Advertisement

Sustainable Environmental and Social Practices in Companies in the State of Santa Catarina, Brazil

  • Simone SehnemEmail author
  • Hilka Pelizza Vier Machado
Chapter
Part of the Applying Quality of Life Research book series (BEPR)

Abstract

Current research, comprising a questionnaire answered by 50 companies, identifies the introduction and implementation of sustainable and social practices by the companies, their motives for implementing them, the difficulties they face, and the benefits they receive. Results reveal that environmental practices fully implemented by 68% of the companies comprise the monitoring of risks and opportunities for the organizations’ activity due to climatic changes, 56% of the firms under analysis separate wastes, and 52% of the firms train personnel in health and safety procedures on work. Non-implemented practices include incineration (burning of mass) by 80% of the firms, hiring of indigenous and tribal workers by 68%, composting by 64%, and use of surface water in processing.

Keywords

Sustainability Sustainable practices Environmental and social practices 

References

  1. Dias, R. (2014). Eco-inovação: caminhos para o desenvolvimento sustentável. São Paulo: Atlas.Google Scholar
  2. Durand, M. (2015). The OECD better life initiative: How’s life? And the measurement of well-being. Review of Income and Wealth, Series 61, no 1.Google Scholar
  3. Elkington, J. (2001). Canibais com garfo e faca. São Paulo: Makron Boos.Google Scholar
  4. Glover, J. L., Champion, D., Daniels, K. J., & Dainty, A. J. D. (2014). An institutional theory perspective on sustainable practices across the dairy supply chain. International Journal Production Economics, 152, 102–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Goulet, D. (2002). Desenvolvimento autêntico: fazendo-o sustentável. In C. Cavalcanti (Ed.), Meio ambiente, desenvolvimento sustentável e políticas públicEas (Vol. 4). São Paulo: Cortez.Google Scholar
  6. GRI 4. (2013). Diretrizes G4 para relato de sustentabilidade: princípios para relato e conteúdos padrão. The Netherlands: Global Reporting Initiative.Google Scholar
  7. Hockerts, K., & Wüstenhagen, R. (2010). Greening Goliaths versus emerging Davids: Theorizing about the role of incumbents and new entrants in sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 481–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Horbach, J., Rammer, C., & Rennings, K. (2014). Determinantes da ecoinovação por tipo de impacto ambiental: o papel da pressão regulatória, da alavancagem tecnológica e do fator de mercado. In C. Arruda & F. Carvalho (Eds.), Inovações ambientais: Políticas Públicas, Tecnologias e Oportunidades de Negócios. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  9. Kemp, R., & Pearson, P. (2008). Final report MEI project about measuring eco-innovation. UM-MERIT. Maastricht. Available at www.merit.unu.edu/MEI. Accessed Aug 2016.
  10. Khanna, M., Deltas, G., & Harrington, D. R. (2009). Adoption of pollution prevention techniques: The role of management systems and regulatory pressures. Environmental and Resource Economics, 44, 85–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kuckertz, A., & Wagner, M. (2010). The influence of sustainability orientation on entrepreneurial intentions: Investigating the role of business experience. Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 524–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Leitão, J., & Alves, H. (2016). Entrepreneurial and innovative practice in public institutions – A quality of life approach. Alemanha: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mathew, L. R., & John, D. (2016). Frugal automation of sustainable practices in Kerala. Procedia Technology, 24, 1211–1218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. OECD. (2011). How’s life? Measuring well-being. OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  15. Schlesinger, W., Taulet, A. C., Alves, H., & Burguete, J. L. V. (2016). An approach to measuring perceived quality of life in the city through a formative multidimensional perspective. In J. Leitão & H. Alves (Eds.), Entrepreneurial and innovative practice in public institutions – A quality of life approach (pp. 59–79). Alemanha: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Shepherd, D. A., & Patzelt, H. (2011). The new field of sustainable entrepreneurship: Studying entrepreneurial action linking “what is to be sustained” with “what is to be developed”. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 35(1), 137–163.Google Scholar
  17. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Doutorado em Administração. Universidade do Oeste de Santa Catarina, Campus Chapecó, SeminárioChapecóBrazil

Personalised recommendations