Search Results

1 - 10 of 182 items :

  • "environmental performance" x
Clear All

References Bănică Al., Sandu Alexandra, Breabăn Iuliana Gabriela, (2013), Resilient Romanian Regions: Recent trends in environmental performance, presentation at IX-th International Conference Man-City-Nature, Integrated development of cities and regions, 14-15 octombrie 2013, Torun, Polonia. Bălteanu D., Popovici Elena Ana,(2010), Land use changes and land degradation in postsocialist Romania, Romanian Journal of Geography, vol. 54 (2). Bellenger M. J., Herlihy A. T., (2010), Performance-based environmental index weights: Are all metrics created equal

environmental performance. Business Strategy and the Environment , 27(3), 415−435. DOI: 10.1002/bse.2007. Hassel, L., Nilsson, H. & Nyquist S. (2005). The value relevance of environmental performance. European Accounting Review , 14(1), 41−61. DOI: 10.1080/0963818042000279722. Hermann, B.G., Kroeze, C. & Jawjit W. (2007). Assessing environmental performance by combining life cycle assessment, multi-criteria analysis and environmental performance indicators. Journal of Cleaner Production , 15(18), 1787−1796. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.04.004. Hsu, A. & Zomer A. (2014

Structured Approach to Combine Models of the Technosphere, Ecosphere and Valuesphere. Kluwers Academic Publishers HOLMAN, W. R., NEW, J. R., & SINGER, D. (1985): The impact of corporate social responsiveness on shareholder wealth. In L. Preston (Ed.), Research in corporate social performance and policy, vol. 7: 137-152. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. ISO 14001: Environmental management systems. Specification with guidance for use (ISO 14001:2004), Hungarian Standards Institution, Budapest, 2005 ISO 14031: Environmental management. Environmental performance evaluation

zanieczyszczenie poszczególnych elementów przyrodniczych albo środowiska jako całości. [online] Available at: http://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20140001169 ifu Hamburg - Productivity meets Sustainability, LCA Software. [online] Available at: www.ifu.com [Accessed 25 May 2018]. Kowalski Z., Kulczycka J. and Góralczyk M. (2007). Ekologiczna ocena cyklu życia procesów wytwórczych (LCA). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. Marcinkowski, A and Zych, K. (2017). Environmental performance of kettle production: Product Life Cycle Assessment. Management Systems in

Abstract

The main objective of this paper is to compare the environmental impact caused by two different types of water boiling processes. The aim was achieved thanks to product life cycle assessment (LCA) conducted for stovetop and electric kettles. A literature review was carried out. A research model was worked out on the basis of data available in literature as well as additional experiments. In order to have a better opportunity to compare LCA results with reviewed literature, eco-indicator 99 assessment method was chosen. The functional unit included production, usage and waste disposal of each product (according to from cradle to grave approach) where the main function is boiling 3360 l of water during 4-year period of time. A very detailed life cycle inventory was carried out. The mass of components was determined with accuracy of three decimal places (0.001 g). The majority of environmental impact is caused by electricity or natural gas consumption during usage stage: 92% in case of the electric and kettle and 99% in case of stovetop one. Assembly stage contributed in 7% and 0.8% respectively. Uncertainty and sensitivity analyses took into consideration various waste scenario patterns as well as demand for transport. Environmental impact turned out to be strongly sensitive to a chosen pattern of energy delivery (electricity mix) which determined final comparison results. Basing on LCA results, some improvements of products were suggested. The boiling time optimization was pointed out for electric kettle's efficiency improvement. Obtained results can be used by manufacturers in order to improve their eco-effectiveness. Moreover, conclusions following the research part can influence the future choices of home appliances users.

: Cambridge University Press. 20. Hillman, A. and Keim, G., 2001. Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: what´s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22(2), pp.125-139. 21. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J. and Minkov, M., 2010. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. Revised and Expanded 3rd Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill USA. 22. Hofstede, G., 1996. Managementul structurilor multiculturale. Software-ul gândirii. BucureSti: Economica Publishing House. 23. Hsu, A., 2016. 2016 Environmental Performance Index. New Haven: Yale University

. Ecological Economics , Vol.53, pp.403-413. 11. Grossman G. and Krueger, A. (1995). Economic Growth and the Environment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics , Vol.110, Issue 2, pp.353-377. 12. Holtz-Eakin, D., Selden, T.M. (1992). Stoking the fires? CO2 emissions and economic growth. NBER Working Paper 4248. 13. Harbaugh, W., Levinson, A., Wilson, D. (2002). Re-examining the empirical evidence for an environmental Kuznets curve. The Review of Economics and Statistics , Vol. 84, pp.541–551. 14. Hsu, A. et al. (2016). 2016 Environmental Performance Index. New Haven, CT

Conference of the Greening of Industry Network, Göteborg, Sweden. Hansen, E. G., Schaltegger, S., (2012) “Pursuing Sustainability with the Balanced Scorecard: Between Shareholder Value and Multiple Goal Optimisation”, Working Paper, Centre for Sustainability Management. Henry, J. F., Journeault, M. (2008) “Environmental Performance Indicators: An empirical study of Canadian manufacturing firms”, Journal of Environmental Management, 87: 165-176. Hsu, Y.L., Liu, C.C., (2009) “Environmental performance evaluation and strategy management using balanced scorecard

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to ascertain the perception of management on the benefits of adopting an environmental management accounting (EMA) system as a waste management tool in a paper and pulp manufacturing company. This paper highlights the benefits of an EMA system and the role and importance of EMA as a decision-making tool in encouraging the adoption of cleaner production (CP) techniques and technologies. This research was based on a case study of a paper and pulp manufacturing company in KwaZulu-Natal. This research was both quantitative and qualitative in nature. Data collection instruments for the study included a Likert-type questionnaire and interviews with the environmental manager and cost accountant but the findings reported in this paper are based on the empirical evidence gathered from the questionnaire which identified that there was positive correlation between environmental performance and CP techniques and technologies. Environmental costs were hidden under general overheads and understated because the company was using a conventional costing system and not an EMA system; hence, environmental costs were not traced back to the products or processes responsible for those costs. It was evident from the qualitative data analysis that management regarded their environmental costs as too insignificant to justify implementation of an EMA system. The consequent reluctance of the company to adopt CP resulted in poor waste management and lower-quality environmental performance.

Abstract

Environmental Management Accounting (EMA) is a broader concept of accounting which uses accounting tools and practices to support company-internal management decision making on environmental issues and its impact on company performance. Research on EMA can be divided into two broad categories: theoretical and empirical studies. The theoretical studies based on framework that aim to explain the nature of the relationship between economic and environmental performance and the adoption of Environmental Management Accounting in a business environment. The empirical studies follow two lines of research, instrumental studies aim to empirically test the relationships hypothesized in theoretical studies; descriptive studies are intended to examine the factors that encourage the adoption of EMA. This review paper examined the role of MFCA in identifying non-product output (waste) and its impact on an organisations profitability. Various case studies are examined in this article that demonstrates MFCA to an important environmental management tool to ensure future sustainability of an organisation.