Next Article in Journal
The Impact of Energy Transition on Residents’ Health: Evidence from a Quasi-Natural Experiment of China’s New Energy Demonstration City Pilot Program
Previous Article in Journal
Distances from Efficiency: A Territorial Assessment of the Performance of the Circular Economy in Italy
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 24
10.3390/su172411358
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Literature Review on Measuring Sustainable Performance in the Retail Sector: A Review of Energy Efficiency Strategies and Their Key Performance Indicators in Supermarkets

by
Marios Terzis
1,2,* and
Katerina Gotzamani
2
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece
2
Department of Business Administration, University of Macedonia, 54636 Thessaloniki, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(24), 11358; https://doi.org/10.3390/su172411358
Submission received: 20 November 2025 / Revised: 12 December 2025 / Accepted: 14 December 2025 / Published: 18 December 2025
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

The concept of sustainability in the supermarket sector has emerged as a strategic priority, as companies are required to reduce their environmental footprint and enhance their social and economic performance. The aim of this literature review is to identify, document, and analyze the key performance indicators (KPIs) applied in the sector, with emphasis on environmental, social, and economic dimensions, and to investigate the extent to which technical energy interventions are linked to business and consumer benefits. The methodology was inspired by the general logic of organized search and selection procedures, and for this reason, elements of the PRISMA framework were used, with a search conducted across multiple international scientific databases and selection criteria ensuring the validity and relevance of the sources. The analysis classified the indicators into the following three categories: environmental (e.g., CO2 emissions, energy consumption), social (e.g., customer satisfaction, corporate image), and economic (e.g., ESG score, return on investment). The study revealed substantial progress made by supermarket chains globally in adopting energy-efficiency technologies, such as LED lighting and renewable energy with proven benefits in reducing consumption and consequently, improving environmental performance. However, a lack of holistic integration between technical interventions and social-economic indicators was identified, limiting the use of KPIs as a strategic tool for guiding specific sustainability strategies. This research concludes that there is a need to develop unified, sector-specific measurement frameworks that integrate environmental, social, and economic parameters, as well as empirical research that quantitatively connects energy strategies with business and consumer performance through comparable indicators in the context of supermarket operations, thereby opening ground for further exploration of the field.

1. Introduction—Sustainability Framework in Supermarkets

Supermarkets constitute critical nodes in the overall food supply chain and exert a significant influence on the total environmental footprint of modern societies [1]. The retail sector and particularly the food segment is responsible for an important share of environmental burdens including high levels of greenhouse gas emissions, excessive consumption of water resources, and increased waste generation [2,3]. Within this context, the integration of sustainability strategies in the supermarket sector is becoming increasingly critical, both at a strategic, operational, and communicational level [4].
The approach that supermarket chains follow towards sustainability with a focus on environmental, social, and economic dimensions has emerged as a key success factor for enhancing competitiveness and consumer trust [5]. However, despite the gradual adoption of reporting frameworks and assessment methods such as ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) and GRI (Global Reporting Initiative) by large retail chains, the connection between energy strategies and overall sustainable performance remains ambiguous and insufficiently explored in the international literature, thereby shaping a significant research gap [6,7].
The structure of this article follows a sequence of thematic sections. First, the Introduction outlines the conceptual framework, the key notions (ESG, GRI, KPI), and the research objectives. Then, the Section 2 describes some elements of the PRISMA process, details the databases and search strategy, specifies inclusion/exclusion criteria, and outlines the quality appraisal that guided data extraction to enhance comprehensibility. This is followed by Section 3, which present the main outcomes of the literature review, combine the presentation and analysis of findings, supported by tables of KPIs and the thematic distribution of studies. The Section 4 provides the interpretation of results in relation to the research questions, highlights research gaps, and compares existing frameworks, and finally, the Section 5 synthesizes the findings, suggests directions for future research, and discusses managerial/theoretical implications for the sector.

1.1. Institutional Framework and Measurement Tools (GRI, ESG)

The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) standards constitute an internationally recognized framework for measuring and evaluating the sustainability performance of businesses [8]. They cover a wide range of indicators related to environmental, social, and governance parameters, such as energy consumption, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, use of natural resources, working conditions, and, in general, human rights [7,9]. Over the years and in line with the evolving priorities of modern business operations, GRI has developed into an important key tool for measuring and transparently communicating corporate sustainability strategies, offering structured and comparable information [8,10].
In parallel, the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) framework is expressed as an assessment mechanism that enables the comparative evaluation of sustainability across different companies, sectors, and organizations [11]. The ESG approach emphasizes the financial significance of environmental and social risks and opportunities, thereby reinforcing investment decisions and stakeholder trust [12,13]. However, despite its widespread adoption, the ESG framework is often characterized by methodological heterogeneity and variability in the reliability of indicators, which limits the validity and comparability of assessments. For this reason, depending on the sector and the size of the enterprise, the careful selection of appropriate indicators becomes a critical component of a right approach [14].
Moreover, the growing emphasis on the concept of double materiality which addresses, on the one hand, how sustainability impacts affect corporate performance and, on the other hand, how each company’s operations impact society and the external environment renders the use of reliable and multidimensional indicators [15]. The selection of appropriate key performance indicators (KPIs) therefore constitutes a critical methodological challenge in evaluating sustainability performance, especially in sectors with significant environmental and operational footprints, such as the food retail industry and, to a large percentage, the supermarkets [9].

1.2. Challenges in Measuring Sustainable Performance in Supermarkets

In the food retail sector and especially in supermarkets, the existing international literature largely focuses on technical energy efficiency interventions, such as advanced refrigeration systems, LED lighting, HVAC technologies, and the integration of renewable energy sources (e.g., photovoltaic systems) [16]. These studies primarily emphasize the operational and energy efficiency of facilities, highlighting technological solutions as means of reducing operating costs and consequently the environmental footprint [17].
However, a distinct research gap is identified in the limited quantitative connection of these interventions with social, economic, and strategic performance indicators (KPIs), such as profit margin, corporate image perception, perceived value, and the overall ESG score of the enterprise [18]. Although some theoretical frameworks have been proposed for assessing energy efficiency in the retail sector, most of these approaches are not accompanied by empirical evidence demonstrating the correlation between technical energy strategies and sustainable performance in terms of ESG/GRI or other critical KPIs [16,19].
The absence of a holistic, quantitative approach employing relevant KPIs that combine technical energy interventions with corporate sustainability constitutes a major limitation, as it hinders the evaluation of the real impact of such interventions not only on the environmental footprint but also on the strategic positioning of the company in its target market [18]. The pressing need for the connection of measurable KPIs that reflect both business performance and social-environmental dimensions is therefore evident, in order to achieve the full alignment between energy-sustainable strategy and sustainable development based on comparable and verifiable indicators.

1.3. Scientific and Practical Research Gap

The existing international literature on the supermarket sector remains to a considerable extent fragmented, emphasizing either sociological characteristics such as consumer attitudes and purchase intentions or technological-economic data such as energy consumption, costs, and technical interventions [20]. However, a large amount of research studies do not integrate these aspects into a common evaluative structure of measurable indicators (KPIs), making it difficult to achieve a comprehensive and targeted assessment of sustainable performance in the sector. In this context and as highlighted in the studies by Ruiz-Real et al., 2019 [18] and Munro et al., 2023 [2], there is an increasingly urgent need for a holistic approach that will systematically connect the environmental, social, and economic dimensions of sustainability through the use of appropriate KPIs. Furthermore, the current research database shows significant gaps in the connection of technical energy strategies (such as LED lighting, HVAC upgrades, and renewable energy integration) with social-economic performance indicators, such as consumer loyalty, corporate image, improvements in ESG score, or even profit margin. This observed fragmentation creates gaps both for academic understanding and evaluation as well as for the strategic decision-making of retail companies. The introduction and also the adoption of the principle of double materiality by the European Commission further reinforces this dimension [8], as it requires from businesses to report both how they impact the external environment and society (outward impacts) and how they are financially affected by ESG-related risks (inward risks), with the most important goal of highlighting substantive corporate value [6]. This dual requirement, as previously discussed, underscores the need for the development of KPI frameworks specifically tailored to the supermarket sector, which would help to numerically capture not only environmental efficiency but also social impact and economic feasibility [16]. Thus, it is evident that while the importance of sustainability is recognized in the literature, there is a significant research gap in the creation and application of unified indicators that can comprehensively reflect actual corporate value and competitiveness in the food retail sector [6].

1.4. Research Scope and Research Questions

The primary scope of this literature review is the identification, documentation, analysis, and synthesis of energy efficiency strategies and their key performance indicators (KPIs) in supermarkets, with the objective of enhancing understanding and promoting sustainability in the sector. Specifically, the study is designed to address the following three overarching themes: (a) the identification, comprehensive documentation, and analysis of the most widespread and fundamental KPIs that are currently used to evaluate sustainable performance in the food retail sector and, by extension, supermarkets, based on international standards such as the GRI (Global Reporting Initiative) and ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance); (b) the recognition and recording of the main technical energy interventions (e.g., LED lighting, energy efficient HVAC and refrigeration systems, renewable energy integration) adopted by supermarket chains to improve sustainability; and (c) the assessment of the connection between major energy strategies and corporate sustainable performance through the use of KPIs (ESG/GRI), with the aim of developing a comparative framework for the supermarket sector.
Based on the above objectives, the study is structured around the following three core research questions:
  • What are the most essential and widely used sustainability indicators (KPIs) (environmental, social, and economic) for evaluating the sustainable performance of supermarkets?
  • What are the major energy and sustainability strategies adopted by supermarket chains, with the massive goal of achieving energy efficiency and advancing sustainability in the sector?
  • What is the connection between energy strategies and sustainable corporate performance through the use of KPIs in the food retail sector?

2. Methodology

This study adopts a structured and methodical literature review with the objective of (a) documenting, evaluating, and synthesizing the key sustainability indicators (key performance indicators—KPIs) that are commonly used in the supermarket sector, (b) examining the energy strategies adopted by supermarkets in the context of sustainability, and (c) exploring their interconnections. The structure of the review is inspired by the general logic of analytical search and selection procedures, and for this reason, elements of the PRISMA framework (Preferred Reporting Items for (Systematic) Reviews and Meta-Analyses) [21] were used as guiding principles to enhance clarity and traceability of the literature selection process providing logical procedures for selecting, filtering, and presenting the relevant scientific sources, thereby serving as one of the foundations for the present research. However, this adoption is conceptual and supportive; also, the PRISMA-style flow diagram is included solely to enhance transparency. In addition, for the analysis of qualitative data, thematic synthesis was employed [22].
Regarding the time horizon of the search procedure, this was limited to publications from the period 2015–2025, in order to capture the most recent body of research knowledge, including potential changes and developments related to ESG policies, the European Green Deal, and the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) [23].
The search strategy was primarily conducted through scientific databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect (Elsevier), and Google Scholar, using combinations of keywords including such as “Sustainability KPIs, Sustainable Performance Indicators in Retail/Supermarket, ESG in Retail, GRI Supermarket, Energy Efficiency Supermarkets, Economic and Environmental Improvements in Supermarkets, Energy Impact and Energy Strategies Supermarket, Environmental Strategies Retail, Food Retail Sustainability”.
Moving to the procedure followed for choosing and processing of sources, in effort to ensure their quality, timeliness, and validity, the following inclusion criteria were applied: mainly peer-reviewed journal publications, general studies related to supermarkets or food retail chains, as well as research that incorporated measurable sustainability indicators (KPIs).
In order to align this review as closely as possible with the thematic focus under analysis, a number of studies were excluded after careful evaluation. Specifically, theoretical articles without empirical KPI measurements and without clear bibliographic grounding, certain unilateral case studies, and any form of the gray literature (such as blogs lacking official standing and scholarly references or studies without citations) were removed fully from consideration.
Describing the selection process analytically, in the first stage of selection, a large number of publications were identified. These publications were then assessed based on title and abstract. Following the removal of similar or duplicate studies as well as non-relevant articles, a full reading of a significant number of selected studies was conducted. Eventually, a subset of these studies was deemed sufficiently relevant and included in the structured review process. The process followed is also illustrated diagrammatically in the PRISMA-style flow diagram below (Figure 1), which, as already clarified, is used only for transparency.
Quantifying the above process and concluding the final number of studies included for qualitative analysis, the following can be distinguished:
As a first step, 362 publications/studies relevant to the subject of this research were identified using recognized and official databases, as previously mentioned. At this initial stage, general search terms were used, including the following word combinations: “Sustainability KPIs”, “ESG Strategy in Retail”, “Energy Efficiency Retail”, “Sustainability Strategies”, “Environmental Strategies Retail”, OR “Food Retail Sustainability.” Subsequently, the identified studies were checked for duplicates across the different databases, leading to their removal of 58 studies and resulting in 304 studies at this part of the procedure. Thereafter, delving deeper into the subject matter and including more specific keywords such as “Sustainable Performance Indicators in Retail/Supermarket”, “ESG OR GRI Supermarket”, “KPIs AND Energy Efficiency Supermarket”, “Economic and Environmental Improvements in Supermarket”, “Sustainability Strategies Retail/Supermarket”, “Energy Impact AND Sustainability Strategies on Supermarket”, “Energy Strategies Retail/Supermarket”, “Energy Efficiency Supermarket”, and by evaluating and checking each article’s title and abstract, 91 articles/studies were finally selected for full-text reading. As can be seen from the above keyword combinations, these terms were combined using Boolean operators (AND, OR) and were adjusted according to each search platform [24,25]. Finally, by extracting every useful piece of information from the aforementioned articles and selecting those that provide sufficient bibliographic depth for inclusion in this literature review, a final total of 48 studies were selected. It should be mentioned that additional data were obtained from the official websites of food retail chains as well as from the European Commission, along with bibliographic sources (12 in total) that are not counted within the final number of selected studies.
Regarding the extraction of the main information of interest, for each selected study, an effort was made to understand the research focus and framework and to identify (a) the applied sustainability indicators (ESG, GRI, KPIs), (b) the proposed sustainability evaluation frameworks, (c) the types of energy or operational interventions implemented by supermarket chains in the context of sustainability, as well as (d) the relationship between energy interventions and sustainability performance indicators.
The analysis was thematically organized, using the qualitative coding method in the following three main categories: (1) environmental KPIs, (2) social KPIs, and (3) economic KPIs. At the same time, common methodological approaches and various gaps in the literature were identified, based on the method of thematic synthesis [22].

3. Results

3.1. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) in Supermarkets—Categorization and Analysis

3.1.1. Environmental KPIs

This paragraph provides a concise and precise description of the experimental results, their interpretation, as well as the experimental conclusions that are drawn.
The most commonly used indicators drawn from this study are presented below and they focus on the environmental footprint and the management of natural resources:
  • Carbon footprint/GHG emissions: calculation of total carbon dioxide emissions from supermarket store operations and the supply chain (kg CO2 e/m2/year) [26].
  • Energy consumption/energy efficiency: monitoring of total energy consumption and the percentage of renewable energy use (kWh/m2/year) [27,28].
  • Water usage/water footprint: recording of water consumption and efficiency in its use (L/m2/year) [26].
  • Waste management and recycling rate: volume of generated waste, recycling rate, and circular management (% of total waste) [29].
  • Food waste control/packaging reduction: performance metrics for reducing food waste and percentage of sustainable packaging use (% reduction in waste) [30].

3.1.2. Social KPIs

In contrast to certain environmental–energy indicators, social indicators appear in a limited level in the food retail sector and as noticed by implemented studies such as those by Ruiz-Real et al., 2019 [18] and Silva et al., 2025 [16], they are not quantitatively connected to technical energy interventions. The most commonly used indicators drawn from this study are the following:
  • Customer satisfaction and loyalty: perceived satisfaction and loyalty of customers in supermarkets that support sustainable practices (% of satisfied customers) [31].
  • Community engagement/education program participation: customer participation in educational initiatives organized around sustainability (% of potential customers) [29].
  • Occupational health, diversity, local sourcing/supplier practices: issues such as recruitment, training policies, and relationships with local suppliers (% of satisfied employees) [32].

3.1.3. Economic and Governance KPIs

The most common KPIs related to corporate efficiency and transparency include:
  • Profitability metrics: ROI, Net Profit Margin (return on sales ratio), added value, profit margin [33].
  • Investment in sustainability innovation: expenditures on innovation, low-emission technologies, and energy solutions (% of company revenues) [26].
  • Governance and transparency: ESG score (0–100), Ethical Policy Disclosures (ethical compliance), Board Diversity, Compliance Frameworks (Ethical Conduct Index 0–10).

3.2. Sustainability Strategies in Retail Energy Use

Due to the growing importance nowadays of energy management and conservation, both at an individual and corporate level, energy consumption in the retail sector and particularly in supermarkets, which hold a significant share of it, represents one of the key performance factors influencing the environmental footprint and operational efficiency of businesses. Narrowing the scope of the present study around the second research question, the keywords related to sustainability strategies or even energy strategies were used, such as “Sustainability Strategies Retail/Supermarket”, “Energy Strategies Retail/Supermarket”, “Energy Efficiency Retail/Supermarket”, “Energy Impact AND Energy Strategies on Supermarket”. The research conducted on sustainability strategies through the use of the above keywords (with all logical variations thereof) highlighted that these strategies primarily focus on the following three main sectors: refrigeration systems, LED lighting, and HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning). Together, these account for the largest share of total energy consumption in a supermarket and specifically 80%, according to the study by Thanasoulas, S.; Molinari, M. (2025) [34]. Nevertheless, due to rapid technological advancements, corporate sustainability strategies now increasingly encompass a wider range of activities, including investments in renewable energy sources [35], as well as the integration of artificial intelligence into supermarket store operations. Thus, the main strategies followed by supermarkets can be grouped in the following:
  • Cooling and Heat Recovery
Focusing on one of the three main pillars identified in the literature, the refrigeration systems consume a significant share of energy due to their continuous operation, which is required for preserving sensitive products within supermarkets and maintaining low temperatures. Technological advancements and the demand for sustainable approaches include the adoption of CO2 refrigeration systems, which demonstrate reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and simultaneously increased energy efficiency [36]. Moreover, the integration of heat recovery technologies from refrigeration units contributes to water or space heating, thereby reducing the consumption of natural gas or electricity.
  • LED and Smart Lighting in Stores
Moving to the second pillar based on the grouping identified, the transition from conventional fluorescent lamps to LED lighting provides up to 50–70% reduction in lighting energy consumption, as reported by companies themselves and also various institutions [37,38]. In this way, the utilization of smart lighting systems, with occupancy and daylight sensors, further increases efficiency and reduces unnecessary consumption, particularly in warehouses, auxiliary areas, and parking spaces.
  • HVAC Systems and BEMS
As we move into a period of rapid technological growth that also influences business operations, including those of supermarkets, the adoption of high-efficiency HVAC systems of advanced energy classes, as well as the implementation of Building Energy Management Systems (BEMS), enables intelligent monitoring and adjustment of energy use based on actual needs [39]. Existing studies show that the application of BEMS can lead to a reduction in energy consumption of 10–25% [18,40].
  • Integration of Renewable Energy Sources (RES)
The integration of photovoltaic systems on the rooftops or in the parking areas of stores and warehouses constitutes a practice that contributes to energy self-sufficiency and to the reduction in the overall carbon footprint. It is also one of the most rapidly growing and widely adopted strategies among large retail groups worldwide that seek to become as independent as possible from the local energy grid [35]. For example, Tesco has invested in solar panels for more than 400 of its stores, avoiding the emission of thousands of tons of CO2 annually [41].
  • Digital Technologies and Artificial Intelligence
Undoubtedly, the use of IoT technologies and artificial intelligence (AI) has also become integral in the supermarket sector, enabling the prediction of energy needs, the detection of anomalies, and the dynamic adjustment of systems. Studies show that the utilization of predictive analytics and machine learning can improve energy management by an additional 10–15% compared to conventional BEMS [42].
Building upon the literature reviewed, the following Table 1 consolidates the main sustainability strategies adopted by supermarket chains worldwide, outlining their core characteristics, associated benefits, and representative studies that document their implementation.

3.3. Sustainable Strategies in Retail Chains and Their Effect on KPIs

The food retail chains, influenced by various governmental campaigns as well as legislative directives, are increasingly adopting integrated sustainability strategies, incorporating ESG and GRI standards into their governance and operational systems in order to achieve their goals on versatile levels. However, it is observed that the connection between these strategies and actual performance, as reflected through KPIs, often remains fragmented [18].
This section presents the results of the literature review on how sustainability and energy strategies adopted by retail companies influence key performance indicators (KPIs) of sustainable performance. There is a transition from the general overview of corporate sustainability practices to specific examples of representative companies that integrate such strategies into their operational frameworks and assess their effectiveness through defined KPIs. Within this framework, major food production companies such as Nestlé [43] have achieved a 13.5% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions between 2018 and 2023 (% GHGs reduction), while almost 92% of the electricity used comes from renewable energy sources (% electricity from renewables) and regenerative agriculture accounts for 15% of raw materials, with percentage targets set for 2025 and 2030 [44]. A similar approach toward environmental and energy objectives is also followed by major supermarket chains worldwide.
Another representative example is ALDI, which, through continuous effort, has achieved a 50% reduction in carbon emissions per store compared to year 2015 (% Carbon Emission Reduction), by installing photovoltaic panels in more than 170 stores, aiming for their complete independence from the electricity grid [45]. For these actions and other energy initiatives, the application of methods such as ESG has been documented in order to correlate with improved financial performance and enhanced corporate reputation, showcasing the company’s environmental responsibility. Nevertheless, given the extensive discussion and interest surrounding sustainability, in a considerable percentage of cases the role of ESG indicators has been downgraded, making it difficult to assess the true effectiveness of corporate sustainable decisions [46]. In addition to the above, sustainable supply chains and responsible food packaging practices are now also widespread. Various studies in the FMCG (fast-moving consumer goods) sector, such as that of Misopoulos, F.; Bajiraj, P., 2025 [47], emphasize the need for responsible sourcing, sustainable packaging, and stakeholder engagement through the support of SDG (Sustainable Development Goals) and ESG (environmental, social, and governance) indicators, as these improve competitiveness, corporate image, and, in the long term, the financial performance of companies.
The aforementioned points are strengthened with representative examples of KPIs’ integration for the evaluation of sustainability strategies from the European market. Based on a literature search conducted in international databases using keywords such as “KPIs AND Energy Efficiency Supermarket”, “Sustainable Performance Indicators in Retail/Supermarket”, “ESG OR GRI Supermarket”, the case of the grocery and supermarket chain Co-operative Group emerges. According to its corresponding sustainability report, the company achieved a 40% reduction in carbon emissions during the decade 2006–2015 (% Carbon Emission Reduction) through renewable energy sources and refrigeration units with doors. By implementing various interventions across the company’s infrastructure and operations, it managed to reduce Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 61% in 2024 compared to the base year (2016), making the 2030 target of 66% increasingly attainable. Moreover, it has achieved a 26% reduction in Scope 3 emissions (the greenhouse gas emissions indirectly generated across the value chain but not directly regulated or produced by the company itself) in 2024, with the 2030 target set at 48%, a figure that requires substantial effort to achieve [48].
Subsequently, Schwarz Group (Lidl/Kaufland) aims for climate neutrality by 2050, with an effort to reduce emissions (Scope 1 refers to emissions generated directly from sources owned or controlled by the company, such as combustion engine vehicles or heavy machinery and Scope 2 refers to indirect emissions from the generation of electricity, heating, or cooling consumed by the company) by 48–50% by 2030. By the year 2023, the group had installed renewable energy systems producing a total of 598,700 MWh, substantially increasing energy autonomy [44,49]. Another group, REWE supermarkets, mentioned that over 80% of its energy consumption is sourced from renewables (% electricity from renewables), a target achieved in 2023 [50]. At the same time, the company is striving to reduce food waste by 50% by 2030 (% food waste reduction). Similarly, the well-known supermarket chain Tesco has integrated around 65% of its electricity needs from renewable sources (primarily photovoltaic systems) and has pledged that by 2030 it will adopt strategies and measures to reach 100% renewable electricity [51]. Furthermore, in line with the wider trend of comprehensive resource savings, Tesco referred in its sustainability performance results to a 45% reduction in food waste between 2016 and 2023 [52]. According to one of its latest sustainability reports, the company is also working on strengthening social KPIs, with a representative achievement being the increase in female representation in the company to over 42% [41]. Moreover, given the energy and environmental management demands of large supermarket chains, there is a concerted effort to develop approaches targeting holistic sustainability. A representative example, although it refers to stores in Bangkok, far from the European context, is the study written by Vipusanapat et al., 2022 [53], which discusses an environmental evaluation model for local supermarkets. The model combines five “green process” factors (procurement, storage, service, transportation, and environmental/energy management system) with four “green output” indicators (environmental, social, economic performance, and organizational image), using a range of KPIs to connect both dimensions. Finally, there is a growing aspect that the sustainable transition creates business value for companies adopting such practices. Studies such as McKinsey, 2022 [54], emphasize that sustainable strategies can reduce energy-related risks, provide access to cheaper financing, and increase market share through differentiated branding and green products and stores.
The comparative representation of the KPIs above highlights the differentiated progress of major retail chains in implementing their sustainability strategies. Overall, it illustrates both the advancements achieved and the subtle variations in how retail companies measure and attain their sustainability objectives, whereas it underscores the necessity for harmonized and sector-specific KPIs that can consolidate as standardized benchmarks for evaluating corporate performance within a unified temporal framework. Such standardization would enhance the reliability and comparability of ESG/GRI reports, ultimately facilitating an essential and objective assessment of sustainable performance within the supermarket sector.
For a comprehensive overview of the most widely used performance indicators (KPIs), based on an extensive review and evaluation of scientific studies related to the supermarket sector, as well as sustainability reports from major supermarket chains and food companies, consolidated Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4 are presented below, organized by key category:
In a period characterized by technological advancement and the prevalence of remote operational control, a substantial proportion of retail chains and large enterprises have adopted comprehensive management and monitoring systems (measurement environments). As described by Roy, J., 2022, [55], on the official SAP ERP platform, many of enterprises enable continuous tracking of critical performance indicators, including CO2 emissions, energy consumption and sourcing, as well as waste management metrics.
By synthesizing evidence from the international academic literature and drawing upon validated data extracted from peer-reviewed studies and official corporate sustainability reports, this research study presents in a table a consolidated set of key performance indicators (KPIs) representative of the retail sector and, by extension, its supermarket segment. The values presented reflect data derived from extensive empirical analyses encompassing a considerable number of retail chains, thereby ensuring a high degree of representativeness.
The progress of the supermarket sector and the broader retail industry in integrating sustainability is reflected through a series of relevant performance indicators (key perfor-mance indicators—KPIs), which demonstrate the gradual adoption of responsible man-agement practices and a strategic orientation toward sustainability. Specifically, approxi-mately 42% of the world’s top fifty global grocery retailers now maintain dedicated departments that focus exclusively on issues of energy efficiency and sustainability, indicating the institutionalization of sustainability within corporate structures [56,57,58]. At the same time, between 10% and 56% of retail chains have incorporated sustainability-related KPIs into their corporate performance evaluation frameworks, reflecting the growing effort to systematically measure and monitor the environmental and social outcomes of their strategic initiatives [57,59]. At the executive management level, between 76% and 82% of CEOs of major supermarket chains identify sustainability as a strategic priority within their long-term corporate planning, confirming its increasing relevance as a driver of competitiveness and corporate resilience [57,58]. Finally, the average ESG score of the sector, reaching approximately 35%, illustrates that despite substantial progress in the integration of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles, there remains a clear need for further standardization, comparability, and quantification of existing sustainability practices [60].
The aforementioned percentages that are primarily classified under the governance category do not directly pertain to the operational performance of individual stores. However, through these indicators, it becomes possible to target and achieve a well-balanced sectoral condition that effectively meets the evolving demands of contemporary society.
It is restated that environmental indicators now represent the predominant dimension in corporate efforts toward energy efficiency and sustainability. In conjunction with the economic feasibility underpinning each strategic decision, companies appear to be making concerted efforts to adopt sustainable strategies that enable their adaptation to the new market reality [16].
In more detail, environmental indicators, such as carbon footprint, energy efficiency, and waste management, consistently emerge as the most prominent metrics in sustainability assessments within the supermarket sector. Following these, social indicators appear with lower frequency and are often lacking quantitative measurements that connect them to corporate energy-related interventions. In contrast, economic and governance indicators, such as ESG scores and profitability ratio, are present in the literature, though their connection to specific technical sustainability solutions is frequently fragmented. In addition, several studies have attempted to critically assess the retail sector’s overall engagement with sustainability, yet the results tend to vary depending on the scope and focus of each research field. Observing the actions of major retail chains, a multilateral effort is evident toward integrating individual KPIs across all three dimensions (environmental, social, and economic) into their sustainability performance evaluations. However, on a sector level, there remains a notable absence of a unified and comprehensive framework for measuring sustainable performance. This gap underscores the need for an integrated assessment model that bridges the disconnection between sustainability strategies, energy evolution, and social-economic KPIs, thereby enabling a more holistic and comparable evaluation of sustainable development in the supermarket sector.
Nevertheless, as will be discussed in the following sections, there is no evidence in the international literature of a study that directly and individually connects each performance indicator (KPI) with the implemented sustainability strategies. The absence of such a correspondence highlights the need for quantitative research capable of capturing the relationship between specific energy interventions and sustainability performance indicators, thereby creating fertile ground for future research that could serve as a natural continuation of the present literature review.

4. Discussion

This review revealed that the measurement of sustainable performance in supermarkets primarily relies on the following three thematic sets of key performance indicators (KPIs): environmental, social, and economic. Furthermore, there are distinct methodological approaches that increasingly focus on technological and economic parameters, such as energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and investments in renewable energy sources (RES) [26,27,28]. In parallel, the adoption of internationally recognized frameworks such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) standards is becoming increasingly widespread across multiple sectors [9,14]. Nevertheless, their practical implementation within the supermarket sector demonstrates significant variations, reflecting differences in strategic orientation, data availability, and the maturity of sustainability practices across companies. In a broader context, although the international literature fully acknowledges the significance of key performance indicators (KPIs), the structured connection between energy/sustainable strategies and sustainable performance metrics remains fragmented [2,18]. The absence of standardized methodologies and comparability among KPIs constitutes a visible research gap, as existing applications of GRI and ESG frameworks are often unable to capture the specific operational and structural characteristics of the supermarket sector. At the level of environmental indicators, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, energy consumption, and the percentage of renewable energy integration in store and facility power supply emerge as the most common and widely measured indicators [26]. As previously specified, ALDI has achieved a 50% reduction in carbon emissions per store since 2015, meanwhile the Schwarz Group (Lidl/Kaufland) has installed renewable energy systems with a total capacity of 598,700 MWh in projects implemented up to 2023, establishing a strong keystone for achieving climate neutrality and sustainable performance [44]. Moving into a more detailed discussion based on the conducted research evaluation, these data are often reported without normalization per unit area (m2) or per sales volume, which complicates chain comparability [29]. Environmental indicators, such as energy consumption (kWh/m2), CO2 equivalent emissions, and share of renewable energy use, are consistently measured; however, their integration into holistic assessment frameworks that also encompass social and economic dimensions remains limited. Consequently, a fully comprehensive incorporation of all sustainability dimensions is yet to be achieved. The aforementioned discussion addresses the first research question, discussing the most prominent performance indicators while clearly highlighting the lack of standardization and, therefore, the limited comparability across the supermarket sector.
The literature substantiates significant technical advancements in the field of energy and overall sustainability efficiency within the supermarket sector, including the installation of LED lighting, upgrading of HVAC systems, and the integration of renewable energy sources. Studies such as that of Fernández, J., 2020, [40], indicate that the implementation of LED lighting and optimized HVAC systems can result in a reduction in energy consumption by approximately 18–25%. Despite these positive outcomes, one of the most notable findings concern the absence of quantitative correlation between technical energy interventions (e.g., high-efficiency refrigeration systems, LED lighting, and HVAC optimization) and broader sustainability-related measures, such as operational performance indicators or more general social metrics, including employee satisfaction, diversity, community engagement, and the company’s corporate image or ESG score [16,18,19]. This gap highlights a substantial research deficiency, emphasizing the need for a holistic assessment framework that systematically integrates technical, environmental, social, and economic dimensions of sustainability performance in the supermarket industry. Specifically, there is a notable lack of empirical studies that substantiate through market-based data, how sustainability interventions (including technical measures) are imprinted into improved ESG indicators or wider social and economic benefits. These directly reflect the second and third research questions, documenting the mainly sustainability and energy advancement strategies, while simultaneously underscoring the identified research gap, namely, the absence of quantitative linkage between connection these strategies and measurable key performance indicators (KPIs).
Following the aforementioned discussion, social indicators within the supermarket sector and more widely in the retail industry represent a critical yet often undervalued component of sustainability assessment. Factors such as employee satisfaction, health and safety, workforce training, gender equality, diversity, and community engagement have been recognized as essential elements of the social dimension of sustainable development [16,18]. However, in contrast to environmental and economic indicators, their quantitative measurement and analytical integration into key performance indicators (KPIs) remain limited. However, examples such as Tesco, which has increased female representation in its workforce to 42% [51], demonstrate that supermarkets are increasingly integrating social initiatives into their strategic planning.
At the economic level, which constitutes a central field of interest for all companies regardless of industry, ESG frameworks emphasize financial sustainability and the value delivered to investors. However, the existing literature rarely quantifies the direct economic impact of specific sustainability interventions in supermarkets, such as reduction in energy costs or increased sales of sustainable products. Nevertheless, economic indicators such as return on investment (ROI), Net Profit Margin, and expenditures on sustainable innovation appear in certain studies as key determinants in assessing supermarket sustainability performance [32,33]. These metrics serve as critical components in evaluating not only financial efficiency but also the long-term strategic viability of sustainability-oriented initiatives within the retail food sector. The principle of double materiality [15], introduced by the European Commission, 2025, [23], underscores the necessity of developing key performance indicators (KPIs) that effectively connect environmental and social performance with measurable economic outcomes [6]. The integration of such metrics introduces a financial dimension to the analysis of sustainable development, suggesting that sustainability strategies represent not only an environmental or social imperative but also a potential driver of profitability and competitiveness. Consequently, it highlights the connection between sustainability/energy strategies and key economic performance indicators, thereby contributing to the interpretation of the third research question, while also emphasizing the existing gap in the consistent quantitative substantiation of these relationships.
Examples of significant retail chains such as Nestlé and the Schwarz Group demonstrate that investments in renewable energy sources and innovative technologies are associated with improved financial performance and enhanced access to capital due to higher ESG scores [44].
However, the literature rarely establishes quantitative correlations between economic and environmental indicators, creating a significant research gap in understanding the relationship between sustainability and financial performance in the food retail sector [46]. The lack of this interconnection limits the ability of companies to clearly substantiate the financial benefits derived from energy-related strategies such as the use of renewable energy, the reduction of CO2 emissions, or the minimization of food waste.
The implementation of this analysis reveals the following two interrelated gaps within the existing literature: (a) the absence of a unified framework that effectively connects environmental and social interventions with measurable economic outcomes, thereby enhancing accountability and strategic decision-making within the supermarket sector and (b) the limited integration of sustainability and energy-efficiency initiatives with social and economic performance indicators, which highlights the lack of comprehensive frameworks capable of connecting sustainability strategies with social and financial metrics.

Limitations and Future Research

Despite the valuable insights produced through this review, certain limitations should be acknowledged. The analysis relied primarily on data derived from published academic research, institutional reports, and corporate sustainability disclosures within the supermarket sector. Τhe lack of standardized sustainability metrics in terms of methodological approaches and sustainability reporting frameworks, coupled with the significant heterogeneity observed across the reviewed studies, limited the ability to establish direct quantitative comparisons across different supermarket chains and geographical contexts. Finally, the absence of extensive empirical data restricts the capacity to assess the long-term causal relationship between the adoption of sustainability strategies and overall business performance. Building upon these limitations, future research should endeavor to resolve these limitations through the collection of primary data from retail enterprises, the implementation of longitudinal case studies, and the integration of mixed-method approaches, with the aim of strengthening the empirical validation of the sustainability performance identified in this review.
Within this context, the findings indicate that supermarkets adopting measurable and comprehensive sustainability strategies not only reduce their environmental footprint but also enhance their competitiveness, corporate image, and long-term economic performance. The future research, in order to confront the identified gaps, should focus on the development and empirical validation of integrated assessment frameworks that connect environmental outcomes with social and economic performance indicators, while taking into account the specific characteristics, technological advancements, and societal trends of the retail/supermarket sectors. Furthermore, the application of multi-criteria decision-making methodologies (e.g., AHP—Analytic Hierarchy Process) could assist in the prioritization and weighting of critical KPIs, thereby facilitating the formulation of targeted sustainability strategies aligned with the needs and objectives of modern retail enterprises.
Therefore, future research should focus on (a) the development of comprehensive assessment models that integrate data from the implementation of sustainability and energy efficiency strategies with relevant sustainability KPIs and (b) the conduct of experimental studies within supermarket environments to accurately evaluate the quantitative benefits and impacts of sustainability interventions.

5. Conclusions

This literature review contributes to the identification, capturing, and categorization of the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to assess sustainable performance in the supermarket sector, one of the largest subsectors within the retail industry. It highlights the complexity of measuring sustainability and also offers a comparative perspective on the environmental, social, and economic dimensions that shape the sustainability framework in the food retail sector. The mapping of existing approaches revealed significant heterogeneity in the use and evaluation of KPIs, a factor that complicates comparability and limits the ability to form universal conclusions. This situation underscores the need for a holistic approach that systematically connects environmental, social, and economic indicators through a clear, quantifiable assessment process.
Beyond the meticulous documentation and synthesis of the existing literature, the study highlights the absence of a unified, sector-specific framework that effectively connects technical energy interventions, such as improvements in energy efficiency, waste reduction, and the integration of renewable energy sources into business operations with measurable outcomes (indicators) in social, economic, and environmental performance. The lack of this holistic interconnection hinders the ability to substantiate the contribution of sustainability strategies to the economic and social dimensions of enterprises. This identified research gap becomes even more pronounced when the research field is contextualized within the Mediterranean economies, and particularly within the Greek retail market as an example, where distinctive climatic and economic conditions necessitate specialized approaches to energy strategies and sustainable business practices.
From a practical perspective within the supermarket and broader retail sectors, the findings of this study provide a valuable foundation for corporate management teams to design and implement strategies that integrate energy efficiency with enhanced corporate image, transparency, and overall competitiveness. In conjunction with this understanding, it is considered essential to collect empirical data through future research conducted in real retail environments, in order to validate and quantify the impact of these sustainability strategies on operational and financial performance. Consequently, regarding practical recommendations for the industry and relevant policymaking bodies, it is essential to establish unified guidelines for sustainability measurement within the supermarket sector, aiming to promote transparency, comparability, and the creation of incentives for the adoption of best practices. In this context, the integration of clear and reliable KPIs into corporate planning could significantly enhance transparency and improve compliance with international standards such as GRI and ESG, thereby fostering a more responsible and performance-driven approach to sustainability in the retail industry.
The reasoning behind the use of international sustainability measurement frameworks, such as the GRI standards and ESG assessments, lies in the fact that they provide a valuable foundation for evaluating corporate sustainability performance. However, as evidenced by this study, these frameworks suffer from a lack of standardization and methodological heterogeneity within the food retail sector. This inconsistency makes it challenging to compare performance across different companies and countries, thereby limiting the usefulness of these indicators for the development of a coherent and collective sustainability strategy.
Based on all the preceding findings and in defining the future research directions of this study, an understandable need emerges for the development of specialized and sector-specific frameworks that incorporate key performance indicators (KPIs) tailored to the supermarket industry. These frameworks should aim to integrate the three core dimensions of sustainability (environmental, economic, and social) while also enabling comparative analysis of distinct energy strategies. Furthermore, the application of multi-criteria decision-making methods (such as the Analytic Hierarchy Process, AHP) is expected to facilitate the weighting of indicators and support critical decision-making, thereby providing strategic guidance for policymakers and enterprises. The integration of energy performance data and financial outcomes within a unified framework will ultimately allow for the formulation of more effective and contextually adapted strategies across the supermarket sector.
Additionally, as a proposed direction for future research, it is deemed essential to develop and implement multi-criteria assessment tools that simultaneously evaluate environmental, social, and economic dimensions, while also conducting empirical studies that directly connect energy interventions to sustainability performance indicators (KPIs), thereby enhancing transparency and comparability. The formation of such tools could improve compliance with international standards, support more effective decision-making, and promote genuine sustainable development within the supermarket sector. More broadly, the adaptation of these methodologies has the potential to serve as a benchmark for other markets with similar characteristics, positioning the food retail industry as a key field of innovation in the measurement and implementation of sustainability strategies.
In conclusion, by consolidating all the findings and outcomes of the present study, it is possible to evaluate its contribution to the scientific community. At a general level, this research achieved a systematization of knowledge. The study gathered and analyzed the international literature on sustainability KPIs in the supermarket sector, classifying them into three main categories (environmental, social, and economic) and highlighted the existing gaps in comparability and standardization. In addition, this paper utilizes all available information to compile a detailed record of sustainable practices implemented by supermarket chains worldwide and in a subsequent level it made a clear attempt to investigate the impact of these sustainability and energy strategies on the sustainable performance (KPIs) of supermarkets, thereby creating fertile ground for future research into the correlation between strategic initiatives and the performance indicators identified.
The analysis demonstrates that, although numerous energy efficiency techniques have been developed, there is a lack of quantitative connection between these interventions and KPIs that reflect overall sustainable performance, representing a critical research gap that warrants further academic exploration. Delving deeper into the dimensions of sustainability indicators, it is evident that social indicators emerge as an “underrepresented dimension”. The key contribution of this study lies in recognizing the absence of integrated frameworks that effectively connect social parameters with economic and environmental data. Based on the comprehensive information collected and analyzed, a research gap is identified regarding the development of holistic frameworks that emphasize the necessity for unified tools and models enabling enterprises to perform comparative and multidimensional evaluations, an aspect largely absent from the existing literature.
At a theoretical level, the present research contributes to the enrichment of the academic literature through the focused mapping and categorization of KPIs employed in the supermarket sector into environmental, social, and economic indicators, thereby providing a structured foundation for future comparative studies and the continued evolution of sustainability assessment in retail. At the same time, with a focus on bridging the existing limited body of the combined literature, this study highlights the fragmentary nature of current research, which often examines technical–economic data or sociological parameters in isolation. This fragmentation underscores the need for holistic theoretical frameworks of assessment that integrate these dimensions into a unified analysis of sustainability. The study’s contribution also lies in identifying the research gap concerning the connection between sustainability and energy-efficiency strategies and measurable sustainability performance indicators (KPIs), while emphasizing that international ESG and GRI frameworks, although widely adopted and recognized, are not applied in a standardized approach within the supermarket sector, thus providing a foundation and motivation for the development of sector-specific assessment models. Furthermore, the lack of integration of social indicators into the assessment of sustainability performance within the retail sector emerges as a critical weakness, creating fertile ground for new research directions.
In concluding the present research analysis, it is essential to highlight the managerial implications, namely the translation of the study’s findings into practical applications that can guide future research initiatives and strategic decision-making by company executives and policymakers. Based on the data gathered from businesses within the sector, and considering the broader approach adopted concerning sustainability and quantitative assessment, the primary objective for implementation should be the expansion of strategic planning, ensuring that sustainability becomes a core component of corporate governance and operational decision-making. Each supermarket chain’s management can utilize the findings of this study to strategically select more meaningful KPIs (e.g., CO2 emissions, ROI, social diversity), with the aim of directly connecting the implementation of sustainability strategies to multidimensional business performance. This research highlights, through the examination of the impacts and contributions of adopting well-documented green strategies, that companies implementing such practices generate a distinctly positive effect on their competitiveness and corporate image, reinforcing their position within an increasingly sustainability-driven market environment. Also, the study demonstrates that the adoption of integrated sustainability strategies not only reduces the environmental footprint or contributes to financial savings, but also generates multiple strategic advantages, strengthening each company’s position within the broader market. It also highlights the growing necessity for data-driven and holistic decision-making. Departments and management teams responsible for strategic planning, particularly in the area of sustainability, are urged to develop internal frameworks for KPI collection and monitoring but also benchmarking mechanisms, thereby enhancing transparency and enabling objective performance comparison across companies and markets. In the context of investment decision-making and its connection with ESG scores, it becomes evident that corporate management should prioritize sustainable technologies, not only for their environmental benefits but also for their financial and strategic advantages. In parallel, it is proposed that enterprises adopt a holistic approach, whereby they no longer focus exclusively on environmental interventions but also invest in social initiatives, such as employee satisfaction and diversity, and integrate these efforts with relevant KPIs that collectively influence overall corporate performance.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.T. and K.G.; methodology, M.T.; software, M.T.; formal analysis, M.T.; investigation, M.T.; resources, M.T.; data analysis, M.T.; writing—original draft preparation, M.T.; writing—editing, M.T.; review, K.G.; supervision, M.T. and K.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Acknowledgments

This research work was supported by Management and Business Administration Department, University of Macedonia.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Burek, J.; Nutter, D. Environmental implications of perishables storage and retailing. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 133, 110070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Munro, P.; Kapitan, S.; Wooliscroft, B. The sustainable attitude-behavior gap dynamic when shopping at the supermarket: A systematic literature review and framework for future research. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 426, 138740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Buallay, A. Sustainability reporting and retail sector performance: Worldwide evidence. Int. Rev. Retail. Distrib. Consum. Res. 2022, 32, 311–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. McKinsey. State of Grocery Europe 2024: Signs of Hope. 2024. Available online: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/our-insights/state-of-grocery-europe-2024-signs-of-hope (accessed on 10 June 2025).
  5. Khalufi, N.; Sheikh, R.; Ali Khan, S.; Onn, C. Evaluating the Impact of Sustainability Practices on Customer Relationship Quality: An SEM-PLS Approach to Align with SDG. Sustainability 2025, 17, 798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Nielsen, C. ESG Reporting and Metrics: From Double Materiality to Key Performance Indicators. Sustainability 2023, 15, 16844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Felix da Cunha, I.; Policarpo, R.; de Oliveira, P.; Abdala, E.; Nascimento, D. A systematic review of ESG indicators and corporate performance: Proposal for a conceptual framework. Future Bus. J. 2025, 11, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Global Reporting. GRI—Standards. 2025. Available online: https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/ (accessed on 19 June 2025).
  9. Hristov, I.; Chirico, A. The Role of Sustainability Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) in Implementing Sustainable Strategies. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Caricasole, S. The Evolution of the GRI Approach to Sustainability Reporting. University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy, December 2018. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337739816_The_evolution_of_the_GRI_approach_to_sustainability_reporting (accessed on 22 June 2025).
  11. Kräussl, R.; Oladiran, T.; Stefanova, D. A review on ESG investing: Investors’ expectations, beliefs and perceptions. J. Econ. Surv. 2023, 38, 476–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bao, X.; Sadiq, M.; Tye, W.; Zhang, J. The impact of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) rating disparities on corporate risk: The mediating role of financing constraints. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 371, 123113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Baratta, A.; Cimino, C.; Longo, F.; Solina, V.; Verteramo, S. The Impact of ESG Practices in Industry with a Focus on Carbon Emissions: Insights and Future Perspectives. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Raucci, D.; Tarquinio, L. Sustainability Performance Indicators and Non-Financial Information Reporting. Evidence from the Italian Case. Adm. Sci. 2020, 10, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Global Reporting. Double Materiality: The Guiding Principle for Sustainability Report. Guides for Policy Makers Series. Available online: https://www.globalreporting.org/media/rz1jf4bz/gri-double-materiality-final.pdf (accessed on 22 June 2025).
  16. Silva, A.; Maldonaldo, I.; da Silva, M.; Cepeda, C. Sustainability Balanced Scorecard Systematic Literature Review. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2025, 18, 324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Forastiere, S.; Piselli, C.; Silei, A.; Sciurpi, F.; Pisello, A.; Cotana, F.; Balocco, C. Energy Efficiency and Sustainability in Food Retail Buildings: Introducing a Novel Assessment Framework. Energies 2024, 17, 4882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ruiz-Real, J.; Uribe-Toril, J.; Gazquez-Abad, J.; Valenciano, J. Sustainability and Retail: Analysis of Global Research. Sustainability 2019, 11, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Nikolaou, I.; Tsalis, T.; Evangelinos, K. A framework to measure corporate sustainability performance: A strong sustainability-based view of firm. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2019, 18, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Saber, M.; Weber, A. Sustainable grocery retailing: Myth or reality?—A content analysis. Bus. Soc. Rev. 2019, 124, 479–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Page, M.; McKenzie, J.; Tetzlaff, J.; Brennan, S.; McDonald, S.; Welch, V. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar]
  22. Thomas, J.; Harden, A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med. Res. Syst. Rev. 2008, 8, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. European Commission. Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive. 2025. Available online: https://finance.ec.europa.eu/regulation-and-supervision/financial-services-legislation/implementing-and-delegated-acts/corporate-sustainability-reporting-directive_en (accessed on 4 July 2025).
  24. John, S.; Bailey Library. Advanced Searching—Google Scholar Guide. 2024. Available online: https://library.acg.edu/how-to-guides/google-scholar/advanced-searching (accessed on 7 July 2025).
  25. Atkinson, L.; Cipriani, A. How to carry out a literature search for a systematic review: A practical guide. BJPsych Adv. 2018, 24, 74–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Bottani, E.; Tebaldi, L.; Casella, G.; Mora, C. Key Performance Indicators for Food Supply Chain: A Bibliometric and Systematic Literature Review. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 3841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Cester, A. Main Sustainability Indicators. Manglai. 2023. Available online: https://www.manglai.io/en/blog/main-sustainability-indicators (accessed on 11 July 2025).
  28. Njogu, S. Sustainability Metrics That Matter: Key Performance Indicators for ESG Reporting and Progress Tracking. 2025. Available online: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sustainability-metrics-matter-key-performance-indicators-sally-njogu-mm7nf (accessed on 11 July 2025).
  29. Cirone, F.; Petruzzelli, M.; De Menna, F.; Samoggia, A.; Buscaroli, E.; Durante, E.; Orsini, F. A sustainability scoring system to assess food initiatives in city regions. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2025, 36, 88–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sweet Press. The Five Indicators of Environmental Sustainability in Supermarkets. 2023. Available online: https://en.sweetpress.com/distribucion/los-cinco-indicadores-de-sostenibilidad-ambiental-de-los-supermercados-BGSP23388 (accessed on 15 July 2025).
  31. BPLAN. What Are the Top 7 KPIs for a Plastic-Free Supermarket Business. 2025. Available online: https://bplan.ai/blogs/kpi-metrics/plastic-free-supermarket-kpi-metrics (accessed on 15 July 2025).
  32. Annarelli, A.; Catarci, T.; Palagi, L. The forgotten pillar of sustainability: Development of the S-assessment tool to evaluate Organizational Social Sustainability. arXiv 2024, arXiv:2404.04077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Malak-Rawlikowska, A.; Majewski, Ε.; Wąs, A.; Borgen, S.; Csillag, P.; Donati, M.; Freeman, R.; Hoàng, V.; Lecoeur, J.; Mancini, M.; et al. Measuring the Economic, Environmental, and Social Sustainability of Short Food Supply Chains. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Thanasoulas, S.; Molinari, M. Advancing energy efficiency and sustainability in supermarkets: A comprehensive analysis of integrated technologies and their impact on energy consumption. Energy Rep. 2025, 13, 2855–2875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Franco, A.; Cillari, G. Energy Sustainability of Food Stores and Supermarkets through the Installation of PV Integrated Plants. Energies 2021, 14, 5678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Samaitis, V.; Mažeika, L.; Jankauskas, A.; Rekuvienė, R.; Laurs, V.; Bliūdžius, R.; Kumžienė, J.; Banionis, K. Hybrid ultrasonic technique for non-invasive evaluation of argon gas content in insulated glass units. Energy Build. 2022, 266, 112123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. U.S. Department of Energy. LED Basics. Solid-State Lighting. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/eere/ssl/led-basics (accessed on 25 July 2025).
  38. Ahold Delhaize. Climate. 2025. Available online: https://www.aholddelhaize.com/sustainability/climate/ (accessed on 28 July 2025).
  39. Thomyapitak, T.; Saengsikhiao, P.; Vessakosol, P.; Taweekun, J. A Study on the Energy Efficiency of an Energy Management System for Convenience Stores. Energies 2024, 17, 4941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Fernández, J. Economic and environmental improvements using high energy efficiency HVAC in supermarkets. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2020, 22, 1417–1429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Tesco. Making a Positive Impact Tesco PLC Sustainability Report 2024/25. Available online: https://www.tescoplc.com/sustainability (accessed on 2 August 2025).
  42. Ali, D.; Motuzienė, V.; Džiugaitė-Tumėnienė, R. AI-Driven Innovations in Building Energy Management Systems: A Review of Potential Applications and Energy Savings. Energies 2024, 17, 4277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Nestlé. Nestlé Reduces Its Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2023 and Delivers Significant Progress Against Its Net Zero Ambition. 2024. Available online: https://www.nestle.com/media/news/greenhouse-gas-emissions-reduction-2023-net-zero (accessed on 5 August 2025).
  44. Michalski, D. Operationalization of ESG-Integrated Strategy Through the Balanced Scorecard in FMCG Companies. Sustainability 2024, 16, 9174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. ALDI US. Climate & Energy. 2025. Available online: https://corporate.aldi.us/corporate-sustainability/climate-energy/ (accessed on 5 August 2025).
  46. Tamasiga, P.; Onyeaka, H.; Bakwena, M.; Ouassou, E. Beyond compliance: Evaluating the role of environmental, social and governance disclosures in enhancing firm value and performance. SN Bus. Econ. 2024, 4, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Misopoulos, F.; Bajiraj, P. Shared Producer Responsibility for Sustainable Packaging in FMCG: The Convergence of SDGs, ESG Reporting, and Stakeholder Engagement. Sustainability 2025, 17, 6654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Co-Operative Group. Sustainability Reporting. 2025. Available online: https://www.co-operative.coop/ethics/sustainability-reporting (accessed on 8 August 2025).
  49. Schwarz Gruppe. Acting Ahead. Sustainability Report of the Companies of Schwarz Group. 2023. Available online: https://gruppe.schwarz/en/asset/download/24850/file/SchwarzGroup_SusRep_FY22-23.pdf (accessed on 8 August 2025).
  50. Rewe Group. Progress Report. 2023. Available online: https://rewe-group-nachhaltigkeitsbericht.de/2024/en/assets/downloads/REWE_Group-Progress-report_2023.pdf (accessed on 8 August 2025).
  51. Tesco. Climate Change. Tesco Sustainability Factsheet 2023/24. Available online: https://www.tescoplc.com/climate-change-factsheet-2024 (accessed on 2 August 2025).
  52. Tesco. Eliminating Food Waste. Tesco Food Waste Report 2024. Available online: https://www.tescoplc.com/sustainability/planet/food-waste/ (accessed on 2 August 2025).
  53. Vipusanapat, I.; Ratanatamskul, C.; Chandrachai, A. Development of Green Supermarket Evaluation Model Based on Green Process and Green Output—Case of Bangkok City. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. McKinsey. Grocers’ Sustainability Opportunity in Transforming the Food System. 2022. Available online: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/our-insights/grocers-sustainability-opportunity-in-transforming-the-food-system-in-na (accessed on 13 August 2025).
  55. Roy, J. ASAP Analytics Cloud Sample Content: Design a Dedicated Mobile Dashboard by Using SAP Analytics Cloud Analytic Application. SAP Analytics Cloud. 2022. Available online: https://community.sap.com/t5/technology-blog-posts-by-sap/sap-analytics-cloud-sample-content-design-a-dedicated-mobile-dashboard-by/ba-p/13537322 (accessed on 8 August 2025).
  56. Grand View Research. Food Grocery Retail Industry ESG Thematic Report. Compliance ESG Challenges & Framework, ESG Trends. 2022. Available online: https://astra.grandviewresearch.com/food-grocery-retail-industry-esg-outlook (accessed on 8 August 2025).
  57. Siemssen, S.; Lierow, M. Sustainable Retail in Grocery. 2019. Available online: https://www.oliverwyman.com/our-expertise/insights/2019/jan/boardroom-volume-4/food-production--monitor--protect--and-lead/sustainable-retail-in-grocery.html (accessed on 8 August 2025).
  58. WynShop. Grocers Cite Sustainability as a C-Level Priority for 2023, While Shoppers Say That They Will Pay a Premium of up to 17% for More Sustainable Options. 2023. Available online: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/grocers-cite-sustainability-as-a-c-level-priority-for-2023-while-shoppers-say-that-they-will-pay-a-premium-of-up-to-17-for-more-sustainable-options-301740193.html (accessed on 8 August 2025).
  59. PWC. Reinvention on the Edge of Tomorrow. PwC’s 28th Annual Global CEO Survey. 2025. Available online: https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/c-suite-insights/ceo-survey.html (accessed on 18 August 2025).
  60. MSCI. Assess Companies on Their Financially Relevant Sustainability Risks and Opportunities. ESG Ratings. 2024. Available online: https://www.msci.com/data-and-analytics/sustainability-solutions/esg-ratings (accessed on 18 August 2025).
Sustainability 17 11358 g001
Figure 1. PRISMA-style flow chart diagram of current review.
Figure 1. PRISMA-style flow chart diagram of current review.
Sustainability 17 11358 g001
Table 1. Main sustainability and energy-efficiency strategies implemented in the supermarket sector.
Table 1. Main sustainability and energy-efficiency strategies implemented in the supermarket sector.
Sustainability StrategyDescriptionKey Outcomes/BenefitsReferences/Sources
Cooling and Heat RecoveryAdoption of CO2 refrigeration systems that reduce GHG emissions and enhance energy efficiency. Implementation of heat recovery systems from refrigeration units for space or water heating.Reduction in GHG emissions and overall energy consumption through reuse of waste heat.Samaitis et al. (2022) [36]
LED and Smart LightingTransition from fluorescent lighting to LED systems and implementation of smart lighting technologies with occupancy and daylight sensors.Reduction in lighting energy consumption and improved operational efficiency.U.S. Department of Energy (2021); Ahold Delhaize (2025) [37,38]
HVAC Systems and BEMSInstallation of high-efficiency HVAC systems and Building Energy Management Systems (BEMS) for real-time energy monitoring and optimization.Reduction in total energy consumption through intelligent control and data-based adjustment.Ruiz et al. (2019); Thomyapitak et al. (2024); Fernández, J (2020); [18,39,40]
Integration of Renewable Energy Sources (RES)Deployment of photovoltaic systems (PV) on rooftops and parking areas to support energy self-sufficiency and reduce carbon footprint.Increased use of renewable energy, reduced dependence on the grid, and CO2 emission avoidance.Franco, A. and Cillari, G. (2021); Tesco PLC (2024) [35,41]
Digital Technologies and Artificial Intelligence (AI)Implementation of IoT-based monitoring systems and AI-driven predictive analytics for energy management and operational optimization.Additional improvement in energy efficiency and anomaly detection compared to conventional systems.Ali et al. (2024) [42]
Table 2. Commonly used key performance indicators (KPIs)—environmental within the supermarket sector.
Table 2. Commonly used key performance indicators (KPIs)—environmental within the supermarket sector.
Indicator CategoryIndicator NameUnit of MeasurementBrief DescriptionReferences/SourcesMajor Chains Implementing the IndicatorReference Framework
EnvironmentalCarbon footprint/GHG emissionskg CO2 e/m2/yearTotal greenhouse gas emissions from store operations and the supply chainBottani et al. (2025) [26]Nestlé/ALDI/Co-operative Group/Schwarz Group/TescoGRI Standards/Sustainability Report (Schwarz Group)
Energy consumption/energy efficiencykWh/m2/yearMonitoring of total energy consumption and share of renewable energy useCester, A. (2023); Njogu, S. (2025) [27,28]Nestlé/Co-operative Group/Schwarz Group/REWE/TescoSustainability Report (Schwarz Group, Tesco)
Water usage/water footprintL/m2/yearWater consumption and efficiency in its useBottani et al. (2025) [26]REWEGRI Standards
Waste management and recycling rate% of total wasteVolume of generated waste, recycling rate, and circular waste managementCirone et al. (2023) [29]Nestlé/REWE/TescoScience-Based Targets (Nestlé)
Food waste control/packaging reduction% waste reductionFood waste reduction and minimizing plastics/packagingSweet Press (2023) [30]REWE/TescoSustainability Report (Tesco)
Table 3. Commonly used key performance indicators (KPIs)—social within the supermarket sector.
Table 3. Commonly used key performance indicators (KPIs)—social within the supermarket sector.
Indicator CategoryIndicator NameUnit of MeasurementBrief DescriptionReferences/SourcesMajor Chains Implementing the IndicatorReference Framework
SocialCustomer satisfaction and loyalty% of satisfied customersPerceived customer satisfaction and loyalty toward sustainable practicesBPLAN (2025) [31]Co-operative GroupGRI standards
Community engagement/education participation% of customer participationPublic participation in sustainability-related educational programsCirone et al. (2023) [29]Schwarz Group/TescoESG ratings
Occupational health, diversity, local sourcing/supplier practices% of satisfied employeesIndicators related to recruitment quality, diversity, and local supplier engagementAnnarelli et al. (2024) [32] Nestlé/Co-operative Group/TescoGRI standards
Gender balancing% of women among total executivesIncreased representation of women in senior management positionsTesco (2023) [51]Schwarz Group/TescoESG ratings
Table 4. Commonly used key performance indicators (KPIs)—economic/governance within the supermarket sector.
Table 4. Commonly used key performance indicators (KPIs)—economic/governance within the supermarket sector.
Indicator CategoryIndicator NameUnit of MeasurementBrief DescriptionReferences/SourcesMajor Chains Implementing the IndicatorReference Framework
Economic/GovernanceProfitability metricsROI, NPM, % profit marginReturn on investment in sustainability initiatives, net profit margin, and cost reduction from green investmentsMalak-Rawlikowska et al. (2019) [33]Nestlé/Schwarz Group/TescoESG ratings
Investment in sustainability innovation% of total revenueExpenditure on green technologies and innovationBottani et al. (2025) [26]Nestlé/REWEESG ratings
Governance and transparency (ESG, compliance)ESG score (0–100), Ethics Index (0–10)Ethical compliance and board diversityBottani et al. (2025) [26]Nestlé/Co-operative Group/Schwarz GroupESG ratings
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Terzis, M.; Gotzamani, K. Literature Review on Measuring Sustainable Performance in the Retail Sector: A Review of Energy Efficiency Strategies and Their Key Performance Indicators in Supermarkets. Sustainability 2025, 17, 11358. https://doi.org/10.3390/su172411358

AMA Style

Terzis M, Gotzamani K. Literature Review on Measuring Sustainable Performance in the Retail Sector: A Review of Energy Efficiency Strategies and Their Key Performance Indicators in Supermarkets. Sustainability. 2025; 17(24):11358. https://doi.org/10.3390/su172411358

Chicago/Turabian Style

Terzis, Marios, and Katerina Gotzamani. 2025. "Literature Review on Measuring Sustainable Performance in the Retail Sector: A Review of Energy Efficiency Strategies and Their Key Performance Indicators in Supermarkets" Sustainability 17, no. 24: 11358. https://doi.org/10.3390/su172411358

APA Style

Terzis, M., & Gotzamani, K. (2025). Literature Review on Measuring Sustainable Performance in the Retail Sector: A Review of Energy Efficiency Strategies and Their Key Performance Indicators in Supermarkets. Sustainability, 17(24), 11358. https://doi.org/10.3390/su172411358

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop