Volume 13 - Issue 73
/ January 2024
231
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
DOI: https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2024.73.01.19
How to Cite:
Poplavets, S., Nikitin, A., Meshcheriakov, I., Kozlov, D., Vorobiov, Y., & Konov, D. (2024). Integration of environmental
indicators into the management decision-making system. Amazonia Investiga, 13(73), 231-240.
https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2024.73.01.19
Integration of environmental indicators into the management
decision-making system
Integración de indicadores ambientales en el sistema de toma de decisiones de gestión
Received: December 21, 2023 Accepted: January 29, 2024
Written by:
Serhii Poplavets1
https://orcid.org/0009-0003-7538-0941
Anatolii Nikitin2
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1487-0616
Ivan Meshcheriakov3
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5797-0735
Dmitro Kozlov4
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5647-0218
Yevgen Vorobiov5
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1828-0069
Dmytro Konov6
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3459-0024
Abstract
Climate change demands integrating
environmental indicators into management
decision-making systems, highlighting shifts
towards environmental safety and stricter
emissions regulations. This research develops a
scheme for such integration, filling the gap in
literature on the relationship between
environmental factors and management
decisions. Literature analysis and data
examination through scientific and mathematical
methods, including linear and multicriteria
analysis, have led to a model emphasizing the
importance of embedding environmental
considerations into decision-making. The
1
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), Professor of the Department of Tactics and Combined Military Disciplines, Ivan Kozhedub Kharkiv
National Air Force University (KNAFU), Kharkiv, Ukraine. WoS Researcher ID: JXL-2492-2024
2
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), Professor of the Department of Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear Protection, and Civil
Safety, Institute of Logistics and Support of Troops (Forces), National Defence University of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine.
WoS Researcher ID: JTZ-6402-2023
3
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), Associate Professor of the Department of Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear Protection, and
Civil Safety, Institute of Logistics and Support of Troops (Forces), National Defence University of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine.
WoS Researcher ID: IUM-6229-2023
4
Senior Lecturer, Department of Tactics and Combined Military Disciplines, Ivan Kozhedub Kharkiv National Air Force University
(KNAFU), Kharkiv, Ukraine. WoS Researcher ID: JFA-1635-2023
5
PhD in Engineering, Senior Researcher at the Research Laboratory, Ivan Kozhedub Kharkiv National Air Force University
(KNAFU), Kharkiv, Ukraine. WoS Researcher ID: V-9482-2017
6
Researcher at the Research Laboratory, Faculty of Automated Control Systems and Ground Support for Aviation Flights, Ivan
Kozhedub Kharkiv National Air Force University (KNAFU), Kharkiv, Ukraine. WoS Researcher ID: JXL-5083-2024
232
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
findings highlight the role of multi-criteria
decisions in various conditions and establish a
comprehensive model for the interplay between
economic and environmental indicators,
enhancing eco-efficiency in management
practices. This approach introduces a novel
method for incorporating environmental
sustainability into management strategies,
underscoring its significance for ongoing
research and application in eco-efficient
management decision-making.
Keywords: management decision,
environmental performance, eco-efficiency,
climate change.
Introduction
In order to reveal the topic of our work, it is first
of all necessary to answer the following
questions: what a management decision is and
how is it related to ecology.
The first question can be answered by saying that
a management decision is the result of an
alternative formalisation of economic,
technological, socio-psychological, and
administrative management methods, on the
basis of which the organisation's management
system directly affects the managed system, but
there are many more interpretations of this
concept.
The answer to the second question is that the
environment is the physical, biological, cultural,
social and economic environment in which
people, plants, animals and all other living things
are connected throughout life. There are several
historical examples of such decisions that have
led to such consequences that it has become a
well-known fact. Here are some of the most
famous examples:
− It is the situation with rabbits and cats in
Australia;
− The problem with the environment and
human health due to the use of certain
herbicides in America, Germany;
− The distribution of lead compounds
throughout the world as result of their use as
additives in petrol.
It should be noted that these solutions were
initially quite successful, and their harmfulness
was discovered later. But today, in addition to the
usual problems, the climate issue has already
gone beyond environmental protection and has
also become an economic topic. The social
sphere, including production, infrastructure, etc.,
now depends on the environmental situation. An
example of how climate change leads to
economic and production problems hydropower
plants is, which have become significantly less
productive due to drought and produce between
40 and 6% of their rated capacity. As Bloomberg
put it “the world's biggest source of green energy
is rapidly evaporating”. Therefore, the countries
most affected by this are facing the need to obtain
energy from other sources, which in turn are
affected by other environmental and climatic
factors, for example, smoke from forest fires
reduces solar energy production. In other words,
the quality of human life is now overwhelmingly
dependent on climate, ecology, economics, and
politics, as shown schematically in Figure 1.
Poplavets, S., Nikitin, A., Meshcheriakov, I., Kozlov, D., Vorobiov, Y., Konov, D. / Volume 13 - Issue 73: 231-240 /
January, 2024
Volume 13 - Issue 73
/ January 2024
233
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Fig. 1. Factors affecting human life.
Created by the authors
Climate change is forcing more attention to be
paid to the environment. This is reflected in
policy changes towards “greening”, the creation
of stricter environmental safety conditions,
increased emissions control, downward changes
in regulations, especially for CO2, methane,
exhaust gases, water, etc., and increased fines for
violating environmental safety rules, which
accordingly affects the economy, which is also
rapidly “greening” (Sembiyeva et al., 2023).
Therefore, the integration of environmental
indicators into the management decision-making
system becomes extremely necessary. However,
the question arises: how and at what stage of
making a management decision should this be
done? How does the environmental policy of
states influence management decisions taking
into account environmental indicators?
This work is based on the study and analysis of
research by various authors concerning both
management issues taking into account
environmental indicators and issues related to the
influence of environmental policies of some
countries on management decision making. The
work makes an attempt to build a model that
allows us to imagine the interaction of the
management decision-making system with
economic and environmental indicators. The
main feature of this model should be the possible
versatility.
Literature review
Among the works devoted to this topic are those
related to reporting forms that take into account
environmental indicators Bezuidenhout, de
Villiers, & Dimes (2023), Abdullaeyeva &
Ataeva (2022), practical studies of the use of
environmental indicators in performance
management, works Shi et al., (2019),
Zharfpeykan, & Akroyd (2022), Shakun (2022),
Briushkova, Nikoliuk, & Udovytsia, (2020).
The concept of managerial decision has been
carefully studied by the authors Karpenko &
Kobzar (2021), Anishchenko (2019),
Bezuidenhout et al (2023).
The authors of the study Schaumberger &
Dasayanaka (2023) noted that in recent years,
much more attention has been paid to how
companies affect the environment and
governance. The authors interviewed six large
Swedish companies and collected data that
allowed them to draw conclusions about the
impact of changes towards sustainable
development. It was found that, firstly, a huge
number of rules and guidelines were passed
everywhere; secondly, it had a negative impact
on the harmonisation of reporting within
companies; thirdly, companies use their reports
as marketing tools. Almost all of the companies
surveyed use the GRI (Global Reporting
Initiative) index as their sustainability disclosure
framework. However, the findings indicate that
companies desire a unified reporting framework,
such as future integration with CSRD
(sustainability reporting) and see potential
benefits and some specific current challenges
related to sustainability reporting.
In Shi et al., (2019), based on the study of
regional sustainable development as a complex
system that is difficult to assess objectively and
scientifically using a single method. The authors
presented a new integrated indicator system and
evaluation model that most accurately reflects
the regional level of sustainable development
The indicator system and evaluation model were
built using the results of a study of 17 cities in
China The indicator system includes 4
subsystems, i.e. economy, society, resources, and
234
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
the environment These indicators were selected
through correlation analysis and discriminant
analysis A neural network was used to estimate
the respective scores of the 4 subsystems The
composite indicator for regional sustainable
development was assessed using an entropy-
corrected analytical hierarchy process.
In Fernandes et al., (2023), a conceptual model is
developed to describe the internal relationship
environment (IRE). Critical factors affecting the
environment, characteristics of the parties
involved, and the relationship. The work is
mainly concerned with the formation of a
management system - successful implementation
or external and market, taking into account
environmental factors The conceptual model and
its tools describe the relationship between the
support team and operational groups, described
by the ER model of company management.
LearningForSustainability.net offers the
development of indicators for performance-
based sustainable management. There is a global
trend towards the wider use of indicators to
monitor development and track progress. This is
evident at all levels and is reflected in the
proliferation of indicator reports in recent years.
Indicators quantify and simplify a phenomenon
and help us to understand and make sense of
current realities. In the context of natural
resource management, their greatest strength lies
in the way they can help us assess the status of a
resource and monitor the efficiency of its use. To
be more meaningful, a monitoring programme
should provide insight into the relationships
between environmental or socio-economic
causes and stressors, as well as the expected
responses of the ecosystem and subsequent
economic outcomes.
The issue of understanding and assessment is
raised - what should be assessed. Within resource
management, these are typically either
programme-based or driver-based. Regardless of
which structure is chosen, the report notes that it
will be important to provide three sets of
supporting information to prepare the utility and
transparency of subsequent models, reflecting:
− plans and planning;
− well-documented core proposals;
− internal and external factors affecting
outcomes. Attention is paid to the indicator
Characteristics and system capacities
required to support interoperable adaptive
management.
The authors of Lin et al., (2020) studied a control
system based on the fuzzy Delphi method. Using
this method, they evaluated expert opinion on
each indicator that affects decision-making
Zharfpeykan & Akroyd (2022) investigated how
different factors influence whether companies
integrate economic, social, and environmental
performance into their performance management
system. Managers from 239 Australian and New
Zealand companies across a wide range of
industries were surveyed. The researchers used
hierarchical multiple regression analysis for the
analysis. The study found that industry, company
size, and managers' perceptions of the
importance of sustainability influenced the
integration of environmental performance into a
company's performance management system. In
particular, larger companies and companies in
industries with low environmental impacts tend
to integrate more indicators into their
performance management systems, especially if
sustainability is perceived by managers as
important for performance. Large companies and
companies in industries with significant
environmental impacts integrate social
indicators, but generally not environmental
indicators, into their performance management
systems. The inclusion of environmental
indicators in corporate sustainability reports does
not affect their integration into the company's
performance management. The framework thus
emphasises the lack of synergy between external
sustainability reports and performance
management. At the same time, the authors
believe that organisations need to address the
issue of integrating environmental indicators in
order to become more environmentally
sustainable. Similar results were obtained
(Sayed, 2023).
According to the website Ministry of
Environmental Protection and Natural Resources
of Ukraine, (s.f), “environmental indicators are
the main tool for assessing the state of the
environment in the countries of Eastern Europe,
the Caucasus, and Central Asia. Appropriately
selected indicators based on sufficient time series
of data (time trends) can not only reflect the main
trends but also contribute to the analysis of the
causes and consequences of the current
environmental situation. They also allow us to
monitor the implementation and effectiveness of
environmental policy in countries”.
We should also note the development of artificial
intelligence and neural networks (machine
learning) and the prospects for their use,
including in management decisions. These issues
are addressed by the authors Entezari, Aslani,
Volume 13 - Issue 73
/ January 2024
235
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Zahedi, & Noorollahi (2023), Khalid (2023),
Rakhimov (2023), Waas et al., (2014).
Using search theory and dynamical systems
theory, the authors of Ye et al., (2022) studied
ecological dynamism in the model of the
relationship between green entrepreneurial
orientation and the search for boundary intervals
related to the environment, economy, and social
sphere.
Numerous publications on the interaction
between ecology and management decisions
reflect a deep interest in this topic. However, the
different approaches demonstrated by the authors
require further research and there is still a wide
scope for further work.
The purpose of our work was to develop a
scheme for integrating environmental indicators
into management decision-making systems.
Let us highlight the main problems raised by the
authors of publications reviewed:
Problems with the reporting format lead to
differences between external and internal
reporting companies. Reporting does not keep
pace with changes in the environmental policy,
which leads to the emergence of many
instructions, orders, rules that negatively affect
harmonization reporting within companies, and
also makes it difficult to take the necessary
management decision. Also, although most
companies in developed countries use the GRI
(Global Reporting Initiative), there is still no
unified form of reporting and connection to the
CSRD (reporting about sustainable
development).
There is a problem of integrating environmental
indicators into the performance management
systems companies. For large companies in
different countries, the inclusion of
environmental indicators in corporate
sustainability reports do it not affect the
integration of these indicators into management
efficiency of companies. Large companies and
companies in industries that have a significant
environmental impact, integrate social rather
than environmental indicators into decision-
making systems. There are no unified models
that allow assessing the impact of integrating
various indicators into systems for making
management decisions of companies. Thus,
taking into account the identified problems, the
goal of our work was to develop a scheme
integration of environmental indicators into the
management decision-making system. Also with
taking into account the difference in approaches
to solving this issue in different industries and
companies, the diagram should be visual and
practically universal.
Methodology
Literature analysis was used as a research tool,
and information from open sources, including
news publications and news agencies, was
studied and processed BloombergNEF (2023),
Learning for Sustainability (2016). Methods of
scientific analysis, comparison; generalisation;
data visualisation etc. were used, Microsoft
Office 10 was used to work with the data.
Results and discussion
The rule of choice is the basic principle of
making a management decision based on the
results of monitoring activities, namely
diagnostics and forecasting. Decision-making
theory distinguishes between single-criteria and
multi-criteria choices under conditions of
certainty, risk, and fuzzy conditions.
Management decision-making should be viewed
as a constantly solved task in the management
process Young (2023), Hryshyn (2014), Kuzmin
& Melnyk (2003), Anishchenko (2019), Rahi,
Johansson, Blomkvist, & Hartwig (2023), Rahi
et al. (2022).
The task of making a managerial decision is
aimed at determining the most effective way of
action to achieve the set goals.
The process of managerial decision-making is
accompanied by the formation of alternative
solutions and the assessment of their benefits.
The stages of managerial decision-making are
shown in Table 1.
236
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Table 1.
Stages of managerial decision-making according to different authors
Stages of managerial decision-making
According to (Young, 2023) 1. Defining the goals of the
organisation; 2. identifying problems in the process
of achieving the defined goals; 3. researching problems and linking
their features 4. Search for solutions to the problem; 5. Evaluating all alternatives and
choosing the best one; 6. Coordination of decisions in the
organisation; 7. Approval of the decision; 8. Preparing the decision for
implementation; 9. Managing the implementation of
the solution; 10. Checking the effectiveness of the
solution.
According to (Hryshyn, 2014) 1. The emergence of a situation
that requires decision-making; 2. Collection and processing of
information on the developed
management methods; 3. Identification and evaluation of
alternatives inherent in the
developed management methods; 4. Preparation and optimisation of
a management decision that is
taken as a set of alternatives; 5. Making a management decision
(legitimising the alternative); 6. Implementation of the
management decision and
evaluation of the result.
According to Kuzmin & Melnyk
(2003) 1. The existence of a situation that
needs to be addressed, collection
and analysis of information on the
general problem; 2. Identification and evaluation of
alternatives inherent in the
developed management methods; 3. Making a management decision
(legitimisation of alternatives); 4. Implementation of the
management decision and
evaluation of results; 5. Control over the
implementation of the decision,
which allows to detect deviations
and establish feedback between
the controlling and managed
subsystems.
Created by the authors based on works by Young (2023), Hryshyn (2014), Kuzmin & Melnyk (2003).
It is possible to formulate the tasks of managerial decision-making, which can be both individual and group,
the data are presented in Table 2.
Table 2.
Approaches to managerial decision-making
Centralised approach
Decentralised approach
Most decisions are made by top management
Transfer of decision-making responsibility to a lower
management level
Individual approach
Group approach
Decision-making by the manager alone
Several employees work together on the same problem
The task of making an individual managerial
decision: in a problem situation, with the available
time and resources to make a managerial decision, it
is necessary to define the situation by a set of
alternative situations, formulate a set of goals,
constraints, alternative solutions, evaluate the
benefits of solutions and find the optimal solution
from the set, guided by the selection criterion
The task of making a group management decision: in a
problem situation, with available time and resources, it is
necessary to define the situation by a set of alternative
situations, formulate a set of goals, constraints,
alternative solutions, evaluate the benefits of solutions,
build a group preference function based on the principle
of consent and find the optimal solution that would meet
the group preference
Compiled by the authors based on data from Anishchenko (2019), Young (2023)
Environmental and economic indicators are a
criterion for the development of environmental
management, which requires a comprehensive
and systematic approach to the formation of such
indicators.
The degree of environmental impact of
production is determined by a cluster of
quantitative and qualitative indicators, including:
− the amount of raw materials and energy
used;
− amount of gaseous pollution emitted;
− amount of waste per unit of output;
− efficiency of raw material use;
− energy efficiency;
− number of accidents resulting in negative
impact on the environment;
− the degree of utilisation of production and
consumption waste;
− potential of packaging for further recycling;
− transport mileage per unit of finished
product;
− investments made in environmental
protection;
− the number of lawsuits resulting from
environmental violations, etc. (this also
applies to administrative fines for minor
violations).
Volume 13 - Issue 73
/ January 2024
237
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Thus, eco-efficiency can be presented as a
system of interaction of economic and
environmental indicators with the management
system or as a system of making management
decisions based on the interaction with
environmental and economic indicators, as
shown in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2. General scheme of interaction between the management decision-making system and environmental
and economic indicators.
Built by the authors based on studying the works
of Young (2023), Bosi, Lajuni, & Lim (2022),
Clement, Robinot, & Trespeuch (2023), Correia
(2019), Kerr & Rouse (2015), Weston, & Ninadi
(2021), Park, Konge, & Artino (2019), Traxler,
Schrack, & Greiling (2020).
The scheme reflects the interaction of
environmental and economic indicators on
management decision-making to achieve
environmental efficiency.
Let’s look at specific example of such
interaction.
Examples of decisions focused only on profit.
Increasing requirements for the quality of
disposal of electronic waste has led to the fact
that according to Adesina (2012).
1) Outdated electronics (computers, mobile
phone, televisions, refrigerators, etc.) are
imported into developing countries as
“second-hand goods” and are sold though
out ventures in order to obtain arrived. And
.the problems of further disposal fall on the
buyer.
2) In addition, according to the some agencies
and organizations through donations send
them to schools, hospitals, etc., thus getting
rid of unnecessary equipment,
3) Particularly unscrupulous donors may send
under type of donations mainly faulty
equipment. The considered examples show
the results of making management decisions
profit-oriented, with virtually no
environmental performance are taken into
account.
Note that even such decisions can be transferred
to a neutral level by introducing as
counterbalance the achievement of
environmental indicators for the first of two
examples. For example in the first of case , it is
possible to organize the acceptance of failed
equipment in order to further disposal either, or
by selling company itself or by selling this waste
to companies that are engaged in the purchase of
such waste as raw materials for further
processing. In the second case, it is possible for
the donor company to receive tax preferences for
philanthropy and reputation enhancement, in
addition to reducing costs for recycling. An
increase in environmental efficiency can be
proposed similar to the first occasion. The third
example suggests a solution that is likely to result
in financial lass to the donor company, but will
save its business reputation – this is the
replacement of faulty equipment and its further
disposal. Let us note the emerging trend for large
238
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
companies, which are in favor of increasing
environmental efficiency may make decisions
that lead to lower profit. For example, according
to the website DSnews.ua (2021), Apple
announced its transition to consumption of only
renewable energy for your needs from April 9,
2018.
Conclusions
The study results suggest that:
The introduction of environmental indicators into
the management decision-making system makes
it possible to reduce damage to the environment.
In the examples discussed, this makes it possible
to reduce environmental pollution by electronic
waste containing hazardous compounds, such as
compounds of mercury, heavy metals, lithium,
cadmium, plastics, etc.
In the course of the study, many studies related
to management decision-making through the
prism of eco-efficiency were reviewed and
analysed. The necessity of integrating
environmental indicators into the management
decision-making system is determined. The
existing strategies for making managerial
decisions are considered in detail. The main
environmental factors that influence
environmental efficiency are identified. As a
result of the process, a general model of the
interaction of economic and environmental
indicators on management decision-making is
proposed.
Bibliographic references
Abdullaeyeva, M., & Ataeva, N. (2022).
Mortgage lending with the participation of
the construction financing fund of the bank of
the future. Futurity Economic & Law, 2(1),
35-44.
https://doi.org/10.57125/FEL.2022.03.25.05
Adesina, O. S. (2012). The negative impact of
globalization onNigeria. International
Journal of Humanities and Social Science,
2(15), 193-201.
https://www.ijhssnet.com/index/1193
Anishchenko, V. O. (2019). Improving
ecological management of the enterprises that
are nature users at the stage of administrative
decisions making. Eastern Europe:
Economy, Business and Governance, 1(18),
83-90. Retrieved from
http://srd.pgasa.dp.ua:8080/xmlui/handle/12
3456789/2280
Bezuidenhout, S., de Villiers, C., & Dimes, R.
(2023). How management control systems
can enable, constrain, and embed integrated
reporting. Accounting & Finance, 63(4),
4251-4273.
https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.13092
BloombergNEF. (2023). New Energy Outlook.
Retrieved from https://about.bnef.com/new-
energy-outlook/#toc-download
Bosi, M.K., Lajuni, N., & Lim, T.S. (2022).
Sustainability Reporting through
Environmental, Social and Governance: A
Bibliometric Review. Sustainability, 14(19),
12071. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912071
Briushkova, N., Nikoliuk, O., & Udovytsia, O.
(2020). Features of decision making in public
administration. E-government: improvement
and development, 3, 1-6. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.32702/2307-2156-
2020.3.39
Clement, A., Robinot, E., & Trespeuch, L.
(2023). The use of ESG scores in academic
literature: A systematic literature review.
Journal of Enterprising Communities:
People and Places in the Global Economy,
1-19. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEC-10-2022-
0147
Correia, M. S. (2019). Sustainability: An
overview of the triple bottom line and
sustainability implementation. International
Journal of Strategic Engineering, 2(1),
29-38.
https://doi.org/10.4018/IJoSE.2019010103
DSnews.ua (2021). Top 25 best environmental
programs of companies. Retrieved from
https://acortar.link/hXkGFY
Entezari, A., Aslani, A., Zahedi, R., &
Noorollahi, Y. (2023). Artificial intelligence
and machine learning in energy systems: A
bibliographic perspective. Energy Strategy
Reviews, 45, 101017.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2022.101017
Fernandes, R. S., Rocha, T. R., Coelho, J. M., &
Andrade, D. F. (2023). Development of a
measurement instrument to evaluate
integrated management systems and
differences in perception: An approach to
item response theory and the quality
management process. Production, 33,
e20220069. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-
6513.20220069
Hryshyn, M. S. (2014). Technology of making
and implementing management decisions.
Electronic Scientific Bulletin
“Kerivnik.INFO”. Retrieved from
https://kerivnyk.info/2014/01/grishyn.html
Karpenko, Y., & Kobzar, A. (2021). Main
approaches to the essence of the concept of
«management decision». Scientific Bulletin
of Odesa National Economic University.
Collection of Scientific Papers, 11-12(288-
Volume 13 - Issue 73
/ January 2024
239
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
289), 147-153.
https://doi.org/10.32680/2409-9260-2021-
11-12-288-289-147-153
Kerr, J., & Rouse, P. (2015). Sustainability
reporting integrated into management control
systems. Pacific Accounting Review, 27(2),
187-207. https://doi.org/10.1108/PAR-08-
2012-0034
Khalid, N. (2023). The role of artificial
intelligence in the management of lung
cancer: A narrative review. Futurity
Medicine, 2(1), 36-46.
https://doi.org/10.57125/FEM.2023.03.30.04
Kuzmin, O., & Melnyk, O. (2003).
Fundamentals of management. Kyiv:
Akadem Publishing House. ISBN 966-8226-
04-6.
Learning for Sustainability (s.f). Developing
indicators for sustainable and performance-
based management.
https://learningforsustainability.net/developi
ng-indicators/
Lin, J. C., Belis, T. T., Caesaron, D., Jiang, B. C.,
& Kuo, T. C. (2020). Development of
sustainability indicators for employee-
activity based production process using fuzzy
delphi method. Sustainability, 12, 6378.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166378
Ministry of Environmental Protection and
Natural Resources of Ukraine. (s.f).
Environmental indicators. Retrieved from
https://mepr.gov.ua/diyalnist/napryamky/eko
logichnyj-monitoryng/ekologichni-
pokaznyky/
Park, Y. S., Konge, L., & Artino, A. R. (2020).
The positivism paradigm of research.
Academic Medicine: Journal of the
Association of American Medical Colleges,
95(5), 690-694.
https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.000000000000
3093
Rahi, F. A., Johansson, J., Blomkvist, M., &
Hartwig, F. (2023). Corporate sustainability
and financial performance: A hybrid
literature review. Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental
Management, 1-15.
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2600
Rahi, F. A., Johansson, J., Fagerstrom, A., &
Blomkvist, M. (2022). Sustainability
reporting and management control system: A
structured literature review. Journal of Risk
and Financial Management, 15(12),
562-593.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm15120562
Rakhimov, T. (2023). Research on moral issues
related to the use of artificial intelligence in
modern society. Futurity Philosophy, 2(2),
30-43. https://futurity-
philosophy.com/index.php/FPH/article/view/
30
Rojas-Bahamón, M., & Arbeláez-Campillo, D.
(2020). Panorama de la implementación de
los sistemas de gestión ambiental en la
Amazonia Colombiana. Revista Científica
Del Amazonas, 3(6), 48-64.
https://doi.org/10.34069/RA/2020.6.04
Sayed, R. (2023). Exploring cultural influences
on project management approaches in global
business development. Futurity of Social
Sciences, 1(4), 39-60.
https://doi.org/10.57125/FS.2023.12.20.02
Schaumberger, S., & Dasayanaka, V. (2023).
Sustainability reporting and the developing
role of the ESG/Sustainability controller: A
qualitative study among Swedish medium
and large sized companies. Umeå School of
Business and Economics (USBE) and
Statistica Business Administration, 73.
https://acortar.link/udvUFK
Sembiyeva, L., Zhagyparova, A., Zhusupov, E.,
& Bekbolsynova, A. (2023). Impact of
investments in green technologies on energy
security and sustainable development in the
future. Futurity of Social Sciences, 1(4),
61-74.
https://doi.org/10.57125/FS.2023.12.20.03
Shakun, N. (2022). Anthropological dilemmas of
information society development modern
stage in the context of globalization
challenge? Futurity Philosophy, 1(3), 52-63.
https://doi.org/10.57125/FP.2022.09.30.04
Shi, Y., Ge, X., Yuan, X., Wang, Q., Kellett, J.,
Li, F., & Ba, K. (2019). An integrated
indicator system and evaluation model for
regional sustainable development.
Sustainability, 11, 2183.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11072183
Traxler, A. A., Schrack, D., & Greiling, D.
(2020). Sustainability reporting and
management control: A systematic
exploratory literature review. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 276, 1-17.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.12272
5
Waas, T., Huge, J., Block, T., Wright, T.,
Capistros, B., & Verbruggen, A. (2014).
Sustainability assessment and indicators:
Tools in a decision-making strategy for
sustainable development. Sustainability, 6,
5512-5534.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su6095512
Weston, P., & Ninadi, M. (2021). Evaluation of
strategic and financial variables of corporate
sustainability and ESG policies on corporate
finance performance. Journal of Sustainable
Finance & Investment, 13(2), 1-17.
240
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2021.1883
984
Ye, F., Yang, Y., Xia, H., Shao, Y., Gu, X., &
Shen, J. (2022). Green entrepreneurial
orientation, boundary-spanning search and
enterprise sustainable performance: The
moderating role of environmental dynamism.
Frontiers in Psychology, 13.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.978274
Young, A. C. (2023). Young’s model of
organizational culture. Open Journal of
Business and Management, 11, 3125-3134.
https://doi.org/10.4236/ojbm.2023.116171
Zharfpeykan, R., & Akroyd, C. (2022). Factors
influencing the integration of sustainability
indicators into a company’s performance
management system. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 331(129988), 129988.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.12998
8