424 RBCIAMB | v.56 | n.3 | Sept 2021 | 424-435 - ISSN 2176-9478 A B S T R A C T The gemstones and jewels production chain have been an important source of income and job creation in several regions of Brazil. However, sometimes, its activities haven’t been developed in an environmentally correct and sustainable context. In this sense, this work seeks to investigate indicators, to propose a framework of indicators to evaluate and monitor the sustainability conditions of companies that process gemstones. Therefore, a proposal was prepared considering the specificities of the sector, containing 10 indicators and 24 variables distributed in the environmental, economic, social, and technological dimensions. The proposal was verified empirically with a company, a case study, located in Teutônia/RS, which presents the main characteristics of the companies belonging to the sector. The use of the framework of indicators provided information on the company’s sustainability conditions, identifying positive aspects and also those that need to be improved to assist in the search for a more sustainable management of activities. On the other hand, the results achieved present information that can serve as a reference for comparison with other companies in the sector, as well as assist in the decision- making process in search of more sustainable conditions. Keywords: indicators; sustainability; gemstone benefiting companies. R E S U M O A cadeia produtiva de gemas e joias tem sido uma importante fonte de divisas e de geração de empregos em diversas regiões do Brasil. No entanto, por vezes, suas atividades não têm sido desenvolvidas em um contexto ambientalmente correto e sustentável. Nesse sentido, este trabalho busca investigar indicadores, com a finalidade de propor um quadro de indicadores para avaliar e monitorar as condições de sustentabilidade das empresas beneficiadoras de gemas. Para tanto, foi elaborada uma proposta considerando as especificidades do setor, contendo 10 indicadores e 24 variáveis distribuídos nas dimensões ambiental, econômica, social e tecnológica. A proposta foi verificada empiricamente junto a uma empresa: um estudo de caso, localizada em Teutônia/RS, que apresenta as principais características das empresas pertencentes ao setor. A utilização do quadro de indicadores forneceu informações sobre as condições de sustentabilidade da empresa, identificando aspectos positivos e também os que necessitam ser melhorados para auxiliar na busca de uma gestão mais sustentável das atividades. Por outro lado, os resultados alcançados apresentam informações que podem servir de referência para fins de comparação com outras empresas do setor, assim como auxiliar no processo de tomada de decisão em busca de condições mais sustentáveis. Palavras-chave: indicadores; sustentabilidade; empresas beneficiadoras de gemas. Contributions to improve sustainability conditions in gemstone- benefiting companies Contribuições para melhoria das condições de sustentabilidade em empresas beneficiadoras de gemas Fernanda Cristina Wiebusch Sindelar1 , Júlia Elisabete Barden1 , Simone Stülp1 1Universidade do Vale do Taquari – Lajeado (RS), Brazil. Correspondence address: Fernanda Cristina Wiebusch Sindelar – Avenida Avelino Talini, 171, Sala 226-2 – Centro Universitário – CEP: 95914-014 – Lajeado (RS), Brazil. E-mail: fernanda@univates.br Conflicts of interest: the authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest. Funding: Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Rio Grande do Sul (FAPERGS). Received on: 10/08/2020. Accepted on: 04/10/2021 https://doi.org/10.5327/Z21769478938 Revista Brasileira de Ciências Ambientais Brazilian Journal of Environmental Sciences Revista Brasileira de Ciências Ambientais Brazilian Journal of Environmental Sciences ISSN 2176-9478 Volume 56, Number 1, March 2021 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons license. http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3138-7386 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9818-1844 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3777-5278 mailto:fernanda@univates.br https://doi.org/10.5327/Z21769478938 http://www.rbciamb.com.br http://abes-dn.org.br/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Contributions to improve sustainability conditions in gemstone-benefiting companies 425 RBCIAMB | v.56 | n.3 | Sept 2021 | 424-435 - ISSN 2176-9478 Introduction In many countries, especially developing ones, mining is a sec- tor with a significant share of the economy (Ranängen and Lindman, 2017), as a source of income, employment, and inputs to other indus- tries (Azapagic, 2004; UN, 2016). Among the different minerals that can be extracted from nature, there is the mining of precious stones, including diamonds, emeralds, and garnets (Hentschel et al., 2003) and given these characteristics, the factors that interfere in mining activities depend on where they are carried out (Ranängen and Lindman, 2017). Despite its economic importance, there are only few studies that discuss the economic, social, and environmental aspects of gem pro- duction (Oliveira and Ali, 2011) and it becomes relevant due to the non-renewable nature of most mineral resources and its ability to gen- erate a series of environmental and social impacts that affect regions negatively (Falck and Spangenberg, 2014; Lodhia and Martin, 2014). This way, the maintenance of the activity is necessary, but must be car- ried out in a more sustainable context so that it is less harmful to the environment in which it is inserted. In this context, Brazil stands out for the variety of gems found in its territory, since it has one of the largest gemological provinces in the world. Estimates indicate that the country is responsible for one third of the world’s production of gems, except for the production of dia- monds, rubies, and sapphires (Barreto and Bittar, 2010). In the state of Rio Grande do Sul, where this work was devel- oped, the main product in terms of exported value refers to pre- cious (except diamond) or semi-precious stones (COMEX STAT, 2021). According to Barreto and Bittar (2010), the state is the larg- est producer of uncut colored gemstones in Brazil and one of the main producers of agate and amethyst. Activities of extraction, manufacture of artifacts, and processing of gems (polishing, ham- mering, dyeing, cutting, among others) are generally carried out by small companies, which need to make improvements in the production processes and investments in technologies, seeking im- provements in the flow of materials, in the reduction of losses, and in the management of the environmental liabilities resulting from the activity, in order to achieve more sustainable conditions. Ac- cording to Brasil (2021), companies in the segment had an average of 10 formal workers in 2019, demonstrating that most activities were carried out in small companies (a reality that has not changed much in the last decade, since it maintained the average number of workers of 2009). These companies face problems and conditions similar to other small-scale mining activities, such as the use of rudimentary methods, manual and low-level technology (Massaro and Treije, 2018), poor qualification of the workforce and informality (Zvarivadza and Nhleko, 2018), inefficiency for adding value, low level of productivity, limited use of mechanization, lack of investments, extraction of minerals in unauthorized deposits, among others (Hentschel et al., 2003; Oliveira and Ali, 2011). To soften this situation, companies belonging to the gem process- ing sector need to adopt different actions that help to face these diffi- culties, like the use of sustainability indicators, which serve to monitor the development of their activities and, thus, contribute to the achieve- ment of more sustainable conditions. In literature, it is possible to observe several initiatives to propose general indicators for industries (Azapagic and Perdan, 2000), manu- factures (Lee and Lee, 2014), and micro and small companies (MSC) (Chen et al., 2014). However, due to the specificities of different sectors and organizations, the use of standardized methodologies is not always efficient. According to Chen et al. (2014), there are still few tools easily applicable for MSC to assess sustainability. Therefore, the development of initiatives of proposals of indicators for these companies in specific sectors (Chen et al., 2012; Joung et al., 2013) has been observed. In ad- dition, Ranängen and Lindman (2017) argue that, although mining sustainability is on the global agenda, the criteria to be prioritized de- pend on the regions where it is developed. Based on the above, the scope of this study is defined as the investi- gation of indicators, with the purpose of proposing a framework to as- sess and monitor the sustainability conditions of gemstone processing companies, taking into account their characteristics. Sustainability indicators In the literature, there are different functions and definitions for sustainability indicators, such as: • providing information to decision makers on the global level of sustainability of a system and contributing to the elaboration of strategies in pursuit of this objective (UN, 2007); • providing information to facilitate the understanding and commu- nication of complex systems (Falck and Spangenberg, 2014); • making a problem visible (Dahl, 2012); • assisting in the selection of the best alternative and contributing to the identification of the causes of unsustainability (Callens and Tyteca, 1999); • allowing the elaboration of more sustainable development strate- gies (Azapagic and Perdan, 2000), among others. To Joung et al. (2013), a set of indicators, through the combination of environmental, economic and social indicators, guarantee a holistic view of sustainability, as they assess reality from a larger scale than that of indi- vidual indicators. They can also be used to compare the situation at a given moment and the desired situation (where it is intended to go), showing the extent to which sustainability objectives are being met (Ragas et al., 1995). Unlike other indicators, sustainability indicators are differentiated by the obligation to measure the capacity of a system to adapt to chang- es over a period of time and continue to operate, that is, sustainability indicators must contribute so that a system maintains its state or func- tion over time, and it is therefore essential to consider antecedents that also explain the system’s resilience (Milman and Short, 2008). Sindelar, F.C.W. et al. 426 RBCIAMB | v.56 | n.3 | Sept 2021 | 424-435 - ISSN 2176-9478 Resilience is generally understood as the adaptive capacity of a system (Folke, 2006), being initially considered only from an environ- mental-ecological perspective (Xu et al., 2015). However, considering that impacts are caused by productive activities and human interac- tions, it is also essential to assess resilience in the social dimensions, considering their ability to access critical resources (Langridge et  al., 2006), including water, land, finance, and human skills, and econom- ics, associated with the ability to withstand market shocks and allocate resources efficiently (Perrings, 2006). Initiatives for building sustainability indicators applied to compa- nies were led by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), which seeks to motivate organizations to adopt more sustainable practices through the use of sustainability reports and, thus, contribute to sustainable devel- opment (GRI, 2013). Other proposals for evaluating the performance of companies in reaching these goals are proposed by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD, 2003) and by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (Verfaillie and Bidwell, 2000). Chen et  al. (2014) also highlight that there are a variety of methods and tools available in the literature that contribute to the development of indicators at different levels and dimensions. However, although these proposed sustainability reports are de- veloped for organizations in general, regardless of their size, sector or location, they do not provide a universal framework of indicators that can be used indiscriminately by everyone (Segnestam, 2002), nor they indicate sufficient conditions for sustainable development, as there are no reference values (Callens and Tyteca, 1999), especially for MSC due to the type and amount of information requested. For this reason, it is possible to observe the development of sev- eral initiatives to propose indicators to assess sustainability condi- tions of companies of this size, such as: Ragas et al. (1995) present a proposal for the construction of sustainability indicators applied to production systems, seeking to measure all forms of environmental pressure during the life cycle of a product; Callens and Tyteca (1999) developed a methodology of indicators that allow the assessment of the participation of companies in sustainable development; Azapagic and Perdan (2000) propose a general framework for sustainable de- velopment indicators for the industry; Veleva and Ellenbecker (2001) present a structure and methodology for the use of sustainable pro- duction indicators as a tool to promote greater awareness, measure- ment, and preparation of sustainability reports; Krajnc and Glavic (2003) presented a set of sustainable production indicators to assess a company’s level of sustainability and help define more sustainable options for the future; Azapagic (2004) proposed a comprehensive set of indicators that are specifically relevant and adapted for the mining and minerals industry; Joung et al. (2013) reviewed a set of indicators available to the public and provided a categorization of quantifiable and clearly related indicators to manufacturing; Chen et  al. (2014) presented a holistic sustainability assessment tool for the manufac- ture of MSC, among others. Even so, small companies, especially manufacturing companies, have been challenged to choose which are the best indicators to eval- uate their processes and products, and to interpret these indicators in their decision-making (Chen et al., 2012; Joung et al., 2013). And this has been the reality faced by companies in the gem processing sector, as there is a lack of management of the usefulness of the many pro- posals for indicators and the specificities of the sector. Therefore, this work aims to investigate indicators, with the purpose of proposing a framework to evaluate and monitor the sustainability conditions of gem benefiting companies, given their importance for many countries, as is the case of Brazil. Next, the methodological procedures used to prepare proposals for sustainability indicators applied to the industries that benefit from gems are stated. Methodological procedures This section presents the considerations that guided the develop- ment of the proposed sustainability indicators aimed at companies in the gem processing sector and their empirical verification in a case study company. Considering this objective, the study is classified as exploratory, quantitative, and qualitative. The methodology for defining the proposed indicators was guided based on the steps described by Joung et al. (2013). Thus, sustainabil- ity objectives were defined, indicators were selected, reference values and measurement procedures were defined and, afterward, the data analysis and report elaboration showing the results for the company’s case study were carried out, which can serve as a comparison for other companies in the segment. Specificities and key issues for the development of activities of the gem processing sector in a sustainable context were also considered. These issues were identified through the analysis of previous studies on the sector (Hentschel et al., 2003; IBGM, 2005; Oliveira and Ali, 2011) and the monitoring and analysis of the production process directly in the manufacturing environment. During three years, the researchers made weekly visits and fol- low-ups to the company’s case study in order to understand the functioning of its activities, the changes in the economic scenario, and the solution of the problems they faced. In this company, an inventory of the inputs and outputs of the process was also carried out, based on the analysis of the life cycle of the materials (Callister and Rethwisch, 2013), in order to identify critical points in terms of resource consumption and waste generation, effluents, and emis- sions. However, it is noteworthy that the assessment was restricted to the impacts generated during the production process and the possibility of recycling materials in the process itself, that is, the phases of mining and extraction of gems, oil, and other materials in the phases were not considered prior to their arrival at gem pro- cessing companies, as well as in the later stages of waste disposal and recycling. Contributions to improve sustainability conditions in gemstone-benefiting companies 427 RBCIAMB | v.56 | n.3 | Sept 2021 | 424-435 - ISSN 2176-9478 This step also contributed to the definition of values that need to be minimized (such as consumption of resources and environmental responsibility), as well as those that must be maximized (recovery and recycling of materials), in order to achieve efficiency in the activity (Callens and Tyteca, 1999). This occurs because, initially, for the de- velopment of sustainability metrics, the main aspects that need to be managed and included in the proposal need to be identified (Tanzil and Beloff, 2006). In addition, an interview was conducted with the company’s case study managers, based on a structured questionnaire, which aimed to identify the conditions necessary to achieve the sector’s sustainability conditions. The selection of indicators was carried out taking into consider- ation the observations made from the process inventory and issues highlighted by the managers, as well as the literature review and analy- sis of initiatives related to the construction of sustainability indicators and guidelines discussed in the second section of this article, for indus- tries and manufactures, especially in MSC, or companies associated with the mining sector. Literature review was carried out based on works available especially in the SciELO, ScienceDirect (Elsevier), and Google Scholar databases. For this purpose, keywords were used as an initial search reference (such as: Sustainability indicators, Manufacturing, Industry, Mining Sector, Sustainability indicators, Manufacturing, Industry, Mining Sector), and from them, other relevant works referred to were consulted, following the snowball methodology, with the objective of expanding the scope of research. Given the systemic nature of the theme, in this study, Boolean operators were not used, as there were few works published directly in the area under study and, as new related terms appeared, the searches were expanded. This review was not exhaustive, since not all the works found in the search were analyzed, although it sought to identify the main proposals for indicators applied to companies, in order to support the achievement of the objective of this work. In this context, for the assessment of the sustainability conditions of gem processing companies, a proposal for indicators was devel- oped considering four dimensions of sustainability: environmental, economic, social, and technological. This selection took into account the concept of the Sustainability Tripod (Triple Bottom Line) (envi- ronmental, economic, and social dimensions), proposed by Elkington (1998), widely recommended in the literature, as well as the need to incorporate technologies to meet sustainability goals, as suggested by Joung et  al. (2013). The purpose of this dimension is to assess the ability of companies to introduce technological advances. According to Hentschel et  al. (2003), among the main difficulties of artisanal or small-scale mining activities are the limited use of mechanization and the lack of investment capital. In addition, according to Oliveira and Ali (2011), the low level of technology used in the sector is an obstacle to increasing productivity and income. In addition, it was decided to consider two sustainability attributes in each dimension: productivity and resilience. The first attribute is di- rectly associated with the concept of sustainable production, since, to obtain this quality, it is necessary to improve the productivity of pro- cesses (Porter and Van Der Linde; 1995) through a more efficient use of resources and minimizing the generation of waste, considering that some resources used by the sector are finite (gems and oil). Meanwhile, resilience is associated with the ability of systems to absorb distur- bances, to reorganize themselves during the process of changes and recovery, and to maintain their function, structure, and identity over time (Costanza and Daly, 1992; Folke, 2006; Xu et al., 2015). Other at- tributes were not inserted in order not to make the tool more com- plex and, at the same time, it was understood that if companies were efficient in achieving these two attributes, they would also indirectly achieve other sustainability attributes, such as stability, diversity, secu- rity, among others. Thus, based on the analyzed sustainability indicator proposals, in the reality of companies that benefit gems, and on the dimensions and  at- tributes of sustainability to be considered, sustainability indicators and variables that would compose each indicator were selected and defined with the help of the managers of the company’s case study (Table 1). The proposed indicators were empirically verified with a case study company, through the analysis of documents, including production management documents, monitoring of technical reports, and waste management plans. The project was chosen for convenience and is in the interior of the state of Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil); it can be classified as small, given the number of employees and annual turnover. In ad- dition, the company operates using a typical gem processing process, as occurs in other companies in the sector and in face of difficulties similar to those previously reported. And, considering that each indicator was measured in different units of measurement, in order to be able to group the results and cal- culate a sustainability index, it was necessary to normalize the results, transforming them into the same unit, as highlighted by Nardo et  al. (2005). Therefore, it was chosen to assign weights from 1 to 3 for each variable, in order to show the worst situation (grade 1), an intermediate situation (grade 2), and the best situation to achieve more sustainable conditions (grade 3). To define the parameters related to each weight, studies of the mining sector were consulted (Azapagic, 2004; ANA, 2006; Norgate and Haque, 2012; Strezov et al., 2013; Lodhia and Mar- tin, 2014; Thammaraksa et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2018). Other parame- ters were defined with the help of the company’s case study managers, who have a deeper understanding of the sector’s reality (practitioners) and the context in which the gem processing activities are carried out. The parameters were defined to indicate a bad, intermediate or ideal result for the processing of gems considering the principles of sustain- ability. Table 1 shows the weights and parameters by sustainability vari- ables and indicators. After measuring and normalizing the variables, the indicators were aggregated by arithmetic mean. For example, Equation 1 shows how the ‘resource consumption’ indicator was calculated. Sindelar, F.C.W. et al. 428 RBCIAMB | v.56 | n.3 | Sept 2021 | 424-435 - ISSN 2176-9478 W ei gh ts , p ar am et er s, v ar ia bl es , i nd ic at or s, a tt ri bu te s, d im en si on s of s us ta in ab ili ty Dimension Attribute Indicator Variable Parameters Weight En vi ro nm en ta l ( 25 % ) Pr od uc tiv ity (5 0% ) Consumption of resources (33.3%) Water consumption Up to 50 m3 / ton From 50 to 100 m3 / ton More than 100 m3 / ton 3 2 1 Energy consumption More than 60% renewable 30 to 60% renewable Less than 30% renewable 3 2 1 Fuel consumption Up to 60 l / ton From 60 to 120 l / ton More than 120 l / ton 3 2 1 Material recovery/ recycling (33.3%) Oil recycling More than 60% 30 to 60% Less than 30% 3 2 1 Gem recovery More than 60% 30 to 60% Less than 30% 3 2 1 Environmental liability (33.3%) Total waste generation (sludge) Less than 30% 30 to 60% More than 60% 3 2 1 Production of defective parts Less than 1% Between 1% and 5% More than 5% 3 2 1 Generation of waste without treatment Less than 30% 30 to 60% More than 60% 3 2 1 R es ili en ce (5 0% ) Environmental management (100%) Adoption of environmental management system Yes - No 3 2 1 Adoption of CSR / Sustainability practices Yes - No 3 2 1 Irregularity notifications No - Yes 3 2 1 Ec on om ic (2 5% ) Pr od uc tiv ity (5 0% ) Management and diversification of the activity (50%) Savings from material recovery or recycling of material More than 5% Between 1% and 5% Less than 1% 3 2 1 Waste disposal costs Less than 1% Between 1 and 5% More than 5% 3 2 1 Making investments Yes - No 3 2 1 Commercialization channels 5 or more channels Between 3 to 4 channels Up to 2 channels 3 2 1 R es ili en ce (5 0% ) Adaptability to changes (50%) Development of new products Yes - No 3 2 1 New product revenue More than 5% Between 1 and 5% Less than 1% 3 2 1 Continue … So ci al (2 5% ) Pr od uc tiv ity (5 0% ) Working conditions (50%) Qualification and training of employees Yes - No 3 2 1 Incidence of accidents at work Yes - No 3 2 1 R es ili en ce (5 0% ) Worker satisfaction (50%) Turnover Up to 10% Between 10 and 25% More than 25% 3 2 1 Benefits offered by the company Yes - No 3 2 1 Te ch no lo gi ca l ( 25 % ) Pr od uc tiv ity (5 0% ) Technological Investments (100%) Introduction of technological innovations Yes - No 3 2 1 Adoption of Cleaner Production practices Yes - No 3 2 1 R es ili en ce (5 0% ) Innovation capacity (100%) Participation in R & D Yes - No 3 2 1 Table 1 – Weights, parameters, variables, indicators, attributes, dimensions of sustainability. Contributions to improve sustainability conditions in gemstone-benefiting companies 429 RBCIAMB | v.56 | n.3 | Sept 2021 | 424-435 - ISSN 2176-9478 𝐼𝐼1 = 𝑉𝑉1.1 + 𝑉𝑉1.2 + 𝑉𝑉1.3 3 𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = 𝐴𝐴1+𝐴𝐴2 2 = (𝐼𝐼1 + 𝐼𝐼2 + 𝐼𝐼33 ) + ( 𝐼𝐼4 1 ) 2 𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = 𝐴𝐴1+𝐴𝐴2 2 = (𝐼𝐼51 ) + ( 𝐼𝐼6 1 ) 2 𝐷𝐷𝑆𝑆𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = 𝐴𝐴1+𝐴𝐴2 2 = (𝐼𝐼71 ) + ( 𝐼𝐼8 1 ) 2 𝐷𝐷𝑇𝑇𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸ℎ𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑛𝑛𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = 𝐴𝐴1+𝐴𝐴2 2 = (𝐼𝐼91 ) + ( 𝐼𝐼10 1 ) 2 𝑆𝑆𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑖𝑖𝐸𝐸𝑖𝑖 = 𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸+𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 + 𝐷𝐷𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 + 𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸ℎ𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑛𝑛𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 4 (1) The higher these results for the indicators (closer to 3), the better the company’s performance in pursuit of the objective; and the low- er the values (closer to 1), the greater the distance to be traveled by the company to achieve sustainability conditions. Indicators were aggregated by attributes, and attributes by dimen- sion, considering the same previous criteria. Equations 2, 3, 4, and 5 show how indicators were aggregated by dimension. 𝐼𝐼1 = 𝑉𝑉1.1 + 𝑉𝑉1.2 + 𝑉𝑉1.3 3 𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = 𝐴𝐴1+𝐴𝐴2 2 = (𝐼𝐼1 + 𝐼𝐼2 + 𝐼𝐼33 ) + ( 𝐼𝐼4 1 ) 2 𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = 𝐴𝐴1+𝐴𝐴2 2 = (𝐼𝐼51 ) + ( 𝐼𝐼6 1 ) 2 𝐷𝐷𝑆𝑆𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = 𝐴𝐴1+𝐴𝐴2 2 = (𝐼𝐼71 ) + ( 𝐼𝐼8 1 ) 2 𝐷𝐷𝑇𝑇𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸ℎ𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑛𝑛𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = 𝐴𝐴1+𝐴𝐴2 2 = (𝐼𝐼91 ) + ( 𝐼𝐼10 1 ) 2 𝑆𝑆𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑖𝑖𝐸𝐸𝑖𝑖 = 𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸+𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 + 𝐷𝐷𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 + 𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸ℎ𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑛𝑛𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 4 (2) 𝐼𝐼1 = 𝑉𝑉1.1 + 𝑉𝑉1.2 + 𝑉𝑉1.3 3 𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = 𝐴𝐴1+𝐴𝐴2 2 = (𝐼𝐼1 + 𝐼𝐼2 + 𝐼𝐼33 ) + ( 𝐼𝐼4 1 ) 2 𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = 𝐴𝐴1+𝐴𝐴2 2 = (𝐼𝐼51 ) + ( 𝐼𝐼6 1 ) 2 𝐷𝐷𝑆𝑆𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = 𝐴𝐴1+𝐴𝐴2 2 = (𝐼𝐼71 ) + ( 𝐼𝐼8 1 ) 2 𝐷𝐷𝑇𝑇𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸ℎ𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑛𝑛𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = 𝐴𝐴1+𝐴𝐴2 2 = (𝐼𝐼91 ) + ( 𝐼𝐼10 1 ) 2 𝑆𝑆𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑖𝑖𝐸𝐸𝑖𝑖 = 𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸+𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 + 𝐷𝐷𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 + 𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸ℎ𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑛𝑛𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 4 (3) 𝐼𝐼1 = 𝑉𝑉1.1 + 𝑉𝑉1.2 + 𝑉𝑉1.3 3 𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = 𝐴𝐴1+𝐴𝐴2 2 = (𝐼𝐼1 + 𝐼𝐼2 + 𝐼𝐼33 ) + ( 𝐼𝐼4 1 ) 2 𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = 𝐴𝐴1+𝐴𝐴2 2 = (𝐼𝐼51 ) + ( 𝐼𝐼6 1 ) 2 𝐷𝐷𝑆𝑆𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = 𝐴𝐴1+𝐴𝐴2 2 = (𝐼𝐼71 ) + ( 𝐼𝐼8 1 ) 2 𝐷𝐷𝑇𝑇𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸ℎ𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑛𝑛𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = 𝐴𝐴1+𝐴𝐴2 2 = (𝐼𝐼91 ) + ( 𝐼𝐼10 1 ) 2 𝑆𝑆𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑖𝑖𝐸𝐸𝑖𝑖 = 𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸+𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 + 𝐷𝐷𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 + 𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸ℎ𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑛𝑛𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 4 (4) 𝐼𝐼1 = 𝑉𝑉1.1 + 𝑉𝑉1.2 + 𝑉𝑉1.3 3 𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = 𝐴𝐴1+𝐴𝐴2 2 = (𝐼𝐼1 + 𝐼𝐼2 + 𝐼𝐼33 ) + ( 𝐼𝐼4 1 ) 2 𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = 𝐴𝐴1+𝐴𝐴2 2 = (𝐼𝐼51 ) + ( 𝐼𝐼6 1 ) 2 𝐷𝐷𝑆𝑆𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = 𝐴𝐴1+𝐴𝐴2 2 = (𝐼𝐼71 ) + ( 𝐼𝐼8 1 ) 2 𝐷𝐷𝑇𝑇𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸ℎ𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑛𝑛𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = 𝐴𝐴1+𝐴𝐴2 2 = (𝐼𝐼91 ) + ( 𝐼𝐼10 1 ) 2 𝑆𝑆𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑖𝑖𝐸𝐸𝑖𝑖 = 𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸+𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 + 𝐷𝐷𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 + 𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸ℎ𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑛𝑛𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 4 (5) Finally, it was possible to calculate the level of sustainability that indicates the current condition of the company that collaborates in this study in relation to the search for sustainability. This index was obtained from the aggregation of the evaluations by dimension, with each dimension receiving the same weight in the calculation of the index (Equation 6). 𝐼𝐼1 = 𝑉𝑉1.1 + 𝑉𝑉1.2 + 𝑉𝑉1.3 3 𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = 𝐴𝐴1+𝐴𝐴2 2 = (𝐼𝐼1 + 𝐼𝐼2 + 𝐼𝐼33 ) + ( 𝐼𝐼4 1 ) 2 𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = 𝐴𝐴1+𝐴𝐴2 2 = (𝐼𝐼51 ) + ( 𝐼𝐼6 1 ) 2 𝐷𝐷𝑆𝑆𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = 𝐴𝐴1+𝐴𝐴2 2 = (𝐼𝐼71 ) + ( 𝐼𝐼8 1 ) 2 𝐷𝐷𝑇𝑇𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸ℎ𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑛𝑛𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = 𝐴𝐴1+𝐴𝐴2 2 = (𝐼𝐼91 ) + ( 𝐼𝐼10 1 ) 2 𝑆𝑆𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑖𝑖𝐸𝐸𝑖𝑖 = 𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸+𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 + 𝐷𝐷𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 + 𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸ℎ𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑛𝑛𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 4 (6) The results found in the company’s case study in relation to the pro- posed sustainability indicators are described in the following sections. Results and Discussion This section first describes, briefly, the characteristics of the gem pro- cessing process. Next, the table of sustainability indicators suggested for the companies in the sector is presented, and afterward the results of the assessment of the sustainability conditions of the case study company are demonstrated. Finally, some general discussions are presented. Gem benefiting process The typical gem processing process consists of several stages (cut- ting, turning, sanding, polishing, finishing, among others), some of which are marked by manual processes, while others are characterized by semi-automatic or automatic processes, varying according to the type of gem and the final product to be obtained, with the average time required for the development of this process being approximately 30 to 45 days. In these stages, different types of resources are used, especially nat- ural gems and marine diesel oil, and different types of solid and liquid residues are generated, as shown in the inventory of inputs and outputs of the process (Figure 1). Given this scenario, companies in the sector need to find alternatives to minimize the use of inputs and the generation of waste, with the aim of making the activity more efficient and sustainable. Therefore, the use of a framework of sustainability indicators can be useful. Proposed sustainability indicators The indicator table for gem benefiting companies was developed according to the sustainability objectives (Joung et  al., 2013) and the characteristics of the activity and is based on four dimensions (envi- ronmental, economic, social, and technological) and two sustainabil- ity attributes (productivity and resilience), consisting of 10 indicators (quantitative and qualitative) and 24 variables (Figure 2). The environmental dimension seeks to portray the impact that the productive activity can cause on the environment, as well as to identify whether production has been developed in an envi- ronmentally correct context. It consists of four indicators and 11 variables. The indicators associated with the productivity attribute (consumption of natural resources, the recovery and recycling of materials, and the environmental liability resulting from the bene- ficiation process) are traditional indicators, considered in evalua- tions of the life cycle of a product, as they seek to measure the main resources used and the environmental impacts resulting from the production process (Lee and Lee, 2014). For  parameter purpos- es, the best (most sustainable) situation will be one in which the consumption of materials and the environmental liability are as low as possible per quantity of gems processed; at the same time that the reuse of materials is maximized. The resilience of compa- nies in this dimension is expressed by the indicator called environ- mental management, which can be guaranteed with the adoption of environmental management systems and sustainable practices. In  addition, companies must comply with rules and legislation to mitigate their environmental impact and thus avoid notifications of irregularities. Although this last issue seems simple to meet, in practice it is not due to the informality of the sector, the inadequate working conditions, or the acquisition of gems from unauthorized deposits (Azapagic and Perdan, 2000; Hentschel et  al., 2003; Aza- pagic, 2004). The economic dimension is formed by two indicators and six vari- ables. The first indicator, associated with the productivity attribute, aims to analyze the management and diversification of the activity, through the analysis of the economy resulting from the reduction and reuse of materials, the costs associated with the disposal of waste, the investment, and the dependence on relation to the commercialization channels. In this case, companies would achieve more sustainable conditions if the values associated with the first and third variables Sindelar, F.C.W. et al. 430 RBCIAMB | v.56 | n.3 | Sept 2021 | 424-435 - ISSN 2176-9478 Figure 1 – Inventory of inputs and outputs of the gemstone benefiting process. 25 Inputs Steps Outputs Gems 1. Selection of the gem Gems Gems, electricity, marine diesel oil, diamond saws 2. Cutting in sheets Gemstones cut into plates + sludge + shards of gemstones + noise Gems, electricity, marine diesel oil, diamond saws 3. Cutting in fillets Gems in processing + sludge + broken pieces of gems + noise Gems, electricity, marine diesel oil, diamond drills 4. Preform Cutting Gems in processing + sludge + broken pieces of gems + noise Gems, electricity, marine diesel oil, diamond wheel 5. Turning / Shaping Gems in processing + sludge + broken pieces of gems + noise Electric power, water, emery powder, gems 6. Sanding Benefiting gems + water with impurities + gem powder + noise Electric power, water, emery powder, tripod, gems 7. Polishing Benefiting gems + water with impurities + dust of gem powder + noise Electric power, water, water- soluble oil, gems, diamond drills 8. Drilling Benefited gems + water + water-soluble oil + gem powder Produced pieces (gems) 9. Classification Benefited gems + pieces with defects (gems) Finishing materials (lines, glues, metals, etc.) + gems 10. Lasting Benefited gems + finishing material (lines, glues, metals, among others) are maximized and the values for the second and fourth variables have been minimized. The second indicator of this dimension, linked to the resilience attribute, the company’s ability to adapt to chang- es in the market, assesses the capacity to develop new products and the revenue associated with them in relation to the total invoiced by the company. As the gem processing market produces products con- sidered superfluous, not essential for the survival of human beings, it is very susceptible to market changes; therefore, companies must always be in search of development of new attractions for consum- ers, i.e., the best performance will be obtained when these values are maximized. In addition, no indicator is included to measure the ac- tual billing, present in other proposals, as it was considered vital that the company needs to make a profit in order to continue its activities. Social dimension consists of two indicators and six variables. The productivity attribute is expressed by the working conditions indi- cator, formed by two variables that demonstrate the accomplishment of qualifications and training of employees and the number of incidents of work accidents, as it is expected that no company represents work risks (Joung et  al., 2013). The indicator associated with the resilience attribute seeks to measure the satisfaction of workers through the anal- ysis of the turnover index and the benefits offered by companies as a means of encouraging employees to remain in the activity, in addition to those required by the legislation in the country. Indicators that could measure the company’s impact on the local community were not in- cluded in the proposal, as suggested by Azapagic and Perdan (2000) and Joung et  al. (2013), given the difficulties faced by small compa- Contributions to improve sustainability conditions in gemstone-benefiting companies 431 RBCIAMB | v.56 | n.3 | Sept 2021 | 424-435 - ISSN 2176-9478 nies, they will hardly be able to develop specific actions directed to the population in their surroundings, and their positive impact on society will be through the generation of jobs, income, and the respect for the environment and legislation. The technological dimension is composed of two indicators and three variables. The productivity attribute is expressed by the technological investment indicator, which aims to inform whether companies are introducing technological innovations and Cleaner Production practices. The innovation capacity indicator, associat- ed with the resilience attribute, seeks to identify whether compa- nies participate in research and development projects or in sectoral projects, whose objective is to develop actions that benefit the sec- tor. The performance of the indicators of this dimension are funda- mental to guarantee the increase of the efficiency of the productive processes, therefore, the better the performance of these indicators, the more sustainable the systems tend to be (Oliveira and Ali, 2011; Joung et al., 2013). In addition, although the indicators have been classified by sus- tainability dimension, their improvement tends to provide positive results over the other dimensions as well, as highlighted by Tanzil and Beloff (2006), causing an overflow effect. In other words, the better per- formance of environmental indicators guarantees a reduction in the costs of production and treatment of waste in order to contribute to economic performance as well. Thus, the introduction of investment in technologies can contribute, for example, to a more efficient use of resources, bringing positive impacts on the environmental, economic, and social dimensions. Assessment of the sustainability conditions case study company In 2014, the case study company benefited an average of four tons of gems per month; the production consisted of jewelry and decorative items, which were destined for both the domestic and foreign markets. In environmental terms, associated with the productivity attri- bute, it was found that the company used a significant amount of non-renewable materials (in particular gems and marine diesel oil) and reused a reduced volume of materials (approximately 45% of the oil and 8% of the total volume of gem waste). As a result, due to the low percentage of  finished product, the benefiting process generated a significant volume of sludge, which, due to its charac- teristics, is classified by the Brazilian legislation as hazardous and cannot be disposed anywhere in the environment, which represents a high environmental liability. In the period analyzed, the company generated approximately 20.4 tons of sludge, representing 42.5% of the total volume of processed gems. Although this sludge was treated through the washing process, which partially recovered the oil, and which was reused in the pro- duction process, approximately 80% of the total volume was stored in barrels, while waiting for a more efficient treatment, so as not to be sent to an industrial landfill. Figure 2. Proposed indicators for assessing sustainability conditions in companies in the gem processing sector, classified by attributes and dimensions. 26 Figure 2. Proposed indicators for assessing sustainability conditions in companies in the gem processing sector, classified by attributes and dimensions. Sindelar, F.C.W. et al. 432 RBCIAMB | v.56 | n.3 | Sept 2021 | 424-435 - ISSN 2176-9478 In addition, the environmental management indicator, related to the resilience attribute, demonstrated that the company, despite adopt- ing practices that contribute to sustainability, such as the use of tech- niques aimed at Cleaner Production (reuse of waste) and development of a new product from the residue formed by gem powder, and not having committed irregularities, it did not adopt any environmental management system, due to the reduced availability of resources and manpower, as highlighted in other studies (Hentschel et al., 2003; Aza- pagic, 2004; IBGM, 2005). The economic dimension is formed by two indicators that seek to measure the company’s ability to manage and diversify its activi- ty (productivity attribute), and to adapt to changes that may occur in the market (resilience attribute). Regarding the performance of these indicators, it was observed that although the company has made in- vestments in the productive sector, contributing to the improvement of efficiency, there was no cost with waste disposal, as it accumulated the waste in vats in the company’s yard while developing techniques for its treatment, having used several channels for the commercializa- tion of its products (wholesale, retail, website, at fairs, among others). However, it saved only 2% by reusing materials, as well as it had a small increase in revenue due to the development of new products with reuse of materials, showing that it still needs to adopt measures to improve its performance in search of sustainability, especially associated to waste reuse and increased billing with the commercialization of new prod- ucts. On the other hand, it is observed that if the company improves the environmental indicators it will also be contributing to the results of the economic dimension, demonstrating the interrelationship be- tween them. The social dimension was assessed by the indicators: working con- ditions (productivity attribute) and employee satisfaction (resilience attribute). As the analyzed company is characterized as small, its in- volvement with the community occurs through the generation of jobs and income, while not polluting the environment, respecting the legis- lation applied to the sector. The indicators associated with this dimen- sion performed well, as the company provided training and qualifica- tions to its employees and there was no incidence of work accidents, although the company needs to adopt measures to reduce employee turnover and offer benefits to its employees, contributing for their bet- ter quality of life. On the other hand, the company’s performance in view of the technological dimension was adequate to achieve the conditions of sustainability, as suggested by the literature (Oliveira and Ali, 2011; Joung et  al., 2013), the company has sought to introduce technological innovations in the productive process, through automatic faceting machine, and cleaner production practices, aimed at reusing materials and making 5S, in addition to par- ticipating in research and development projects, developed by a university located in the region and representative agencies of the sector in the state, which aim to make better use of resources and reduce the generation of waste resulting from productive activity (Figure 3). These indicators were also aggregated by attribute so that it was possible to obtain an index by dimension (Figure 4) and a general in- dex of sustainability. The environmental sustainability index for the collaborating company was 2.25. The indicator that most contributed to this result was the consumption of materials (2.67), since, when com- pared to other industries, the company uses a reduced volume of water per volume benefited and, in terms of energy, it only con- sumes electricity from renewable sources. The performance of the environmental passive indicator (2.33) was also satisfactory, as well as the environmental management indicator of the activity (2.33), since the company did not allocate any waste to industrial landfills during data collection and has adopted practices favorable to sus- tainability and received no notification of irregularity. On the other hand, the indicator that contributed less to this indicator was the reuse and recycling of materials (1.50). The economic sustainability index obtained a result equal to 2.38. In this dimension, the activity management and diversification in- dicator (2.38) performed well, since the company had no expenses with the disposal of waste, made investments in the productive sector and used several marketing channels to place its products. The adapt- ability to changes indicator, however, needs to be improved (2.00), as, despite the company developing new products to meet customer demand and seeking to reuse materials, the revenue from this devel- opment is still insignificant. The sustainability index for the social dimension was 2.25. While the working conditions indicator got the best score, since the company trains employees and no accidents at work were recorded, the employee satisfaction indicator underperformed, provided the turnover rate is not only low, but it does not offer any benefits to its employees. The technological dimension of sustainability index was 3.00, that is, it presented the best score of all indicators. This result is due to the investments in innovation that the company has made, as well as Figure 3 – Diagram of sustainability by indicator. 28 Figure 3 – Diagram of sustainability by indicator. Figure 4 – Assessment of sustainability conditions by dimension. Contributions to improve sustainability conditions in gemstone-benefiting companies 433 RBCIAMB | v.56 | n.3 | Sept 2021 | 424-435 - ISSN 2176-9478 Figure 4 – Assessment of sustainability conditions by dimension. 28 Figure 3 – Diagram of sustainability by indicator. Figure 4 – Assessment of sustainability conditions by dimension. the adoption of Cleaner Production practices aiming at increasing pro- ductive efficiency and its involvement with research and development projects and sectorial entities. And, finally, the company’s sustainability index of 2.47 was also measured, demonstrating that the company has managed to achieve a satisfactory performance in the search for sustainability conditions. However, it is recommended that the company seeks to develop actions to improve, mainly, the performance of the variables associated with the environmental and social dimensions. In addition, considering the relationships between the dimensions of sustainability, it is evident that, by improving the performance of one dimension, one will also be contributing to the performance of other dimensions. This was an initial exercise for the assessment of sustainability con- ditions in gemstone benefiting companies; the indicators have been validated from a case study and generalizations cannot be made from the results found. Discussions Along the development of this work, three aspects become evident. First, identifying evidence about the production process. Although the activities developed by the mining sector are important for the econ- omy, the literature presents few studies associated with the gem pro- cessing sector. The inventory of inputs and outputs of the gem process- ing process, presents detailed information on the main critical points. It highlights the aspects that need to be minimized during the process of gem processing and those that must be maximized to achieve ef- ficiency in the perspective of sustainability, as highlighted by Callens and Tyteca (1999). In particular, it was identified that benefiting com- panies need to minimize the use of inputs (especially gems and diesel oil) and the generation of waste and maximize the reuse of gems and improve their productivity to become more efficient and sustainable. The second contribution of the study is related to the proposition of the framework of sustainability indicators, composed of indicators linked to the environmental, economic, social, and technological di- mensions, and based on the attributes of productivity and resilience for the development of activities in this sector. The proposal is advanta- geous for companies because it followed the recommendation of works widely recognized in the literature, it considered the reality in which they are inserted and counted on the participation of practitioners involved in the activity (company managers of the case study), thus contributing with small companies that have limited resources in terms of time and personnel (Dahl, 2012; Falck and Spangenberg, 2014) and have more difficulties in using more generic indicators for all types of industry, as for example proposed by GRI (2013). However, despite the advantages associated with the adoption of the proposal, it is worth noting that it may have limitations, since this is a simplified framework of indicators that will not be able to measure everything that happens in the company, according to a characteristic identified by Bossel (1999), neither guarantees its sustainability (Dahl, 2012). This is an initial proposal that can be adjusted according to the emergence of new needs and demands in the sector. For this reason, the list of indicators cannot be considered exhaustive and rigid (fixed). Also, another obstacle that companies in the sector may face in adopting the proposal is associated with the collection of information and monitoring of the indicators due to difficulties with the workforce, which is generally unskilled, with a low level of education and is often reduced (the same person has several functions within the company) (Hentschel et al., 2003), it can also present high turnover, directly re- lated to the regional economic performance (employees easily change jobs when other sectors pay better). The third contribution of the study is associated with its applicability. The empirical verification of the pro- posal in the case study company presents an overview (by indicator, dimension, and general sustainability index) objectively evidencing the main difficulties faced. Thus, the practical implication of this study is that company managers can use the results as an instrument for eval- uating and monitoring their activities in search of a more sustainable context. The results can also be used to disclosure reports to stakehold- ers, so as to communicate the actions developed by the company. Furthermore, the proposal can also be used by companies that are part of the sector, for the purpose of comparison among them; as well as it can be useful for carrying out a general evaluation of the sector. Consequently, this information could be used as a subsidy of governmental or non-governmental organizations for the develop- ment of policies aimed at the sector that presents numerous difficul- ties (Hentschel et al., 2003). Conclusions This study provided information about the production process of gemstone benefiting; an important economic activity for many countries, especially in Brazil, and proposed a framework of sus- tainability indicators to assess and monitor the sustainability con- ditions of small companies. The main advantage of the proposal is that it was developed taking into consideration the reality and the Sindelar, F.C.W. et al. 434 RBCIAMB | v.56 | n.3 | Sept 2021 | 424-435 - ISSN 2176-9478 specificities of the sector and it had the involvement of stakeholders for the selection of variables, in addition to being applied in a case study company. Thus,  the indicators express the main limitations that this segment faces and expose opportunities for improvements to be implemented along the process to achieve better sustainability conditions. It is suggested as a future work to conduct a survey to confirm the parameters. Obtaining these results will contribute to the review of the reference parameters for the measured variables and, if neces- sary, to make changes to the initial proposal. The proposed indica- tors applied to other companies in the sector will allow a comparison among them and a general assessment of the sector. Monitoring these indicators will also contribute to verifying whether the companies are managing to develop their activities under more sustainable condi- tions and whether the proposed tool favors or not the improvement of the productive process. Contribution of authors: Sindelar, F.C.W.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data curation, Writing — original draft. Barden, J.E.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Supervision. Stulp, S.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Supervision. References Agência Nacional de Águas (ANA). A gestão dos recursos hídricos e a mineração. Brasília: ANA, 2006 (Accessed December 4, 2018) at: http://www. terrabrasilis.org.br/ecotecadigital/pdf/a-gestao-dos-recursos-hidricos-e-a- mineracao.pdf. Azapagic, A., 2004. Developing a framework for sustainable development indicators for the mining and minerals industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 12, (6), 639-662. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959- 6526(03)00075-1. Azapagic, A.; Perdan, S., 2000. Indicators of sustainable development for industry: a General Framework. Institution of Chemical Engineers. Trans IChemE, v. 78, (4), 243-261. https://doi.org/10.1205/095758200530763. Barreto, S.B.; Bittar, S.M.B., 2010. The gemstone deposits of Brazil: occurrences, production and economic impact. Boletín de la Sociedad Geológica Mexicana, v. 62, (1), 123-140. Bossel, H., 1999. Indicators for Sustainable Development: Theory, Method, Applications - A Report to the Balaton Group. Canada: International Institute for Sustainable Development (Accessed April 8, 2014) at: https://www.iisd. org/system/files/publications/balatonreport.pdf. Brasil. Ministério do Trabalho (MTE). 2021. Relação Anual de Informações Sociais (Accessed January 23, 2021) at: http://bi.mte.gov.br/bgcaged/login.php. Callens, I.; Tyteca, D., 1999. Towards indicators of sustainable development for firms: A productive efficiency perspective. Ecological Economics, v. 28, (1), 41-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00035-4. Callister, W.D.; Rethwisch, J.D.G., 2013. Ciência e engenharia de materiais: uma introdução. 8. ed. LTC, Rio de Janeiro. Chen, D.; Heyer, S.; Seliger, G.; Kjellberg, T., 2012. Integrating sustainability within the factory planning process. CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology, v. 61, (1), 463-466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2012.03.067. Chen, D.; Thiede, S.; Schudeleit, T.; Herrmann, C., 2014. A holistic and rapid sustainability assessment tool for manufacturing SMEs. CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology, v. 63, (1), 437-440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cirp.2014.03.113. Chen, W.; Geng, Y.; Hong, J.; Dong, H.; Cui, X.; Sun, M.; Zhang, Q., 2018. Life cycle assessment of gold production in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, (179), 143-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.114. COMEX STAT. Exportações e Importações Municípios. 2021 (Accessed January 23, 2012) at: http://comexstat.mdic.gov.br/pt/municipio. Costanza, R.; Daly, H.E., 1992. Natural Capital and Sustainable Development. Conservation Biology, v. 6, (1), 37-46. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523- 1739.1992.610037.x. Dahl, A.L., 2012. Achievements and gaps in indicators for sustainability. Ecological Indicators, v. 17, 14-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolind.2011.04.032. Elkington, J., 1998. Accounting for the Triple Bottom Line. Measuring Business Excellence, v. 2, (3), 8-22. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb025539. Falck, W.E.; Spangenberg, J.H., 2014. Selection of social demand-based indicators: EO-based indicators for mining. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 84, 193-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.02.021. Folke, C., 2006. Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social- ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, v. 16, (3), 253-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), 2013. G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Amsterdam (Accessed July 20, 2018) at: https://www.globalreporting.org. Hentschel, T.; Hruschka, F.; Priester, M., 2003. Artisanal and Small-Scale: Challenges and Opportunities. London: World Business Council for Sustainable Development (Accessed July 20, 2018) at: http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/9268IIED.pdf. Instituto Brasileiro de Gemas e Metais Preciosos (IBGM), 2005. Políticas e Ações para a Cadeia Produtiva de Gemas e Joias. Brisa, Brasília (Accessed January 15, 2015) at: http://www.ibgm.com.br/admin/_upload/biblioteca/ documento/131-politicaseacoesparaacadeiaprodutivadegemasejoias.pdf. Joung, C.B.; Carrell, J.; Sarkar, P.; Feng, S.C., 2013. Categorization of indicators for sustainable manufacturing. Ecological Indicators, v. 24, 148-157. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.05.030. http://www.terrabrasilis.org.br/ecotecadigital/pdf/a-gestao-dos-recursos-hidricos-e-a-mineracao.pdf http://www.terrabrasilis.org.br/ecotecadigital/pdf/a-gestao-dos-recursos-hidricos-e-a-mineracao.pdf http://www.terrabrasilis.org.br/ecotecadigital/pdf/a-gestao-dos-recursos-hidricos-e-a-mineracao.pdf https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(03)00075-1 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(03)00075-1 https://doi.org/10.1205/095758200530763 https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/balatonreport.pdf https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/balatonreport.pdf http://bi.mte.gov.br/bgcaged/login.php https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00035-4 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2012.03.067 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2014.03.113 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2014.03.113 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.114 http://comexstat.mdic.gov.br/pt/municipio https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1992.610037.x https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1992.610037.x https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.04.032 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.04.032 https://doi.org/10.1108/eb025539 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.02.021 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002 https://www.globalreporting.org http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/9268IIED.pdf http://www.ibgm.com.br/admin/_upload/biblioteca/documento/131-politicaseacoesparaacadeiaprodutivadegemasejoias.pdf http://www.ibgm.com.br/admin/_upload/biblioteca/documento/131-politicaseacoesparaacadeiaprodutivadegemasejoias.pdf https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.05.030 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.05.030 Contributions to improve sustainability conditions in gemstone-benefiting companies 435 RBCIAMB | v.56 | n.3 | Sept 2021 | 424-435 - ISSN 2176-9478 Krajnc, D.; Glavic, P., 2003. Indicators of sustainable production Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, v. 5, 279-288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-003-0221-z. Langridge, R.; Christian-Smith, J.; Lohse, K.A., 2006. Access and resilience: analyzing the construction of social resilience to the threat of water scarcity. Ecology and Society, v. 11, (2), 18 (Accessed January 23, 2021) at: https:// digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1030&context=unf_research. Lee, J.Y.; Lee, Y.T., 2014. A framework for a research inventory of sustainability assessment in manufacturing. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 79, 207-218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.004. Lodhia, S.; Martin, N., 2014. Corporate Sustainability Indicators: an Australian Mining Case Study. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 84, 107-115. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.050. Massaro, L.; Theije, M., 2018. Understanding small-scale gold mining practices: An anthropological study on technological innovation in the Vale do Rio Peixoto. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 204, 618-635. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.153. Milman, A.; Short, A., 2008. Incorporating resilience into sustainability indicators: An example for the urban water sector. Global Environmental Change, v. 18, (4), 758-767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.08.002. Nardo, M.; Saltelli, A.; Saisana, M., 2005. Tools for Composite Indicators Building. European Communities (Accessed July 20, 2018) at: http://book- shop.europa.eu/ro/tools-for-composite-indicators-building-pbLBNA21682/ downloads/LB-NA-21682-EN-C/LBNA21682ENC_002.pdf;pgid=y8dIS7GU- WMdSR0EAlMEUUsWb0000mjXEX3gJ;sid=V5APuXUgEqAPHSey9TaR- HhcFUEMJatfjK8A=?FileName=LBNA21682ENC_002.pdf&SKU=LB- NA21682ENC_PDF&CatalogueNumber=LB-NA-21682-EN-C. Norgate, T.; Haque, N., 2012. Using life cycle assessment to evaluate some environmental impacts of gold production. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 29-30, 53-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.01.042. Oliveira, J.A.P.; Ali, S.H., 2011. Gemstone mining as a development cluster: A study of Brazil’s emerald mines. Resources Policy, v. 36, (2), 132-141. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2010.10.002. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), 2003. OECD Environmental Indicators: development, measurement and use (Accessed July 20, 2018) at: http://www.oecd.org/environment/indicators- modelling-outlooks/24993546.pdf. Perrings, C., 2006. Resilience and sustainable development. Environment and Development Economics, v. 11, (4), 417-427. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S1355770X06003020. Porter, M.E.; Van Der Linde, C., 1995. Green and Competitive: Ending the Stalemate. Harvard Business Review (Accessed January 15, 2018) at: https:// hbr.org/1995/09/green-and-competitive-ending-the-stalemate. Ragas, A.M.J.; Knapen, M.J.; van de Heuvel, P.J.M.; Eijkenboom, R.G.F.T.M.; Buise, C.L.; van de Laar, B.J., 1995. Towards a sustainability indicator for production systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 3, 123-129. https://doi. org/10.1016/0959-6526(95)00064-L. Ranängen, H.; Lindman, A., 2017. A path towards sustainability for the Nordic mining industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 151, 43-52. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.047. Segnestam, L., 2002. Indicators of Environment and Sustainable Development: Theories and Practical Experience. The World Bank (Accessed July 20, 2018) at: http://siteresources. worldbank.org/INTEEI/936217-1115801208804/20486265/ IndicatorsofEnvironmentandSustainableDevelopment2003.pdf. Strezov, V.; Evans, A.; Evans, T., 2013. Defining sustainability indicators of iron and steel production. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 51, 66-70. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.01.016. Tanzil, D.; Beloff, B.R., 2006. Assessing Impacts: Overview on Sustainability Indicators and Metrics. Environmental Quality Management, v. 15, (4), 41-56. https://doi.org/10.1002/tqem.20101. Thammaraksa, C.; Wattanawan, A.; Prapaspongsa, T., 2017. Corporate environmental assessment of a large jewelry company: From a life cycle assessment to green industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 164, 485-494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.220. United Nations (UN) 2007. Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies. 3. ed. UN, New York (Accessed July 20, 2018) at: http:// www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/guidelines.pdf. United Nations (UN) 2016. Sustainable Development Goals. UN, New York (Accessed July 20, 2018) at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/ intergovernmental/index.php?menu=230. Veleva, V.; Ellenbecker, M., 2001. Indicators of sustainable production: framework and methodology. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 9, (6), 519-549. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(01)00010-5. Verfaillie, H.A.; Bidwell, R., 2000. Measuring Eco-efficiency: A guide to reporting company performance. WBCSD Geneva (Accessed July 20, 2018) at: http://www.bcsd.org.tw/sites/default/files/node/domain_tool/110. file.128.pdf. Xu, L.; Marinova, D.; Guo, X., 2015. Resilience thinking: a renewed system approach for sustainability Science. Sustain Sci, v. 10, 123-138. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11625-014-0274-4. Zvarivadza, T.; Nhleko, A.S., 2018. Resolving artisanal and small-scale mining challenges: Moving from conflict to cooperation for sustainability in mine planning. Resource Policy, v. 56, 78-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. resourpol.2017.12.003. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-003-0221-z https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1030&context=unf_research https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1030&context=unf_research https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.050 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.050 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.153 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.153 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.08.002 http://bookshop.europa.eu/ro/tools-for-composite-indicators-building-pbLBNA21682/downloads/LB-NA-21682-EN-C/LBNA21682ENC_002.pdf;pgid=y8dIS7GUWMdSR0EAlMEUUsWb0000mjXEX3gJ;sid=V5APuXUgEqAPHSey9TaRHhcFUEMJatfjK8A=?FileName=LBNA21682ENC_002.pdf&SKU=LBNA21682ENC_PDF&CatalogueNumber=LB-NA-21682-EN-C http://bookshop.europa.eu/ro/tools-for-composite-indicators-building-pbLBNA21682/downloads/LB-NA-21682-EN-C/LBNA21682ENC_002.pdf;pgid=y8dIS7GUWMdSR0EAlMEUUsWb0000mjXEX3gJ;sid=V5APuXUgEqAPHSey9TaRHhcFUEMJatfjK8A=?FileName=LBNA21682ENC_002.pdf&SKU=LBNA21682ENC_PDF&CatalogueNumber=LB-NA-21682-EN-C http://bookshop.europa.eu/ro/tools-for-composite-indicators-building-pbLBNA21682/downloads/LB-NA-21682-EN-C/LBNA21682ENC_002.pdf;pgid=y8dIS7GUWMdSR0EAlMEUUsWb0000mjXEX3gJ;sid=V5APuXUgEqAPHSey9TaRHhcFUEMJatfjK8A=?FileName=LBNA21682ENC_002.pdf&SKU=LBNA21682ENC_PDF&CatalogueNumber=LB-NA-21682-EN-C http://bookshop.europa.eu/ro/tools-for-composite-indicators-building-pbLBNA21682/downloads/LB-NA-21682-EN-C/LBNA21682ENC_002.pdf;pgid=y8dIS7GUWMdSR0EAlMEUUsWb0000mjXEX3gJ;sid=V5APuXUgEqAPHSey9TaRHhcFUEMJatfjK8A=?FileName=LBNA21682ENC_002.pdf&SKU=LBNA21682ENC_PDF&CatalogueNumber=LB-NA-21682-EN-C http://bookshop.europa.eu/ro/tools-for-composite-indicators-building-pbLBNA21682/downloads/LB-NA-21682-EN-C/LBNA21682ENC_002.pdf;pgid=y8dIS7GUWMdSR0EAlMEUUsWb0000mjXEX3gJ;sid=V5APuXUgEqAPHSey9TaRHhcFUEMJatfjK8A=?FileName=LBNA21682ENC_002.pdf&SKU=LBNA21682ENC_PDF&CatalogueNumber=LB-NA-21682-EN-C http://bookshop.europa.eu/ro/tools-for-composite-indicators-building-pbLBNA21682/downloads/LB-NA-21682-EN-C/LBNA21682ENC_002.pdf;pgid=y8dIS7GUWMdSR0EAlMEUUsWb0000mjXEX3gJ;sid=V5APuXUgEqAPHSey9TaRHhcFUEMJatfjK8A=?FileName=LBNA21682ENC_002.pdf&SKU=LBNA21682ENC_PDF&CatalogueNumber=LB-NA-21682-EN-C https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.01.042 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2010.10.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2010.10.002 http://www.oecd.org/environment/indicators-modelling-outlooks/24993546.pdf http://www.oecd.org/environment/indicators-modelling-outlooks/24993546.pdf https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X06003020 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X06003020 https://hbr.org/1995/09/green-and-competitive-ending-the-stalemate https://hbr.org/1995/09/green-and-competitive-ending-the-stalemate https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-6526(95)00064-L https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-6526(95)00064-L https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.047 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.047 http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEEI/936217-1115801208804/20486265/IndicatorsofEnvironmentandSustainableDevelopment2003.pdf http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEEI/936217-1115801208804/20486265/IndicatorsofEnvironmentandSustainableDevelopment2003.pdf http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEEI/936217-1115801208804/20486265/IndicatorsofEnvironmentandSustainableDevelopment2003.pdf https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.01.016 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.01.016 https://doi.org/10.1002/tqem.20101 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.220 http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/guidelines.pdf http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/guidelines.pdf https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/intergovernmental/index.php?menu=230 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/intergovernmental/index.php?menu=230 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(01)00010-5 http://www.bcsd.org.tw/sites/default/files/node/domain_tool/110.file.128.pdf http://www.bcsd.org.tw/sites/default/files/node/domain_tool/110.file.128.pdf https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-014-0274-4 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-014-0274-4 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2017.12.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2017.12.003