Open Access
| Issue |
E3S Web of Conf.
Volume 388, 2023
The 4th International Conference of Biospheric Harmony Advanced Research (ICOBAR 2022)
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Article Number | 01018 | |
| Number of page(s) | 5 | |
| Section | Sustainable Infrastucture, Industry, Architecture, and Food Technology | |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202338801018 | |
| Published online | 17 May 2023 | |
- T.-T. Li, K. Wang, T. Sueyoshi, and D. D. Wang, “ESG: Research Progress and Future Prospects,” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 21, p. 11663, 2021, doi: 10.3390/su132111663. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- D. Daugaard, “Emerging new themes in environmental, social and governance investing: A systematic literature review,” Accounting & Finance, vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 1501-1530, 2020, doi: 10.1111/acfi.12626. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- L. Widyawati, “A systematic literature review of socially responsible investment and environmental social governance metrics,” Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 619-637, 2020, doi: 10.1002/bse.2367. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- S. Drempetic, C. Klein, and B. Zwergel, “The influence of firm size on the ESG score: Corporate sustainability ratings under review,” Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 167, no. 2, pp. 333-360, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s10551-019-04270-4. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- N. S. Eccles and S. Viviers, “The origins and meanings of names describing investment practices that integrate a consideration of ESG issues in the academic literature,” Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 104, no. 3, pp. 389-402, 2011, doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-0911-1. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- M. Ziolo, B. Z. Filipiak, I. Bak, and K. Cheba, “How to design more sustainable financial systems: The roles of environmental, social, and governance factors in the decision-making process,” Sustainability, vol. 11, no. 20, p. 5604, 2019, doi: 10.3390/su11205604. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- R. B. Hessellund, “Civil Engineering - Risk Management & Uncertainty Version 1.2,” VIA University College, Denmark, pp. 6-10, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- E. Eraslan, J. Güneşli, and W. Khatib, “The evaluation of appropriate office layout design with MCDM techniques,” SN Applied Sciences, Springer Nature Switzerland AG, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s42452-020-03728-5. [Google Scholar]
- M. F. Kahraman, “Ergonomics workplace design in Turkey according to anthropometrical data,” Ministry of Labor and Social Security General Directorate of Occupational Health and Safety, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- K. H. E. Kroemer and A. D. Kroemer, Office Ergonomics, Taylor and Francis, New York, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- H. Yuan, A. R. Chini, Y. Lu, and L. Shen, “A dynamic model for assessing the effects of management strategies on the reduction of construction and demolition waste,” Waste Management, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 521-531, 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2011.10.021. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- M. Marzouk and S. Azab, "Environmental and economic impact assessment of construction and demolition waste disposal using system dynamics," Resources, Conservation and Recycling [Google Scholar]
- H. Yuan, A.R. Chini, Y. Lu and L. Shen, "A dynamic model for assessing the effects of management strategies on the reduction of construction and demolition waste," Waste Manag., vol. 32, pp. 521-531, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- X. Zhang, Y. Wu, L. Shen, M. Skitmore and M. Skitmore, “A prototype system dynamic model for assessing the sustainability of construction projects,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 32, pp. 1313-1329, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- H. Yuan and J. Wang, “A system dynamics model for determining the waste disposal charging fee in construction,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 237, pp. 988-996, 2014. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- H. Yuan, “A model for evaluating the social performance of construction waste management,” Waste Manag., vol. 32, pp. 1218-1228, 2012. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- E. Weston, P. Le and W.S. Marras, “A biomechanical and physiological study of office seat and tablet device interaction,” Appl. Ergon., vol. 62, pp. 83-93, 2017. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.