Incorporating the Sustainability Concept in the Major Business Excellence Models
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Sustainability
- A cash flow viability to finance day-to-day operations and provide acceptable returns to shareholders;
- A raw material consumption rate that is lower than the rate of natural resource production;
- A good impact on society and its stakeholders.
2.2. International Business Excellence Models and Sustainability
- The Deming Prize for Individuals: Given to those who have made outstanding contributions to the study of TQM or those who have made outstanding contributions in the dissemination of TQM;
- The Deming Distinguished Service Award for Dissemination and Promotion (Overseas): Given to individuals who have made outstanding contributions in the dissemination and promotion of TQM;
- The Deming Prize: Given annually to organizations that have implemented TQM suitable for their management philosophy, scope/type/scale of business, and management environment;
- The Deming Grand Prize: Given annually to organizations that had maintained and further enhanced the level of TQM for more than three years after the winning of the Deming Prize or the Deming Grand Prize.
3. Materials and Methods
- The Direction that responds to the Why. Excellent companies, according to the model, determine their course in terms of purpose, stakeholder identification, strategy and governance, and performance systems.
- The Execution that responds to the How. The model’s “execution” section converts specified directives into outcomes through organizational changes that include stakeholder involvement, long-term value creation for stakeholders, and performance and transformation.
- The Results that solve the question of What. The “results” section assesses how well businesses are meeting key stakeholder expectations and achieving strategic and operational performance goals.
4. Results
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Hauber, D.C. A study of the EFQM Model. Financial Results, Sustainability and the Relation with ISO 9001. Master’s Thesis, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain, 2020. Available online: http://diposit.ub.edu/dspace/bitstream/2445/172128/1/TFM-INTBUS-Hauber_2020.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2021).
- Montiel, I.; Delgado-Ceballos, J. Defining and measuring corporate sustainability: Are we there yet? Organ. Environ. 2014, 27, 113–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations. Sustainability Development Goals. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/ (accessed on 20 October 2021).
- Nikolaou, I.E.; Tsalis, T.A.; Evangelinos, K.I. A framework to measure corporate sustainability performance: A strong sustainability-based view of firm. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2019, 18, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ISO 26000:2010; Guidance on Social Responsibility; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010.
- Jankalová, M.; Jankal, R. Sustainability assessment according to the selected business excellence models. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Garvare, R.; Isaksson, R. Sustainable development: Extending the scope of business excellence models. Meas. Bus. Excell. 2001, 5, 11–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Garvare, R.; Isaksson, R. Organizational sustainability management through minimized business excellence models. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Total Quality Management—Advanced and Intelligence Approaches, Belgrade, Serbia, 30 May–2 June 2005; pp. 33–40. [Google Scholar]
- Isaksson, R. Total quality management for sustainable development. Bus. Process Manag. J. 2006, 12, 632–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marrewijk, M.V.; Hardjono, T.W. European corporate sustainability framework for managing complexity and corporate transformation. J. Bus. Ethics 2003, 44, 121–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asif, M.; Searcy, C.; Garvare, R.; Ahmad, N. Including sustainability in business excellence models. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2011, 22, 773–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jankalová, M.; Jankal, R. The assessment of Corporate Social Responsibility: Approaches analysis. Entrep. Sustain. Issues 2017, 4, 441–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jankalova, M. Approaches to the evaluation of Corporate Social Responsibility. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2016, 39, 580–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- World Commission on Environment and Development—WCED. Our Common Future: The Brundtland Report; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Valor, C. Corporate social responsibility and corporate citizenship: Towards corporate accountability. Bus. Soc. Rev. 2005, 110, 191–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elkington, J. Cannibals with Forks; Capstone Publishing Limited: Oxford, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Dyllick, T.; Hockerts, K. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2002, 11, 130–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geissdoerfer, M.; Savaget, P.; Bocken, N.M.P.; Jan Hultink, E. The Circular Economy—A New Sustainability Paradigm? J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 143, 757–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kirchherr, J.; Reike, D.; Hekkert, M. Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 127, 221–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scipioni, S.; Russ, M.; Niccolini, F. From barriers to enablers: The role of organizational learning in transitioning SMEs into the Circular economy. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghisellini, P.; Cialani, C.; Ulgiati, S. A review on circular economy: The expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 114, 11–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Korhonen, J.; Honkasalo, A.; Seppälä, J. Circular economy: The concept and its limitations. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 143, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Searcy, C. Updating corporate sustainability performance measurement systems. Meas. Bus. Excell. 2011, 15, 44–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goyal, P.; Rahman, Z.; Kazmi, A.A. Corporate sustainability performance and firm performance research: Literature review and future research agenda. Manag. Decis. 2013, 51, 361–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Topple, C.; Donovan, J.D.; Masli, E.K.; Borgert, T. Corporate sustainability assessments: MNE engagement with sustainable development and the SDGs. Transnatl. Corp. 2017, 24, 61–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsalis, T.A.; Malamateniou, K.E.; Koulouriotis, D.; Nikolaou, I.E. New challenges for corporate sustainability reporting: United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for sustainable development and the sustainable development goals. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 1617–1629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Global Reporting Initiative—GRI. Consolidated set of GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards. 2020. Available online: https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/ (accessed on 26 October 2021).
- Porter, L.; Tanner, S. Assessing Business Excellence; Butterworth Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Union of Japanese Scientists and Engineers—JUSE. The Deming Prize. Available online: https://www.juse.or.jp/deming_en/ (accessed on 27 September 2021).
- Vokurka, R.; Stading, G.L.; Brazeal, J.A. Comparative analysis of national and regional quality awards. Qual. Prog. 2000, 33, 41–49. [Google Scholar]
- National Institute of Standards and Technology—NIST. Baldrige Performance Excellence Program. Available online: https://www.nist.gov/ (accessed on 27 November 2021).
- Bohoris, G.A. A comparative assessment of some major quality awards. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 1995, 12, 30–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- European Foundation for Quality Management—EFQM. The EFQM Model. Available online: https://efqm.org/ (accessed on 7 November 2021).
- Fonseca, L.; Amaral, A.; Oliveira, J. Quality 4.0: The EFQM 2020 model and Industry 4.0 relationships and implications. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Tabbaa, O.; Gadd, K.; Ankrah, S. Excellence models in the non-profit context: Strategies for continuous improvement. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 2013, 30, 590–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Escrig, A.B.; De Menezes, L.M. What characterizes leading companies within business excellence models? An analysis of “EFQM recognized for excellence” recipients in Spain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2015, 169, 362–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Neri, S.; Pinnington, A.H.; Lahrech, A.; Al-Malkawi, H.A.N. Top executives’ perceptions of the inclusion of corporate social responsibility in quality management. Bus. Ethics Eur. Rev. 2019, 28, 441–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martín-Gaitero, J.P.; Escrig-Tena, A.B. The relationship between EFQM levels of excellence and CSR. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 2018, 35, 1158–1176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aryanasl, A.; Ghodousi, J.; Arjmandi, R.; Mansouri, N. Can excellence management models encompass “cleaner production” and “sustainable business” revolution? (European Foundation for Quality Management as a case study). Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 13, 1269–1276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Palentová, V.; Šlaichová, E. The contribution to the integration of management systems oriented to the sustainable and TQM. Amfiteatru Econ. 2017, 19, 951–965. [Google Scholar]
- Adamek, P. An Investigation of interconnection between Business Excellence Models and corporate sustainability approach. Eur. J. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 7, 381–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fonseca, L. The EFQM 2020 model. A theoretical and critical review. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2021, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nenadál, J. The new EFQM model: What is really new and could be considered as a suitable tool with respect to quality 4.0 concept? Qual. Innov. Prosper. 2020, 24, 17–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Turisová, R.; Pačaiová, H.; Kotianová, Z.; Nagyová, A.; Hovanec, M.; Korba, P. Evaluation of e-Maintenance Application Based on the New Version of the EFQM Model. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Din, A.M.; Asif, M.; Awan, M.U.; Thomas, G. What makes excellence models excellent: A comparison of the American, European and Japanese models. TQM J. 2021, 33, 1143–1162. [Google Scholar]
- Purba, H.H. A Systematic Literature Review of Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA). J. Technol. Manag. Grow. Econ. 2021, 12, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- Miranda, R.D.; Reyes-Chua, E. Best Practices in Quality Assurance in Selected Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in the Philippines in the Light of the Malcolm Baldrige Framework. WSEAS Trans. Environ. Dev. 2021, 17, 533–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ford, M.W. Management standards and institutional influence: An exploratory study using the Baldrige criteria. Qual. Manag. J. 2022, 29, 18–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Institute of Standards and Technology—NIST. Baldrige Excellence Builder—Key Questions for Improving Your Organization’s Performance. Available online: https://www.nist.gov/baldrige/products-services/baldrige-excellence-builder (accessed on 27 November 2021).
- Baldrige Performance Excellence Program. 2021–2022 Framework: Leadership and Management Practices for High Performance; U.S. Department of Commerce: Washington, DC, USA; National Institute of Standards and Technology: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Union of Japanese Scientists and Engineers—JUSE. The Application Guide for The Deming Prize and The Deming Grand Prize 2022 For Companies and Organizations Overseas. Available online: https://www.juse.or.jp/upload/files/DP_en_oubo2022v4.pdf (accessed on 2 July 2022).
- Fonseca, L.; Carvalho, F. The reporting of SDGs by quality, environmental, and occupational health and safety-certified organizations. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Barbier, E.B.; Burgess, J.C. The Sustainable Development Goals and the systems approach to sustainability. Economics 2017, 11, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Val, P.A.; Regaliza, J.C.P.; Maraña, P.A. Quality in organizations: Its capacity for transformation to create sustainable value. Econ. Bus. Lett. 2020, 9, 306–316. [Google Scholar]
- Medne, A.; Lapina, I.; Zeps, A. Sustainability of a university’s quality system: Adaptation of the EFQM excellence model. Int. J. Qual. Serv. Sci. 2020, 12, 29–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Criteria and Sub-Criteria | Weight |
---|---|
Purpose, Vision & Strategy | 100 points |
1.1 Define Purpose & Vision | 20 points |
1.2 Identify & Understand Stakeholders Needs | 20 points |
1.3 Understand the Ecosystem, Own Capabilities & Major Challenges | 20 points |
1.4 Develop Strategy | 20 points |
1.5 Design & Implement a Governance & Performance Management System | 20 points |
Organisational Culture & Leadership | 100 points |
2.1 Steer the Organisation’s Culture and Nurture Values | 25 points |
2.2 Create the Conditions for Realising Change | 25 points |
2.3 Enable Creativity & Innovation | 25 points |
2.4 Unite Behind & Engage in Purpose, Vision & Strategy | 25 points |
Engaging Stakeholders | 100 points 1 |
3.1 Customers: Build Sustainable Relationships | 20 points |
3.2 People: Attract, Engage, Develop & Retain | 20 points |
3.3 Business & Governing Stakeholders: Secure & Sustain Ongoing Support | 20 points |
3.4 Society: Contribute to Development, Well-Being & Prosperity | 20 points |
3.5 Partners & Suppliers: Build Relationships & Ensure Support for Creating Sustainable Value | 20 points |
Creating Sustainable Value | 200 points |
4.1 Design the Value & How it is Created | 50 points |
4.2 Communicate & Sell the Value | 50 points |
4.3 Deliver the Value | 50 points |
4.4 Define & Implement the Overall Experience | 50 points |
Driving Performance & Transformation | 100 points |
5.1 Driver Performance & Manage Risk | 20 points |
5.2 Transform the Organisation for the Future | 20 points |
5.3 Drive Innovation & utilise Technology | 20 points |
5.4 Leverage Data, Information & Knowledge | 20 points |
5.5 Manage Assets & Resources | 20 points |
Stakeholder Perceptions | 100 points 1 |
6.1 Customer Perception Results | 20 points |
6.2 People Perception Results | 20 points |
6.3 Business & Governing Stakeholders Perception Results | 20 points |
6.4 Society Perception Results | 20 points |
6.5 Partners & Suppliers Perception Results | 20 points |
Strategic & Operational Performance | 200 points |
Criteria | Sub-Criteria |
---|---|
Organizational Profile | P.1 Organizational Description |
P.2 Organizational Situation | |
1 Leadership | 1.1 Senior Leadership |
1.2 Governance and Societal Contributions | |
2 Strategy | 2.1 Strategy Development |
2.2 Strategy Implementation | |
3 Customers | 3.1 Customer Expectations |
3.2 Customer Engagement | |
4 Measurement, Analysis, and Knowledge Management | 4.1 Measurement, Analysis, and Improvement of Organizational Performance |
4.2 Information and Knowledge Management | |
5 Workforce | 5.1 Workforce Environment |
5.2 Workforce Engagement | |
6 Operations | 6.1 Work Processes |
6.2 Operational Effectiveness | |
7 Results | 7.1 Product and Process Results |
7.2 Customer Results | |
7.3 Workforce Results | |
7.4 Leadership and Governance Results | |
7.5 Financial, Market, and Strategy Results |
Evaluation Items | Points | Passing Points |
---|---|---|
A. Establishment of business objectives and strategies and top management’s leadership | ||
I. Establishment of proactive customer-oriented business objectives and strategies | 100 | 70 or above |
II. Role of top management and its fulfillment | ||
B. Suitable utilization and implementation of TQM | ||
III. Suitable utilization and implementation of TQM for the realization of business objectives and strategies | 100 | 70 or above |
1. Organizational deployment of business objectives and strategies | (15) | |
2. Creation of new values based on understanding of customer and social needs and innovation of technology and business model | (15) | |
3. Management and improvement of quality of products and services and/or work process | (15) | |
4. Establishment and operation of cross-functional management systems such as quality, quantity, delivery, cost, safety, environment, etc. across the supply chain | (15) | |
5. Collection and analysis of information and accumulation and utilization of knowledge | (15) | |
6. Development and active utilization of human resource and organizational capability | (15) | |
7. Initiatives for social responsibility of the organization | (10) | |
C. Effects of TQM | ||
IV. Effects obtained regarding business objectives and strategies through utilization and implementation of TQM | 100 | 70 or above |
V. Outstanding TQM activities and acquisition of organizational capabilities |
Criteria/Sub-Criteria | Content |
---|---|
1.1 Define Purpose & Vision | …Identifies areas in which outstanding and sustainable levels of performance must be achieved to fulfil the Vision. |
1.2 Identify & Understand Stakeholders Needs | The purpose sets the scene for it to create and deliver sustained value for its stakeholders. |
1.3 Understand the Ecosystem, Own Capabilities & Major Challenges | …Researches and understands the ecosystem, including Megatrends, and the consequences on it of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. Assesses and evaluates the data, information and knowledge gathered from across its ecosystem to understand the major challenges for today and in the future. |
2.1 Steer the Organization’s Culture and Nurture Values | Identifies, recognizes and promotes other role models from within its ecosystem that are leading the way to a more sustainable future for everyone |
3. Engaging Stakeholders | Involves Key Stakeholders in deploying its Strategy and Creating Sustainable Value and recognizes the contributions they make. Works with its Key Stakeholders to develop a common understanding and focus on how, through co-development, it can contribute to, and draw inspiration from, the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and Global Compact ambitions. Evaluates its performance in relation to Key Stakeholders needs and decides on the appropriate actions to be taken to help secure its future, as perceived by these Key Stakeholders. |
3.1 Customers: Build Sustainable Relationships | Maintains a relationship with its customers during all stages of creating Sustainable Value. |
3.5 Partners & Suppliers: Build Relationships & Ensure Support for Creating Sustainable Value | Builds a trusting relationship with its Key Partners and Suppliers to support the objective of Creating Sustainable Value. |
4. Creating Sustainable Value | The organization’s clearly defined Purpose, enriched by the Strategy, defines for whom the organization should be Creating Sustainable Value. In most cases, customers, segmented appropriately, are the target group for Creating Sustainable Value, although some organizations might also focus on selected Key Stakeholders within its Society or Business & Governing Stakeholder segments. |
4.3 Deliver the Value | Delivers sustainable value…. |
5. Driving Performance & Transformation | The combination of Driving Performance & Transformation confirms the necessity for the organization to deliver for today while preparing for the future. |
5.1 Driver Performance & Manage Risk | Uses the performance management system to ensure a coherent link between its Purpose, Strategy, Sustainable Value creation objectives and results. |
5.2 Transform the Organization for the Future | Identifies the transformation and change needs, considering its Purpose, Strategy, Sustainable Value creation objectives and Results and scanning its ecosystem to forecast the main challenges and opportunities for the future. |
5.4 Leverage Data, Information & Knowledge | Converts data into information and knowledge… for creating further sustainable value…. Makes use of the knowledge held by key stakeholders to generate ideas and innovations, including the potential for working together, to develop products, services, and solutions that create sustainable value. |
5.5 Manage Assets & Resources | Uses financial resources in a balanced and sustainable way…. |
6. Stakeholder Perceptions | In addition to the perceptions that a Key Stakeholder may have of an organization based on personal experiences, perceptions may also be shaped by the environmental and social impact reputation of the organization. For instance, the degree to which the organization is perceived by its Key Stakeholders as contributing successfully to one or more of the UN’s Nations Sustainable Development Goals and Global Compact ambitions. The usage of technology by the organization to help deliver sustainable value… |
7. Strategic & Operational Performance | …Achievements in delivering its Purpose and creating Sustainable Value… |
Criteria/Sub-Criteria | Content |
---|---|
1.1 Senior Leadership | This item asks about the key aspects of the senior leaders’ responsibilities, with the aim of creating an organization that is successful now and in the future. Senior leaders play a central role in setting values and directions…and focus on organizational sustainability. Role-model senior leaders model the valuing of diversity, and promote equity (fair treatment) and inclusion (intentional engagement) for all people associated with the organization, creating a sense of belonging. |
1.2 Governance and Societal Contributions | This item asks how the organization ensures that everyone in the organization behaves legally and ethically, how it fulfills its societal contributions, and how it supports its key communities. Role-model organizations look for opportunities to excel in areas of legal and ethical behavior. This item asks organizations to anticipate public concerns, to conserve natural resources through the use of “green” technologies, reduction of their carbon footprint, replacement of hazardous chemicals with water-based chemicals, energy conservation, use of cleaner energy sources, or recycling of by-products or wastes, to consider their societal contributions by seeking opportunities to contribute to the well-being of environmental, social, and economic systems and opportunities to support key communities. |
5.1 Workforce Environment | Organizations benefit from a diverse workforce that reflects the changing marketplace. Diversity encompasses personal differences among workforce members in many domains, such as race, religion, color, gender, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, age and generation, education, and perspectives. Diversity of thinking enhances innovation and problem solving, and helps anticipate risks. |
5.2 Workforce Engagement | An equitable (fair) and inclusive work environment enhances workforce satisfaction and engagement, and maximizes the benefits to organizational performance that are gained from a diverse workforce. |
6.1 Work Processes | This item asks organizations to consider factors in work process design such as safety, long-term performance, environmental impact, organization’s carbon footprint and “green” manufacturing… |
6.2 Operational Effectiveness | All organizations, regardless of size, are required to meet minimum regulatory standards for workplace and workforce safety. |
7 Results | This category provides a system’s focus that encompasses all results necessary to sustaining an enterprise. |
7.1 Product and Process Results | Measures and indicators of process effectiveness and efficiency might include the following:
|
7.2 Customer Results | This item places an emphasis on customer-focused results that go beyond satisfaction measurements, because customer engagement and relationships are better indicators and measures of future success in the marketplace and of organizational sustainability. |
7.4 Leadership and Governance Results | This item asks organizations to provide results about environmental, legal, and regulatory compliance issues; results of oversight audits by government or funding agencies; noteworthy achievements in these areas, as appropriate; organizational contributions to societal well-being and support for key communities. |
7.5 Financial, Market, and Strategy Results | This item asks about organizations’ key financial and market results, which demonstrate their financial sustainability and their marketplace achievements. |
Evaluation Items | Content |
---|---|
I. Establishment of proactive customer-oriented business objectives and strategies | Under clear management belief, proactive customer-oriented business objectives and strategies has been established according to the management philosophy, industry, scale and environment, taking into account social responsibility of the organization. |
II. Role of top management and its fulfillment | Top management is exhibiting leadership in formulation of proactive customer-oriented business objectives and strategies and implementation of TQM. It has insight concerning business objectives, strategies and environmental change and understands the importance of enhancement of organizational capabilities, human resource development and corporate social responsibility. |
III. Suitable utilization and implementation of TQM for the realization of business objectives and strategies | |
6. Development and active utilization of human resource and organizational capability | Development of human resource and organizational capabilities is being carried out in a planned manner and it is useful in realization of business objectives and strategies and implementation of TQM, and activation of people and organization that supports them. |
7. Initiatives for social responsibility of the organization | The organization is aware of its role and responsibilities as a member of the society and has established specific indicators in this regard and is adopting initiatives proactively (for instance, environmental preservation, regional contribution, fair operating practices, respect for human rights, information security, etc.) according to its management philosophy, type of industry, business scale and business environment. |
V. Outstanding TQM activities and acquisition of organizational capabilities | The organization has obtained effects in the core areas for the realization of business objectives and strategies based on outstanding TQM activities regarding content and/or application of TQM and has acquired organizational capabilities necessary for its future sustainable growth. |
UN_SDGs | GRI Standards |
---|---|
UN_SDG_1 | 201-1, 201-3, 202-1, 202-2, 203-2, 413-2 |
UN_SDG_2 | 201-1, 203-1, 203-2, 206-1, 411-1, 413-2, 416-1, 416-2 |
UN_SDG_3 | 203-2, 305-1, 305-2, 305-3, 305-6, 305-7, 306-1, 306-2, 306-3, 306-4, 401-2, 403-2, 403-3 |
UN_SDG_4 | 205-2, 404-1, 404-2, 404-3, 410-1, 412-2 |
UN_SDG_5 | 201-1, 202-1, 203-1, 401-1, 401-2, 401-3, 404-1,404-3, 405-1, 405-2, 406-1, 414-1, 414-2 |
UN_SDG_6 | 303-1, 303-2, 303-3, 304-1, 304-2, 304-3, 304-4, 306-1, 306-2, 306-3, 306-5 |
UN_SDG_7 | 201-1, 203-1, 302-1, 302-2, 302-3, 302-4, 302-5 |
UN_SDG_8 | 201-1, 201-3, 202-1, 202-2, 203-2, 204-1, 301-1, 301-2, 301-3, 302-1, 302-2, 302-3, 302-4, 302-5, 303-3, 401-1, 401-2, 401-3,402-1, 403-1, 403-2, 403-3, 403-4, 404-1,404-2, 404-3, 405-1, 405-2, 406-1, 407-1, 408-1, 409-1, 414-1, 414-2 |
UN_SDG_9 | 201-1, 203-1 |
UN_SDG_10 | 201-1, 202-1, 203-1, 203-2, 204-1, 205-1, 205-3, 401-1, 404-1, 404-3, 405-2, 406-1, 412-3 |
UN_SDG_11 | 203-1, 413-1, 413-2 |
UN_SDG_12 | 204-1, 301-1, 301-2, 301-3, 302-1, 302-2, 302-3, 302-4, 302-5, 303-3, 305-1, 305-2, 305-3, 305-4, 305-6, 305-7, 306-1, 306-2, 306-3, 306-4, 308-1, 308-2, 417-1 |
UN_SDG_13 | 201-2, 302-1, 302-2, 302-3, 302-4, 302-5, 305-1, 305-2, 305-3, 305-4, 305-5, 305-6, 305-7 |
UN_SDG_14 | 304-1, 304-2, 304-3, 304-4, 305-1, 305-2, 305-3, 305-4, 305-5, 305-7, 306-1, 306-3, 306-5 |
UN_SDG_15 | 303-1, 303-2, 304-1, 304-2, 304-3, 304-4, 305-1, 305-2, 305-3, 305-4, 305-5, 305-7, 306-1, 306-2, 306-3, 306-5 |
UN_SDG_16 | 205-1, 205-2, 205-3, 206-1, 307-1, 406-1, 408-1, 410-1, 411-1, 412-1, 412-2, 412-3, 414-1, 414-2, 415-1, 416-2, 417-1, 417-2, 417-3, 418-1, 419-1 |
UN_SDG_17 | 201-1, 203-1, 203-2, 413-1, 413-2 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Politis, Y.; Grigoroudis, E. Incorporating the Sustainability Concept in the Major Business Excellence Models. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8175. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14138175
Politis Y, Grigoroudis E. Incorporating the Sustainability Concept in the Major Business Excellence Models. Sustainability. 2022; 14(13):8175. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14138175
Chicago/Turabian StylePolitis, Yannis, and Evangelos Grigoroudis. 2022. "Incorporating the Sustainability Concept in the Major Business Excellence Models" Sustainability 14, no. 13: 8175. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14138175