Managing the Integration of Companies into Green Value Chains: A Regional Perspective

Abstract

In recent years, the green and low-carbon agenda has gained importance across various economic sectors, including the construction sector, which encompasses both the development of infrastructure and buildings, as well as the production of construction materials. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate that the effectiveness of green integration is achieved by balancing the collective capital of all participants in forming green value chains. The authors propose a methodology for evaluating the integration capital, which enables the assessment of both joint capital accumulation and the resulting added green value. A system of indicators is proposed to evaluate participants in green integration and determine the maturity levels of their integration capital. The methodology is tested using a case study reflecting green integration in the construction sector covering the erection of buildings and the production of building materials. The authors introduce a three-dimensional model (triangular prisms) to visualize the potential and the integration capital of the involved actors. The study’s findings are applicable to scenario modeling, particularly in developing strategic trajectories for participants in green integration.

1. Introduction

The benefits of inter-company collaboration in managing and evaluating socio-economic systems are widely acknowledged across various academic traditions. For example, the research group led by R. Handfield emphasizes the importance of integration for establishing inter-organizational linkages, synchronizing business operations, and accelerating the transfer of knowledge among partners [1]. Other scholars assess integration in terms of the extent to which manufacturers strategically collaborate with partners to jointly manage internal organizational processes. T. Kong and colleagues propose approaches for evaluating the effectiveness of interactions among suppliers, customers, and enterprises through compliance with environmental criteria [2]. Additionally, the research team led by A. Abbas classifies green integration approaches into four categories:

–

Green internal integration—the intra-organizational management of environmental practices within a company;

–

Green supplier integration—collaboration with suppliers to adopt green principles in product development and process design;

–

Green customer integration—engagement with customers to gather market intelligence and understand environmental product demand;

–

Green external integration—joint implementation of inter-organizational green initiatives between suppliers and customers.

Based on this framework, A. Abbas [3] defines green integration as the convergence of green supply chain management and green innovation, arguing that effective innovation management is responsible for the success of collaborative green strategies and contributes to both sustainability and business performance.

At the macro level—for instance, within the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU)—the principles of green integration are still emerging. Broadly, green integration in this context involves (1) establishing a unified approach to defining objectives of the green economy development within the EAEU; (2) developing harmonized taxonomies for green projects and criteria for their evaluation, endorsed by all member states; and (3) identifying environmentally oriented priority areas for cooperative projects involving several EAEU countries.

The academic literature has largely explored the concept of green integration at the micro (enterprise) and macro (policy) levels. However, this overlooks the critical meso level—where cross-industry and cross-regional collaborations take place. We argue that green integration at the meso level entails voluntary networking partnerships among diverse stakeholders aimed at implementing green projects that advance the sustainable development of socio-economic systems across enterprises, industries, and regions. Using green construction as an illustrative case, this article conceptualizes green integration at meso and micro levels as a network-based alliance within the construction sector (covering both the erection of buildings, infrastructure, etc., and the production of key building (construction) materials). This network includes all relevant participants, working collaboratively to implement green construction principles throughout the entire building (and building materials) life cycle.

Despite widespread recognition of the potential benefits of green construction, several barriers persist. These challenges can only be overcome by pooling the efforts and capacities of various stakeholders, including industrial enterprises, government bodies, financial institutions, and academic organizations. Green integration facilitates the exchange of information, resources, and expertise, fosters complementarities, and supports the development of collaborative governance mechanisms that reflect the interests of all parties involved. To evaluate the effectiveness of such integration from the standpoint of green value creation, the value chain concept is used. A value chain represents a sequence of coordinated actions by actors to optimize resource consumption and distribution, and to design business processes to yield green final products.

The nature of integration capital is not simply a combination of actors’ capitals, but an organization of their interactions for creating green value added through the conversion of various forms and types of capital. By integration capital, the authors mean the combined form of technological, natural, social, and financial capital that is generated through the process of transformation. In other words, it is the conversion and replacement of different types of capital by individual actors within the context of green integration. For instance, the technological and social capital of the integration participants may be transformed into the environmental and even natural capital, while the financial capital may be converted into the technological capital, and so on. The process of accumulating integrated capital in green integration is assessed through the formation of sources for green funding, as well as the enhancement of technological, infrastructure, and intellectual potentials.

This study hypothesizes that green added value can be achieved by strategically managing integration capital through the alignment of participants’ potentials. It addresses the following three research questions:

Q1. 

The contributions of integration participants to green value chain formation are uneven. What criteria can be used to assess their contributions to integration capital?

Q2. 

Can the effectiveness of integration capital management be evaluated through the assessment of participants’ potentials in green integration?

Q3. 

What strategic development scenarios can be derived for actors based on the green added value generated?

The rest of this paper is structured as follows: Section 2 reviews and summarizes previous research results on the concept and implementation of green business value chains. Section 3 introduces a methodology for assessing integration capital. Section 4 presents an empirical case study of green integration in the construction sector and building materials industry. Section 5 discusses potential strategies for boosting the integration potential of actors, based on the empirical results, and concludes the paper.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Green Value Chains

An analysis of the theoretical foundations of value chain creation reveals four predominant conceptual approaches:

(1)

Value chain as a set of activities that add value: This perspective defines a value chain as a series of activities required to transform a product or service from its initial conception through production and delivery to the final consumer, including post-consumption disposal [4,5].

(2)

Value chain as a set of links: In this interpretation, the value chain functions as a mechanism that enables producers, sellers, and consumers—often separated by time and space—to incrementally increase the value of goods and services as they move through each link in the chain [6,7,8].

(3)

Value chain as a network or system: The value chain is viewed as an interconnected system comprising all participants in the sequence of value creation—from raw material suppliers to wholesalers, retailers, and end-users [9,10,11].

(4)

Value chain as a cycle: The development of a green value chain is viewed as a systems approach. A green value chain integrates environmental support mechanisms, regulatory frameworks, and stakeholder cooperation, aiming to consider environmental aspects throughout the product life cycle. This approach reframes the traditional linear model as a cyclic system [12,13,14].

UNIDO proposed the following tools for sustainable supply chain development:

• Agro-industrial parks, by promoting sustainable production, enhancing competitiveness, and increasing value addition along the supply chain, as well as facilitating linkages between small farmers and agribusinesses.
• Cluster development, by developing clusters and networks of SMEs for inclusive economic growth.
• Industrial Upgrading and Modernization Programme (IUMP) [15].

The academic literature explores multiple aspects and practical applications of green value chain formation. E. Gelmez et al. [16] emphasize that integration plays an important role in the implementation of green supply chain management (GSCM) practices to achieve the environmental goals of businesses and at the same time increase their added value. In other words, green principles must be embedded across all business processes—including technology development, implementation, production, marketing, and logistics [17]. Md. Hasan et al. investigate the interrelations, characteristics, and outcomes of adopting green strategies in business value chains [18]. These authors conclude that green business practices are increasingly important for greening the modern economy, especially within the framework of the green capital. The creation of green value chains requires the alignment and integration of capital among all stakeholders, due to the high degree of interdependence across chain elements [19,20]. According to T. Kong and C. Ye, green value chain management involves coordinated efforts to improve the environmental and social performance of all participating entities. They define it as a collaborative network of suppliers and partners working together to reduce the environmental damage [21]. Supply management systems rely heavily on trust and cooperation among the members. Green supply chain management not only helps to reduce negative environmental impacts but also offers competitive advantages by improving performance across green integration participants [22,23,24,25,26,27]. C. Zhang et al. stress the importance of evaluating green supply chain efficiency, proposing a framework based on the Balanced Scorecard—Supply Chain Operations Reference (BSC–SCOR) model [28]. They also provide recommendations for calculating efficiency indices. Strategic scenario modeling of green supply chains—particularly for industries aiming to achieve high added value—has gained attention among scholars [29,30,31].

2.2. Integration Capital

The concept of capital has undergone significant semantic evolution, extending beyond its classical economic definition. The historical evolution of the essence and forms of capital allows the identification of industrial, financial, natural, human, social, and intellectual types of capital, which are specific in their content, functions, and conditions of movement. These forms of capital can be studied not only as independent objects but also as systems formed from certain elemental compositions. Capital, in the interpretation of classical economics, is identified by the wealth of a nation. Under this approach, there are three types of capital: natural, human-made, and intangible. Bourdieu’s theory of intangible capital has significantly contributed to the development of this concept. He identified social and organizational capital [32]. Researchers [33,34] found that organizational and human capital form intellectual capital, which they define as “structured knowledge and abilities based on connections with the potential for development and value creation. Asiaei, K. and O’Connor, N. defined green intellectual capital as a factor that influences the level of green innovation in organizations [35]. Recently, the concept of network capital has gained significant attention among scholars and practitioners in diverse fields. Network capital refers to a range of synergistic benefits that a company can achieve through networking and leveraging its resources [36]. Network capital is a “special type of social capital, its new branch in e-society, the result of scientific and technical progress, in particular, the development of information and communication technologies” [37].

Contemporary economic theory increasingly recognizes integration capital as a distinct category. Integration capital refers to cooperative and mutually supportive interactions among economic agents [38]. It is not merely the aggregation of individual capital types but rather the effective coordination of diverse assets within a unified business model. Q. Wang and colleagues draw an analogy between natural ecosystems and integration capital in financial systems, highlighting the importance of balancing constituent elements. Just as ecosystems require equilibrium and converge to it, companies depend on finite resources—capital, information, and energy—for survival and growth. The authors apply an adjusted Lotka–Volterra model to quantify the synergistic effects of green integration efforts [39]. Due to the high risk and uncertainty associated with green investments, it is difficult for individual companies to implement green innovations using their own resources and capital exclusively. Consequently, collaboration across the supply chain becomes essential for sharing resources and forming collaborative capital [40]. Y. Yu and B. Huo demonstrate that relational capital moderates the relationship between environmental considerations and supplier green management such that the positive relationship is stronger when the level of relational capital is higher [41].

C. Woo et al. “suggest that managers should devise strategies and resources into the implementation of green integration with suppliers and customers as well as internal functions to enhance information sharing with supply chain partners and then achieve synergistic effects on financial performance” [42]. B. Zhang et al. reinforce the central role of capital balance among green integration participants in linking green supply chain practices with innovation performance [43]. Building on the conceptual framework of resources–capital–opportunities–efficiency, they argue that “supply chain agility plays a partially mediating role” and propose strategic transformations grounded in green supply chain integration.

The importance of green value chain management continues to grow annually [44]. Green finance aims to steer capital toward projects that protect the environment, conserve natural resources, and support sustainability objectives [45].

Green finance is attracting increasing attention from scholars and practitioners as a mechanism that is consistent with the principles of sustainable development and facilitates the formation of integrated green supply chains at multiple levels [46,47,48,49]. This evolving paradigm has stimulated the development of green financial technology, or greentech. This category is defined by the amalgamation of financial technology (fintech) solutions with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [50].

A green fintech project is a technology-driven financial initiative that leverages innovative technologies to develop products, services, and business models aimed at advancing environmental sustainability goals [51]. As part of enhancing green value chain management, integration entails the implementation, unification, and coordination of diverse green finance components and technological solutions to create integration capital.

3. Materials and Methods

The article proposes a methodology for assessing integration capital, which enables evaluation of both the effectiveness of collaborative capital accumulation and the resulting green added value.

By green added value, we refer to the outcomes generated through integration that align with green economy principles, specifically

(1)

Broadening the conceptual understanding of green construction;

(2)

Reducing the resource and carbon intensity of buildings;

(3)

Lowering the energy and carbon intensity of building materials production and manufacturing and promoting the use of green construction materials;

(4)

Establishing closed-loop economic linkages among participants in green construction initiatives.

Participants (or actors) of green integration may include industrial enterprises, governmental and municipal authorities, academic institutions, and research organizations.

We propose a framework consisting of

(1)

The structure of green integration potential;

(2)

A system of performance indicators;

(3)

A scoring methodology for expert evaluation;

(4)

Defined maturity levels of integration capital.

Principles of this assessment lie in the value chain concept (VCC), which maps the sequence of activities by actors to optimize resource distribution and engineering processes in the creation of green products. The methodology is built on the assumption that the integration of participants into a network association that achieves synergistic effects, in line with the green economy principles, follows a multi-stage process (Figure 1).

Green construction is a principally new direction in the design, construction, operation, and dismantling of buildings contributing towards achieving the SDGs [52]. According to the EPA’s definition, “Green building is the practice of creating structures and using processes that are environmentally responsible and resource efficient throughout a building’s life cycle from siting to design, construction, operation, maintenance, renovation, and deconstruction” [53]. When discussing green construction approaches, in most cases, researchers and practitioners focus on the requirements established by the internationally recognized sustainability assessment methods and certification schemes such as BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) [54] or LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) [55]. Notably, back in the 2000s, BREEAM guidance documents became the first ones strongly and clearly recommending considering not only the origin of construction materials, but also the resource efficiency and environmental performance of the industries manufacturing these materials [56,57].

In Russia, the leader in the number of certified green buildings is the city of Sochi, which hosted the 2014 Olympics. Then, one should mention Moscow and Saint Petersburg, the capitals, where many office buildings, entertainment centers, and residential quarters are certified according to green construction standards [58,59]. BREEAM, LEED, and national GOST Green Standards [60] are used in Russia to promote green construction, which remains a new trend for the country, manifesting itself mostly in megacities.

Construction companies (those erecting buildings) and sectoral industries (manufacturing construction materials) support this trend, realizing that green transformation affects all levels and functions of companies, becoming the basis for deep organizational restructuring. Green building materials meet SDGs throughout their life cycle, generating lower emissions from their production, construction, operation, and end of life than their counterparts (traditional materials). Greenhouse gas-wise, 15–20% of building emissions are “embodied” in the production of steel, cement, glass, and ceramic materials, which are used for constructing buildings and infrastructure [61]. The emissions generated throughout supply (and value) chains—from the extraction, processing, and transporting of raw ingredients such as limestone, sand, and clay or iron ore—are often the most complex to monitor and mitigate [62]. Therefore, a sustainable development strategy cannot remain an isolated initiative. A necessary condition for enhancing resource efficiency and environmental performance is the integration of a sustainable development strategy into the main strategic business plan.

Step 1. The authors conceptualize the green integration potential as the capabilities of various actors within the context of green construction. Accordingly, we identify three primary dimensions of potential that contribute towards the formation of green value: technological potential (TP), infrastructural potential (IP), and mental potential (MP). Enhancement of the integration capital is feasible when these potentials are balanced and mutually reinforcing; a deficiency in one area can be compensated by strengths in others among different actors. To illustrate this dynamic, we employ a geometric model—a triangular prism—that visually encapsulates the relationships and levels of the above-listed potentials.

The triangle at the base of the prism is the minimum stable structure, and the three lateral edges of the prism reflect the number of dimensions required to describe a stable system. Together, this allows us to graphically display the stability of the integration capital of green integration participants and the process of its formation. Triangular models often symbolize the balance of three key forces. In addition, the triangle illustrates the interaction and interrelationship of the structures “environment (or ecology)—economy—society” (“Sustainability Triangle”), which corresponds to the basic idea behind integration capital.

Besides that, the triple helix model of Etzkowitz [63] is based on three foundations—“universities”, “business”, and “government”, the implementation of which promotes the economic and social development of the state and enterprises.

The balance of the integration capital is reflected by the volume of a triangular prism, which depends on the area of the base and the height of the side edges. The edges are the levels of technological, infrastructural, and mental potentials for the green integration, assessed on a scale from 1 to 3 points. The model utilizes the MP category because green construction initiatives require rethinking the very essence of human activity. Cognitive models and behavioral patterns are essential components that collectively foster a culture of work and thought processes, cultivating motivation oriented towards green production.

The base triangle’s equilateral shape symbolizes equilibrium in pairwise interactions among potentials. The sides of this triangle denote the degree of communication and cooperation between different groups of actors involved in green construction. When interaction is absent, the corresponding side degenerates into a point, resulting in a collapsed area that indicates an unformed or weak integration capital. Vertices of the prism represent distinct groups engaged in green integration activities. A maximized state—where all parameters reach their highest values—is depicted by a prism with equilateral base sides equal to 1 (indicating balanced potentials) and lateral edges measuring 3 (signifying optimal potential levels). This configuration corresponds to the maximum possible size of an actor’s integration capital (see Figure 2). Conversely, unbalanced figures—illustrated in Figure 3—demonstrate varying degrees of disparity among potentials.

The volume of the prism illustrates the synergy between the actors of the green integration (industrial enterprises, educational and scientific organizations, as well as regulatory organizations and financial institutions), which is extended in the growth of their technological, infrastructural, and mental potential in the process of development within the framework of the green integration.

A distinct category of figures comprises triangular prisms that feature an equilateral triangle at their base with sides measuring exactly 1 unit and lateral edges with lengths of either 1 or 2 units. The pairwise interactions among actors—represented graphically as the base triangle—are inherently binary (0 or 1), with a default value set to 1. Consequently, the area of the base triangle is √3/4. The volume of the triangular prism depends on the average levels of potentials, which range from 1/3 to 3. The maximum volume, denoted as Vmax ≈ 1.3, is attained when TP, IP, and MP reach their peak values of 3. The closer the calculated volume V for a specific group of actors approaches Vmax, the higher the degree of balance in their integration capital.

Notably, the technological potential is assessed using such indicators as (1) carbon intensity, (2) energy intensity, (3) resource intensity (other resources than energy are considered), and (4) implementation of Best Available Techniques (BATs). All these criteria are internationally recognized and often used while assessing the performance of the resource-intensive industries. In the European Union, in the Republic of Kazakhstan (an EAEU member state), and in Russia, sectoral Reference Documents on BATs (BREFs) establish BAT-Associated Emission Levels (BAT-AELs) to be met by the large industrial installations [64]. Besides that, Russian BREFs set target resource intensity levels (for the consumption of raw materials, reuse and recycling of secondary resources (or wastes), water, etc.), energy intensity levels, and carbon intensity levels. Industrial installations meeting BAT-AEL requirements are granted Integrated Environmental Permits without special conditions and burdens. Installations not capable of meeting the requirements must develop and implement Environmental Performance Enhancement Programmes (EPEPs), which play roles of special conditions, while the implementation costs form a kind of burden [65].

Therefore, TPs of the industrial actors can be evaluated by comparing their environmental performance and resource and energy efficiency parameters with the applicable sector requirements set in applicable BREFs.

Step 2. To evaluate the level of integration capital among participants in green integration, a system of indicators and assessment scales was developed for expert evaluation (

Table 1. Evaluating integration capital: components of potentials.

Components of Potentials	Scale
Technological potential (TP) (industrial actors only)
Carbon intensity	2–3: Carbon intensity levels meet the sector’s green benchmark 1–2: Carbon intensity levels are between restrictive and motivational benchmarks 0–1: Carbon intensity levels are above restrictive benchmarks
Energy intensity	2–3: Energy intensity levels meet the sector’s green benchmark 1–2: Energy intensity levels are between restrictive and motivational benchmarks 0–1: Energy intensity levels are above restrictive benchmarks
Resource intensity	2–3: Resource intensity levels meet the sector’s green benchmark 1–2: Resource intensity levels are between restrictive and motivational benchmarks 0–1: Resource intensity levels are above restrictive benchmarks
Implementation of Best Available Techniques	2–3: Integrated Environmental Permit (IEP) without EPEP 1–2: Integrated Environmental Permit with EPEP 0–1: IEP not obtained
Life cycle consideration in green construction chains	2–3: Fully considered 1–2: Partially considered 0–1: Not considered
Infrastructural potential (IP)
Shared physical infrastructure (transportation/logistics)	2–3: Fully developed 1–2: Partially developed 0–1: Absent or undeveloped
Shared intangible infrastructure (digital platforms, IT products)	2–3: Fully developed 1–2: Partially developed 0–1: Absent or undeveloped
ESG collaboration among actors	2–3: Active collaboration 1–2: Collaboration intentions stated 0–1: No collaboration
Prior experience with green partnerships	2–3: Proven successful experience (e.g., publications, reports) 1–2: Unconfirmed experience 0–1: No experience
Mental potential/green thinking (MP)
Promotion of green initiatives (green projects, products, or publications)	2–3: Ongoing and consistent 1–2: Intermittent 0–1: Absent
Investment in green projects	2–3: Long-term investment programs 1–2: Occasional investments 0–1: None
ESG effects (Environmental, Social, and Governance) [62].	2–3: All “dimensions” present (Environmental, Social, and Governance) 1–2: Two “dimensions” (for example, S + G) 0–1: None
Strategic alignment with green agenda	2–3: Published strategy with confirmed results 1–2: Published strategy without confirmed results 0–1: No strategy

Source: designed by the authors.

). The distinctive feature of these indicators lies in their complexity and universality—they encompass both measurable (“hard”) data and expert-based (“soft”) assessments.

In the absence of statistical data on the significant predominance of one potential over the others, equal weighting was used to minimize the subjective influence on the model. In order to reduce subjectivity in assigning expert assessments to the proposed indicators that make up the identified potentials, the following tools were used:

–

The consistency of expert opinions was checked based on the calculation of the Kendall concordance coefficient. The obtained values (W = 0.72; p < 0.05) confirm sufficient consistency for subsequent data aggregation.

–

Expert opinions with a strong deviation from the median were excluded.

Step 3. At this stage, three types of potentials (technological, infrastructural, and mental) are evaluated. Each component is assessed on a three-point scale (1 to 3). These assessments are then aggregated—using a convolution method—to first determine the individual potential values for each actor and subsequently compute their average. TP is calculated as follows:

$$\mathit{T}{\mathit{P}}_{\mathit{i}}=\sqrt[\mathit{n}]{\prod _{\mathit{j}}{\mathit{I}\mathit{P}}_{\mathit{j}}}$$

(1)

where IP_j is TP components, j = 1 … n;

n is the number of indicators used for the i-th group of actors;

IP and MP for each actor group are calculated in a similar manner.

Step 4. To quantify the integration capital of a group of actors, the method uses the formula for the volume of a triangular prism:

$$\mathit{V}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{4}}·{\mathit{a}}^2·{\mathit{h}}_{\mathit{a}\mathit{v}}$$

(2)

where a is the side length of the base triangle, assumed to be 1;

h_av is the average height of the prism, representing the average of the three potentials (TP, IP, MP).

If the value of each potential is considered equal, the arithmetic mean is used:

$${\mathit{h}}_{\mathit{a}\mathit{v}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathit{T}\mathit{P}+\mathit{I}\mathit{P}+\mathit{M}\mathit{P}}{3}}$$

(3)

However, if the potential has differing importance, a weighted average is applied for the i-th group of actors:

$${\mathrm{y}}_{\mathrm{T}\mathrm{P}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathit{T}\mathit{P}·{\mathit{d}}_1+\mathit{I}\mathit{P}·{\mathit{d}}_{2+\mathit{M}\mathit{P}·}{\mathit{d}}_3}{\sum _{\mathit{i}=1}^3{\mathit{d}}_{\mathit{l}}}}$$

(4)

where d_l are the respective weights assigned to technological, infrastructural, and mental potentials for the i-th group of actors; l = 1, …, 3.

The integration indicator is expressed as the green added value, representing the aggregated potential of all actors:

$$\mathit{G}\mathit{V}={\sum }_{\mathit{i}=1}^{\mathit{n}}{\mathit{V}}_{\mathit{i}}$$

(5)

where GV is the green added value;

Vi is the volume of the triangular prism for the i-th group of actors;

n is the total number of actor groups.

If the volumetric figure formed by the potential values is a regular triangular prism (with edge lengths equal to 1, 2, or 3), the integration capital can be directly computed. In cases where the figure is irregular due to unequal potential values, it is normalized to a triangular prism using the average potential value, thereby allowing the calculation of the integration capital.

Step 5. To analyze and interpret the results, the authors propose three levels of integration capital maturity, as shown in

Table 2. Integration capital: levels of maturity.

Level	Description
1. Emerging	Integration has not yet materialized. Actors begin to recognize the need for partnerships to achieve network effects and generate additional green value through pooled resources and capabilities. Partners are sought based on complementary strengths and reputations in environmental responsibility.
2. Developing	A core group of key actors is established. They start exploring their own potential and that of partners to increase green value. Collaborative efforts focus on addressing key questions: What can we contribute towards the integration to increase green value? What do we expect to gain from actors and integration? How should we engage with other actors to meet collective goals? What are the potential risks, and how can they be mitigated? What tools and strategies will foster green co-evolution?
3. Optimized	Integration processes are fully operational. Actors recognize the strategic advantages of collaboration for generating green value. Emphasis is placed on continuous self-improvement and network optimization.

Source: designed by the authors.

. These levels reflect the progression of actor collaboration in green integration.

The green added value serves as an indicator of the integration effectiveness and a strategic benchmark. Three possible strategic development pathways can be taken:

• Technological potential development: Implementation of engineering (technological, technical) and organizational measures to reduce carbon intensity, boost recycling, apply low-waste technologies, improve resource (especially energy) efficiency, and achieve other similar results.
• Infrastructural potential development: Promotion of collaboration among actors in environmental responsibility; development of shared infrastructure (e.g., logistics, digital platforms, territorial accessibility).
• Mental potential development: Initiation of green projects, production of eco-friendly goods, implementation of voluntary environmental activities, and adoption of sustainable practices across operations.

Limitations and assumptions of the proposed methodology are as follows:

(1)

The scope of actors and industries considered in this analysis is limited. The calculation of actors’ integration capital employs a geometric approach, which involves determining the volume of a geometric figure—specifically, a polygon whose vertices represent distinct groups of actors. Consequently, an increase in the number of actor groups, as well as in their combined capitals, knowledge assets, green value chains, and other relevant factors, substantially complicates both the graphical representation and the calculation of the figure’s volume. Beyond a certain number of groups, it becomes increasingly challenging to ensure that the results remain objective and reliable.

(2)

Averaging potentials using the arithmetic mean formula can lead to misleading conclusions. For instance, combining low and high values into a single average may obscure the fact that a low potential value could be critically important for a particular actor.

(3)

The subjectivity inherent in expert assessments necessitates validation through an audit process.

4. Results

The proposed methodology for assessing integration capital was tested using the case of green integration in the construction industry of the Northwestern Federal District of Russia. In this paper, we selected the city of Saint Petersburg (SPb) and the surrounding Leningrad region as the focus region to assess the integration case in the construction and production of building materials. First, the city and the region are known as ones interested not only in the development of green construction but also in implementing several larger-scale projects with the support of governments, financial institutions, and universities. Second, the Northern capital and the surrounding area are characterized by a high level of income of the population (the seventh place in the country, immediately after the leading oil, gas, and gold mining regions and Moscow). Both the leadership of the region and the citizens are proud of the “exclusivity” of the Northwest. Nationally, SPb is considered the cultural capital of Russia, and it strives for leadership in the implementation of innovative management and lifestyle solutions, including green construction [66]. Third, SPb has a reputation for being a very strong research and educational center, where technical, architectural, economic, and sociological higher school establishments train superb practitioners. Sector-wise, SPb State Technological and SPb Polytechnic Universities teach chemical and environmental engineers for the industries manufacturing major building materials, as well as designers, engineers, and managers for the regional construction companies. Fourth, the region is rich in the deposits of limestone and clay, and large industries manufacturing cement and ceramic materials located around the Northern capital supply construction companies with high-quality products.

Regional cement producers are known as those experimenting with new compositions of this binding material, while manufacturers of ceramic bricks and tiles became the first companies in Russia to voluntarily demonstrate their compliance with Best Available Techniques back in 2012, long before the adoption of national legislation in this area. We also included glass manufacturers in our study, though recently, due to the restructuring of the flat glass sector in Russia, older regional installations were closed. Thus, within the framework of this article, speaking of the construction materials industry, we mean the production of high-temperature mineral materials: cement, ceramics, and glass. Directly, we did not cover the metallurgical companies producing steel or aluminum constructions, though in future, the scope of integration studies may be widened to include manufacturers of such materials as metals, plastics, and wood. On the other hand, we consider opportunities for using metallurgical and timber wastes to enhance the environmental performance of the “traditional” construction materials industries manufacturing cement, bricks, and ceramic blocks.

Industrial actors involved in green integration include the following:

• Pobeda LSR (brick producer, SPb);
• Ryabovsky Brick Factory (Leningrad region);
• Pikalevo Cement Plant (Leningrad region);
• Tsesla JSC (cement producer, Leningrad region);
• Klin Glass Factory (the closest flat glass producer, located ~ 500 km from Saint Petersburg);
• Baltiyskoye Steklo JSC (SPb company manufacturing flat glass constructions such as double-glazed windows);
• Forestry enterprises located in the Leningrad region.

Academic institutions include the following:

• SPb State Technological University;
• SPb Polytechnic University.

Government authorities and financial institutions include the following:

• Construction Committee of Saint Petersburg (part of the city government);
• Construction Committee of the Leningrad region (part of the regional government);
• Setl Group (developer);
• Glavstroy SPb (developer);
• Bank of Saint Petersburg.

Following the methodology described in the previous section, experts assessed the components of technological, infrastructural, and mental potential for each actor engaged in green integration. Each component was evaluated on a scale from 1 to 3 (see Table 1). The expert panel included 25 members. For the purposes of this article, the expert assessment was conducted by the Expert Society on Best Available Techniques (the BAT Expert Society). The BAT Expert Society embraces over 150 chartered engineers, technologists, environmentalists, and economists actively involved in the environmental restructuring of the Russian economy. In particular, the BAT Expert Society members develop national Reference Documents on BATs for various sectors, evaluate investment projects in the field of environmental and technological modernization, and collaborate with their EUAU and BRICS+ colleagues. While assessing the green integration actors, experts use data on the environmental performance, energy, material, and carbon intensity, which are available for the BAT Expert Society Members. Additionally, many members of the BAT Expert Society are affiliated with the leading universities and collaborate with their colleagues working in the various regions, including the Northwestern Federal District.

Table 3. Pobeda LSR: expert assessment.

Potential Component	Expert Score
Technological potential (TP)
Carbon intensity	2.1
Energy intensity	2.2
Resource intensity	2.0
BAT implementation	3.0
Life cycle consideration in green construction chains	2.3
Infrastructural potential (P)
Shared physical infrastructure (transportation/logistics)	2.8
Shared intangible infrastructure (digital platforms, IT products)	1.6
ESG collaboration among actors	2.0
Prior experience with green partnerships	2.5
Mental potential/green thinking (MP)
Promotion of green initiatives (green projects, products, or publications)	1.8
Investment in green projects	2.0
ESG effects (Environmental, Social, Governance)	1.5
Strategic alignment with green agenda	1.5

presents the expert assessment of the Pobeda LSR brick factory.

Expert evaluations were similarly conducted for all other actors involved in green integration.

Thus, we believe that the results obtained are reliable because (1) they are based on the collective experience of the sector-oriented and inter-sectoral members of the BAT Expert Society, (2) they reflect real performance indicators of industrial companies, (3) and individual scores provided by experts do not show significant differences.

In the next stage, potentials and integration capital were calculated using formulas (1) through (5). The results are summarized in

Table 4. Actors’ integration capital.

Actors	TP	IP	MP	hcp	V
Pobeda LSR	2.30	2.18	1.69	2.05	0.89
Ryabovsky Brick Factory	2.44	2.22	1.74	2.09	0.90
Pikalevo Cement Plant	2.08	2.09	1.58	1.96	0.85
Tsesla JSC	2.16	2.04	1.58	1.94	0.84
Klin Glass Factory	2.29	2.25	1.32	2.02	0.88
Baltiyskoye Steklo JSC	2.20	2.37	1.77	2.21	0.96
Forestries	2.32	2.02	1.79	2.04	0.89
SPb State Technological University	-	2.49	1.77	2.13	0.92
SPb Polytechnic University	-	2.72	2.65	2.68	1.16
Construction Committee of Saint Petersburg	-	2.52	2.59	2.56	1.11
Construction Committee of the Leningrad Region	-	2.34	2.50	2.42	1.05
Setl Group	-	2.69	2.26	2.48	1.07
Glavstroy SPb	-	2.57	1.98	2.28	0.99
Bank of Saint Petersburg	-	2.77	2.71	2.74	1.19

.

To visualize the potential and integration capital values of industrial actors, three 3D models were constructed (Figure 4), depicting

–

Brick manufacturers (Pobeda LSR and Ryabovsky Brick Factory);

–

Cement manufacturers (Pikalevo Cement Plant and Tsesla JSC);

–

Glass and glass construction manufacturers (Klin Glass Factory and Baltiyskoye Steklo JSC).

The analysis revealed that brick manufacturers exhibit the highest total integration capital, primarily due to high technological potential (average TP = 2.37). Key contributing factors include low carbon intensity, effective implementation of BAT, and integration of life cycle considerations in the green construction chain.

Glass manufacturers also demonstrated strong integration capital, particularly in carbon intensity reduction, where they lead, although they scored lower in BAT implementation.

Cement manufacturers are characterized by low levels of integration capital. Specifically, minimal values are observed in the components such as ESG collaboration among actors (which pertains to infrastructure potential), ESG effects, and strategic alignment with green agenda (relating to mental potential). In terms of technological potential, these enterprises are only marginally behind other analyzed sectors, indicating relatively comparable technological capabilities.

Across all sectors, mental potential scores were consistently low, especially regarding strategic alignment with green agenda and ESG effects.

A cumulative diagram (Figure 5) was generated to illustrate the aggregated green added value and the distribution of potentials among all actors. The lower average technological potential in this diagram reflects the absence of TP scores for educational institutions and government bodies. Knowledge of the distribution of potentials allows for making informed decisions in the process of managing green integration.

The conducted analysis indicates that the primary avenue for increasing the integration capital of industrial enterprises lies in strengthening their mental potentials. Concurrently, enterprises should focus on the following key aspects:

–

Reducing carbon and energy intensity. Enterprises with high values in these indicators must implement modern resource-efficient technologies (including Best Available Techniques) as well as energy and environmental management systems.

–

Developing partnerships. Organizations exhibiting low activity in ESG-related initiatives should intensify collaboration with other actors—particularly academic and financial institutions—to facilitate knowledge and resource exchange.

–

Considering the product life cycle. Improving this indicator can significantly enhance the sustainability of enterprises.

The effective utilization of cognitive space within green integration hinges on two critical conditions:

–

Establishing sustainable relations among participants and ensuring their active engagement;

–

Including participants with substantial capabilities in generating shared meanings and fostering trust within the network.

These sustainable relations and their active use should serve as key management targets during the strategy implementation. Continuous monitoring, analysis, and corrective actions are essential to address deviations between actual outcomes and planned objectives.

It would be logical to assign educational and scientific organizations the role of meaning- and trust-generators within green integration, given their relevant competencies—an assertion supported by their high mental potential. For instance, Saint Petersburg Polytechnic University, with a mental potential score of 2.65, could serve as such a participant.

Adhering to these conditions ensures the comprehensive realization of green co-evolution principles through coordinated development among all participants aligned with the green agenda.

When formulating development strategies for individual actors, their classification into specific groups is crucial. Based on assessment results, recommended strategic directions for industrial actors include searching for integration opportunities that can help (1) to develop closed loops, thereby contributing to forming a circular economy; (2) to provide for improving energy and material efficiency and decreasing carbon intensity, which is important in terms of international competitive performance; and (3) to form close relations with the specialized educational establishments to contribute towards training high quality staff at the earlier stages of professional education.

For government bodies and financial institutions, recommended strategic directions include considering opportunities for working out regional green taxonomies to promote implementation of green projects in the construction sector. Specific activities aimed at enhancing participants’ potentials have been detailed in the previous sections.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

This study aims to examine the role of green integration in forming green value chains. The empirical findings confirm that green added value can be achieved by strategically managing capital integration through the alignment of participants’ potentials. Specifically, the study identifies a relationship between the aggregated green added value and the distribution of potential among all actors. The co-evolution of capital types in integrations is a process of interrelated development of system elements or their subsystems, which determines their further evolution and qualitative changes. In the context of green integration, co-evolution primarily concerns technological, intellectual, and environmental capitals. Furthermore, the primary avenue for increasing the integration capital of companies producing construction materials lies in strengthening their mental potentials. A prerequisite for the development of mental potential is the existence of a cognitive environment between actors in green integration. Knowledge, unlike traditional factors of production, has the property of non-diminishing returns to scale.

The findings of this study directly address the research questions posed at the outset. These results are consistent with previous studies [67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74], which highlight the benefits of green chain integration. However, this study extends the literature by providing empirical evidence specific to Russia, an economy characterized by turbulence. The influence of integration processes on the territories where participants operate is considered within the framework of process–industrial and economic–geographical approaches, supplementing them and allowing them to reveal economic relations in two key aspects of integration: integration into value chains and the displacement of factors of production to achieve economies of scale [75]. V. Islamutdinov et al. have developed approaches to modeling the integration of the regional economy and economic institutions, namely the regional economy and the “good” institution and the regional economy and the “bad” institution, and the estimated cumulative effect determines the development of the regional economy [76,77].

The proposed methodology for assessing green integration capital enables

• Self-assessment by actors regarding their alignment with green agenda and the formation of actionable strategies for enhancing integration capital;
• Implementation of green development strategies through green co-evolution and the cultivation of a cognitive space between actors;
• Development of green value chains within integration frameworks, thereby contributing positively to environmental sustainability in the region where the actors operate.

Future developments of the methodology include dynamic monitoring of actors’ potential and the expansion of potential types evaluated.

Based on the results, three strategic scenarios for the development of the Leningrad region can be proposed.

5.1. Scenario 1: Innovation and Technology Leader

The resource potential is the most important basic concept for the transition of technology development to a new stage. An important tool for successfully implementing an industrial strategy is the planning through the formulation of a set of programs and projects. This scenario focuses on technology modernization and innovation as the key drivers of success.

5.2. Scenario 2: Environmentally Friendly Development

This scenario involves integrating the sustainable development principles into the management of industrial processes. A key aspect is striking a balance between economic growth and minimizing negative environmental impacts, forming, in other words, a decoupling effect. Environmental considerations should be included in the list of strategic priorities of decision-making.

5.3. Scenario 3: Green Integration

The scenario is aimed at developing partnerships as the main success factor. Networking at the meso and micro levels of all potential participants makes it possible to implement principles of sustainable development throughout the entire green value chains. Cooperation in the form of green integration enables the exchange of information, resources, and knowledge, combines complementary resources, and develops compromise management solutions based on the interests of all parties.

Sector recommendations include the following positions:

Production of cement:

• Considering collaboration with companies producing refuse-derived fuel (RDF) and biofuel, with the specific focus on the RDF originating from municipal waste generated in the target cities. This would be of interest for the city and regional governments and could enhance their green policies.
• Including chemical industries in the green integration, since iron- and calcium-containing waste of the chemical industry is a promising substitute for raw materials. For example, in the Leningrad region, such waste was formed at Kingisepp industrial sites and needs to be processed.
• Collaborating with the research institutes promoting low-clinker cement as a sustainable building material [78].

Production of building and sanitary ceramics:

• Widening the scope of “green building ceramics” by including such energy- and carbon-intensive products as roof tiles, wall and floor tiles, and sanitary ware.
• Collaborating with research institutes running pilot projects on the production of construction bricks by partial replacement of natural raw materials with waste plastics. This may also be of interest to city and regional authorities, as plastic waste accounts for a large share of municipal waste structure [79].

Production of glass:

• Strengthening collaboration with the design companies, jointly developing projects and marketing not glass but project solutions. They could be called sustainable, green, or low-carbon, depending on the preferences of the urban development policies. Energy-efficient flat glass solutions help to reduce the carbon footprint of buildings by significantly lowering energy consumption. Worldwide, these attributes align with the increasing demand for green building materials in the construction industry.
• Considering opportunities for making glass fully recyclable in reality by means of involving companies running renovation projects in the integration contour. Nowadays, in Russia, glass-containing components of construction and demolition waste are rarely separated and returned to manufacturing of products that are not too admixture-sensitive, such as road marking paints.

Green construction remains a rather new area in the Russian Federation, and most initiatives are concentrated around megacities—Saint Petersburg and Moscow—though there are some indications of the growing interest in the Urals, Western Siberia, and Far East. We are collecting data describing the Central Federal Region, where companies are producing green construction materials and show their readiness to share information on their greening projects. The most active is the Serebryansky Cement plant, which is working with metallurgical and chemical companies to motivate them to join the greening initiative to produce low-carbon cement and concrete for Moscow and the surrounding territories. Iron- and calcium-containing waste is the material needed to manufacture such products.

In the UK, (1) the internationally recognized BREEAM methodology considering the origin of construction materials was worked out and continually improved and (2) the BES 6001 framework, which addresses stakeholder engagement, labor practices, and the management of supply chains, was first developed for the construction sector.

However, the findings have several limitations. The proposed approach requires accurate data on the capital of the actors involved in green integration, as well as their technological and infrastructure potentials. This data is difficult to obtain because it is not publicly available. Specifically, the availability of information on intangible assets is limited, leading to the need for expert evaluations. Expert assessments of capital elements can be subjective and may cause errors in results. The authors’ concept of green integration at the meso level does not consider the dynamic nature of change and institutional constraints that may affect the green added value of all actors.

Future research could extend this framework by (1) considering other important actors, such as producers of metals, plastics, and wood used in the construction sector; (2) assessing opportunities for greening the construction sector in such rich but challenging regions as the Arctic and the Urals, where special requirements for civil and industrial buildings affect all applicable standards; and (3) widening boundaries of green integration studies examining opportunities for initiating collaboration with the neighboring countries (for instance, EAEU members). The first direction needs deeper life cycle analysis, and it is likely that the research will be less region-oriented (due to the geographical distribution of metallurgical and chemical companies). The second direction is rather challenging and needs the establishment of collaboration with researchers studying peculiarities of the Northern regions [80]. The third direction seems to be of interest for colleagues from Belorussia, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan who participate in the development and refining of the EAEU Integration Concept.