Environmental management practices and engineering science: A review and typology for future research

Evangelinos, Konstantinos; Allan, Stuart; Jones, Keith; Nikolaou, Ioannis E.

doi:10.1002/ieam.1504

Cited by 13 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 93 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While Green BPM provides a process-focussed approach to make organizations less environmentally harmful (Couckuyt and Van Looy, 2019), companies also adopt rather product-focussed environmental management practices (Evangelinos et al, 2014;Hasan et al, 2019). For instance, environmental instruments such as ecolabels assist organizations to produce green products and services by providing sustainability criteria (Dangelico, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An exploration of green business process maturity based on ecolabels

Couckuyt

Looy

2021

BPMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe discipline of business process management (BPM) is challenged by investigating how work is performed in organizations while simultaneously recognizing preeminent environmental issues. Although organizations have become more open to the ecological impact of business processes through Green BPM, research in this field and guidance for practitioners remains relatively limited. Therefore, this study aims to extend and translate the conventional perspective on business process maturity towards green business process maturity levels.Design/methodology/approachThe authors bridged product-focussed and process-focussed environmental management practices by surveying ecolabels against theoretical capability areas for business process maturity. Since ecolabels are instruments to develop environmental-friendly products and services, the authors looked at the underlying processes to produce such green outcomes. By surveying 89 ecolabel organizations, the authors had indirectly access to an international set of companies, operating in distinct industries and producing a wide variety of green products and services.FindingsThe authors statistically uncovered a classification of four groups of ecolabels based on the process capabilities, each representing a distinct green business process maturity level. The four levels are “Green BP immaturity”, “Green BPL maturity”, “Green BPM maturity” and “Green BPO maturity” and align with well-established concepts in the business process literature and profession.Originality/valueScholars are encouraged to elaborate on the identified maturity levels in order to build and test a green business process maturity model, whereas practitioner-related advice is provided based on possible green business process maturity journeys towards excellence.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An exploration of green business process maturity based on ecolabels

Couckuyt

Looy

2021

BPMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Born in the 1970s, environmental assessment was established first to satisfy growing public concerns on our ecosystem but also to pursue and better develop industrial activities (Bouvier, 2006;Gorova, Pavlychenko, Borysovs'ka, & Krups'ka, 2013). In order to reduce, regulate, control or adjust environmental risks arising from human activities, environmental impact assessment (EIA) is the best known tool to date before implementing any industrial projects (Evangelinos, Allan, Jones, & Nikolaou, 2014). EIA, for its part, is a crucial internal step in any project involving negative impacts on the ecosystem where it must be implemented.…”

Section: Introduction and Scope Of Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic Matrix for an Adaptive Environment Management in Mining: A Feed-engineering Alternative?

Lagnika

Häusler

Glaus

2018

EMSD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Environment impacts are usually determined by quantification or an evaluation system derived from several methodologies including environmental assessment, matrices, and data cross-referencing. This study uses a dataset obtained from validated mining Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), some monitoring reports and scientific insights on open-pit mines (OPM). The purpose here is to build a dynamic matrix system over time to facilitate a systemic evaluation of environmental impacts and to find in-depth preventive measures in any OPM. The four dynamic matrices are built with qualitative and numerical values in both magnitude and significance terms. As one of the issues is to minimize negative risks in OPMs, one outcome points out the environmental factors of mining operations sensitive to the variations over time and the variability of the parameters themselves. The results show secondly that the data (qualitative and quantitative) vary from EIA stage to a post EIA status like activities or environmental factors numbers. Thirdly, the impact of activities on each part of environment components and the incidence of all activities during the mines’ life cycle is easier to identify whatever the data density. In the fourth line, this paper indicates that the dynamic matrix in an optimal alternative in the process of determining preventive measures to mitigate the risks and the need for an interactive environmental follow-up program in mining or similar industry. This approach reduces the following-up monitoring weaknesses and allows managers, as a multi-criterion decision-making approach, to take enlightened actions.

show abstract

“…Energy use is a common impact category in life cycle assessment (LCA), which is an established method for environmental assessment and management (ISO ; Evangelinos et al ; Hellweg and Milà i Canals ). Life cycle energy use—sometimes referred to as the embedded, imbedded, or embodied energy use—reveals how much energy is required to produce a product or service throughout its life cycle.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A framework for energy use indicators and their reporting in life cycle assessment

Arvidsson

Svanström

2016

Integr Environ Assess Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

EDITOR'S NOTE:This is 1 of 6 articles generated from the 20th SETAC Europe LCA Case Study Symposium entitled "LCA in promoting ecoinnovation and sustainability: education, research and application" (November 2014, Novi Sad, Serbia). The symposium identified how LCA can contribute to innovation and enhance the (re)design of new and existing products and services, by respecting ecodesign principles. The papers in this series reflect the recent application of LCA in industrial and energy sectors in Europe. ABSTRACTEnergy use is a common impact category in life cycle assessment (LCA). Many different energy use indicators are used in LCA studies, accounting for energy use in different ways. Often, however, the choice behind which energy use indicator is applied is poorly described and motivated. To contribute to a more purposeful selection of energy use indicators and to ensure consistent and transparent reporting of energy use in LCA, a general framework for energy use indicator construction and reporting in LCA studies will be presented in this article. The framework differentiates between 1) renewable and nonrenewable energies, 2) primary and secondary energies, and 3) energy intended for energy purposes versus energy intended for material purposes. This framework is described both graphically and mathematically. Furthermore, the framework is illustrated through application to a number of energy use indicators that are frequently used in LCA studies: cumulative energy demand (CED), nonrenewable cumulative energy demand (NRCED), fossil energy use (FEU), primary fossil energy use (PFEU), and secondary energy use (SEU). To illustrate how the application of different energy use indicators may lead to different results, cradle-to-gate energy use of the bionanomaterial cellulose nanofibrils (CNF) is assessed using 5 different indicators and showing a factor of 3 differences between the highest and lowest results. The relevance of different energy use indicators to different actors and contexts will be discussed, and further developments of the framework are then suggested.Integr Environ Assess Manag 2016;12:429-436.

show abstract

Environmental management practices and engineering science: A review and typology for future research

Cited by 13 publications

References 93 publications

An exploration of green business process maturity based on ecolabels

An exploration of green business process maturity based on ecolabels

Dynamic Matrix for an Adaptive Environment Management in Mining: A Feed-engineering Alternative?

A framework for energy use indicators and their reporting in life cycle assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About