The Integration of Sustainable Standards in Production Planning and Control: A GRI-Based Framework Proposal

Abstract

Sustainable manufacturing is gaining attention in the scientific literature. However, it remains unclear how to effectively incorporate it within Production Planning and Control (PPC) tasks. All the choices taken in terms of PPC impact sustainability, and sustainability managers and planners or managers involved in tasks, such as scheduling or inventory management, are not conscious of what this means or implies, above all, in terms of the sustainable performance indicators on which their actions can act. While several studies have addressed both PPC and sustainability, there is still limited guidance or structured frameworks specifically aimed at systematically linking PPC tasks with sustainability indicators in a practical and operational industrial context, despite the development of numerous sustainability standards in recent years. For this reason, this research aimed to develop a first detailed framework, specifically based on the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) standard, that associates the most relevant indicators with the PPC phases, highlighting the type of impact (direct or indirect) of each phase on them. This could help with strategic decisions and promote more informed choices. The overall framework revealed the prevalence of environmental aspects involved in PPC phases (as expected) and a challenge related to the measurability of indicators (above all, the social ones). Furthermore, the Material Requirements Planning (MRP), identified as the most significant phase in terms of its impact on sustainability, was deeply analyzed, providing details related to the decision-making processes of this phase that affect sustainable performance.

1. Background and Motivation

Although the concept of sustainable development was first introduced in 1987 by the Brundtland Commission of the United Nations [1], it is only in recent years that sustainability has become central to business strategy, driving a profound transformation in corporate management. Enterprises are increasingly exploring new strategies and approaches to meet the growing need for more sustainable and responsible practices [2,3,4]. In response to the increasing emphasis on sustainability in manufacturing, Säfsten et al. (2022) [5] focused on the development of resilient and sustainable production systems, highlighting the need for companies to innovate and adapt their operations to sustainable and responsible practices. Recently, Scharmer et al. (2024) [6] created a comprehensive framework to address sustainability in manufacturing environments, offering a clear and structured guide to enhance sustainable practices. Van Erp et al. (2023) [7] proposed an approach for innovating manufacturing systems to improve sustainability performance while maintaining and improving their competitiveness.

The growing emphasis on sustainable development has led to the rise of corporate sustainability, which seeks to balance economic, social, and environmental goals. In this context, the Triple Bottom Line (TBL), introduced by [8], emerges as a key model for evaluating corporate performance in a comprehensive and balanced way. This approach considers three crucial dimensions of sustainability, focusing on the environment and its preservation, the well-being and respect of human resources, and ensuring stable growth through process optimization and investment in innovation. To implement corporate sustainability effectively, companies must gradually integrate sustainability into their operations and culture.

1.1. Sustainability in Production Planning and Control

Research has focused on the general concept of sustainability in production or the broader manufacturing sector, exploring strategies to reduce companies’ negative impacts, which are energy-intensive and polluting, and analyzing activities interconnected with production planning and control, such as maintenance [9] and inventory management in the supply chain [10]. There is, therefore, an evident gap in the attention currently given to sustainable Production Planning and Control (PPC), which aims to manage production activities and efficiently allocate all available resources to ensure continuous and uninterrupted production [11]. PPC is a core managerial function responsible for organizing, scheduling, and monitoring production activities to ensure timely delivery, resource optimization, and operational continuity [12,13]. It plays a key role in keeping all production running regularly and is also responsible for lot sizes and managing disturbances, reducing their impact on the entire system [12]. In today’s industrial landscape, characterized by product variety, shorter life cycles, and increasing market volatility, PPC must be adaptive, dynamic, and increasingly aligned with sustainability goals [14]. In today’s push toward more sustainable production systems, it is crucial to rethink the role of PPC. Decisions within traditional PPC can greatly impact a company’s overall sustainability, potentially hindering responsible management efforts. Since there is still not a full awareness of the impacts that such decisions could entail overall, the role of sustainability-related aspects is often overlooked or underexplored [15], with few studies specifically focused on sustainable PPC. Sustainability aspects in the context of PPC are often neglected or only partially considered, mainly because the impacts that decisions made in this area have on the overall sustainability of an organization are not fully understood. Until now, however, only a few studies have simultaneously considered all three pillars of sustainability within such a system, focusing mainly on the inclusion of at least one of them [6,16]. In the design and implementation of PPC strategies, significant consideration should be given to both the economic and environmental aspects, which are often more investigated, as well as the social ones. Too often, the social aspects are neglected or underestimated [17]. Integrating the social aspect into PPC involves addressing employee well-being, workplace safety, decision-making equity, and the impact of production on workers and local communities.

Organizations are no longer just called upon to comply with a minimum level of environmental standards, but rather to consider sustainability practices as a driving force toward innovation and competitiveness [18]. Several studies have examined the efforts of researchers and producers in developing sustainable production methods [19] and in providing a clear view of both the main concepts related to sustainable production and the metrics used to assess the sustainability performance of organizations [20]. Akbar & Irohara (2018) [21] analyzed the status and progress of sustainable planning, highlighting the frequent use of indicators related to energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions. In line with this, energy consumption [18] and greenhouse gas emissions have emerged as the most considered sustainability indicators in many of the studies analyzed in [22]. The extensive review conducted by Khaled et al. (2022) [16] on sustainable production planning analyzes the relationships between different production planning issues and the three fundamental pillars of sustainability, which have very rarely been considered simultaneously in current studies. Rubaiee & Yildirim (2019) [23], for instance, developed a tool for reducing energy costs through production planning. Economic aspects and meeting customer demands have often captured attention in this area, but for long-term sustainability, it is essential to give equal importance to environmental and social aspects [24]. The social aspect still appears to be very limited, both when treated as a single pillar and when integrated with the other dimensions. The studies by Zarte et al. (2019) [25] and by Dal Borgo and Meneghetti (2019) [26] highlighted the importance of including social objectives in PPC, alongside economic and environmental aspects. Specifically, Zarte et al. (2019) [25] explored the role of decision support systems in sustainable production, while [26] shows how individual learning and forgetting can improve planning by reducing overtime and worker stress, with additional benefits for greenhouse gas emissions and shipping costs. Moreover, Satyro et al. (2021) [12] examined the key variables that make PPC a vital tool for strategy implementation and enhancing the competitiveness of sustainable industries, offering a practical and original contribution to entrepreneurs, managers, and leaders; Zarte et al. (2021) [27] on the other hand, introduced an innovative Fuzzy Inference Model (FIM) that supports decision-making in sustainable planning processes, offering a significant contribution to this field.

1.2. Sustainability Reporting

Addressing sustainability is not only about reducing environmental impacts. It also involves a fundamental transformation of business processes to support economic and social well-being, both within the company and in the broader community. As organizations increasingly recognize this broader responsibility, tools that allow them to measure, manage, and communicate their sustainability efforts become essential. Among these, the sustainability report plays a central role: it enables companies to disclose their performance in terms of environmental, social, and economic impact, fostering transparency around the risks and opportunities related to sustainable development. The adoption of sustainable reporting is increasingly widespread, not only to comply with regulatory obligations but also as a strategic opportunity to improve corporate reputation and address current challenges. In this way, the company can promptly respond to the changing market needs in terms of quality, volumes, and timing and capitalize on emerging opportunities, while maintaining an optimal level of operational efficiency and a competitive position in the global market. In this context, one of the greatest challenges lies in measuring progress toward sustainable goals. Many assessment issues are related to indicator design, data availability, and methodological frameworks. Indicators often focus on specific aspects of sustainability, neglecting others, which can lead to incomplete assessments [28]. In addition, there is an absence of universally accepted indicators for measuring progress towards a sustainable economy, which hampers the comprehensive and timely achievement of SDGs [29]. Despite efforts to develop alternative metrics, progress has been incremental and incomplete. Systemic data availability and scale limitations weaken the evidence base needed for informed sustainable development initiatives [30]. These challenges highlight the need for improved metrics, data collection methods, and innovative governance approaches to effectively measure and achieve sustainable development goals. One of the ways to address these challenges and force companies to measure is the promotion and introduction of sustainability reports, such as the one promoted by the European Union in 2001, which can provide a transparent and rational view of an organization’s sustainability performance and the risks and opportunities it faces. Although not all companies are legally required to prepare such a report, an increasing number of businesses are considering its compilation, recognizing its strategic importance. Sustainability indicators are outlined within reports to translate corporate principles and goals into measurable actions for continuous improvement. Currently, many organizations are developing sets of indicators to track and monitor progress toward sustainability. Most frameworks are still under development, and some of them are not designed to be uniformly suitable for any company or sector. Moreover, in the absence of clear benchmarks capable of indicating the level at which companies can be considered sustainable, the focus is on comparing companies within the same industry and producers of related goods. However, the greatest challenge lies in trying to quantify all aspects of sustainable production (economic, environmental, and social), especially when addressing the social dimension. While such elements as energy and water use and emissions offer widely shared evaluation methods among companies, social aspects are more complex to analyze [31].

Currently, much of the effort is focused primarily on environmental performance, resulting in a greater number and recognition of environmental indicators. However, the companies’ focus should also be directed towards economic and especially social indicators, to generate value for the company and simultaneously contribute to the growth, improvement, and socioeconomic development of the communities in which they operate. This becomes fundamental above all in the optics of companies’ Sustainability Reporting (SR). During the last years, the growing interest in sustainable investment has resulted in a rise in demand for reports about Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and companies’ Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) activities and policies performed [32]. Given the pressure from governments on the one hand through mandatory requirements and on the other hand from involved stakeholders who want to see more sustainable practices, SR is no longer an option but a compulsory choice for companies, especially in the manufacturing world. This change has been evident since 2017, with the introduction of Directive 2014/95/EU, which made sustainability reporting mandatory for specific categories of companies. From this perspective, listed companies in the European Union (EU), the USA, and China must disclose information related to their ESG performance [33]. For example, in November 2022, the EU adopted the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), which substantially increases the number of companies for which it is mandatory sustainability reporting and introduces more detailed reporting requirements, such as the obligation to report following the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) and the integration of sustainability information in the management report [34]. Sustainable reporting encompasses the integration of ESG practices into mainstream businesses to provide a comprehensive view of a company’s performance and value creation [35,36,37]. Both financial and ESG reporting use the concept of materiality to shape firms’ disclosure obligations, but the term carries different meanings for different organizations. Research suggests a strong linear relationship between sustainability reporting and financial performance, particularly in terms of return on assets and financial leverage [38]. Shareholders and other stakeholders mandate reliable information about the opportunities and hazards associated with a company’s sustainability performance, which can influence investment decisions and resource allocation. The reporting standards landscape is still fragmented, and there is a challenge in determining which reporting topics within a framework are most relevant for operations. Sustainability reporting strengthens the credibility of disclosed information and increases the accountability of companies, offering stakeholders reliable insights into a company’s sustainability performance [39]. Integrated reporting has the potential to lead to socially and ecologically advantageous company decisions by simultaneously portraying sustainability concerns alongside financial considerations [40]. In this way, sustainability reporting complements traditional financial reporting by shedding light on long-term strategies and goals, critical elements for monitoring sustainability performance, and supporting informed investment decisions [41].

1.3. The Research Gap and the Aim of This Study

Concerning sustainability in PPC processes, the scientific literature has so far focused mainly on specific areas, either in terms of industry sectors [42] or individual dimensions of sustainability [42,43]. Numerous studies have concentrated on analyzing and selecting sustainability indicators relevant to phases of the PPC, often through a systematic review of indicators proposed in the literature [42,44,45]. However, these approaches tend to remain partial, as they are typically oriented toward specific areas or types of impact. A significant example is the study by Zarte et al. (2019) [15], which proposes the integration of sustainability into production processes through the adoption of Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) standards. This contribution represents an important step toward a structured approach to measuring sustainability within PPC. Nevertheless, even in this case, the analysis is limited to a subset of the indicators included in the GRI standards, selecting only those deemed most relevant or directly applicable to the production context. As a result, the overall picture remains fragmented, highlighting the need for a more integrated and systemic approach to fully apply sustainability reporting tools in planning processes. Despite the fact that the topic is addressed in the literature, the real challenge lies in aligning production processes with clearly defined sustainability indicators.

Although it is evident in the scientific literature [12,25] and business practices that choices in terms of PPC should be oriented toward the pursuit of sustainable goals, and that it is essential to integrate sustainable aspects in this kind of decision-making process from the perspective of indicators referred to standards [15], to the best of the authors’ knowledge, no comprehensive frameworks have been developed so far that can identify the correlation between sustainable indicators and PPC stages. As demonstrated by Joung et al. (2013) [46], there is no lack of sustainability indicator sets in the literature. The main challenge is to provide clear frameworks and tools that can support management and the planning function by correlating the action to the sustainable indicators affected. For all these reasons, the main research question that this work wants to address is as follows: “How do the decisions made for each stage of planning and controlling, according to the traditional structure of PPC, impact sustainability, and what indicators are affected by the choices taken?”

Therefore, this study proposes a framework capable of exploring the correlation between individual phases of PPC and key aspects of sustainability, in the economic, environmental, and social spheres, focusing on Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) standards. The GRI was chosen as the most suitable standard to refer to, based on its international adoption, supported by numerous organizations across various sizes, sectors, and geographical locations. This standard is widely acknowledged for its comprehensive approach to sustainability, integrating economic, environmental, and social dimensions to facilitate an in-depth understanding of the intricate dynamics of corporate sustainability. The proposed framework will outline a practical and immediate model for understanding the causes of the impact generated. It will support companies in formulating strategies and actions to optimize their operations and processes and promote long-term sustainability in decision making.

The most innovative contribution of this study is the structured integration of PPC phases with internationally recognized sustainability standards, specifically the GRI indicators. This study introduces a unified framework aligning operational planning tasks with sustainability indicators. This integration allows for a deeper understanding of the root causes of sustainability impacts and supports companies in developing targeted strategies and operational improvements. By incorporating all three dimensions of sustainability and using a globally accepted standard, the framework offers a comprehensive, practical tool for more informed and responsible decision making throughout the production planning process.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 describes the methodological approach followed for the research study. Section 3 and Section 4 report, respectively, the main findings of the preliminary analysis and the overall framework developed. Subsequently, in Section 5, a detailed analysis is proposed for the Material Requirements Planning (MRP), the PPC phase with the greatest impact on achieving sustainability goals. Finally, Section 6 discusses the study and draws the main conclusions, limitations, and possible future directions.

2. Methodology

The methodology for developing a framework aimed at identifying sustainability indicators that can be involved in the individual PPC phases was made up of two logical steps, as shown in Figure 1. STEP 1 involved a comprehensive analysis (Section 3) with two primary objectives, as follows:

i.

To systematically identify all the phases of the PPC process along with their defining characteristics, as documented in the scientific literature (Section 3.1);

ii.

To explore the standards available in the domain of sustainability, selecting those most relevant and applicable to the PPC phases within a manufacturing context (Section 3.2). The GRI standards were identified as the target standard to use in this study.

Figure 1. Methodology for framework development.

Figure 1. Methodology for framework development.

Subsequently, the framework was developed (STEP 2) by associating each relevant indicator from the GRI standards with the PPC phases it pertained to (Section 4). For each indicator, two key aspects were carefully considered, as follows:

i.

Measurability, reflecting the ease and precision with which the indicator could be quantified.

ii.

The nature of the impact that the PPC phases exerted on the indicator, categorized as direct, which refers to immediate and readily identifiable effects, or indirect, which arises when the effects cannot be directly attributed to a single phase but instead emerge more diffusely.

The key findings of this study, along with a detailed discussion of their implications, are presented in the following sections. Notably, the analysis revealed that a significant number of indicators (both directly and indirectly) can be associated with the Material Requirements Planning (MRP) phase. An in-depth investigation was conducted to elucidate the specific ways in which the MRP phase influences the three pillars of sustainability, thereby providing a holistic view of its multidimensional impacts (Section 5).

3. STEP 1: Preliminary Analysis

3.1. PPC Phases

The first step required an analysis of PPC to obtain a detailed understanding of the context and dynamics involved. The work by Bueno et al. (2020) [14] and Oluyisola et al. (2020) [47] framed seven crucial PPC phases (detailed in Appendix A—

Table A1. PPC phases description.

PPC Phase	Description
Demand Forecasting (DFO)	DFO predicts the future demand for products or services based on historical data, market trends, and consumer behaviors. It supports decisions on purchasing, production capacity, inventory levels, and pricing, helping to optimize production efficiency and minimize operating costs. Forecasts can be qualitative, based on subjective judgments, or quantitative, relying on mathematical models and historical data. While simple methods, like moving averages and exponential smoothing, are common for their simplicity, more advanced techniques often yield better results [59]. Inaccurate forecasts can lead to financial losses, poor planning, and lower customer satisfaction [60].
Sales & Operations Planning (S&OP)	S&OP synchronizes sales planning with operational planning to ensure alignment between supply and demand and defines a realistic production plan [61]. It establishes the product quantity to be produced, balancing the availability of resources with demand forecasts and considering the company’s financial needs. S&OP operates on a mid-term horizon (usually 12 months) and identifies the distinctive characteristics of the products and resources needed. It aggregates products into families to improve forecast accuracy and assesses critical resources in terms of costs and constraints [48]. Effective S&OP enhances profits, reduces costs, and boosts operational performance.
Master Production Scheduling (MPS)	MPS, following S&OP, defines the exact quantities of products to be produced in each period, based on both customer orders and demand forecasts. MPS breaks down aggregate forecasts into more specific details about final products, allowing for more accurate and timely management of production in terms of materials, capacity, labor, and timing [62]. The MPS operates on a medium-term time horizon (generally weekly or monthly), and evaluates the availability of materials, the feasibility of the products for sale, and the availability of the necessary resources.
Material RP (MRP)	MRP aims at optimal management of materials and organization of production, purchasing, and delivery activities. Based on the MPS, bill of materials, and inventory status, it determines what, when, and how much to produce or buy. This system plays a crucial role in calculating net material needs, reducing production times, and improving the coordination of production activities. It guarantees timely deliveries, essential for maintaining customer trust and company competitiveness [63].
Inventory Planning and Control (INV)	INV influences the ability to meet customer demands, minimizes storage costs, and improves operational efficiency. This process determines the optimal amount of inventory and ideal timing to maximize profitability and reduce costs. Efficient inventory management avoids tying up excessive capital in unused stocks [64].
Capacity Planning and Control (CAP)	CAP is essential to define the operational capacity of an organization to effectively respond to market demand and manage its fluctuations. This process helps to equitably distribute workloads across resources, thus improving performance and operational efficiency and optimizing costs. It aims to balance available capacity with actual demand, guaranteeing the delivery times requested by the customer without unnecessary waste and maintaining appropriate costs.
Shop Floor Control/Production Scheduling (SFC)	SFC translates the production plan into operational orders, managing the materials’ flow, task allocation, and sequencing of resources, coordinating activities on the production floor, and monitoring the status of orders and resources. The production schedule establishes the order of activities and ensures that production resources are used effectively, guaranteeing an efficient workflow [64]. The scheduling process has three main phases. After release (i), orders are coordinated in the production department, followed by detailed activity planning (ii). Finally, order progress (iii) involves constant monitoring of the status of production and operations to quickly identify and resolve issues.

). The general flow of PPC-related information in many manufacturing companies is represented by a diagram that develops from top to bottom, with an increase in the level of detail and a decrease in time horizons. There are planning activities at the center of this flow, while on the sides, there are flows relating to resources (capacity and inventory) and demand. Between the latter and the planning activities, information flows in a dual direction, reflecting the interconnection between the different PPC phases [48]. The planning activities relating to the PPC system, based on the time horizon covered [47], can be divided into the following categories:

• The strategic level focuses on a long-term and aggregate vision of manufacturing operations, starting from S&OP, and arriving at the generation of an MPS, input to the following level.
• The tactical level uses MPS data, integrated with bill of materials and inventory data, to generate the MRP. Furthermore, based on the capabilities of the production system and cycle times, the process releases detailed plans relating to the resources needed in an even shorter time horizon, typically weekly, which will constitute the input for the operational phase.
• The operational level focuses on the execution of production orders. In this case, the processes involve coordination and control of the actual production processes with SFC and detailed day-to-day, shift-to-shift planning.

3.2. Sustainability Standards Analysis

The second stage of the “Preliminary Analysis” (Figure 1) involved an accurate search to pinpoint specific sustainability guidelines currently available. In recent years, there has been a notable increase in the availability of sustainability indicator sets aimed at helping organizations assess and communicate their performance across the three core dimensions of sustainability: economic, environmental, and social. Many independent initiatives have taken hold at a global level, involving organizations, such as the United Nations, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the European Union, national governments, and the business sector [49]. This diversification of actors underlines the importance attributed to the overall evaluation of the impact of human activities on sustainability. It also highlights the need to define exhaustive and shared standards, as well as be capable of effectively evaluating the impacts of production on all three sustainable dimensions. The continuous development of a plurality of sets contributes to creating confusion in the selection of the most suitable tools for one’s context.

Collecting these indicators in structured frameworks is one of the solution options, but the number of these tools is still limited, often focusing only on the environmental and, sometimes, social dimensions. Despite progress, the search for universal quantitative measures that fully reflect the overall impact on sustainability remains an ambitious goal, requiring continuous commitment from global organizations, institutions, and communities. Specifically, to evaluate the impacts of PPC on aspects related to economic, environmental, and social sustainability, existing sustainability frameworks useful for reporting the sustainability of business organizations have been investigated. Furthermore, accurate research was conducted to identify specific guidelines on sustainability and sustainable development, with particular attention to the identification of detailed frameworks that were exhaustive and capable of contemplating the three fundamental aspects of sustainability. Concerning this, Joung et al. (2013) [46] presented an analysis of the different sets of indicators available to measure sustainability in the manufacturing industry and organized indicators from various sources in a structured map to evaluate sustainability in production processes, manufactured products, and organizations. Similarly, Krajnc et al. (2003) [31] explored the indicators useful to evaluate and promote corporate sustainability, with particular attention to the widely measured environmental aspects of sustainable production. A summary of the global standards that were analyzed and their main characteristics are provided in

Table 1. Overview of the existing standards and indices analyzed.

Standard	Description	Standard-Setting Entity	Application Scope	Economic	Environmental	Social	Number of Indicators
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Standard	Internationally recognized framework for sustainable reporting	Global Reporting Initiative	Companies of any size and sector	X	X	X	84
Climate Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB) Framework	Framework for reporting on environmental and climate-related information in major corporate reports, such as the annual report	Climate Disclosure Standards Board	Companies of any size and sector	-	X	X	ND
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Guidelines	Guidelines for multinational enterprises on responsible business conduct	Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)	Companies of any size and sector	-	X	X	ND
Standards for Environmental Performance Evaluation (ISO 14000 Series)	A series of technical standards related to the environmental management of organizations	International Organization for Standardization (ISO)	Companies of any size and sector	-	X	-	ND
Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI)	Composite index measuring the overall progress of nations towards environmental sustainability	Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy	Companies of any size and sector	-	X	-	21
Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP)	System aimed at promoting a sustainable economy and preventing damage caused by climate change	Carbon Disclosure Project	Companies, local authorities, and governments	-	X	-	ND
Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI)	Indices evaluating financial and sustainability performance based on economic, environmental, and social criteria	S&P Dow Jones Indices, SAM	Leading sustainability companies according to the Dow Jones Global Total Stock Market Index (DJGTSMI)	X	X	X	ND

, highlighting the entity that provides the standard, the application scope, i.e., for which realities they are more suitable and the type of sustainable sphere included (“X”), and the number of indicators (“ND” means “Not Defined”).

Since identifying the various frameworks, it has been noted that comprehensive guidelines or adequate indicator frameworks are often not available to assess the sustainability of PPC. This gap can be attributed to several reasons, including the still-developing status of some frameworks, the limitation of others in providing a comprehensive perspective, and the fact that some do not cover all aspects of sustainability that one wishes to analyze, neglecting the importance of the connection between the environment, society, and the economy. After evaluating examination of the different standards identified, the most suitable framework for the definition of the sustainability analysis of the PPC phases selected was the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) standard. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), an international and independent organization that assists businesses and other organizations in assuming responsibility for their impacts, has created a reliable and credible system for sustainability reporting, known as GRI standards, which aims to promote a uniform and cohesive vision in sustainable reporting and to communicate, with a common and effective language, the economic, environmental, and social impacts of organizations to stakeholders. Its modular and interdependent structure offers organizations a flexible approach to creating detailed and informative reports on their performance and adopted practices. Recognized internationally, the GRI standards stand out as the leading sustainability reporting standard in the corporate context, therefore offering a robust reporting framework that spans all aspects of sustainability. They offer essential reference metrics to indicate the contribution, positive or negative, to the sustainable development of companies and improve their performance (https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/, accessed on 15 May 2025). They include three main categories, as follows:

• In the Universal Standards (GRI 1, 2, 3), applicable to any type of organization, the purpose of the standards is clarified, the fundamental requirements and principles are defined, details on the structure and reporting practices are offered, and, finally, guidelines are outlined to manage material topics.
• Sector Standards are focused on specific areas. They provide an idea of the profile and size of the organization to help better understand the impacts of the organization. These standards aim to increase the quality, completeness, and consistency of reporting by providing a complete picture of specific sectors. To date, 40 have been developed.
• Topic Standards (GRI 200, 300, 400) address specific issues, such as waste, health, and safety at work, offering disclosures suited to each topic. The specific GRI standards can be divided into three large categories, namely economic, environmental, and social.
• Each of these is widely used in various areas, from the evaluation of economic performance to the assessment of financial performance, from risk management to supply chain management, and even to the monitoring of impacts related to challenges of sustainability undertaken by the companies themselves. Finally, these indicators concern the degree of promotion of initiatives aimed at optimizing socially sustainable actions for companies, about human rights, ethical working practices, and social responsibility.

GRI standards provide a structured framework for companies to disclose their sustainability performance, promoting transparency and accountability. By adhering to GRI standards, companies can build trust with stakeholders, demonstrating their commitment to sustainable practices. GRI standards play a key role in advancing sustainability reporting by offering a systematic approach to disclosing environmental, social, and economic impacts. This ensures greater transparency, comparability, and credibility in non-financial reporting [50,51]. They are considered the best global practice for sustainability reporting, emphasizing the triple bottom line, i.e., economic, environmental, and social impacts [51,52]. More than 10,000 organizations worldwide, including large enterprises, multinational corporations, and small- and medium-sized businesses across various sectors, use the GRI standards for their sustainability reporting [53,54]. The reasons for the GRI choice are motivated by its adoption on an international scale, supported by numerous organizations, regardless of their size, sector, or geographical location. The categories of GRI standards are one of the most relevant and complete tools in the field of sustainability reporting, providing a reliable, easy-to-understand, and transparent framework to those involved in the assessment and analysis of sustainable practices and contributing significantly to sustainable development globally. Moreover, this GRI framework is universally recognized. It stands out for its comprehensive approach to the economic, environmental, and social aspects of sustainability, allowing for an in-depth exploration of the complex and interconnected dynamics of corporate sustainability.

4. STEP 2: Definition of Sustainable PPC Framework

Once the GRI standard was chosen as the target, the framework was developed. Given the 84 indicators of the GRI standard, with specific regard to their measurability, the existence of a correlation between the PPC phases and the various sustainability indicators was assessed, considering the characteristics of each phase and the descriptions provided by the GRI. To specify the measurability of the indicators, the term “M” was used for measurable indicators and “NM” for those which were non-measurable. Where correspondence between the PPC phases and the various sustainability indicators was present, the type of impact was defined, distinguishing between direct or indirect; conversely, the indicator was defined as not relevant (“NR”) in the context of the investigated phase. The association between the GRI indicators and the PPC phases was established through a textual analysis of the GRI standards, conducted by two of the four authors of this study. Textual analysis is a qualitative research method used to interpret and describe the characteristics of recorded or visual messages. It involves assigning conceptual categories to texts to uncover underlying meanings and contextual relationships [55]. In this study, the method was applied to the definitions and descriptions of the GRI indicators, combining this analysis with the authors’ in-depth knowledge of the PPC phases. By systematically examining the content and context of each indicator, the authors were able to identify conceptual and functional alignments with the specific phases of the PPC. This approach ensured that the resulting mapping was neither superficial nor merely semantic, but rather reflected a substantive, grounded correspondence between sustainability reporting elements and the operational structure of the PPC process.

The same methodological approach was employed to assess the impact of PPC phases on GRI indicators. Two of the authors independently conducted the textual analysis and subsequently engaged in structured discussions to compare, align, and validate their evaluations. This collaborative process ensured consistency and reliability in the interpretation of results. The analysis focused on identifying and classifying two distinct types of impact between the PPC phases and the GRI indicators.

Specifically, direct impact (“DIR”) occurs when activities and choices carried out during PPC processes have an immediate and recognizable effect on sustainability indicators. This type of impact is characterized by a strong connection between the activities involved and the observed effect on sustainability indicators and is easily attributable to the processes or specific actions performed. An indirect impact (“IND”), on the other hand, occurs when decisions or actions taken during the PPC process influence other aspects of the system that, in turn, may influence sustainability indicators. Because they result from the interconnectedness of different factors or processes within the system, these types of impacts may be less obvious and require a deeper understanding of the dynamics of the system. This can make it complex to isolate and attribute a specific impact to a single PPC activity. In summary, while direct impacts are manifested through a close connection between activities undertaken during PPC phases and sustainability indicators, indirect impacts involve a less immediate and less identifiable connection between them.

Therefore, the developed framework in

Table 2. The proposed GRI-based framework for PPC phases. GRI Indicator: https://www.globalreporting.org/how-to-use-the-gri-standards/gri-standards-english-language/ (accessed on 15 May 2025).

					IMPACTS
	GRI Indicator		Type	Unit of Measure	DFO	AP /S&OP	MPS	MRP	INV	CAP	SFC
ECONOMIC	201-1	Direct economic value generated and distributed	M	EUR	IND	DIR	DIR	DIR	DIR	DIR	DIR
	201-2	Financial implications and other risks and opportunities due to climate change	NM	-	IND	NR	IND	IND	DIR	NR	IND
	201-3	Defined benefit plan obligations and other retirement plans	NM	-	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
	201-4	Financial assistance received from the government	M	EUR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
	202-1	Ratios of standard entry level wage by gender compared to local minimum wage	M	%	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
	202-2	Proportion of senior management hired from the local community	M	%	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
	203-1	Infrastructure investments and services supported	M	EUR	IND	IND	DIR	DIR	DIR	DIR	DIR
	203-2	Significant indirect economic impacts	M	Variable	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
	204-1	Proportion of spending on local suppliers	M	%	NR	NR	NR	DIR	NR	NR	NR
	205-1	Operations assessed for risks related to corruption	M	Number of operations or %	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
	205-2	Communication and training about anti-corruption policies and procedures	M	Variable	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
	205-3	Confirmed incidents of corruption and actions taken	M	Number of incidents of corruption	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
	206-1	Legal actions for anti-competitive behaviour, anti-trust, and monopoly practices	M	Number of actions pending or completed	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
	207-1	Approach to tax	NM	-	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
	207-2	Tax governance, control, and risk management	NM	-	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
	207-3	Stakeholder engagement and management of concerns related to tax	NM	-	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
	207-4	Country-by-country reporting	NM	-	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
ENVIRONMENTAL	301-1	Materials used by weight or volume	M	kg or m3	IND	IND	DIR	DIR	IND	NR	DIR
	301-2	Recycled input materials used	M	%	IND	NR	NR	DIR	NR	NR	NR
	301-3	Reclaimed products and their packaging materials	M	%	NR	NR	NR	IND	NR	NR	NR
	302-1	Energy consumption within the organization	M	J or Wh	IND	IND	DIR	DIR	DIR	DIR	DIR
	302-2	Energy consumption outside of the organization	M	J or Wh	IND	IND	IND	DIR	IND	NR	IND
	302-3	Energy intensity	M	J/organization-specific metric	IND	NR	IND	DIR	IND	NR	DIR
	302-4	Reduction of energy consumption	M	J	IND	IND	DIR	DIR	IND	DIR	DIR
	302-5	Reductions in energy requirements of products and services	M	J	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
	303-1	Interactions with water as a shared resource	NM	-	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	IND
	303-2	Management of water discharge-related impacts	NM	-	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	IND
	303-3	Water withdrawal	M	ML	NR	NR	IND	IND	NR	NR	IND
	303-4	Water discharge	M	ML	NR	NR	IND	IND	NR	NR	IND
	303-5	Water consumption	M	ML	NR	NR	IND	IND	NR	NR	IND
	304-1	Operational sites owned, leased, managed in, or adjacent to, protected areas and areas of high biodiversity value outside protected areas	M	km2	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
	304-2	Significant impacts of activities, products, and services on biodiversity	NM	-	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
	304-3	Habitats protected or restored	NM	-	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
	304-4	IUCN Red List species and national conservation list species with habitats in areas affected by operations	M	Number of species	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
	305-1	Direct (Scope 1) GHG emissions	M	t CO2e	IND	IND	DIR	DIR	DIR	DIR	DIR
	305-2	Energy indirect (Scope 2) GHG emissions	M	t CO2e	IND	IND	IND	DIR	DIR	IND	IND
	305-3	Other indirect (Scope 3) GHG emissions	M	t CO2e	IND	IND	IND	DIR	DIR	NR	IND
	305-4	GHG emissions intensity	M	t CO2/organization-specific metric	IND	IND	IND	DIR	IND	NR	DIR
	305-5	Reduction of GHG emissions	M	t CO2e	IND	IND	DIR	DIR	DIR	DIR	DIR
	305-6	Emissions of ozone-depleting substances (ODSs)	M	ton CFC-11e	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
	305-7	Nitrogen oxides (nOx), sulfur oxides (sOx), and other significant air emissions	M	kg	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
	306-1	Waste generation and significant waste-related impacts	M	t	IND	NR	DIR	DIR	DIR	IND	DIR
	306-2	Management of significant waste-related impacts	NM	-	NR	NR	DIR	NR	IND	NR	IND
	306-3	Waste generated	M	t	IND	IND	DIR	DIR	DIR	IND	DIR
	306-4	Waste diverted from disposal	M	t	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
	306-5	Waste directed to disposal	M	t	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
	308-1	New suppliers that were screened using environmental criteria	M	%	NR	NR	NR	DIR	NR	NR	NR
	308-2	Negative environmental impacts in the supply chain and actions taken	M	Number of suppliers—% suppliers	NR	NR	NR	DIR	NR	NR	NR
SOCIAL	401-1	New employee hires and employee turnover	M	Number of or % hires—Number of or % turnover	IND	DIR	NR	NR	NR	DIR	NR
	401-2	Benefits provided to full-time employees that are not provided to temporary or part-time employees	NM	-	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	IND	NR
	401-3	Parental leave	M	%	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
	402-1	Minimum notice periods regarding operational changes	M	Number of weeks	IND	IND	DIR	DIR	IND	IND	DIR
	403-1	Occupational health and safety management system	NM	-	NR	NR	NR	NR	IND	NR	NR
	403-2	Hazard identification, risk assessment, and incident investigation	NM	-	NR	NR	NR	NR	IND	IND	DIR
	403-3	Occupational health services	NM	-	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
	403-4	Worker participation, consultation, and communication on occupational health and safety	NM	-	NR	NR	NR	NR	IND	NR	NR
	403-5	Worker training on occupational health and safety	NM	-	NR	NR	NR	NR	IND	DIR	NR
	403-6	Promotion of worker health	NM	-	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
	403-7	Prevention and mitigation of occupational health and safety impacts directly linked by business relationships	NM	-	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
	403-8	Workers covered by an occupational health and safety management system	M	Number of or % workers covered by the system	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	IND	NR
	403-9	Work-related injuries	M	Number of or % fatalities—Number of or % high-consequence cases	NR	NR	NR	IND	IND	DIR	IND
	403-10	Work-related ill health	M	Number of or % fatalities—Number of or % recordable cases	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	DIR	IND
	404-1	Average hours of training per year per employee	M	total hours/total employees	IND	IND	IND	IND	IND	DIR	IND
	404-2	Programs for upgrading employee skills and transition assistance programs	NM	-	IND	IND	IND	IND	IND	DIR	IND
	404-3	Percentage of employees receiving regular performance and career development reviews	M	%	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	IND	NR
	405-1	Diversity of governance bodies and employees	M	% members of diversity categories	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	IND	NR
	405-2	Ratio of basic salary and remuneration of women to men	M	%	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	IND	NR
	406-1	Incidents of discrimination and corrective actions taken	NM	-	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
	407-1	Operations and suppliers in which the right to freedom of association and collective bargaining may be at risk	NM	-	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
	408-1	Operations and suppliers at significant risk for incidents of child labor	NM	-	NR	NR	NR	DIR	NR	NR	NR
	409-1	Operations and suppliers at significant risk for incidents of forced or compulsory labor	NM	-	NR	NR	NR	DIR	NR	NR	NR
	410-1	Security personnel trained in human rights policies or procedures	M	%	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	DIR	NR
	411-1	Incidents of violations involving rights of indigenous peoples	M	Number of identified incidents	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
	413-1	Operations with local community engagement, impact assessments, and development programs	M	%	IND	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
	413-2	Operations with significant actual and potential negative impacts on local communities	M	variable	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
	414-1	New suppliers that were screened using social criteria	M	% suppliers	NR	NR	NR	DIR	NR	NR	NR
	414-2	Negative social impacts in the supply chain and actions taken	M	Number of suppliers—% suppliers	NR	NR	NR	DIR	NR	NR	NR
	415-1	Political contributions	M	EUR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
	416-1	Assessment of the health and safety impacts of product and service categories	M	% significant product and service categories	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
	416-2	Incidents of non-compliance concerning the health and safety impacts of products and services	M	Number of incidents	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	IND
	417-1	Requirements for product and service information and labelling	M	% categories covered by and assessed for compliance	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
	417-2	Incidents of non-compliance concerning product and service information and labelling	M	Number of incidents	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
	417-3	Incidents of non-compliance concerning marketing communications	M	Number of incidents	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
	418-1	Substantiated complaints concerning breaches of customer privacy and losses of customer data	M	Number of complaints received or number of leaks, thefts of customer data	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR

provides a clear view of the links and effects of PPC on sustainability, contributing significantly to the assessment of business performance in the three examined sustainability areas. By associating phases with indicators and promptly indicating the type of indicator and impact, this framework helps optimize strategic decisions and promote more informed management.

The indicators directly and indirectly influenced by each PPC phase are reported in Figure 2. A total of 48 were found to be significant for at least 1 of the PPC phases (4 economic, 22 environmental, and 22 social), while the remaining showed no relevance for any of them (13 economic, 9 environmental, and 14 social). As expected, all PPC phases are closely interconnected with environmental (indicators 302-1, 302-4, 305-1, 305-2, 305-5, and 306-3), social (indicators 402-1, 404-1, 404-2), and economic sustainability aspects (indicators 201-1, 203-1), with some factors emerging as common across all phases.

Particularly noteworthy is the Material Requirements Planning (MRP) phase, which emerges with the highest number of sustainability indicators involved, totaling 31, of which 19 are environmental and 8 are social, as shown in Figure 2. This outcome can be attributed to MRP’s focus on efficient resource and material planning, contributing to waste reduction and the selection of sustainable suppliers through proper planning. This explains the strong emphasis on sustainability positioning MRP at the center of corporate strategies. Following this is the Shop Floor Control/Production Scheduling (SFC) phase with 28 indicators. On the other hand, the Inventory Planning and Control (INV), Capacity Planning and Control (CAP), Master Production Scheduling (MPS), and Demand Forecasting (DFO) phases appear relatively balanced, while the remaining Sales & Operations Planning (S&OP) phases differ, presenting a lower number of sustainability indicators involved.

Specifically, in line with its nature, which is closely related to resource management, including labor, the CAP phase is the only one that mainly involves social sustainability indicators, unlike the other PPC phases, which are predominantly oriented towards environmental aspects. The lack of relevant economic indicators for each phase can be attributed to the lesser emphasis placed on such indicators in the GRI standard compared to those dedicated to social and environmental aspects.

Regarding the measurability of the relevant indicators mentioned above, in all phases of PPC, there is a significant presence of measurable environmental indicators, while for social and economic ones, a more balanced distribution between quantifiable and non-quantifiable indicators is highlighted in

Table 3. Measurable and non-measurable indicators for each PPC phase, distinguished by area (economic, environmental, and social).

	DFO	AP/S&OP	MPS	MRP	INV	CAP	SFC
Economic	3	2	3	4	3	2	3
Measurable	2	2	2	3	2	2	2
Not measurable	1	-	1	1	1	-	1
Environmental	13	10	16	19	13	7	18
Measurable	13	10	15	19	12	7	15
Not measurable	-	-	1	-	1	-	3
Social	5	4	3	8	8	14	7
Measurable	4	3	2	5	3	10	5
Not measurable	1	1	1	3	5	4	2

.

Furthermore, the number of relevant indicators, for which a direct or indirect impact was detected, was identified for each PPC phase (Figure 3).

Regarding economic sustainability, all phases present a similar and limited number of relevant indicators, with both direct and indirect impacts, without significant differences emerging among them. The MRP phase involves a larger number of total indicators, unlike the S&OP and CAP phases. However, these differences remain very small, varying by only one indicator compared to all other phases. The DFO phase does not directly affect any of the economic sustainability indicators, just as the CAP and INV phases, which do not generate indirect impacts on any of the GRI factors. The overall balance between direct and indirect impacts for each phase suggests a similar contribution to the overall economic sustainability of the process but may not fully reflect all the specific qualitative nuances of each phase. The situation is different in terms of environmental and social sustainability.

In the case of environmental sustainability, the S&OP and DFO phases exclusively exhibit indirect impacts, as they are mainly dedicated to demand analysis and strategy formulation, which will then be further detailed in subsequent phases. However, they still exert a considerable impact on the overall system due to their significant influence on other system activities. In contrast to the latter, MRP stands out for its immediate and direct impact on the environment, defined by its nature as closely intertwined with the organization’s production and logistics activities. For the SFC and MPS phases, there is a balance between direct and indirect impacts on the environment, with an equal number of indicators for both categories: this balance reflects the involvement of activities acting at both operational and strategic levels. A similar result is obtained for the INV phase, which only slightly deviates from the previous ones. In contrast to the previously mentioned phases, CAP records a rather low number of relevant indicators. Therefore, except for S&OP and CAP, the rest of the phases show a rather homogeneous overall situation with a total number of relevant indicators ranging from 13 to 19, thus highlighting their significant direct impact on the environment.

Lastly, in terms of social sustainability, a remarkable scarcity of factors emerges, on which every phase of PPC has a significant direct impact, except for the MRP and CAP phases. Moreover, the relevance of CAP becomes even more evident when considering the total of its indicators, both direct and indirect. In particular, the DFO and INV phases present a null number of indicators associated with direct impacts concerning the social dimension, while AP/S&OP, MPS, and SFC record an increase, although a decidedly moderate one. Looking at indirect impacts, all the PPC phases show a rather homogeneous overall situation, where only CAP and INV stand out, presenting, respectively, seven and eight fundamental metrics. Inventory planning and control, i.e., managing the quantities of goods in stock, contributes to employment stability and employee welfare. Decisions in this phase influence customer access to products, labor availability, and suppliers’ economic stability. The DFO phase discreetly participates in generating indirect impacts on the social dimension, which could indirectly affect the need for training or new hires. As with DFO, SFC also occupies an intermediate position compared to the other phases of PPC.

Given its central role and numerous related indicators, the next section provides a detailed analysis of the MRP, focusing on its key social, economic, and environmental sustainability impacts.

5. Sustainable Material Requirement Planning (MRP): Integration with the GRI Standards

Material Requirements Planning (MRP), as detailed in Appendix A—Table A1, is a widely adopted tool in production planning to optimize the efficiency of the production process and the competitiveness of the company in its operating market. Although the literature has widely addressed the operational aspects of MRP, its relationship with sustainability remains largely underexplored. Green MRP, emerging as the only approach dedicated to filling this gap, is “a conventional Material Requirements Planning (MRP) system that has been modified to include environmental considerations when converting the MPS into the various component schedules” [56]. This approach seeks to tackle the pressing issue of sustainable industrial waste management by identifying and addressing environmental challenges in component planning and highlighting the pollution generated by the organization. The scarcity of further in-depth research on this critical link underscores the need for expanded studies in this area to guide businesses toward more sustainable practices, also from a social and economic point of view.

Therefore, the results obtained from the developed MRP framework are now further elaborated to capture the nuances and complexities intrinsic to MRP and to further enhance the understanding of the environmental, social, and economic impacts generated by its activities. There are 31 indicators found to be relevant to MRP (Figure 2). Of these, 23 are directly impacted (Figure 3), and 27 are the quantifiable ones (Table 3). The MRP phase within PPC stands out for its extensive incorporation of sustainability indicators, primarily environmental ones. This stems from its core objective of efficiently managing materials and components and overseeing the supply chain and supplier relationships. MRP helps reduce overproduction. This, in turn, minimizes environmental harm and supports sustainable practices among suppliers. While environmental concerns take center stage, the significance of social and economic sustainability indicators remains paramount and should not be overlooked. Of these, MRP has direct impacts on 23 indicators and indirect impacts on 8. Direct impact indicators manifest as immediate results of specific MRP activities and are closely related to the daily operations of the process, unlike indirect impact indicators, whereby consequences may be less obvious and occur through a series of connections or interactions with other factors or activities. Direct impacts prevail in the context of environmental sustainability, with 15 dedicated indicators. There are five social indicators, while the remaining three are situated within the economic dimension. On the other hand, for indirect impact indicators, there are no major differences among the three sustainability dimensions, with four environmental indicators, three social indicators, and only one economic indicator.

5.1. MRP Impacts on Economic Sustainability Indicators (GRI 200)

The economic sustainability indicators of the GRI constitute a set aimed at communicating organizations’ economic performance from a sustainability perspective. From the developed framework presented in Table 2, a limited number of relevant indicators to evaluate economic sustainability have emerged for the MRP process. While this limitation may seem surprising at first, it can be explained by the structure of the GRI, which offers a limited set of indicators for analyzing and disclosing corporate sustainability in terms of economic aspects. This is in stark contrast to environmental and social aspects, for which the GRI provides a much broader set of guidelines. However, to overcome this limitation, organizations could consider the possibility of also referring to other reporting standards. This way, the overall assessment of economic sustainability could be enriched, allowing organizations to more comprehensively address the economic challenges associated with sustainability. From what emerged from the framework, there are three economic indicators directly impacted by the MRP phase, and one is indirectly impacted. In

Table 4. Economic GRIs in MRP.

Indicator	GRI Description	Type of Impact
GRI 201: Economic performance
GRI 201-1: Direct economic value generated and distributed	It highlights how an organization creates and distributes economic value and requires the presentation of details relating to the direct economic value generated and distributed on an accrual basis, which excludes past or future financial transactions. This value includes costs and revenues associated with a specific period.	Direct impact: MRP manages purchases and materials for production, directly influencing the economic value distributed and generated. This includes optimizing supply, contributing to financial balance and improving customer responsiveness.
GRI 201-2: Financial implications and other risks and opportunities resulting from climate change	It addresses the risks and opportunities related to climate change and their impact on the organization’s operations, revenues, and expenses.	Indirect impact: Effective MRP implementation helps identify vulnerabilities in infrastructure and suppliers, ensuring supply chain resilience against climate risks, while promoting sustainable production through low-impact materials.
GRI 203: Indirect economic impacts
GRI 203-1: Investments in infrastructure and supported services	It addresses the impacts of an organization’s infrastructure investments, requiring details on the types of investments and their impacts on local communities and economies.	Direct impact: MRP oversees materials and supply planning. This includes infrastructure investments, like improved transport and new technologies, enhanced efficiency, ensuring timely supply, and strengthening communication and transparency with suppliers.
GRI 204: Procurement practices
GRI 204-1: Proportion of expenditure made to local suppliers	It covers local sourcing and its benefits to the local economy.	Direct impact: MRP can encourage the use of local suppliers, possibly reducing transportation times and costs and improving supply chain efficiency. Additionally, geographic proximity allows for more direct communication and greater collaboration, while supporting local suppliers defends the local economy and reduces the environmental impact of long-distance transportation.

, a brief description of each indicator is provided, highlighting the type of impact and the related connection to the MRP.

5.2. MRP Impacts on Environmental Sustainability Indicators (GRI 300)

Environmental sustainability indicators are tools designed to assist organizations in measuring, managing, and reporting their environmental performance and impacts. They promote sustainable practices, pushing companies towards more responsible behavior towards the surrounding environment. In the context of MRP, several environmental sustainability indicators that play a significant role can be identified. As expected, environmental sustainability has always been of greater importance given the effects of mismanagement in this area. This is why, proportionally, the MRP sees a prevalence of GRI-related indicators in this sphere of sustainability. From what emerged from the framework, there are 15 environmental indicators on which the MRP phase has a direct impact. On the other hand, there are four environmental indicators on which the MRP phase has an indirect impact.

Table 5. Environmental GRIs for MRP.

Indicator	GRI Description	Type of Impact
GRI 301: Materials
GRI 301-1: Materials used based on weight or volume	It concerns the reporting of the use of materials in an organization’s operations, specifying the weight or volume of materials used to produce goods and services, including renewable and non-renewable materials, and their origin.	Direct impact: MRP directly influences the quantity of materials to be purchased and used for production, optimizing order planning and the procurement of necessary materials.
GRI 301-2: Recycled input materials used	It concerns the percentage of recycled materials used in the production of goods and services.	Direct impact: MRP can directly influence the purchasing and use of recycled materials, guiding supplier selection and encouraging sustainable practices in the supply chain.
GRI 301-3: Recovered products and related packaging materials	It concerns the percentage of recovered products and the packaging materials associated with them.	Indirect impact: MRP’s supply chain and supplier management can favor the choice of suppliers who offer recycled or recovered materials, thus influencing the quantity of recovered products used in production.
GRI 302: Energy
GRI 302-1: Energy consumption within the organization	It concerns energy consumption and fuels used within the organization.	Direct impact: MRP affects internal energy use by influencing the use of machinery and equipment in production processes.
GRI 302-2: Energy consumption external to the organization	It concerns energy consumption outside the organization, including transportation and distribution.	Direct impact: MRP can influence external energy consumption by optimizing transportation and selecting local suppliers.
GRI 302-3: Energy intensity	It measures energy consumption concerning an organization-specific parameter.	Direct impact: MRP can help modulate energy intensity through efficient resource management.
GRI 302-4: Reduction in energy consumption	It concerns reductions in energy consumption achieved through energy-saving initiatives.	Direct impact: MRP can contribute to the reduction of energy consumption through more careful decisions regarding the supply chain and transportation.
GRI 303: Water and water waste
GRI 303-3: Water withdrawal	It concerns the total amount of water withdrawn by the organization, broken down by different sources and water-stressed areas.	Indirect impact: MRP decisions, such as carefully planning production quantities and material requirements, impact water use in production processes, with direct consequences on water use.
GRI 303-4: Water discharge	It concerns the total volume of water discharge of the organization, divided by type of destination and quality categories.	Indirect impact: Decisions made during the MRP phase can influence the amount of water needed in production processes, and consequently, the amount of water wasted. Furthermore, MRP can evaluate the overall impact of the supply chain on the water environment, monitoring the performance of suppliers and collaborating with them to adopt improvement measures.
GRI 303-5: Water consumption	It covers the organization’s total water consumption, including the difference between total water discharge and total water withdrawal.	Indirect impact: MRP can indirectly influence the consumption of water resources involved in operations, optimizing the need for water resources and minimizing the costs associated with wastewater management.
GRI 305: Emissions
GRI 305-1: Direct greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Scope 1)	It concerns the reporting of direct emissions of GHG.	Direct impact: Decisions made during MRP regarding the production and management of components can directly influence the generation of GHG emissions.
GRI 305-2: Indirect GHG emissions from energy consumption (Scope 2)	It concerns indirect GHG emissions resulting from the consumption of energy purchased from external sources.	Direct impact: MRP affects these emissions by planning the use of machinery and equipment with lower energy consumption.
GRI 305-3: Other indirect GHG emissions (Scope 3)	It concerns indirect GHG emissions outside the organization.	Direct impact: MRP directly impacts these GHG emissions through more sustainable supply chain decisions and transportation optimization.
GRI 305-4: Intensity of GHG emissions	It measures GHG emissions relative to an organization-specific parameter.	Direct impact: MRP can directly contribute to modulating GHG emissions intensity through more sustainable decisions regarding the supply chain and transportation strategies.
GRI 305-5: Reduction of GHG emissions	It concerns the reporting of GHG emission reductions.	Direct impact: MRP can directly contribute to reducing emissions through more sustainable decisions regarding the supply chain and transport optimization.
GRI 306: Waste
GRI 306-1: Generation of waste and significant impacts related to waste	It concerns the reporting of waste generated and its significant impacts.	Direct impact: MRP directly influences waste generation through the optimal planning of production and supply orders.
GRI 306-3: Waste generated	It concerns the total weight of waste generated and its division.	Direct impact: MRP directly influences the quantity of materials purchased and used in production, consequently influencing waste production.
GRI 308: Supplier environmental assessment
GRI 308-1: New suppliers that have been selected using environmental criteria	It concerns the percentage of new suppliers selected based on environmental criteria.	Direct impact: MRP can contribute to the selection of sustainable suppliers, encouraging more responsible practices in the supply chain.
GRI 308-2: Negative environmental impacts in the supply chain and measures adopted	It concerns measures taken to mitigate negative environmental impacts in the supply chain.	Direct impact: MRP can contribute to the mitigation of negative environmental impacts through more sustainable supply chain management and the selection of more responsible suppliers.

details the indicators.

5.3. MRP Impacts on Social Sustainability Indicators (GRI 400)

Social sustainability indicators within the GRI framework play a crucial role in evaluating and communicating the performance of organizations in terms of social impact. They are typically overlooked [5,15,57] or underrepresented compared to environmental and economic aspects [58], but they are very essential elements in reflecting an organization’s commitment to human rights, ethical working practices, and social responsibility. Within the scope of the MRP, various social sustainability indicators play an important role. The indicators on which MRP has a direct impact number five in the social field, while it has an indirect impact on three of them. A detailed description of each indicator is provided in

Table 6. Social GRIs for MRP.

Indicator	GRI Description	Type of Impact
GRI 402: Relations between workers and management
GRI 402-1: Minimum notice periods regarding operational changes	It involves communicating significant operational changes with adequate notice to employees and their representatives.	Direct impact: MRP, managing production planning and material requirements, must adjust production and procurement times in case of operational changes, thus establishing minimum notice periods necessary to adapt to the changes.
GRI 403: Health and safety at work
GRI 403-9: Accidents at work	It concerns the reporting of workplace accidents and associated risks.	Indirect impact: MRP can indirectly influence workplace safety through decisions regarding the management of materials and suppliers, which can increase or reduce the risk of injury.
GRI 404: Training and education
GRI 404-1: Average number of training hours per year per employee	It concerns the reporting of training hours provided to employees.	Indirect impact: Implementing an MRP system requires in-depth knowledge of business processes, so the company could invest in staff training to ensure effective management of MRP.
GRI 404-2: Programs to update employee skills and assist in transition	It concerns the reporting on employee skill development and transition assistance programs.	Indirect impact: MRP can influence employee upskilling programs in response to technological and strategic changes, ensuring that staff have the skills needed to effectively manage the MRP system.
GRI 408: Child labor
GRI 408-1: Activities and suppliers that present a significant risk of child labor	It concerns the identification of activities and suppliers at risk of child labor and the measures taken to contribute to its abolition.	Direct impact: MRP, through the adoption of social criteria in supplier selection, can help avoid collaboration with suppliers involved in cases of child labor, although the effectiveness of this influence depends on company policies.
GRI 409: Forced or compulsory labor
GRI 409-1: Activities and suppliers that present a significant risk of incidents of forced or compulsory labor	It concerns the identification of activities and suppliers at risk of forced or compulsory labor and the measures taken to contribute to its abolition.	Direct impact: MRP, through the choice of suppliers, can prevent collaborations with suppliers involved in episodes of forced or compulsory labor, but the effectiveness depends on company policies.
GRI 414: Social evaluation of suppliers
GRI 414-1: New suppliers that have been selected using social criteria	It concerns the evaluation of new suppliers through social criteria.	Direct impact: If the company uses social criteria as supplier selection factors, MRP must make decisions that respect these evaluation parameters.
GRI 414-2: Negative social impacts in the supply chain and actions taken	It concerns the assessment of negative social impacts in the supply chain and the actions taken to mitigate them.	Direct impact: MRP has a significant impact on the supply chain, directly influencing supplier practices and contributing to the assessment and mitigation of negative social impacts.

.

6. Discussion and Conclusions

In today’s industrial landscape, sustainability is gaining importance, driving companies toward a more conscious and responsible approach to production. Within this context, Production Planning and Control (PPC) has become a central element in promoting sustainable production practices. PPC is no longer viewed solely as a strategic and operational function but as a key driver directly influencing production dynamics and management decisions that shape the organization’s sustainability impact. To integrate sustainability into core production practices and support companies in achieving their sustainability goals using established standards, a framework that highlights the influence of individual PPC phases on environmental, social, and economic sustainability indicators has been proposed. Several prominent sustainability standards were analyzed to identify the most suitable one for PPC. Ultimately, the GRI was selected due to its international adoption and comprehensive coverage of sustainability aspects. The correlation was defined via textual analysis, classifying the PPC phase’s effect on each indicator as either no relevance, direct impact (immediate and identifiable effects due to planning decisions), or indirect impact (when PPC decisions influence other system elements that subsequently affect sustainability indicators). With the overall framework defined, a particular and detailed analysis was carried out for the most significant phase of PPC in terms of the number of impacts on GRI indicators, i.e., the Material Requirements Planning (MRP).

Although this study primarily focuses on the MRP phase, the same approach and level of detail were applied to other PPC stages to derive the synthetic and comprehensive values reported in Section 4. For instance, while some phases, such as Sales and Operations Planning (S&OP), may appear less directly related to sustainability, they nonetheless hold intrinsic significance within the overall framework. To provide an overview of the analysis’ scope and depth,

Table 7. Economic, environmental, and social GRIs for S&OP.

Pillar	Indicator	GRI Ref.	Type of Impact
Economic	GRI 201-1: Direct economic value generated and distributed	GRI 201: Economic performance	Direct impact: Considering the financial needs of the company, S&OP defines a production mix that can directly influence the generation of revenue and the control of operating costs.
	GRI 203-1: Infrastructure investments and services supported	GRI 203: Indirect economic impacts	Indirect impact: Through the analysis of demand and available resources, S&OP can highlight the future needs of the company. This can guide investment decisions, identifying areas where new infrastructure or services may be needed.
Environmental	GRI 301-1: Materials used by weight or volume	GRI 301: Materials	Indirect impact: Decisions in the S&OP phase shape the product mix and overall production capacity, indirectly affecting material consumption.
	GRI 302-1: Energy consumption within the organization	GRI 302: Energy	Indirect impact: S&OP decisions indirectly influence energy consumption by enabling more efficient and optimized production planning. While not directly controlling energy use, they help reduce waste, improve resource utilization, and prevent sudden production changes that could increase energy demand.
	GRI 302-2: Energy consumption outside of the organization		Indirect impact: Decisions on the planning of operations concern the production mix to be realized, thus impacting the supply chain, and may influence the procurement of raw materials/components and their distribution upstream, into the company; these are categories that involve external energy consumption outside the company.
	GRI 302-4: Reduction of energy consumption		Indirect impact: Accurate and realistic planning can avoid overproduction or underproduction, reducing energy waste associated with the management of production processes. Coordination between resource availability and expected demand can also contribute to a more efficient use of energy.
	GRI 305-1: Direct (Scope 1) GHG emissions	GRI 305: Emissions	Indirect impact: S&OP carefully plans production mix, sales, and operations; it does not directly involve production processes or activities that generate Scope 1 GHG emissions; however, it may influence internal production and, thus, emissions (e.g., overproduction).
	GRI 305-2: Energy indirect (Scope 2) GHG emissions		Indirect impact: Decisions in this phase can influence levels of purchase of electricity or other sources needed to support business operations (e.g., if production increases, more energy may have to be purchased to power production activities).
	GRI 305-3: Other indirect (Scope 3) GHG emissions		Indirect impact: A more efficient planning of production mix, operations, and sales can indirectly influence indirect emissions by reducing unnecessary transportation, optimizing the supply chain, and encouraging the purchase of raw materials from more sustainable suppliers.
	GRI 305-4: GHG emissions intensity		Indirect impact: By coordinating sales planning with operations planning, S&OP can help reduce waste due to overproduction or insufficient product availability, indirectly influencing the intensity of demand management emissions.
	GRI 305-5: Reduction of GHG emissions		Indirect impact: More efficient planning of production mix, sales, and operations can lead to more sustainable production by reducing the use of energy and resources that contribute to GHG emissions.
	GRI 306-3: Waste generated	GRI 306: Waste	Indirect impact: No physical waste is directly generated. However, decisions made during S&OP can influence future operations and affect the amount and type (S&OP identifies the quantity, type, and price of products to be produced) of waste generated.
Social	GRI 401-1: New employee hires and employee turnover	GRI 401: Employment	Direct impact: S&OP focuses on planning operations, coordinating expected demand with available production capacity, and determining a shared and realistic production plan. Decisions made during this phase may directly influence the staffing needs and human resources required to meet the expected demand and manage the company’s operations.
	GRI 402-1: Minimum notice periods regarding operational changes	GRI 402: Relations between workers and management	Indirect impact: Decisions made during S&OP may lead to operational changes that require a notice period to be implemented.
	GRI 404-1: Average hours of training per year per employee	GRI 404: Training and education	Indirect impact: Planning decisions made during S&OP may lead to changes in operations or processes, which, in turn, may require training for employees to adapt to these changes
	GRI 404-2: Programs for upgrading employee skills and transition assistance programs		Indirect impact: Same reasons as the previous indicator.

summarizes the evaluation across S&OP, offering readers a concise yet informative snapshot of the comprehensive assessment.

The proposed framework advances current research by offering an in-depth, process-level analysis of PPC phases linked to sustainability indicators relevant for reporting, addressing a gap where prior studies have often focused on isolated sustainability aspects. The proposal does not merely enumerate impacts but also delves into the nature of the PPC individual phases’ impacts on sustainable spheres, as well as assessing the measurability of indicators according to GRI’s rigorous standards. The framework could provide companies with a comprehensive overview of their impacts on sustainability from a planning perspective, enabling them to develop targeted strategies to mitigate them.

This holistic and structured approach enables a comprehensive understanding of a company’s sustainability impact and helps identify areas for targeted improvement through strategic and concrete actions. Overall, integrating PPC steps with sustainability dimensions to investigate the impacts of each activity offers a solid foundation for more responsible, competitive, and future-oriented business practices.

Nevertheless, this research work presents some limitations. The framework has been significantly affected by the choice of the GRI sustainable standard. There is an urgent need to expand the scope of the framework to other sets of sustainability indicators as well. This perspective is motivated by the realization that the GRI standard, although broad and detailed, may still not cover all aspects of sustainability relevant to PPC, such as in the case of economic sustainability indicators, which are rather limited in the GRI framework. As a result of this, to obtain a more complete view from this perspective, it might be useful to also explore other sustainability reporting standards and evaluate the overall number of indicators established until now. The integration of additional elements will provide an even richer and more heterogeneous picture, capable of revealing more significant aspects of the PPC stages and their influence on corporate sustainability.

A key further limitation is the reliance on qualitative textual analysis to link GRI standards with PPC phases and identify impacts, which introduces subjectivity and limits reproducibility. Developing a more standardized and quantitative framework in future research, building on the foundation established here, would enhance the rigor and reliability of this linkage by providing clearer criteria and enabling more consistent application. Such advancement would not only strengthen the scientific foundation but also promote greater transparency and comparability, ultimately supporting broader adoption in both academic and practical contexts.

While the proposed framework presents a valuable conceptual contribution, its robustness and practical applicability would be significantly enhanced by a more structured validation process. The few unstructured interviews conducted with planners offer only limited insight and are insufficient to support the generalizability of the mapping. As such, more systematic validation, such as an expert survey or a dedicated workshop, should be considered a crucial direction for future research. This would enable a more comprehensive and rigorous evaluation of the framework’s accuracy and relevance, thereby strengthening its credibility in both academic and practical contexts.

The framework shows significant potential for practical application in manufacturing, serving as a structured guide to support operational decision making. It can be envisioned as a roadmap that informs strategic and tactical choices (such as lot sizing or sequencing), ensuring alignment with the company’s broader sustainability objectives. While a quantitative relationship between operational decisions and sustainability indicators has not yet been established, this represents a natural and valuable direction for future research. In the meantime, the framework can serve as a checklist to evaluate the coherence of their actions with environmental, social, and governance (ESG) targets. Furthermore, the framework can inform internal reporting dashboards by linking operational projects or continuous improvement initiatives to relevant sustainability indicators. In doing so, it bridges the gap between day-to-day manufacturing decisions and the overarching ESG goals of the organization.

Future Research Directions

This study focused exclusively on the Material Requirements Planning (MRP) phase, providing an in-depth analysis. This choice was driven by the desire to delve deeper into one of the most studied and known components in business, as well as a key component of any production process, allowing for a thorough understanding of its impact on the overall sustainable development of a company. Future research could extend this meticulous analysis to all PPC stages. This development could provide a comprehensive and detailed overview of each aspect of the production planning and control process, allowing for a clear delineation of the specific dynamics of each stage and its impact on corporate sustainability. By broadening the use of the framework to all phases of the process, moreover, it will be possible to identify new opportunities for their improvement and optimization.

Enhancing the framework by incorporating additional sustainability reporting standards or indicator sets beyond those currently considered (for example, the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board or the European Sustainability Reporting Standards) is another key opportunity. Addressing this aspect would demonstrate that the framework is flexible and adaptable to a wider range of reporting contexts. This adaptability is crucial in the rapidly evolving landscape of sustainability disclosure, characterized by an increasing number of regulations, guidelines, and best practices that vary across geographies and industries. Integrating additional standards would also enhance the practical relevance and applicability of the framework, enabling organizations to select the most appropriate references tailored to their specific operational contexts and to effectively comply with diverse regulatory or market demands. Moreover, this expansion could foster greater alignment among various reporting initiatives, promoting synergies and reducing the informational fragmentation that often poses challenges for both companies and stakeholders. Ultimately, this would reinforce the framework’s value as an integrated and strategic tool for sustainability management and reporting in an increasingly complex global environment. Another future development may involve identifying relevant case studies to explore concrete examples related to the calculation and assessment of measurable indicators concerning the planning processes analyzed. Such practical cases will provide valuable insights into the challenges encountered by organizations in establishing the indicators’ values. Lastly, it could be interesting to develop a sustainable assessment tool based on the type of impact of PPC phases on indicators. According to the values of measurable indicators and the evaluation of non-measurable ones, and having weighted all of them according to the type of impacts (direct or indirect), an overall tool should be developed, which could become an efficient support for companies in defining their sustainable levels of planning processes.