Sustainable Development Assessment of Organizations through Quantitative Modelling

Abstract

The “United Nations (UN) 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” is calling on businesses to apply their creativity and innovation initiatives to tackle sustainable development challenges. In this respect, this study intends to propose a sustainability model for business use. The proposed model will facilitate businesses in selecting the appropriate Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) indicators, highlight potential sustainability “gaps” and emphasize the related best practices. For the development of the sustainability model, we used some basic economic principles (e.g., cost minimization, risk theory, etc.), a sustainability survey and a statistical study based on EU data. As a result, a quantitative model for the sustainable development assessment of organizations to formulate appropriate decision-making policies is proposed. The model was tested in a real-world context as a case study that was carried out at the Greek Atomic Energy Commission.

1. Introduction

In the last decades, sustainable development has gained widespread political and public authority and has arguably become “the common currency of almost all players in the environmental arena” [1]. An analysis of worldwide media coverage demonstrated the increasing levels of public discourse on either sustainability or sustainable development. The concept of sustainability is based on the interdependence between human societies and the natural environment. Human evolution, combined with the perpetual need for economic development, is placing pressure upon natural resources and this threatens the continuous health and prosperity of societies. The most frequently quoted definition of sustainable development is that of the former Norwegian prime minister Gro Harlem Brundtland. In his Commission’s report, which was named “Our Common Future”, sustainable development is defined as “the development that meets the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [2]. Additionally, a sustainable future will require a purpose-driven transformation of society at all scales, guided by the best foresight and based on hindsight that science can provide. However, there must be a clear vision to which this transformation should be directed. Donella Meadows [3] explained the role of vision quite clearly: “Vision is the most vital step in the policy process. If we don’t know where we want to go, it makes little difference that we make great progress”. Our common vision is the promotion of sustainable consumption, accompanied by the prevention and reduction of environmental pollution to break the link between economic growth and environmental degradation.

A popular elucidation of sustainable development consists of the “three circles model” of economic, social and environmental considerations, often referred to as the three pillars of sustainability and, within the corporate agenda, the “triple bottom line”. Sustainability is the capacity to endure. It is not just environmentalism, but also includes the proper use of social and economic resources. Therefore, sustainability as a holistic approach recognizes the environmental, economic and social dimensions as the main pillars of the long-term maintenance of well-being and prosperity. The business world—ranging from agriculture to fossil fuel exploitation and from transportation to utilities and financial service industries—significantly contributes to the transgression of nature’s limits and has an important role to play as businesses cannot thrive in societies that fail, and long-term success depends on achieving the SDGs [4]. The triple bottom line is a concept that posits that businesses should commit to measuring their social and environmental impact in addition to their financial performance. For this reason, the right business policies must be developed, assessed, and implemented based on the best available knowledge from an economic efficiency perspective [5]. As Caldwell [6] noted, “Policy has several different connotations, but all carry the implication of the choice. Were there no choice, there would be little occasion for policy”.

In contrast, the concept of sustainability itself has attracted a considerable amount of criticism. In his discussion of key criticisms directed at sustainable development, Robinson [7] focused on three major aspects: (a) the vagueness of the concept of sustainable development gives room for different interpretations and it means different things to so many different people and organizations; (b) it is a hypocritical approach closely related to the difficulty of measuring whether a specific activity is furthering sustainable development or not; and (c) sustainable development is an oxymoron, leading in the wrong direction, focusing our attention on the wrong issues and proposing increased industrial output in light of scarce resources and environmental limits to growth. Additionally, adjusting the level of development in the present so as not to disrupt this potential for the next generations to come is not only a critical but also a controversial issue. The problem is further compounded by the fact that the SDGs, even if measurable, are not legally binding, as there are no universally accepted norms or agreements. Moreover, defining today’s needs is certainly characterized by a degree of subjectivity and depends to a great extent on self-centered goals and on different social, political and economic perceptions.

The present study considers that there is still space for providing a clearer view of sustainability at the business level and in particular, it complements other studies that deal with the issue of indicators’ selection, proposing subsets of sustainability’s KPIs or subsets of the SDG indicators [8,9]. Our study’s novelty lies in the fact that it will facilitate business managers in selecting not only the most relevant SDG indicators [10] but also the most appropriate ones. The SDG indicators were selected as a subset of the 232 UN indicators, as the pool of SDG indicators appropriate for business use. Next, they were prioritized considering factors such as the financial ability of a businesses to economically support sustainable practices, while reviewing the pace at which indicators of sustainable development are evolving at the EU level. Additionally, one more parameter of the model will be a sustainability indicators’ importance factor, created by the opinion of numerous business executives in Greece. In summary, the present study aims to contribute to developing a business model for transforming the theoretical principles of sustainability into practical rules, enabling business managers to shape key policies by choosing the right indicators. Beyond this, the model will give indications of sustainability areas in which further business progress should be made. The creation of this sustainability model, as well as its practical implementation, could potentially qualify it as another tool for decision-making. Eventually, as sustainable development extends beyond the business context, this model may emerge as a simple and clear-to-follow guide, which will arouse all the reader’s interest.

The content of this study is organized as follows. In the next section, the relevant literature will be reviewed together with the research methodology employed in building our sustainability model. In Section 3, the relevant research results are reviewed and presented in subsections. In Section 3.1, a survey for sustainability is presented, while in Section 3.2, the trends of the sustainability indicators are analyzed. In the next subsection, the indicators are examined through the prism of economics, whereas in Section 3.4, the proposed sustainability business model is tested on a case study that was carried out at the Greek Atomic Energy Commission. Subsequently, in Section 4, a discussion of the research results is presented, while in the last section, several research conclusions are drawn and suggestions for further research are presented.

2. Literature Review

A commonplace occurrence in recent sustainability research is the invitation of business leaders to support the adoption of sustainable development practices in their operations. Businesses have a moral responsibility to ensure that sustainability is on their growth agenda [11]. A few years ago, sustainability was not seen as a main issue in a company’s core business. Therefore, business managers were less likely to feel responsible for delivering the SDGs, as they held the sustainability issue mainly as a government responsibility [12]. Nowadays, as the world becomes a less predictable place for businesses, businesses have to confront and adapt to a range of urgent matters that include climate change issues, uncertainties associated with rising energy costs, intense competition for raw materials, shrinking natural resources and financial reforms and regulations. Both academia and professionals recognize the particular importance of businesses to achieve global development [13]. At the same time, the social and environmental impact of a business is coming under greater scrutiny with a demand for higher accountability and transparency from its stakeholders. Businesses are called to bring scalable and profitable solutions to the market in a way that is beneficial for them and society simultaneously [14]. They may be profit-seeking entities, but their long-term profits will not be achievable if their social and environmental issues are not properly managed. Hence, to address the concept of sustainability, a business as well as its stakeholders should get involved in a new way of thinking and acting [15].

According to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, any business plays a critical role in the achievement of the Agenda goals [16]. The United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) have recently set up a new joint initiative, aiming at enabling businesses to incorporate SDG reporting into their existing processes [17]. Moreover, the private sector is under ever-increasing pressure to improve the use of resources on important issues, ranging from climate change to sustainable development [18]. A report from the Business and Sustainability Development Commission lays out the business case for the SDGs and explains why corporations will benefit from factoring the Global Goals into their business strategies [19]. Sustainability opens up new opportunities and increased efficiency gains; it drives innovation and enhances reputation. Businesses accompanied by a good reputation of sustainable practices attract and retain employees, consumers, customers, and investors. That is why sustainable companies around the globe are thriving and delivering attractive returns to their shareholders.

These optimistic and encouraging voices contradict many studies that argue that sustainability has a high degree of subjectivity, is often vague in concept and can cause a diffusion of interpretation and confusion in practice [20]. Potentially, this is the reason that Glavic and Lukman suggested that practically defining sustainable development can be somewhat uncertain since several interpretations can be deployed [21]. Moreover, research on the use of the SDG framework has identified that the associated targets (N = 169) and indicators (N = 232) are numerous and complicated. Another study [22] concluded that a new approach was needed to reduce the scientific and statistical complexity of the SDG measurement framework. Furthermore, the UK’s Office for National Statistics (ONS) online portal, responsible for reporting on the UK’s progress against global SDG indicator measurement, showed that in April 2019, it had data on only163 of the 232 indicators [23].

In relation to the above, this research, which is oriented at the business level, focuses on enriching business policies by providing an applied sustainable practices protocol to advance the knowledge as discussed in the existing literature [21,24,25]. However, recognizing that businesses should comply with sustainability rules, we cannot overlook that their financial ability to support such actions is a determining factor that should be satisfied. In our study, this criterion will be considered in light of maintaining a positive cash flow over time and this sets this research apart as being original.

To this end, new opportunities are emerging towards a sustainable business world, and this study may encourage both business leaders and their stakeholders to discover the applied aspects of sustainability by selecting the proper SDG indicators. By launching initiatives on sustainability-related issues, businesses may show that they are not only part of the problem but an essential part of the solution, since they may contribute to solving sustainability issues [26].

The selection of the appropriate indicators still constitutes a research gap in the literature, and this study addresses it through the use of a new business sustainability model. This model, when embedded in business processes, may reveal how close or how far businesses are moving from a sufficient level of sustainability and can provide a solid basis for decision-making at all levels of an organization.

3. Results

The preceding literature review provided insights into the specific research question: the selection of the appropriate sustainability indicators at the business level. By the term “appropriate”, we mean the selection of the most important, urgent and economically effective indicators, which will be described thoroughly in the next subsections.

3.1. The Important Indicators

To decode several Greek business managers’ perceptions of the indicators’ importance, we used the findings of a survey for sustainability. The survey was conducted in Greece, a year before the SDGs adoption by the United Nations, using the web-based software “QuestionPro” [27]. Particularly, a questionnaire that was distributed to more than 4.500 business emails, both to public and private organizations, intended to evaluate 38 evenly distributed (across the three pillars) sustainable development indicators. Upon completion of the survey, over 400 responses were received, enabling us to form a new coefficient, named the “Indicator’s Gravity Factor (G)”. The “G” coefficient reflected each indicator’s significance in the business world. Its values were the result of the senior officers’ replies, reflecting their responses’ mean value to a range of Likert scale questions associated with the 38 sustainability indicators. To quantify the “G” coefficient, the questions used a 5-point scale, ranging from “Not at all important” to “Very important”, assigned with values ranging from 1 to 5, respectively. The mean values were calculated and analyzed by the QuestionPro web-based tool. In Figure 1, the survey’s statistics are graphically illustrated.

It should be noted that the 38 indicators were not chosen by the current framework of sustainability, but by the previous one entitled “The Eight Millennium Development Goals” [28], as the current framework [29] was adopted later in 2017. A characteristic example of indicators that were not foreseen in the questionnaire of the past survey were some health and education indicators. In case an indicator was not foreseen, its G value was calculated only indirectly. For instance, for some health indicators that were not foreseen, as well as many education indicators, we considered that according to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the EU and national laws, health care and education are considered fundamental human rights and consequently the corresponding indicators should take the maximum “G” value [27], which is “5”. Based on the survey, the “G” values are listed in

Table 1. The indicators’ significance gravity factor (G) values.

Number	Description of the Sustainable Development Indicator	Indicator’s Significance Gravity Factor (G)
1	Greenhouse gas emissions	2.97
2	Solid waste management/policy	3.56
3	Liquid waste management/policy	3.42
4	Material recycling within the organization to which you are employed (such as paper collection bins, used batteries cans, etc.)	3.91
5	Air quality within the workplace (referring to odors, dust, etc.)	3.73
6	Sound level intensity within the workplace (referring to noise)	3.64
7	Use of ecological materials, environmentally and human-friendly as well	3.14
8	Natural heritage protection (referring to natural, not manmade areas)	3.34
9	Employees’ net earnings	3.58
10	Employees’ additional earnings (for using a private car/paying parking expenses/mobile telephone, etc.)	3.06
11	Employees’ participation in the profits of their organization (bonus, shares, bonds, etc.)	2.30
12	Rewarding of innovation	3.05
13	Labor’s productivity (the results obtained concerning the number of employees)	3.58
14	Net profit of the organization	3.78
15	Organization’s grant programs (national, EU or international)	3.05
16	Sponsorships	2.71
17	Investing in research and development	3.19
18	Tertiary education graduates’ employment	3.63
19	Disabled people’s employment, as well as infrastructure development for their access to work	2.89
20	Participation of women in leadership positions	3.43
21	Employee participation in the decision-making process	3.21
22	Service quality	4.24
23	Facilities within the workplace (nursery, restaurant, etc.) and the existence of basic services near the workplace (schools, shops, public services, etc.)	2.51
24	Safety at work (provision of occupational accident prevention, medical examinations of the workforce)	3.84
25	Safety and quality of the public transport network (accident restriction, adequate policing, etc.)	3.25
26	Social awareness actions	3.04
27	Cultural heritage preservation (monuments, architectural buildings, signs, etc.)	3.00
28	Social partners’ (stakeholders’) participation in the decision-making process	2.68
29	Workforce training	3.77
30	Programs to support the workforce’s physical and mental health (to reduce work stress and increase efficiency)	2.65
31	Additional insurance or retirement programs	2.61
32	Number of leave days	3.47
33	Corruption and abuse (referring to power and material abuse)	3.80
34	Bureaucracy	3.72
35	Distance travelled to the workplace	3.10
36	Traffic congestion	2.99
37	Quality control	3.88
38	Renewable energy source usage	2.95 1

¹ Based on a sustainability survey.

.

At this point, it should be noted that as already mentioned before the data used for calculating the coefficient “G” values came from a past survey. However, as Greece’s social, political and economic conditions have not changed significantly over these years, it is reasonable to assume that these values have not been affected either.

3.2. The Urgent Indicators

The urgent indicators are the indicators that should be improved in priority, namely the indicators with a large margin for improvement. The core concept of this study is to identify the business SDG indicators that could be developed [30]. To achieve this, our first step was to filter through the 232 SDG indicators included in the Global Indicator’s Framework for Sustainable Development [31], so that we could focus on those of business interest. Through further refinement, we came up with 76 business-related SDG indicators, while data were found for only 65 of them [27], as shown in detail in Appendix A. The data, depending upon their availability from years 2010 to 2021, were aimed at establishing a benchmark for each business SDG indicator. The data were mainly collected from the Eurostat SDG database (https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/sdi/database, accessed on 20 December 2022) as well as the corresponding database of the United Nations (https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/dataportal/database, accessed on 21 December 2022) and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/the-short-and-winding-road-to-2030_af4b630d-en, accessed on 15 January 2023), exclusively concerning the countries of the European Union (EU) not including the UK, and were analyzed using a simple linear regression model [32]. The purpose was to study the EU SDG indicators’ relationships throughout the years and identify their trends. By using the simple linear regression method, a straight line of the form y = b₁X + b₀ was created for each of the 65 SDG indicators, where b₀, b₁ are the unknown parameters of the model, y_i for i = 1, 2, …, 10 are the values of the SDG indicators (the dependent variable) and x_i, for i = 1, 2, …, 10 are the respective years of the study (independent variable). Model parameters b₀ and b₁ are the regression coefficients, where b₁ is the slope of the regression line that indicates the change (trend) in the mean y value for each unit increase in x value. The SDG indicators’ trend values (T_EU) are presented in the third column of

Table 2. The EU trend values (T_EU) of the SDG indicators.

Upward Trend Thriving SDG Indicators	Downward Trend Thriving SDG Indicators	EU Trend (TEU)
	1.5.1, 11.5.1, 13.1.1	−0.3862
	1.5.2, 11.5.2	0.000008
2.3.1		10.848
2.4.1		0.4097
	3.1.1	−0.2108
3.1.2		−0.0168
	3.2.1	−0.1016
	3.2.2	−0.0534
	3.3.2	−0.749
	3.3.4	−0.0391
	3.4.1	−1.2019
	3.4.2	−1.1907
3.5.1		−1.8403
	3.5.2	−0.0538
3.8.1		1.6296
	3.8.2	0.0767
	3.9.1	2.6667
	3.9.2	3.3437
	3.9.3	−0.1926
4.1.1		−1.04
4.1.2		0.3507
4.2.2		0.2119
4.3.1		0.2266
4.4.1		0.2
	4.5.1	−0.0059
	5.5.2	−1.764
6.3.1		−0.3831
6.4.1		8.531
	6.4.2	−0.2497
7.2.1		0.6648
	7.3.1	−12.398
8.2.1		285.49
	8.4.2, 12.2.2	0.00000001
8.5.1		−0.73
	8.5.2	−0.5032
	8.6.1	−0.2993
	8.8.1	−0.0588
8.9.1		0.2715
8.10.1		−0.7562
8.10.2		2.3125
9.2.1		0.1038
9.2.2		−0.0323
9.3.1		−0.5329
	9.4.1	−0.0034
9.5.1		0.0263
9.5.2		0.0384
10.1.1		0.0108
	10.3.1, 16.b.1	−1.225
10.5.1 (a)		−2.083
	10.5.1 (b)	−1.8271
	10.5.1 (c)	−0.3978
10.5.1 (d)		−0.0901
10.5.1 (e)		0.7524
10.5.1 (f)		0.0568
	10.c.1	−0.473
	11.6.2	−0.5072
	12.4.2	13.029
12.5.1		1.0191
12.6.1		7.5524
12.b.1		−0.0542
	13.2.2	−1.1209
	14.3.1	0.0019
15.2.1		47.02
	16.1.1	−0.0455
	16.1.3	−0.285 1

¹ Trend values based on EU data.

. In this table, the indicators are separated into two groups. In the first column, one can see the “upward trend thriving SDG indicators”, which are the indicators whose upward trend implies improvement. Conversely, in the second column, one can see the “downward trend thriving SDG indicators”, which are the indicators whose downward trend implies improvement.

In our research, progress was assessed from a business perspective. Consequently, it did make sense to calculate the corresponding business indicators’ trend values [33], which will be called the business trend (T_B). The data required for the calculation of T_B was collected from past data (in our case since 2010) of the business. Indicatively, such data could be found in sources such as the business’s financial statements, accounting books, events and log books, administrative or any type of board minutes or any other relevant sources. Calculating T_B made it possible to compare the two rates (T_B to T_EU), following the guidelines presented in

Table 3. Indicator’s eligibility rule.

Upward Trend Thriving SDG Indicators	Downward Trend Thriving SDG Indicators	Diagnosis	Indicator’s Status	Business Actions to Be Taken	Indicator’s Eligibility Rule
(a) If TEU > TB 1	(b) If TEU < TB	The business contributes to sustainability less than the average of the EU countries, resulting in delaying the achievement of their common goal.	Low-Performance Indicators	The business needs to adjust its policy (referring to the selected indicator) to achieve the SDG objectives.	Τhis indicator must be selected. It will be further used in our proposed sustainability business model.
(c) If TEU ≤ TB	(d) If TEU ≥ TB	The business contributes to sustainability equally or more than the average of the EU countries, resulting in confronting or speeding up the achievement of their common goal.	High-Performance Indicators	The business contributes positively to the achievement of the SDG objectives (referring to the selected indicator), so keep up the good work.	It is not a priority to select this indicator and it is not eligible for our model.

¹ Comparison based on the EU and corresponding business data.

.

Following the above, i.e., comparing the two trends (T_B to T_EU), the achievement of business sustainability goals within a specific timeframe is not guaranteed. However, since SDGs are still not legally binding and as no specific timeframe for their achievement has been set, a trend comparison is an undisputable tool for capturing the deviation in each business’s sustainability performance from an average reference value. Antoine de Saint-Exupéry said “The time for action is now and it’s never too late to do something” and this is also valid in today’s best business practices. Furthermore, one should not overlook that measuring progress on meeting SDG targets requires extra effort to improve the quality of data and explore new sets of metrics to develop and propose indicators that will contribute to assessing the impact of different policies.

3.3. The Economically Effective Indicators

For businesses to achieve their SDG objectives cost-effectively, the indicators should be examined through the prism of economic factors. The reform of business policy usually involves additional costs (to a greater or lesser extent) and further investments. In most cases, the costs for business reforms include business staff training, new equipment, additional employees or all of these together. For business executives to be able to implement this study’s proposed model, we will assume that the possibility of the businesses engaging in SDGs practices, as well as their probability of achieving the goals, is irrelevant to the business’s size. The same assumption applies to the time period needed, so the time a business needs to reach its SDGs is not related to its size either. We will also consider that critical financial data, such as the cost of achieving the objectives of sustainable development as well as the potential savings, although they are significantly different depending on the business size nevertheless can be used consistently (applicable to all businesses) when expressed as a percentage of their past years’ financial data.

Consequently, it makes perfect sense for businesses to focus on improving their “Low-Performance Indicators”, as shown in Table 3, but also prioritize those that do not disproportionately increase their business costs. This concept becomes even more important if we consider that many businesses are keen to adopt more sustainable business practices but are hesitant due to the increased costs involved [34]. Uncertainty about regulations and taxation, the high upfront cost of climate investments and the availability of skilled staff are factors that make organizations present the upfront costs as an obstacle to investment. At the same time, organizations often do not consider climate change investment to be a core business investment activity [35]. There are various reasons for low sustainability reporting too: a high reporting cost, lack of resources, inconsistency in disclosure practices, difficulty in measuring performance and difficulty in rising companies to be proactive in their sustainability reporting [36].

Despite the less optimistic reports that suggest that in the long run, the current population size and resource use are not sustainable with any goal or combination of goals [37], this study sets measures to address sustainable business practices considering financial parameters. When further expenses are required for achieving the SDGs, each business case exists to ensure that the benefits associated with their achievement (coming from the business’s process adjustment) should be at least equal to the required cost. When both potentially positive and negative outcomes are considered, businesses are called to choose, including making trade-offs between contradictory goals and business strategies. Moreover, the cost of achieving the SDGs, combined with their future results, involves some element of risk. The main risk-evaluating factors include its magnitude, finances, sustainability, resilience, ethical and legal criteria, effectiveness of related controls, maximum impact if controls are not present or fail, timing of the consequences, costs of its controls and stakeholder’s views [38].

This wide range of risk-evaluating factors, intensified by the fact that the attainable costs and benefits of the achievement of the SDGs may vary among stakeholders, creates an environment of decision-making under uncertainty. Risk assessment techniques aim to help us understand uncertainty. In our study, the business actions towards the SDGs were evaluated by weighing the risk arising from a cost estimation of achieving the SDGs. This was implemented by a cost–benefit analysis employing a probability and impact matrix, where consequence and likelihood were combined to give a level of risk and rank risks. The consequence/likelihood matrix consists of two scales, the first being the impact rating and the second being the likelihood rating.

The impact rating reflects the additional business costs of the adoption of new sustainable development practices, by taking into consideration the time of maintaining a positive cash flow, so that a business can continue to pay its operating or other expenses and debts. Consequently, business actions towards the SDGs should first be evaluated based on the effect they will have on the business’s cash reserves. Scientific research [39] as well as empirical studies have shown that most businesses’ cash flow projections cover 12 months. In our case, business practices towards the SDGs are evaluated in terms of the effect that they will have on the business’s cash reserves during the next 12 or more months, as described in detail in

Table A2. The probability and impact matrix’s impact ratings definition.

Impact Rating	Definition
Business practices review requiring no investment cost	A set of business actions towards the SDGs that do not incur an additional business cost
Business practices review requiring low investment cost	A set of business actions towards the SDGs that require additional costs for their implementation but do not result in business cash shortages for the upcoming twelve or more months
Business practices review requiring moderate investment cost	A set of business actions towards the SDGs that require additional costs for their implementation but do not result in business cash shortages for the upcoming six to twelve months
Business practices review requiring high investment cost	A set of business actions towards the SDGs that require additional costs for their implementation but do not result in business cash shortages for the upcoming six months 1

¹ A practical interpretation of the impact rating.

of Appendix B.

Respectively, the likelihood rating is a combinatorial factor, i.e., the product of the assessment of achieving cost savings or revenue growth (by adopting new sustainable development practices) combined with the estimated time needed for SDG achievement. In this case, the resulting value is essentially an assessment (by the business’s policymakers) of the percentage change referring to the cost savings or revenue growth (compared to the corresponding data of the previous year), combined with an estimate of the time this will take to happen. The impact rating definitions are described in detail in

Table A3. The probability and impact matrix’s likelihood ratings definitions.

Likelihood Rating	Definition
Immediate achievement of high-scale cost savings or high-scale revenue growth	A set of business actions towards the SDGs that result in immediate cost savings or revenue growth of more than 80% (as an assessment of the annual percentage change of direct or indirect costs or the annual percentage change of the gross revenue, respectively, compared to the corresponding data of the previous year)
Immediate achievement of relatively high-scale cost savings or relatively high-scale revenue growth	A set of business actions towards the SDGs that result in immediate cost savings or revenue growth by 60% to 80% (as an assessment of the annual percentage change of direct or indirect costs or the annual percentage change of the gross revenue, respectively, compared to the corresponding data of the previous year)
Immediate achievement of moderate-scale cost savings or moderate-scale revenue growth	A set of business actions towards the SDGs that result in immediate cost savings or revenue growth by 40% to 60% (as an assessment of the annual percentage change of direct or indirect costs or the annual percentage change of the gross revenue, respectively, compared to the corresponding data of the previous year)
Immediate achievement of relatively low-scale cost savings or relatively low-scale revenue growth	A set of business actions towards the SDGs that result in immediate cost savings or revenue growth by 20% to 40% (as an assessment of the annual percentage change of direct or indirect costs or the annual percentage change of the gross revenue, respectively, compared to the corresponding data of the previous year)
Immediate achievement of relatively low-scale cost savings or relatively low-scale revenue growth	A set of business actions towards the SDGs that result in immediate cost savings or a revenue growth up to 20% (as an assessment of the annual percentage change of direct or indirect costs or the annual percentage change of the gross revenue, respectively, compared to the corresponding data of the previous year)
Short-term achievement of high-scale cost savings or high-scale revenue growth	A set of business actions towards the SDGs that result in cost savings or a revenue growth of more than 80% within a year (as an assessment of the annual percentage change of direct or indirect costs or the annual percentage change of the gross revenue, respectively, compared to the corresponding data of the previous year)
Short-term achievement of relatively high-scale cost savings or relatively high-scale revenue growth	A set of business actions towards the SDGs that result in cost savings or revenue growth by 60% to 80% within a year (as an assessment of the annual percentage change of direct or indirect costs or the annual percentage change of the gross revenue, respectively, compared to the corresponding data of the previous year)
Short-term achievement of moderate-scale cost savings or moderate-scale revenue growth	A set of business actions towards the SDGs that result in cost savings or revenue growth by 40% to 60% within a year (as an assessment of the annual percentage change of direct or indirect costs or the annual percentage change of the gross revenue, respectively, compared to the corresponding data of the previous year)
Short-term achievement of relatively low-scale cost savings or relatively low-scale revenue growth	A set of business actions towards the SDGs that result in cost savings or revenue growth by 20% to 40% within a year (as an assessment of the annual percentage change of direct or indirect costs or the annual percentage change of the gross revenue, respectively, compared to the corresponding data of the previous year)
Short-term achievement of low-scale cost savings or low-scale revenue growth	A set of business actions towards the SDGs that result in cost savings or revenue growth up to 20% within a year (as an assessment of the annual percentage change of direct or indirect costs or the annual percentage change of the gross revenue, respectively, compared to the corresponding data of the previous year)
Mid-term achievement of high-scale cost savings or high-scale revenue growth	A set of business actions towards the SDGs that result in cost savings or revenue growth of more than 80% within a period of one to five years (as an assessment of the annual percentage change of direct or indirect costs or the annual percentage change of the gross revenue, respectively, compared to the corresponding data of the previous year)
Mid-term achievement of relatively high-scale cost savings or relatively high-scale revenue growth	A set of business actions towards the SDGs that result in cost savings or revenue growth by 60% to 80% within a period of one to five years (as an assessment of the annual percentage change of direct or indirect costs or the annual percentage change of the gross revenue, respectively, compared to the corresponding data of the previous year)
Mid-term achievement of moderate-scale cost savings or moderate-scale revenue growth	A set of business actions towards the SDGs that result in cost savings or revenue growth by 40% to 60% within a period of one to five years (as an assessment of the annual percentage change of direct or indirect costs or the annual percentage change of the gross revenue, respectively, compared to the corresponding data of the previous year)
Mid-term achievement of relatively low-scale cost savings or relatively low-scale revenue growth	A set of business actions towards the SDGs that result in cost savings or revenue growth by 20% to 40% within a period of one to five years (as an assessment of the annual percentage change of direct or indirect costs or the annual percentage change of the gross revenue, respectively, compared to the corresponding data of the previous year)
Mid-term achievement of low-scale cost savings or low-scale revenue growth	A set of business actions towards the SDGs that result in cost savings or revenue growth up to 20% within a period of one to five years (as an assessment of the annual percentage change of direct or indirect costs or the annual percentage change of the gross revenue, respectively, compared to the corresponding data of the previous year)
Long-term achievement of high-scale cost savings or high-scale revenue growth	A set of business actions towards the SDGs that result in cost savings or revenue growth of more than 80% within a period of five or more years (as an assessment of the annual percentage change of direct or indirect costs or the annual percentage change of the gross revenue, respectively, compared to the corresponding data of the previous year)
Long-term achievement of relatively high-scale cost savings or relatively high-scale revenue growth	A set of business actions towards the SDGs that result in cost savings or revenue growth by 60% to 80% within a period of five or more years (as an assessment of the annual percentage change of direct or indirect costs or the annual percentage change of the gross revenue, respectively, compared to the corresponding data of the previous year)
Long-term achievement of moderate-scale cost savings or moderate-scale revenue growth	A set of business actions towards the SDGs that result in cost savings or revenue growth by 40% to 60% within a period of five or more years (as an assessment of the annual percentage change of direct or indirect costs or the annual percentage change of the gross revenue, respectively, compared to the corresponding data of the previous year)
Long-term achievement of relatively low-scale cost savings or relatively low-scale revenue growth	A set of business actions towards the SDGs that result in cost savings or revenue growth by 20% to 40% within a period of five or more years (as an assessment of the annual percentage change of direct or indirect costs or the annual percentage change of the gross revenue, respectively, compared to the corresponding data of the previous year)
Long-term achievement of low-scale cost savings or low-scale revenue growth	A set of business actions towards the SDGs that result in cost savings or revenue growth up to 20% within a period of five or more years (as an assessment of the annual percentage change of direct or indirect costs or the annual percentage change of the gross revenue, respectively, compared to the corresponding data of the previous year)
Financial loss either in the short or the long run	A set of business actions towards the SDGs that incur financial loss, either in the short or the long run 1

¹ A practical interpretation of the likelihood rating.

of Appendix B.

In

Table 4. A probability and impact matrix for calculating the SDG cost effectiveness factor (F).

	Impact	Business Review Requiring No Investment Cost (1)	Business Review Requiring Low Investment Cost (2)	Business Review Requiring Moderate Investment Cost (3)	Business Review Requiring High Investment Cost (4)
Likelihood
Immediate achievement of high-scale cost savings or high-scale revenue growth (1 × 1)		1	2	3	4
Immediate achievement of relatively high-scale cost savings or relatively high-scale revenue growth (1 × 2)		2	4	6	8
Immediate achievement of moderate-scale cost savings or moderate-scale revenue growth (1 × 3)		3	6	9	12
Immediate achievement of relatively low-scale cost savings or relatively low-scale revenue growth (1 × 4)		4	8	12	16
Immediate achievement of low-scale cost savings or low-scale revenue growth (1 × 5)		5	10	15	20
Short-term achievement of high-scale cost savings or high-scale revenue growth (2 × 1)		2	4	6	8
Short-term achievement of relatively high-scale cost savings or relatively high-scale revenue growth (2 × 2)		4	8	12	16
Short-term achievement of moderate-scale cost savings or moderate-scale revenue growth (2 × 3)		6	12	18	24
Short-term achievement of relatively low-scale cost savings or relatively low-scale revenue growth (2 × 4)		8	16	24	32
Short-term achievement of low-scale cost savings or low-scale revenue growth (2 × 5)		10	20	30	40
Mid-term achievement of high-scale cost savings or high-scale revenue growth (3 × 1)		3	6	9	12
Mid-term achievement of relatively high-scale cost savings or relatively high-scale revenue growth (3 × 2)		6	12	18	24
Mid-term achievement of moderate-scale cost savings or moderate-scale revenue growth (3 × 3)		9	18	27	36
Mid-term achievement of relatively low-scale cost savings or relatively low-scale revenue growth (3 × 4)		12	24	36	48
Mid-term achievement of low-scale cost savings or low-scale revenue growth (3 × 5)		15	30	45	60
Long-term achievement of high-scale cost savings or high-scale revenue growth (4 × 1)		4	8	12	16
Long-term achievement of relatively high-scale cost savings or relatively high-scale revenue growth (4 × 2)		8	16	24	32
Long-term achievement of moderate-scale cost savings or moderate-scale revenue growth (4 × 3)		12	24	36	48
Long-term achievement of relatively low-scale cost savings or relatively low-scale revenue growth (4 × 4)		16	32	48	60
Long-term achievement of low-scale cost savings or low-scale revenue growth (4 × 5)		20	40	60	80
Financial loss either in the short or in the long run (−1)		−1	−2	−3	−4 *

* Negative values prevent the corresponding indicators’ selection.

, one may see the values of a new coefficient, which is called the “SDG cost effectiveness factor (F)”. The “F” coefficient, which expresses the cost of the SDG’s achievement versus its potential to pay off in a specific timeframe, takes values between −4 to 80.

The smaller the “F” coefficient value, the more likely it is that the examined business SDG indicator should be prioritized. It should however be clarified that the negative values of “F” express financial loss, so it is vitally important to omit such indicators’ selection. Aggregating the data of Section 3 so far, the proposed sustainability model is:

$$\mathrm{D}=\frac{|\mathrm{Trend}\mathrm{EU}-\mathrm{Trend}\mathrm{Business}|}{\mathrm{SDGs}\mathrm{cost}\mathrm{effectiveness}\mathrm{factor}\left(\mathrm{F}\right)}\times \mathrm{Indicator}’\mathrm{s}\mathrm{Significance}\mathrm{Gravity}\mathrm{Factor}\left(\mathrm{G}\right)$$

which can be applied by businesses to choose indicators that are the following: (a) urgent, as they indicate the largest deviation from the values of the corresponding EU ones (referring to the EU practices of sustainable development); (b) cost-effective, i.e., with the smallest possible cost to the business (or the greatest possible benefit); and (c) significant, as they have been ranked by more than 400 executives of Greek businesses (according to their significance). A large D value represents an SDG indicator’s prioritization rule.

3.4. Using a Case Study to Test the Sustainability Business Model

The proposed sustainability business model was carried out, as a case study, at the Greek Atomic Energy Commission (EEAE) in February 2023 [27]. The EEAE is the national authority responsible for the control, regulation, and supervision of the fields of nuclear technology, radiological and nuclear safety and radiation protection in Greece. The EEAE was qualified for a case study because it has the advantage of operating as both a public service and private nature business, since most of its operational expenses (including equipment, consumables, and a significant part of salaries) are covered by self-financing [40]. For this reason, it is considered that the particular case study refers to both the public and private business forms. To focus on the appropriate EEAE sustainable development indicators, i.e., those whose trend values showed that they could be improved, were economically efficient and significant as well, the indicators were refined to be directly related to the Commission’s activities. This means that only indicators relevant to the organization’s activities were to be selected, resulting in the selection of eight SDG-eligible indicators, i.e., 5.5.2, 7.2.1, 7.3.1, 8.8.1, 9.5.2, 12.2.2, 12.5.1 and 12.6.1, where their description is given in Appendix A. For calculating the EEAE T_B value, we extracted the necessary data from the EEAE’s financial statements, payroll statements, incident book as well as the board of directors’ decisions. The above data refers to the years between 2016 and 2021. Correspondingly, for calculating the “F” value, we used the probability and impact matrix of Table 4, while for calculating the “G” value, we used the indicators’ gravity values of Table 2. Aggregating the necessary data, we proceeded to the calculation of the “D” value, as presented in

Table 5. Eligibility status of the SDG indicators.

SDG Indicator	Upward or Downward Trend Thriving SDG Indicator	TB EEAE	TEU	Indicator’s Status	F	G	D
5.5.2		−0.0208	−1.764	Low-Performance	20	3.43	0.2989588
7.2.1		0	0.6648	Low-Performance	40	2.95	0.049029
7.3.1		−0.0008	−12.398	Low-Performance	40	3.58	1.1095494
8.8.1		0.0012	−0.0588	Low-Performance	3	3.84	0.0768
9.5.2		0.0099	0.0384	Low-Performance	48	3.19	0.001894063
8.4.2/12.2.2		0.0491	1 × 10−8	Low-Performance	10	3.56	0.017479596
12.5.1		−0.0234	1.0191	Low-Performance	10	3.91	0.4076175
12.6.1		0	7.5524	Low-Performance	40	5	0.94405 1

¹ Applying the formula of the proposed model.

.

From the above table, one can identify the EEAE’s immediate priority indicators, among the indicators for which further actions and the adoption of new business sustainable development practices are required. Consequently, since a large “D” value represents an SDG indicator’s prioritization rule, for the EEAE to enhance its sustainable development prospects, it is an immediate priority to deal with SDG 7.3.1 “Energy intensity”, followed by indicator 12.6.1 that is “Sustainability reports published”, followed by SDG 12.5.1, i.e., “Tons of material recycled” and so on. Finally, for the EEAE to implement a balanced policy towards the three pillars of sustainability, it would be “sustainable” not only to select the best “D” value indicators but also to prioritize indicators from different pillars. In our case, it happened that SDG 7.3.1, as well as SDG 12.6.1, belong to two different pillars, which are society- and economy-related ones, so these two SDGs, in the absence of indicators from the environment’s pillar, constitute the best indicator combination to prioritize.

4. Discussion of Research Results

The main consideration of this research was to propose a new sustainability model that will guide policymakers in selecting the appropriate business indicators. In addition, we aimed to propose a business model that would motivate business managers to discover business areas of sustainability that could be improved. Thorough research of contemporary sustainability practices was required for the development of the present study’s model. By adapting the definition of sustainability to the business level, we can say that “business sustainable development” means adopting business strategies and activities that meet the needs of the enterprise and its stakeholders today while protecting, sustaining and enhancing the human and natural resources that will be needed in the future [41]. The consideration that if an organization adopts sustainable practices, even on a small scale, can have significant impacts in the long term has been the strongest motivation to implement such a model in our research. In accordance with these definitions, the scientific novelty of our results and the impact they will have on the business communities are the following:

(1)

To propose a model that would help businesses choose the correct SDG indicators to achieve their sustainability goals cost-effectively;

(2)

To propose a model that would call businesses to choose the right mix of SDG indicators, covering a range of them coming, if possible, from the three pillars of sustainability;

(3)

To provide a tool for businesses that will highlight both their interests and those of the stakeholders involved;

(4)

To enable the sustainability monitoring process, related to the organization’s economic, social and environmental priorities;

(5)

To enable the sustainability reporting process, in relation to the organization’s SDGs area of achievements;

(6)

To build an easy-to-implement model that will be readily available to interested businesses, without requiring the use of special purpose software.

Through the integration of this model, a significant part of the sequence of the SDG Compass [42] will be implemented, particularly steps 1 to 4, giving an advantage to the businesses that adopt it. This model gives a clear picture of the areas in which corrective measures are required. In such cases, businesses should readjust their policy to become sustainable. In contrast, it would be wise for businesses to share and promote their sustainability accomplishments through sustainability reporting.

5. Conclusions

The developed sustainability model was applied in a single case study in Greece. However, the methodology adopted may be used to evaluate multiple projects across businesses of different sizes and sectors. Recognizing that businesses should comply with the sustainability rules, we aimed to focus on their capability to achieve this. A determining factor that needed to be satisfied was their positive cash flow maintenance over time and this sets this research apart as being original. Further, the simplicity with which the model works combined with the minimum software requirements classify this as a broad-spectrum tool capable of being used by a variety of businesses. Additionally, there are points requiring further research and investigation, listed as follows:

• Judging from the fact that our purpose was to highlight the proposed business sustainability model, we did not extensively analyze our surveys’ collected data. Moreover, in some cases, despite the fact that we had considered all the information available at the time the research was conducted, more data for calculating and measuring T_EU would be useful to draw certain conclusions.
• Based on the calculation of the R-squared value (coefficient of determination), the statistical significance for more than 60% of the indicators in Table 2 is high. In the following years, through the additional updating of the EU data, the level of correlation of all the indicators is expected to become even higher.
• In any case, sustainability data for the calculation of the T_EU need to be periodically updated and if possible, based on relevant business and sectoral data. If sectoral data by business size become available, though such data are difficult to collect, our model’s significance will be enhanced.
• The rate at which a company has achieved sustainability indicator values close to optimal (during successive past years) will not change in a similar trend compared to the average. This will give a distorted state, that the business indicator should be significantly improved and that a business review is required in the direction of sustainable development. In such a case, the model is not applicable, and business executives should assess the sustainable development opportunities their business may meet.
• Important events, such as the Covid-19 pandemic, should be seriously considered, as they affect the data disproportionately (especially those of the years 2020–2021), resulting in the model returning distorted values.
• As the number of business indicators out of the total number of UN indicators is relatively small (76 out of 232), the relevant authorities such as the UN or the International Labour Organization (ILO), should reconsider the enhancement and the standardization of the UN indicators in a manner to increase their number for business use.

As the “UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” is calling on businesses to apply their creativity and innovation for solving sustainable development challenges, businesses need to act urgently. “The time for action is now and it’s never too late to do something” and this is our worldview as well. If all businesses operated sustainably, the overall impact this would have on establishing equitable societies would be significant.

It is a reality that on the path to the creation of our model, we met obstacles. The main challenge during this study was the lack of adequate business data referring to indicators. Although there are currently several obstacles to addressing business sustainability issues, the development of a tangible model for businesses, to fulfill their sustainability responsibilities to society, is a real requirement. As the choice of the appropriate indicators is heavily dependent upon the stakeholder’s aims, worldview and system of values, it becomes clear that the identification and implementation of the appropriate mix of SDGs can provide a solid basis for decision-making at all levels of a public or private organization. The model developed is expected to support businesses to select the appropriate indicators, categorized by their significance, urgency and economic efficiency. Moreover, policymakers, corporate managers and management engineers can implement it and enhance their interactions with stakeholders, capitalizing on new business opportunities, encouraging sectoral synergies and using a common language for achieving their common goals.