“…Other shortcomings, identified with most sustainability frameworks, include, but are not limited to, the following: - “no useful method for integrated sustainability on the company level” (Krajnc & Glavič, );
- “no comprehensive framework of sustainability criteria for assessing sustainability of manufacturing companies” (Krajnc & Glavič, );
- “existing tools miss a holistic approach on sustainability” (Hasna, );
- “existing frameworks for indicators are aimed at external reporting, rather than providing valuable information for internal decision makers” (Feng & Joung, );
- “current solutions tend to mix sustainability performance of a company and sustainability oriented practices” (Schneider & Meins, );
- “no comprehensive models and tools covering all three [ESG] aspects of sustainability in a holistic approach” (Bettoni, Alge, Rovere, Pedrazzoli, & Canetta, ; Poveda & Lipsett, ; Singh, Murty, Gupta, & Dikshit, );
- “no clear framework for measures and metrics at strategic, tactical, and operational levels in sustainable business development” (Gunasekaran & Spalanzani, );
- “inability to provide a practical approach for the companies to identify improvements and possible sustainability‐oriented practices” (Despeisse, Oates, & Ball, ; Smith & Ball, );
- “sustainability tools may appear too theoretical and abstract” (Rosen & Kishawy, ; Singh et al, );
- “lack of tools that assess the status of sustainability, based on key performance indicators, and that derive priorities for systematic improvement” (Chen, Thiede, Schudeleit, & Herrmann, );
- “companies measure what is measurable, rather than what is necessary, due to the challenge of simultaneously, addressing organizational context and sustainability phenomenon” (Hák, Janoušková, & Moldan, ); and
- “use of incomprehensive and unsystematic lists of indicators for sustainability in manufacturing” (Hallstedt, ).
…”