems (EMS; I. strategy and process) for target 12.4, environmental management accounting (EMA; II. accounting and disclosure) for 12.6, and environmental management control systems (EMCS; III. financial, IV. environmental, and V. overall performance) for 12.2. Meanwhile, the five factors (1–5) consider the baseline and material flow (MF) factors (total waste, hazardous waste, raw materials used, and recycled waste) for targets 12.3 and 12.5. As an application, this study surveyed non-financial listed firms in Vietnam and compared the results to a previous study on Thailand. The results show that the firms are more likely to be at stage III (financial performance of EMCS) in Thailand and stage I or II (EMS or EMA) in Vietnam, suggesting that each market requires its own SCP policies, depending on the economic growth of each.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85091671715&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85091671715&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124160
DO - 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124160
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85091671715
SN - 0959-6526
VL - 276
JO - Journal of Cleaner Production
JF - Journal of Cleaner Production
M1 - 124160
ER -
