Development of Green Supermarket Evaluation Model Based on Green Process and Green Output—Case of Bangkok City
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Theoretical Framework
2.2. Research Design
2.3. Data Collection
2.4. Data Analytics
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Development of Major Indicators for Green Supermarket
3.1.1. Analysis of H1
Reliability Analysis
Descriptive Statistical Analysis
Correlation Analysis
Analysis of Major Indicators for Green Supermarket Evaluation
3.1.2. Analysis of H2
- X1 is social performance.
- X2 is environmental performance.
- X3 is economic performance.
- X4 is organization image performance.
- Y1 is green supermarket.
3.2. Development of the Draft Sub-Indicators for Green Supermarket Evaluation
3.2.1. Draft Sub-Indicators of Green Procurement
3.2.2. Draft Sub-Indicators of Green Storage
3.2.3. Draft Sub-Indicators of Green Service
3.2.4. Draft Sub-Indicators of Green Transportation
3.2.5. Draft Sub-Indicators of Green Environmental and Energy Management System
3.2.6. Draft Sub-Indicators of Social Performance
3.2.7. Draft Sub-Indicators of Environmental Performance
3.2.8. Draft Sub-Indicators of Economic Performance
3.2.9. Draft Sub-Indicators of Organization Image Performance
3.3. Development of Sub-Indicator Detail
3.4. Development of Green Supermarket Evaluation Model
GI | The green degree of the first level (or composite indicator) |
GII | The green degree of the second level |
GIII | The green degree of the third level |
GPURi | The set of sub-indicators for green procurement |
GSTOi | The set of sub-indicators for green storage |
GSERi | The set of sub-indicators for green service |
GTRAi GEESi | The set of sub-indicators for green transportation The set of sub-indicators for green environmental and energy management system |
SOCPi | The set of sub-indicators for social performance |
ENVPi | The set of sub-indicators for environmental performance |
ECOPi | The set of sub-indicators economic performance |
OIMPi | The set of sub-indicators organization image |
GGPRO | The green degree of green process |
GGPUR | The green degree of green procurement |
GGSTO | The green degree of green storage |
GGSER | The green degree of green service |
GGTRA GGEES | The green degree of green transportation The green degree of green environmental and energy management system |
GSOCP | The green degree of social performance |
GENVP | The green degree of environmental performance |
GECOP | The green degree of economic performance |
GOIMP | The green degree of organization image performance |
GGPUR | The green degree of the set of sub-indicators for green procurement |
GGSTOi | The green degree of the set of sub-indicators for green storage |
GGSERi | The green degree of the set of sub-indicators for green service |
GGTRAi GGEESi | The green degree of the set of sub-indicators for green transportation The green degree of the set of sub-indicators for green environmental and energy management system |
GSOCPi | The green degree of the set of sub-indicators for social performance |
GENVPi | The green degree of the set of sub-indicators for environmental performance |
GECOPi | The green degree of the set of sub-indicators for economic performance |
GOIMPi | The green degree of the set of sub-indicators for organization image performance |
β of GPUR | Indirect influence of green procurement on the green process |
β of GSTO | Indirect influence of green storage on the green process |
β of GSER | Indirect influence of green service on the green process |
β of GTRA β of GEES | Indirect influence of green transportation on the green process Indirect influence of green environmental and energy management system on the green process |
β of GPRO | Indirect influence of green process on the green supermarket |
β of SOCP | Direct influence of social performance on the green supermarket |
β of ENVP | Direct influence of environmental performance on the green supermarket |
β of ECOP | Direct influence of economic performance on the green supermarket |
β of OIMP | Direct influence of organization image performance on the green supermarket |
3.4.1. Determine the Green Supermarket Evaluation Model
- GI = {green degree of green supermarket as 0–1 or 0–100%} 0.941 × GOUT = GII
- GII = {GGPRO, GSOCP, GENVP, GECOP, GOIMP}
- GII = {GGPUR, GGSTO, GGSER, GGTRA, GGEES, GSOCP, GENVP, GECOP, GOIMP}
- GIII = {GGPUR1, …, GGPUR17; GGSTO1, …, GGSTO9; GGSER1, …, GGSER17;
- GGTRA1, …, GGTRA9; GGEES1, …, GGEES20; GSOCP1, …, GSOCP13; GSOCP1,…, GSOCP4;
- GECOP1, …, GECOP10; GOIMP1, …, GOIMP4;}
- Green supermarket (GI) = GII = GIII
3.4.2. Mathematical Model for Green Supermarket Evaluation
- (1)
- The green degree of sub-indicators of green procurement:
- (2)
- The green degree of sub-indicators of green storage:
- (3)
- The green degree of sub-indicators of green service:
- (4)
- The green degree of sub-indicators of green transportation:
- (5)
- The green degree of sub-indicators of green environmental and energy management system:
- (6)
- The green degree of sub-indicators of social performance:
- (7)
- The green degree of sub-indicators of environmental performance:
- (8)
- The green degree of sub-indicators of economic performance:
- (9)
- The green degree of sub-indicators of organization image performance:
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Abuzeinaba, A.; Arifa, Mohammed. Stakeholder engagement: A green business model indicator. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2014, 18, 505–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krause, J. The Potential of an Environmentally Friendly Business Strategy—Research from the Czech Republic. Int. J. Eng. Bus. Manag. 2015, 7, 6–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OXFAM International. Global Supermarkets. 2022. Available online: https://www.oxfam.org/en/take-action/campaigns/end-suffering-behind-your-food/supermarkets-scorecard (accessed on 1 March 2022).
- Mattias, E.; Spangberg, J. Carbon footprint and energy use of food waste management options for fresh fruit and vegetables from supermarkets. Waste Manag. 2017, 60, 786–799. [Google Scholar]
- Scholz, K.; Erikssona, M.; Strida, I. Carbon footprint of supermarket food waste. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 94, 56–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Assumpcao, J.J.; Campos, M.; Plaza-Ubeda, J.A.; Sehnem, S.; Vazquez-Brust, D. Green Supply Chain Management and business innovation. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 367, 132877. [Google Scholar]
- Akrasanee, N.; Ajanant, J. Manufacturing Industry protection in Thailand: Issues and Empirical Studies. In The Political Economy of Manufacturing Protection; Routledge: Abingdon-on-Thames, UK, 2017; pp. 77–98. [Google Scholar]
- Euromonitor. Retailing-Thailand: Market Indicators. Available online: http://www.euromonitor.com/retailing-in-thailand/report (accessed on 28 July 2022).
- Tunpaiboon, N. Business/Industry Outlook 2021–2023: Modern Retail Business. 2022. Available online: https://www.krungsri.com/th/research/industry/industry-outlook/wholesale-retail/modern-trade/io/io-modern-trade-21 (accessed on 1 March 2022).
- Karampour, M.; Sawalha, S.; Arias, J. Eco-Friendly Supermarkets—An Overview, Report 2, Public Report. 2016. Available online: http://www.supersmart-supermarket.info/downloads/2-eco-friendlysupermarkets (accessed on 29 October 2019).
- Wharton, C.; Vizcaino, M.; Berardy, A.; Opejin, A. Waste watchers: A food waste reduction intervention among households in Arizona. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 164, 105–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goossens, Y.; Wegner, A.; Schmidt, T. Sustainability Assessment of Food Waste Prevention Measures: Review of Existing Evaluation Practices. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2019, 3, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harriss, R.C.; Paton, D.; Elsayed, K. What we’re watching in green business. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2010, 88, 24–30. [Google Scholar]
- Corporate Eco Forum, The Nature Conservancy. The New Business Imperative: Valuing Natural Capital. 2012. Available online: http://www.corporateecoforum.com/valuingnaturalcapital (accessed on 28 July 2022).
- Shortt, K. Does ‘Going Green’ Make Economic Sense? Glucksman Fellowship Program Student Research Reports; The Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Glucksman Institute for Research in Securities Markets: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Viswanathan, L.; Varghese, G. Greening of Business: A Step Towards Sustainability. J. Public Aff. 2018, 18, e1705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thai Green Building Institute. Thai’s Rating of Energy and Environmental Sustainability for New Construction and Major Renovation; Thai Green Building Institute: Bangkok, Thailand, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Rodriguez-Plesa, E.; Dimand, A.; Alkadry, M.G. Community social capital, political values, or organizational capacity? Indicators of engagement in sustainable public procurement at the local level. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 338, 130556. [Google Scholar]
- Pinto, L. Green supply chain practices and company performance in Portuguese manufacturing sector. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2020, 29, 1832–1849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burke, K. Balanced Assessment: From Formative to Summative; Solution Tree Press: Bloomington, IN, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Dewey, J.; Theory of Valuation. International Encyclopedia of Unified Science. 1939. Available online: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.204950/page/n9/mode/2up (accessed on 1 March 2019).
- Kanjanawasee, S. Valuation Theory, 9th ed.; Chula Press: Bangkok, Thailand, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Esfahbodi, A.; Zhang, Y.; Watson, G.; Zhang, T. Governance pressures and performance outcomes of sustainable supply chain management—An empirical analysis of UK manufacturing industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 155, 66–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wojciechowski, A.; Becker, B.; Kichener, M.; Kreidler, B. Implementation of sustainability in innovation management: The idea to people, planet and profit process. J. Bus. Chem. 2019, 16, 26–40. [Google Scholar]
- Cherrafi, A.; Garza-Reyes, J.; Kumar, V.; Mishra, N.; Ghobadian, A.; Elfezazi, S. Lean, green practices and process innovation: A model for green supply chain performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2018, 206, 79–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bergmann, A. The link between corporate environmental and corporate financial performance—Viewpoints from practice and research. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shekari, H.; Ghatari, A.R. Promoting Corporate Image: A Reflection on Green Supply Chain Management Approach. Int. J. Manag. Bus. Res. 2013, 3, 311–324. [Google Scholar]
- Tavakol, M.; Dennick, R. Marking sense of Crobbach’ s alpha. Int. J. Med. Educ. 2011, 2, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yong, W.; Xu, D. Research on the Construction of Green Evaluation Model Based on IOT of Agricultural Products. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2014, 687, 4631–4637. [Google Scholar]
- Waddock, S.A.; Graves, S.B. Corporate social performance—Financial performance link. Strateg. Manag. J. 1997, 18, 303–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, S.; Vredenburg, H. Proactive corporate environmental strategy and the development of competitively valuable organizational capabilities. Strateg. Manag. J. 1998, 19, 729–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cameron, E.; Green, M. Making Sense of Change Management: A Complete Guide to the Models, Tools and Techniques of Organizational Change; Kogan: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Iraldo, F.; Testa, F.; Frey. Is an environmental management system able to influence environmental and competitive performance? The case of the eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS) in the European Union. J. Cleaner Prod. 2009, 65, 1444–1452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hillman, A.J.; Keim, G.D. Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line? Strateg. Manag. J. 2001, 22, 125–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grolleau, G.; Mzoughi, N.; Thomas, A. What drives agrifood firms to register for an environmental management system? Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2007, 34, 233–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aroonsrimorakot, S.; Laiphrakpam, M.; Arunlertaree, C.; Korattana, C. Green office, its features and importance for sustainable environmental management: A comparative review in search for similarities and differences. Interdiscip. Res. Rev. 2020, 14, 31–38. [Google Scholar]
- Wong, C.W.Y.; Wong, C.Y.; Boon-itt, S. Green Service Practices: Performance Implications and the Role of Environmental Management Systems. Serv. Sci. Artic. Adv. 2013, 5, 69–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Factors | Sub-Factors | Items | n | * | SD * | Alpha |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
On a scale of one (1: least agree) to five (5: most agree), please select the number that best describes the level of your opinion, the factors affecting a green supermarket from the following: | ||||||
Green process | Green procurement | Green procurement affects social performance | 274 | 4.50 | 0.697 | 0.897 |
Green procurement affects environmental performance | 274 | 4.50 | 0.697 | |||
Green procurement affects economic performance | 274 | 4.36 | 0.768 | |||
Green procurement affects organization image performance | 274 | 4.45 | 0.668 | |||
Green storage | Green storage affects social performance | 274 | 4.43 | 0.704 | 0.889 | |
Green storage affects environmental performance | 274 | 4.43 | 0.704 | |||
Green storage affects economic performance | 274 | 4.28 | 0.800 | |||
Green storage affects organization image performance | 274 | 4.46 | 0.685 | |||
Green service | Green service affects social performance | 274 | 4.42 | 0.687 | 0.881 | |
Green service affects environmental performance | 274 | 4.42 | 0.687 | |||
Green service affects economic performance | 274 | 4.36 | 0.777 | |||
Green service affects organization image performance | 274 | 4.48 | 0.680 | |||
Green transportation | Green transportation affects social performance | 274 | 4.43 | 0.709 | 0.891 | |
Green transportation affects environmental performance | 274 | 4.43 | 0.709 | |||
Green transportation affects economic performance | 274 | 4.31 | 0.772 | |||
Green transportation affects organization image performance | 274 | 4.41 | 0.772 | |||
Green environmental and energy management system | Green environmental and energy management system affects social performance | 274 | 4.48 | 0.652 | 0.894 | |
Green environmental and energy management system affects environmental performance | 274 | 4.48 | 0.652 | |||
Green environmental and energy management system affects economic performance | 274 | 4.33 | 0.732 | |||
Green environmental and energy management system affects organization image performance | 274 | 4.50 | 0591 | |||
Green output | Social performance | Social performance affects green supermarket | 274 | 4.53 | 0.653 | 0.880 |
Environmental performance | Environmental performance affects green supermarket | 274 | 4.53 | 0.653 | ||
Economic performance | Economic performance affects green supermarket | 274 | 4.39 | 0.764 | ||
Organization image Performance | Organization image performance affects green supermarket | 274 | 4.48 | 0.670 | ||
Green supermarket | - | Green supermarket is a modern retail business of the supermarket type with social responsibility, environmental responsibility, economic responsibility and organization image responsibility, and doing various activities, the aim of which is to generate appropriate income in a manner that has the least impact on the environment | 274 | 4.56 | 0.597 | N/A |
Variable | Attribute | Branch Manager | |
---|---|---|---|
Number of People | Percentage (%) | ||
Gender | |||
Male | 218 | 79.56 | |
Female | 56 | 20.44 | |
Total | 274 | 100.00 | |
Work experience in | |||
management | |||
1–5 years | 8 | 2.92 | |
6–10 years | 32 | 11.68 | |
11–15 years | 193 | 70.44 | |
16–20 years | 41 | 14.96 | |
Total | 274 | 100.00 |
Factor | Sub-Factor (Major Indicator) | n | SD | SK | KS | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Green process (GPRO) | Green procurement (GPUR) | 274 | 4.453 | 0.619 | −0.776 | −0.563 |
Green storage (GSTO) | 274 | 4.400 | 0.628 | −0.714 | −0.543 | |
Green service (GSER) | 274 | 4.419 | 0.609 | −0.742 | −0.439 | |
Green transportation (GTRA) | 274 | 4.394 | 0.632 | −0.646 | −0.743 | |
Green environmental and energy management system (GEES) | 274 | 4.484 | 0.574 | −0.650 | −0.692 | |
Green output (GOUT) | Social performance (SOCP) | 274 | 4.529 | 0.653 | −1.065 | −0.021 |
Environmental performance (ENVP) | 274 | 4.526 | 0.653 | −1.050 | −0.048 | |
Economic performance (ECOP) | 274 | 4.391 | 0.764 | −1.391 | 2.770 | |
Organization image performance (OIMP) | 274 | 4.482 | 0.670 | −0.928 | −0.307 |
Pearson Correlation Coefficient of the Sub-Factors of Green Process | |||||
GPUR | GSTO | GSER | GTRA | GEES | |
GPUR | 1.000 | ||||
GSTO | 0.844 ** | 1.000 | |||
GSER | 0.828 ** | 0.816 ** | 1.000 | ||
GTRA | 0.860 ** | 0.842 ** | 0.858 ** | 1.000 | |
GEES | 0.840 ** | 0.846 ** | 0.850 ** | 0.838 ** | 1.000 |
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity = 1613.068, p < 0.001 | |||||
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy = 0.971 | |||||
Pearson Correlation Coefficient of the Sub-Factors of Green Output | |||||
SOCP | ENVP | ECOP | OIMP | ||
SOCP | 1.000 | ||||
ENVP | 0.772 ** | 1.000 | |||
ECOP | 0.605 ** | 0.557 ** | 1.000 | ||
OIMP | 0.689 ** | 0.692 ** | 0.619 ** | 1.000 | |
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity = 1613.068, p < 0.001 | |||||
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy = 0.971 |
Major-Indicator (or Variable) | Component Weight/Influence | t | |
---|---|---|---|
b (SE) | Beta (β) | ||
GPRO | |||
GPUR | 0.965 (0.035) | 0.918 | 27.530 *** |
GSTO | 0.967 (0.037) | 0.907 | 26.429 *** |
GSER | 0.941 (0.035) | 0.911 | 26.771 *** |
GTRA | 1 | 0.932 | ------ |
GEES | 0.909 (0.035) | 0.931 | 26.093 *** |
GOUT | |||
SOCP | 1.002 (0.079) | 0.827 | 12.755 *** |
ENVP | 0.986 (0.079) | 0.814 | 12.552 *** |
ECOP | 1 | 0.708 | ------ |
OIMP | 1.043 (0.080) | 0.841 | 13.027 *** |
GPRO ---> GOUT (or GPRO) | 0.825 (0.063) | 0.903 | 13.203 *** |
ANOVA a | Sum of Squares | Degree of Freedom | Mean Squares | F | p-Value | |
Regression Residual Total | 86.413 11.153 97.566 | 4 269 274 | 21.603 0.041 | 521.070 | <0.01 b |
Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | Std. Error | Beta (β) | |||
Constant | 0.259 | 0.095 | 2.715 | 0.07 | |
Social performance (X1) | 0.284 | 0.032 | 0.310 | 8.750 | <0.01 |
Environmental performance (X2) | 0.241 | 0.032 | 0.263 | 7.583 | <0.01 |
Economic performance (X3) | 0.074 | 0.022 | 0.094 | 3.408 | <0.01 |
Organization image performance (X4) | 0.357 | 0.029 | 0.400 | 12.515 | <0.01 |
R2 = 0.941, R2 Adjusted = 0.886 |
Major Indicators | Draft Sub-Indicators | Selected Indicator Frequency and Percentage | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Codes | Detail | Frequency * | % | |
Green procurement (GPUR) | GPUR1 | There is an evaluation system for green product standards (green label, green livestock, etc.) | 6 | 66.67 |
GPUR2 | The ratio of products that have green standards | 6 | 66.67 | |
GPUR3 | There is a complaint system for stakeholders in procurement | 5 | 55.56 | |
GPUR4 | There is a complaint management system for stakeholders in procurement | 5 | 55.56 | |
GPUR5 | There is a complaint communication system for stakeholders in procurement | 5 | 55.56 | |
GPUR6 | The ratio of suppliers who received green standard certification. | 5 | 55.56 | |
GPUR7 | The ratio of products that have green label standards | 4 | 44.44 | |
GPUR8 | The ratio of revised purchase complaints | 4 | 44.44 | |
GPUR9 | There is a product requirement planning system | 4 | 44.44 | |
GPUR10 | The ratio of product items available. | 5 | 55.56 | |
GPUR11 | There is a food safety product management system | 6 | 66.67 | |
GPUR12 | The ratio of food product items with international safety production standards (GMP, etc.) | 6 | 66.67 | |
GPUR13 | There is a green procurement policy that is communicated to employees at all levels | 3 | 33.33 | |
GPUR14 | There are supplier selection standards (e.g., contract of sale) | 3 | 33.33 | |
GPUR15 | There is a legal product selection standard. | 6 | 66.67 | |
GPUR16 | The number of suppliers who have performed illegal operations | 8 | 88.89 | |
GPUR17 | The number of illegal products | 6 | 66.67 | |
Green storage (GSTO) | GSTO1 | There is a complaint system for stakeholders in storage | 3 | 33.33 |
GSTO2 | There is a complaint management system for stakeholders in storage | 3 | 33.33 | |
GSTO3 | There is a complaint communication system for stakeholders in storage | 6 | 66.67 | |
GSTO4 | The ratio of revised storage complaints | 5 | 55.56 | |
GSTO5 | The ratio of product items available for sale in the sales area | 4 | 44.44 | |
GSTO6 | The ratio of product items found to be expired | 4 | 44.44 | |
GSTO7 | There is a green storage policy that is communicated to employees at all levels | 2 | 22.22 | |
GSTO8 | There is a management system for occupational safety and health | 4 | 44.44 | |
GSTO9 | The number of accidents at work | 5 | 55.56 | |
Green service (GSER) | GSER1 | There is a complaint system for customers at sales area | 5 | 55.56 |
GSER2 | There is a complaint management system for customer | 5 | 55.56 | |
GSER3 | There is a complaint communication system for customer and related staffs | 4 | 44.44 | |
GSER4 | There is a complaint system for stakeholders in service | 3 | 33.33 | |
GSER5 | There is a complaint management system for stakeholders in service | 5 | 55.56 | |
GSER6 | There is a complaint communication system for stakeholders in service | 5 | 55.56 | |
GSER7 | The ratio of revised service complaints | 6 | 66.67 | |
GSER8 | The number of recurring customer complaints | 3 | 33.33 | |
GSER9 | The ratio of customer complaints that are fully communicated | 5 | 55.56 | |
GSER10 | The ratio of product items that have been stored clearly for customers | 6 | 66.67 | |
GSER11 | The ratio of revised service complaints | 5 | 55.56 | |
GSER12 | There is an electronic shelves label system | 5 | 55.56 | |
GSER13 | The ratio of product items using electronic shelves labels | 6 | 66.67 | |
GSER14 | There is a system for assessing cleanliness and hygiene in the supermarket area. | 3 | 33.33 | |
GSER15 | There is a screening system for epidemics | 4 | 44.44 | |
GSER16 | There is green service policy that is communicated to employees at all levels | 6 | 66.67 | |
GSER17 | The ratio of refill products to the total product items | 4 | 44.44 | |
Green transportation (GTRA) | GTRA1 | There is a complaint system for stakeholders in transportation | 6 | 66.67% |
GTRA2 | There is a complaint management system for stakeholders in transportation | 4 | 44.44% | |
GTRA3 | There is a complaint communication system for stakeholders in transportation | 3 | 33.33% | |
GTRA4 | The ratio of revised transportation complaints | 3 | 33.33% | |
GTRA5 | There is a payment waiting time check system | 3 | 33.33% | |
GTRA6 | The ratio of the number of customers waiting in the payment queue for more than 5 min | 6 | 66.67% | |
GTRA7 | There are degradable packaging bags for customers | 5 | 55.56% | |
GTRA8 | The ratio of the number of use of the degradable packaging bags for customers | 4 | 44.44% | |
GTRA9 | There is a green transportation policy that is communicated to employees at all levels | 3 | 33.33% | |
(GEES) | GEES1 | The organization has a green energy management and energy system policy and management framework in place to ensure that all staff are conscious of the guidelines | 9 | 100% |
GEES2 | Employees at all levels are required to accept the policy and communication of the green environmental and energy management system | 9 | 100% | |
GEES3 | Inspection and evaluation of treated wastewater quality in compliance with the requirements mandated by law | 9 | 100% | |
GEES4 | A focused working group on the environment and energy have been established | 9 | 100% | |
GEES5 | Employees within the company have been tasked with taking care of the environment and energy management | 9 | 100% | |
GEES6 | The organization promotes environmental and energy knowledge and skills of its employees | 9 | 100% | |
GEES7 | The organization has a procedure for collecting, analyzing, and evaluating quantitative information on all water utilization | 9 | 100% | |
GEES8 | The company continuously improves the training requirements for employees who work in environmental and energy protection | 9 | 100% | |
GEES9 | The organization continually monitors the treated wastewater’s quality | 9 | 100% | |
GEES10 | The organization has sorted food waste for further use or management | 9 | 100% | |
GEES11 | The organization adopts effective trash management and garbage separation | 9 | 100% | |
GEES12 | The organization follows a standard waste management system | 9 | 100% | |
GEES13 | The organization has implemented a process for wastewater recycling and reuse | 9 | 100% | |
GEES14 | The organization has utilized by-products from food waste management such as fertilizer, biogas | 9 | 100% | |
GEES15 | An environmental and energy action plan for the organization supports overall environment and energy management dimensions | 9 | 100% | |
GEES16 | The organization has been working on process guidelines for instructing staff members on environmental and energy conservation | 9 | 100% | |
GEES17 | Organizations have set timeframes for cleaning and maintaining equipment that consumes large amount of energy | 9 | 100% | |
GEES18 | The organization uses high-efficiency air conditioners and chillers | 9 | 100% | |
GEES19 | The organization has modified or installed energy-saving lamps in place of the old incandescent lamps | 9 | 100% | |
GEES20 | An apparatus that manages the operation of automatic outside lamps is installed in the organization | 9 | 100% |
Major-Indicators | Draft Sub-Indicators | Selected Indicator Frequency and Percentage | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Codes | Detail | Frequency * | % | |
Social performance (SOCP) | SOCP1 | Number of work accidents for employees | 5 | 55.56% |
SOCP2 | Number of customers who have been involved in an accident in the supermarket area | 4 | 44.44% | |
SOCP3 | Number of suppliers/contractors have been involved in an accident in the supermarket area | 5 | 55.56% | |
SOCP4 | Employee turnover rate | 5 | 55.56% | |
SOCP5 | The satisfaction ratio of investor | 4 | 44.44% | |
SOCP6 | The satisfaction ratio of government | 3 | 33.33% | |
SOCP7 | The satisfaction ratio of employee | 6 | 66.67% | |
SOCP8 | The satisfaction ratio of supplier (or contractor) | 6 | 66.67% | |
SOCP9 | The satisfaction ratio of customer | 2 | 22.22% | |
SOCP10 | The satisfaction ratio of community | 3 | 33.33% | |
Environmental performance (ENVP) | ENVP1 | The ratio of food waste recycled | 4 | 44.44% |
ENVP2 | The ratio of electricity consumption from renewable energy systems (or clean energy) | 5 | 55.56% | |
ENVP 3 | The unavailable waste ratio | 5 | 55.56% | |
ENVP4 | The ratio of water reused | 7 | 77.78% | |
Economic performance (ECOP) | ECOP1 | Current ratio | 3 | 33.33% |
ECOP2 | Quick ratio | 5 | 55.56% | |
ECOP3 | Leverage ratio | 6 | 66.67% | |
ECOP4 | Average collection period | 6 | 66.67% | |
ECOP5 | Inventory turnover ratio | 5 | 55.56% | |
ECOP6 | Return on assets | 8 | 88.89% | |
ECOP7 | Free cash flow ratio | 2 | 22.22% | |
ECOP8 | Gross profit margin | 2 | 22.22% | |
ECOP9 | Operating profit margin | 7 | 77.78% | |
ECOP10 | Return on equity | 6 | 66.67% | |
ECOP11 | Cash cycle | 4 | 44.44% | |
ECOP12 | Net profit ratio | 6 | 66.67% | |
ECOP13 | Acid ratio | 3 | 33.33% | |
Organization image performance (OIMP) | OIMP1 | The number of ethical complaints | 7 | 77.78% |
OIMP2 | The good organization image ratio from the public | 6 | 66.67% | |
OIMP3 | The number of news programs communicating the bad image of the organization | 5 | 55.56% | |
OIMP4 | Trust of stakeholders to the organization | 4 | 44.44% |
Codes | Type of Measure | Criterion | Score of Indicator | Codes | Measured Type | Criterion | Score of Indicator |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GPUR1 | Yes/No | Yes | 3 | GEES10 | Yes/No | Yes | 3 |
GPUR2 | Ratio | Ratio obtained | 3 | GEES11 | Yes/No | Yes | 3 |
GPUR3 | Yes/No | Yes | 2 | GEES12 | Yes/No | Yes | 3 |
GPUR4 | Yes/No | Yes | 2 | GEES13 | Yes/No | Yes | 3 |
GPUR5 | Yes/No | Yes | 2 | GEES14 | Yes/No | Yes | 3 |
GPUR6 | Ratio | Ratio obtained | 3 | GEES15 | Yes/No | Yes | 3 |
GPUR7 | Ratio | Ratio obtained | 3 | GEES16 | Yes/No | Yes | 3 |
GPUR8 | Ratio | Ratio obtained | 3 | GEES17 | Yes/No | Yes | 3 |
GPUR9 | Yes/No | Yes | 2 | GEES18 | Yes/No | Yes | 3 |
GPUR10 | Ratio | Ratio obtained | 2 | GEES19 | Yes/No | Yes | 3 |
GPUR11 | Yes/No | Yes | 3 | GEES20 | Yes/No | Yes | 3 |
GPUR12 | Ratio | Ratio obtained | 3 | GTRA1 | Yes/No | Yes | 2 |
GPUR13 | Yes/No | Yes | 2 | GTRA2 | Yes/No | Yes | 2 |
GPUR14 | Yes/No | Yes | 2 | GTRA3 | Yes/No | Yes | 2 |
GPUR15 | Yes/No | Yes | 2 | GTRA4 | Ratio | Ratio obtained | 3 |
GPUR16 | Count | 0 | 2 | GTRA5 | Yes/No | Yes | 2 |
GPUR17 | Count | 0 | 2 | GTRA6 | Ratio | Ratio obtained | 3 |
GSTO1 | Yes/No | Yes | 2 | GTRA7 | Count | 0 | 3 |
GSTO2 | Yes/No | Yes | 2 | GTRA8 | Ratio | Ratio obtained | 3 |
GSTO3 | Yes/No | Yes | 2 | GTRA9 | Count | 0 | 3 |
GSTO4 | Ratio | Ratio obtained | 2 | SOCP1 | Count | 0 | 1 |
GSTO5 | Ratio | Ratio obtained | 2 | SOCP2 | Count | 0 | 1 |
GSTO6 | Ratio | 0% | 3 | SOCP3 | Count | 0 | 1 |
GSTO7 | Yes/No | Yes | 3 | SOCP4 | Ratio | <10% | 1 |
GSTO8 | Yes/No | Yes | 3 | SOCP5 | Ratio | Ratio obtained | 2 |
GSTO9 | Count | 0 | 3 | SOCP6 | Ratio | Ratio obtained | 2 |
GSER1 | Yes/No | Yes | 2 | SOCP7 | Ratio | Ratio obtained | 2 |
GSER2 | Yes/No | Yes | 2 | SOCP8 | Ratio | Ratio obtained | 2 |
GSER3 | Yes/No | Yes | 3 | SOCP9 | Ratio | Ratio obtained | 2 |
GSER4 | Yes/No | Yes | 2 | SOCP10 | Ratio | Ratio obtained | 2 |
GSER5 | Yes/No | Yes | 2 | ENVP1 | Ratio | Ratio obtained | 3 |
GSER6 | Yes/No | Yes | 2 | ENVP2 | Ratio | Ratio obtained | 3 |
GSER7 | Ratio | 100% | 3 | ENVP 3 | Ratio | Ratio obtained | 3 |
GSER8 | Count | 0 | 3 | ENVP4 | Ratio | Ratio obtained | 3 |
GSER9 | Ratio | 100% | 3 | ECOP1 | Ratio | >200% | 1 |
GSER10 | Ratio | 100% | 3 | ECOP2 | Ratio | >100% | 1 |
GSER11 | Ratio | Ratio obtained | 3 | ECOP3 | Ratio | >40% | 1 |
GSER12 | Yes/No | Yes | 2 | ECOP4 | Ratio | <40 | 1 |
GSER13 | Ratio | 0% | 3 | ECOP5 | Ratio | >200% | 1 |
GSER14 | Yes/No | Yes | 3 | ECOP6 | Ratio | >8% | 1 |
GSER15 | Yes/No | Yes | 3 | ECOP7 | Ratio | >20% | 1 |
GSER16 | Yes/No | Yes | 2 | ECOP8 | Ratio | >30% | 1 |
GSER17 | Ratio | Ratio obtained | 2 | ECOP9 | Ratio | >20% | 2 |
GEES1 | Yes/No | Yes | 3 | ECOP10 | Ratio | >15% | 3 |
GEES2 | Yes/No | Yes | 3 | ECOP11 | Count | 2 | 3 |
GEES3 | Yes/No | Yes | 3 | ECOP12 | Ratio | >10% | 3 |
GEES4 | Yes/No | Yes | 3 | ECOP13 | Ratio | >200% | 1 |
GEES5 | Yes/No | Yes | 3 | OIMP1 | Count | 0 | 3 |
GEES6 | Yes/No | Yes | 3 | OIMP2 | Ratio | Ratio obtained | 3 |
GEES7 | Yes/No | Yes | 3 | OIMP3 | Count | 0 | 3 |
GEES8 | Yes/No | Yes | 3 | OIMP4 | Ratio | Ratio obtained | 3 |
GEES9 | Yes/No | Yes | 3 |
Codes | Score of Indicator | Indicator Weight (β) | Codes | Score of Indicator | Indicator Weight (β) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
GPUR1 | 3 | 0.00321951219512195 | GEES1 | 3 | 0.00225 |
GPUR2 | 3 | 0.00321951219512195 | GEES2 | 3 | 0.00225 |
GPUR3 | 2 | 0.00214634146341463 | GEES3 | 3 | 0.00225 |
GPUR4 | 2 | 0.00214634146341463 | GEES4 | 3 | 0.00225 |
GPUR5 | 2 | 0.00214634146341463 | GEES5 | 3 | 0.00225 |
GPUR6 | 3 | 0.00321951219512195 | GEES6 | 3 | 0.00225 |
GPUR7 | 3 | 0.00321951219512195 | GEES7 | 3 | 0.00225 |
GPUR8 | 3 | \0.00321951219512195 | GEES8 | 3 | 0.00225 |
GPUR9 | 2 | 0.00214634146341463 | GEES9 | 3 | 0.00225 |
GPUR10 | 2 | 0.00214634146341463 | GEES10 | 3 | 0.00225 |
GPUR11 | 3 | 0.00321951219512195 | GEES11 | 3 | 0.00225 |
GPUR12 | 3 | 0.00321951219512195 | GEES12 | 3 | 0.00225 |
GPUR13 | 2 | 0.00214634146341463 | GEES13 | 3 | 0.00225 |
GPUR14 | 2 | 0.00214634146341463 | GEES14 | 3 | 0.00225 |
GPUR15 | 2 | 0.00214634146341463 | GEES15 | 3 | 0.00225 |
GPUR16 | 2 | 0.00214634146341463 | GEES16 | 3 | 0.00225 |
GPUR17 | 2 | 0.00214634146341463 | GEES17 | 3 | 0.00225 |
Sum | 41 | 0.044 | GEES18 | 3 | 0.00225 |
GSTO1 | 2 | 0.004 | GEES19 | 3 | 0.00225 |
GSTO2 | 2 | 0.004 | GEES20 | 3 | 0.00225 |
GSTO3 | 2 | 0.004 | Sum | 60 | 0.045 |
GSTO4 | 2 | 0.004 | SOCP1 | 1 | 0.012625 |
GSTO5 | 2 | 0.004 | SOCP2 | 1 | 0.012625 |
GSTO6 | 3 | 0.006 | SOCP3 | 1 | 0.012625 |
GSTO7 | 3 | 0.006 | SOCP4 | 1 | 0.012625 |
GSTO8 | 3 | 0.006 | SOCP5 | 2 | 0.025250 |
GSTO9 | 3 | 0.006 | SOCP6 | 2 | 0.025250 |
Sum | 22 | 0.044 | SOCP7 | 2 | 0.025250 |
GSER1 | 2 | 0.00204651162790698 | SOCP8 | 2 | 0.025250 |
GSER2 | 2 | 0.00204651162790698 | SOCP9 | 2 | 0.025250 |
GSER3 | 3 | 0.00306976744186047 | SOCP10 | 2 | 0.025250 |
GSER4 | 2 | 0.00204651162790698 | Sum | 16 | 0.202 |
GSER5 | 2 | 0.00204651162790698 | ENVP1 | 3 | 0.0495 |
GSER6 | 2 | 0.00204651162790698 | ENVP2 | 3 | 0.0495 |
GSER7 | 3 | 0.00306976744186047 | ENVP 3 | 3 | 0.0495 |
GSER8 | 3 | 0.00306976744186047 | ENVP4 | 3 | 0.0495 |
GSER9 | 3 | 0.00306976744186047 | Sum | 12 | 0.198 |
GSER10 | 3 | 0.00306976744186047 | ECOP1 | 1 | 0.00865 |
GSER11 | 3 | 0.00306976744186047 | ECOP2 | 1 | 0.00865 |
GSER12 | 2 | 0.00204651162790698 | ECOP3 | 1 | 0.00865 |
GSER13 | 3 | 0.00306976744186047 | ECOP4 | 1 | 0.00865 |
GSER14 | 3 | 0.00306976744186047 | ECOP5 | 1 | 0.00865 |
GSER15 | 3 | 0.00306976744186047 | ECOP6 | 1 | 0.00865 |
GSER16 | 2 | 0.00204651162790698 | ECOP7 | 1 | 0.00865 |
GSER17 | 2 | 0.00204651162790698 | ECOP8 | 1 | 0.00865 |
Sum | 43 | 0.044 | ECOP9 | 2 | 0.01730 |
GTRA1 | 2 | 0.00391304347826087 | ECOP10 | 3 | 0.02595 |
GTRA2 | 2 | 0.00391304347826087 | ECOP11 | 3 | 0.02595 |
GTRA3 | 2 | 0.00391304347826087 | ECOP12 | 3 | 0.02595 |
GTRA4 | 3 | 0.00586956521739130 | ECOP13 | 1 | 0.00865 |
GTRA5 | 2 | 0.00391304347826087 | Sum | 20 | 0.173 |
GTRA6 | 3 | 0.00586956521739130 | OIMP1 | 3 | 0.05125 |
GTRA7 | 3 | 0.00586956521739130 | OIMP2 | 3 | 0.05125 |
GTRA8 | 3 | 0.00586956521739130 | OIMP3 | 3 | 0.05125 |
GTRA9 | 3 | 0.00586956521739130 | OIMP4 | 3 | 0.05125 |
Sum | 23 | 0.045 | Sum | 12 | 0.205 |
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
Vipusanapat, I.; Ratanatamskul, C.; Chandrachai, A. Development of Green Supermarket Evaluation Model Based on Green Process and Green Output—Case of Bangkok City. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10745. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710745
Vipusanapat I, Ratanatamskul C, Chandrachai A. Development of Green Supermarket Evaluation Model Based on Green Process and Green Output—Case of Bangkok City. Sustainability. 2022; 14(17):10745. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710745
Chicago/Turabian StyleVipusanapat, Ittipat, Chavalit Ratanatamskul, and Achara Chandrachai. 2022. "Development of Green Supermarket Evaluation Model Based on Green Process and Green Output—Case of Bangkok City" Sustainability 14, no. 17: 10745. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710745