A Strategic Evaluation Framework to Assess the Sustainability Level of Industrial Parks in the Post-global Economy

  • Isabel KreinerEmail author
  • María-Laura Franco-García
Part of the Greening of Industry Networks Studies book series (GINS, volume 7)


This chapter aims to provide an integrative framework to evaluate the sustainability level of industrial parks in terms of their regional impacts with a holistic approach. Using analysis of secondary data and practitioner observations, several relevant aspects of sustainable industrial parks were identified and categorized in a “process” model that helps to explain possible relationships among them. The Contextual Interaction Theory (CIT) from Bressers et al. The governance assessment tool and its use. In: Bressers H, Bressers N, Larrue C (eds) Governance for drought resilience: land and water drought management in Europe. Springer International Publishing, pp 45–65., 2016 was one of the theoretical bases to analyse the stakeholders’ influence to the “process”. The association between the contextual conditions and the measurable quality criteria of sustainable industrial parks is discussed by taking scholars’ and practitioners’ viewpoints. As a result, five domains were identified and constitute the framework: contextual, organizational, environmental, social and economic. Measurable indicators for each of these mentioned domains are suggested. The three last domains form part of the quality criteria component of the model used to explain the framework under a process approach. This framework is named “Sustainable Strategic Evaluation Framework (SSEF)” because it aims to serve as a managerial strategic tool towards sustainability performance of industrial parks. Experts agreed that the set of indicators should be adaptable to the regional context whilst comparable among different locations. Hence, procedures and measurement methods require being applicable to any local condition. While there are a vast number of publications addressing the management of environmental aspects at the company and at industrial park levels, the social aspects have been little addressed at the regional level from a strategic managerial perspective.


Strategic evaluation framework Sustainable industrial parks Measuring regional impacts Mexico 


  1. Bellringer A, Ball A, Craig R (2011) Reasons for sustainability reporting by New Zealand local governments. Sustain Acc Manag Policy J 2(1):126–138Google Scholar
  2. Bressers H (2009) From public administration to policy networks, contextual interaction analysis. In: Stéphane N, Varone F (eds) Rediscovering public law and public administration in comparative policy analysis. A tribute to Peter Knoepfel. Presses polytechniques, Lausanne, pp 123–142Google Scholar
  3. Bressers H, Bressers N, Kuks S, Larrue C (2016) The governance assessment tool and its use. In: Bressers H, Bressers N, Larrue C (eds) Governance for drought resilience: land and water drought management in Europe. Springer International Publishing, pp 45–65.
  4. Chertow MR (2000) Industrial symbiosis: literature and taxonomy. Annu Rev Energy Environ 25:313–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2015) Delivering the circular economy – a toolkit for policymakers, Report June 2015. Available via
  6. Expatistan (2015) Web based calculator available via Accessed 21 Dec 2017
  7. Frenquellucci F (2007) Contents, activities and results of the project LIFE-SIAM (Sustainable Industrial Area Model) – Project n. LIFE 04 ENV/IT/000524. Paper presented at the 11th Trade Fair of Material and Energy Recovery and Sustainable Development, ECOMONDO, Rimini Fiera, Italy, 7–10 November 2007Google Scholar
  8. Gothmann K, Jain P, Nikov K, Vest H (2015) Guidelines for sustainable industrial areas version 1.0. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). Sustainable Industrial Areas Working Group. Available via Accessed 29 Nov 2018
  9. Guthrie J, Farneti F (2008) GRI sustainability reporting by Australian public sector organizations. Publ Money Manag 28(6):361–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. KPMG (2013) Desarrollo Sostenible en México 3.0.
  11. KPMG (2016) Desarrollo Sostenible en México 4.0. Accessed 29 Jan 2018
  12. Kusakabe E (2013) Advancing sustainable development at the local level: the case of machizukuri in Japanese cities. Prog Plan 80:1–65. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Leadership Council of the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (2015) Indicators and a monitoring framework for the sustainable development goals. Report to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Accessed 21 Dec 2017
  14. Lowe EA (2001) Eco-industrial Park Handbook for Asian developing countries. Report to Asian Development Bank. Accessed 29 Jan 2018
  15. Magee L, Scerri A, James P, Thom JA, Padgham L, Hickmott S, Deng H, Cahill F (2013) Reframing social sustainability reporting: towards an engaged approach. Environ Dev Sustain 15(1):225–243. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Markusen A (1996) Sticky places in slippery space: a typology of industrial districts. Econ Geogr 72:293–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Money Converter (2017) Web based calculator available via Accessed 21 Dec 2017Google Scholar
  18. MORENA (2017) Proyecto Alternativo de Nación 2018–2024, Anexo 2 Plataforma Electoral y de Programa de Gobierno. Accessed 27 Nov 2018
  19. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2011) OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises. Accessed 28 June 2018
  20. Presidents’ Office of the Mexican Republic and United Nations Development Program (2016) REPORTE NACIONAL PARA LA REVISIÓN VOLUNTARIA DE MÉXICO EN EL MARCO DEL FORO POLÍTICO DE ALTO NIVEL SOBRE DESARROLLO SOSTENIBLE Accessed 27 June 2018
  21. Schlarb M (2001) Eco-industrial development: a strategy for building sustainable communities. United States Economic Development Administration, Washington, DC. No longer available on webpageGoogle Scholar
  22. Sustainable Development Solutions Network (2015) Indicators and monitoring framework for the sustainable development goals, Report to the Secretary-general of the United Nations. Accessed 28 of Nov 2018
  23. The Global Reporting Initiative (2018) GRI sustainability reporting standards. Accessed 28 June 2018
  24. The Gold Standard Foundation (2018) The gold standard for the global goals. Accessed 28 June 2018
  25. The International Integrated Reporting Council (2013) The International Integrated Reporting Framework. Accessed 8 March 2019Google Scholar
  26. The Natural Step (1989) Several approaches and case studies. Accessed 28 June 2018
  27. The United Nations Global Compact Initiative (2017) Principles. Accessed 8 March 2019Google Scholar
  28. UN General Assembly, United Nations Millennium Declaration, Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly, 18 September 2000, A/RES/55/2. Available at: Accessed 8 March 2019Google Scholar
  29. UNIDO (1997) Industrial Estates: principles and practices. United Nations Industrial Development Organization, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  30. UNIDO (2012) Europe and Central Asia- Regional conference on industrial parks as a tool to foster local industrial development. Conference report, Baku, Azerbaijan, 17–18 April 2012. Accessed 8 March 2019Google Scholar
  31. United Nations (2015a) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development, paragraph 21. Accessed 29 Jan 2018
  32. United Nations (2015b) Sustainable development goals. Accessed 21 Dec 2017
  33. Van de Kerk G, Manuel A (2008) A comprehensive index for a sustainable society: the SSI – the sustainable society index. J Ecol Econ 66(2–3):228–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey (TEC)Atizapán de ZaragozaMexico
  2. 2.Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences (BMS), Department of Governance and Technology for Sustainability (CSTM)University of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations