A Set of Sustainability Indicators for Brazilian Small and Medium-Sized Non-Alcoholic Beverage Industries

1. Introduction

The industrial beverage sector plays a multifaceted role in economic, social, and environmental dimensions, presenting both positive contributions and significant challenges. In Brazil, from an economic perspective, this industrial sector contributes positively to GDP, job creation, and trade balance improvement through exports, among other factors [1]. Socially, both in Brazil and other countries, it generates positive impacts such as income generation and quality-of-life improvements through Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) programmes [2], but also negative impacts, including health issues (obesity and chronic diseases) stemming from excessive consumption of sugary and alcoholic beverages [3]. Environmentally, the beverage industry – irrespective of country – has negative impacts due to intensive consumption of natural resources (e.g., water and energy) as well as waste generation [4]. However, while large corporations have advanced in adopting sustainable practices, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in this sector still lack standardised indicators that account for their operational and financial specificities [5].

Beverage industries, particularly SMEs, face mounting pressure to adopt sustainable practices due to environmental concerns, regulatory requirements, and consumer demands. In this context, multiple studies discuss drivers of sustainability in beverage SMEs. Natalie et al. (2024) [6] highlight green process innovation as a strategy to enhance sustainable performance. Mwanaumo and Mwanza (2024) [7] argue that financial availability, leadership commitment, and employee engagement with environmental issues are critical determinants for sectoral sustainability. Furthermore, Tyler et al. (2023) [8] examine global appeals for emission reductions and regulatory pressures on the beverage industry.

Despite these drivers, several barriers hinder the adoption of sustainable practices in beverage SMEs. Knowledge and information-sharing gaps pose significant obstacles, as many SMEs lack awareness of sustainability concepts and practices [9]. Financial constraints, inadequate technological resources, and low employee involvement in environmental mitigation projects further exacerbate these challenges [8]. External barriers, such as supplier integration difficulties and commodity price volatility, also complicate implementation [7].

Adopting a structured management model is essential for achieving sustainability in beverage SMEs, particularly through indicators that measure and improve sustainable performance [10]. These indicators enable the identification of critical success factors and the establishment of best-practice benchmarks, allowing SMEs to enhance their environmental, social, and economic performance [10]. Moreover, systemic sustainability management tools integrating all three dimensions empower organisations – including SMEs – to manage and improve their sustainability outcomes [5].

Thus, sustainability indicators play a pivotal role in assessing sectoral performance by providing measurable targets to evaluate progress toward sustainable development. Integrating environmental, social, and economic indicators into a comprehensive framework remains a key challenge for beverage SMEs. Few studies have developed sustainability indicators that systemically capture all three dimensions [11]. Consequently, there is no standardised set of indicators holistically addressing environmental, social, and economic sustainability for SMEs in the non-alcoholic beverage sector.

Within this context, this study aims to select a tailored set of sustainability indicators for small and medium-sized non-alcoholic beverage industries in Brazil. It addresses a critical literature gap by proposing standardised indicators for a sector lacking defined benchmarks. Practically, these indicators enable integrated, systemic assessments of sustainable performance (Triple Bottom Line), facilitating the identification of critical areas. Additionally, the tool allows cross-comparison of sustainability levels among non-alcoholic beverage SMEs, fostering transparency and continuous improvement. The study thus offers significant academic and industrial contributions.

2. Theoretical Review

2.1. Brief Characterisation of the Non-Alcoholic Beverage Industry in Brazil

The non-alcoholic beverage industry in Brazil represents a robust and dynamic sector undergoing significant transformation, driven by evolving consumer preferences, economic growth, and environmental considerations. The Brazilian market encompasses a wide range of non-alcoholic beverages, including coconut water, fruit pulps, soft drinks, syrups, and others [12]. Non-alcoholic beverages are defined as those containing low or no alcohol content [13].

From an economic perspective, in 2023, Brazil registered 47,963 non-alcoholic beverage products distributed across 3,494 establishments [12]. Production exceeded 29 billion litres, with the Southeast region leading at over 13 billion litres. Soft drinks accounted for 79% of national production, reaching approximately 23 billion litres [12]. Market revenue is projected to reach US$23.62 billion by 2025 [14], while the beverage industry (alcoholic and non-alcoholic) contributed 1.31% to GDP in 2021 [15]. Federal tax revenue (excluding social security contributions) totalled R$11.97 billion in 2023, with employer social security contributions amounting to R$2.2 billion in 2022. Investments in acquisitions and net improvements to fixed assets reached R$7,894.55 million in 2022, while business expenditure on Research and Development (R&D) amounted to R$100.88 million in 2021 [15]. Additionally, exports totalled US$271.94 million in 2023, representing 0.11% of industrial goods exports.

Regarding social impacts, in 2023, the sector created 21,158 direct jobs in juice production and 51,198 in soft drinks and other non-alcoholic beverages [12]. The average monthly wage in the broader beverage industry (including alcoholic beverages) was R$3,929.39 [15], reflecting its role in generating household income, providing employment benefits, health plans, and broader access to food products such as water and functional juices [15]. However, the industry also presents negative health impacts, including the use of ingredients potentially containing chemical, biological, and physical impurities, as well as sweeteners, acidulants, preservatives, carbon dioxide, flavourings, and colourings [16]. Further concerns highlighted in the literature include low nutritional value [17] and high sugar content, which has been linked to rising obesity, type II diabetes, dental caries, and vascular diseases [18].

Environmentally, the beverage industry exhibits significant negative impacts, particularly high water consumption, which constitutes approximately 90% of the final product, underscoring the sector’s heavy reliance on water resources [19]. This dependence often leads to unsustainable water use and inadequate effluent treatment, contributing to aquatic ecosystem degradation [20]. Moreover, the generation of alkaline-pH liquid effluents with high organic loads—primarily from equipment, facilities, and container washing—poses environmental challenges, with key contaminants including sugars derived from syrups and plant extracts [21]. The sector is also energy-intensive, relying on electricity, fuel oil, LPG/propane, and diesel, substantially increasing its carbon footprint [19]. Another critical issue is the generation of large volumes of solid waste—such as plastics, paper, cardboard, wood, PET bottles, glass, scrap metal, and aluminium cans—from packaging and bottling processes [19].

In summary, Brazil’s non-alcoholic beverage industry plays a pivotal economic role, generating employment, contributing to GDP, and driving innovation investments. It also delivers positive social impacts, including income generation, improved access to food products, and labour benefits. Nevertheless, its negative impacts remain substantial, spanning public health challenges linked to high sugar and additive consumption, as well as pressure on water resources and the generation of solid waste and effluents.

2.2. Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises and Sustainability

The impact of SMEs on economic, social, and environmental dimensions is significant and, in many respects, surpasses that of large corporations. Recognised for their economic importance, SMEs represent approximately 90% of all businesses, account for over 50% of global employment, and contribute up to 40% of national income (GDP) in emerging economies [22]. Furthermore, they drive innovation and investment, bolstering economic stability [23]. Socially, SMEs promote stability by providing employment opportunities, reducing income inequality, and engaging in corporate social responsibility practices, thereby enhancing relationships with local communities, strengthening their public image, and fostering sustainable development [24]. Environmentally, many small and medium-sized industries have adopted sustainable practices such as waste reduction and energy efficiency [25], while sustainable supply chain practices can improve their market competitiveness and resilience [24].

In contrast, although large corporations possess advanced resources and technological capabilities, they often fail to engage deeply in local development or sustainable practices due to their scale and operational focus [26]. This underscores the unique and underappreciated role of SMEs in fostering more holistic development integrated with communities. However, integrating sustainability principles into SMEs presents a complex landscape of opportunities and challenges [27]. While large corporations advance in adopting sustainability reporting and practices, SMEs face specific difficulties, including limited resources, lack of expertise, and the perceived conflict between sustainability and short-term profitability [28].

SMEs frequently contend with financial constraints that restrict their ability to invest in sustainable practices, such as the high costs of new technologies and training programmes [29,30], as well as limited access to financing [31]. A lack of awareness and understanding of sustainable practices among owners and employees is another common barrier [29,30], exacerbated by insufficient resources for training and skills development [31]. Additionally, complex regulatory frameworks and the absence of supportive government policies hinder the implementation and communication of sustainability initiatives [32,33].

The pursuit of sustainable development in SMEs is intrinsically linked to the adoption of appropriate sustainability indicators, which serve as quantifiable metrics to monitor and evaluate environmental, social, and economic performance [34]. These indicators are essential for measuring progress, identifying areas for improvement, and demonstrating commitment to responsible practices [35]. However, the specific characteristics of SMEs—such as resource scarcity and lack of expertise—pose significant challenges in this process [28]. Therefore, sustainability indicators or indicator sets must be selected and structured with SME particularities in mind, prioritising simplicity, cost-effectiveness, and local relevance to ensure they are practical, accessible, and aligned with operational capacities and priorities.

2.3. Sustainability Indicators and SMEs in the Beverage Industry

Sustainability indicators play a crucial role as measurement and communication tools for organisational sustainability performance, ensuring operations align with sustainability principles [36]. These indicators enable comprehensive assessment of environmental, social, and economic impacts, providing an integrated and systemic view of organisational performance [37,38]. However, the inherent complexity of reconciling economic growth with environmental preservation, alongside the integration of diverse metrics—particularly for SMEs—demands a refined and strategic approach to embedding sustainability indicators in decision-making processes [39,40].

Sustainability indicators for SMEs are essential, yet to be effective, they must be tailored to SME-specific constraints, such as limited resources and access to capital. Key guidelines defining effective sustainability indicators for SMEs include:

a) Adaptation of Existing Standards: Many sustainability indicators derive from internationally recognised frameworks like the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). To ensure applicability for SMEs, these indicators must be simplified and adjusted to their operational limitations and available resources [38,41].

b) Maturity Models: Implementing maturity models helps SMEs visualise their progression in adopting sustainable practices, enabling structured and incremental self-assessment. Such models facilitate realistic goal-setting and continuous adaptation to market and regulatory demands [33].

c) Resource Efficiency: Indicators should promote resource optimisation and cost reduction, ensuring sustainable practices are economically viable and compatible with SME operational realities. Resource-efficient indicators thus enhance both environmental sustainability and business competitiveness [42].

d) Stakeholder Engagement: Involving stakeholders in indicator development ensures they reflect the expectations of employees, customers, and local communities. This engagement enhances indicator legitimacy and strengthens corporate commitment to sustainability, fostering broader stakeholder buy-in [42].

For SMEs in the beverage industry, defining a standardised set of indicators that address their unique challenges is imperative. As outlined in Table 1, priority areas for indicator development span the three core dimensions of the Triple Bottom Line.

Addressing these priorities, the development of standardised indicators is a critical step to guide SMEs in the non-alcoholic beverage sector toward sustainable strategies. Such indicators not only facilitate performance measurement but also support evidence-based decision-making, balancing economic viability, social responsibility, and environmental preservation.

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Typology, Techniques, and Data Collection

This study adopts a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative and qualitative techniques, following recommendations by Demo (2022) [48], Marconi and Lakatos (2017) [49], and Hair (2010) [50]. The research was conducted through a survey employing a structured questionnaire based on sustainability indicators from the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). The GRI framework can be integrated with other sustainability metrics, as evidenced by the development of customised performance indicators in various case studies [51]. These indicators were selected due to their applicability to organisations of varying sizes and sectors, structured according to the Triple Bottom Line dimensions and developed using criteria of relevance, comparability, and reliability.

From the GRI Standards (2022) [52], 74 sustainability indicators were compiled, distributed across environmental (25), social (33), and economic (16) dimensions, with support from NVivo software (version 14). This process enabled the development of a more objective research instrument aligned with the realities of the organisations studied, ensuring a comprehensive sustainability assessment for the sector.

Indicator prioritisation was conducted via survey, where respondents evaluated each item using a five-point Likert scale: *Dispensable (1), Non-Priority (2), Desirable (3), Important (4),* and Very Important (5). The questionnaire targeted managers, employees, researchers, and other professionals affiliated with Brazil’s non-alcoholic beverage industry. The Likert scale—widely used for measuring perceptions and attitudes—allowed for quantification of each indicator’s perceived importance and facilitated consensus-building regarding essential elements for sectoral sustainability [53].

Non-probability convenience sampling was employed, yielding 299 responses between August 2023 and April 2024, with national coverage. Data collection utilised Google Forms to ensure accessibility and broad dissemination. Respondent anonymity was guaranteed to encourage candid responses, particularly for sensitive questions.

3.2. Analysis of Responses and Consensus Level

The analysis of responses was conducted in two stages: (i) Characterisation of respondents’ profiles using descriptive statistics and multivariate analysis, including correlations between respondent groups based on education, field of study, and professional experience in relation to the indicators; and (ii) Assessment of the level of agreement and consensus, aiming to define a validated set of sustainability indicators for SMEs in the non-alcoholic beverage industry.

Statistical analyses, including correlation tests, descriptive statistics, and measurement of the consensus level, were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics, version 27. The application of multiple statistical tests to verify the robustness of the results and establish a methodologically grounded consensus strengthens the reliability of the indicator selection for SMEs in the non-alcoholic beverage sector, as advocated by Giannarou and Zervas (2014) [54].

Multivariate analysis was conducted using Cronbach’s alpha reliability test, assessment of data normality via the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests, and correlation analysis using Spearman’s rho coefficient (rₛ). Spearman’s coefficient identifies relationships between variables influencing indicator selection, with values ranging from −1 ≤ rₛ ≤ 1. The correlation strength was categorised according to Schober, Boer, and Schwarte (2018): negligible (0.0–0.1), weak (0.1–0.39), moderate (0.40–0.69), strong (0.70–0.89), and very strong (0.90–1.00).

Agreement among respondents was analysed using descriptive statistics (mean (µₓ), standard deviation (σ), and coefficient of variation (CV)). The consensus level was measured based on the methodology by Tastle and Wierman (2007) [53]. The coefficient of variation, which expresses the relative dispersion of data in relation to the mean, was interpreted according to Pimentel-Gomes (2009): low CV and high consensus level (0.0 ≤ CV < 0.1), medium (0.1 ≤ CV ≤ 0.2), high (0.2 < CV ≤ 0.3), and very high CV, associated with low consensus (CV > 0.3).

Consensus can be defined as the degree of agreement among a group of individuals regarding a specific topic. Its level, Cns(X), can be estimated using Equation (1), following the methodology proposed by Tastle and Wierman (2007) [53]:

$$Cns\left(X\right)=1+{\sum }_{i=1}^n{p}_i{log}_2\left(1-{\displaystyle \frac{\left|X_i-u_X\right|}{d_X}}\right)$$

(1)

where μₓ represents the mean of the values of Xᵢ, and dₓ is the range of the dataset, defined as dₓ = X_max - X_min.

Tastle and Wierman (2007) [53] refined Shannon’s Entropy equation to enhance its efficiency in measuring consensus, making it particularly useful for five-point Likert scales. However, this approach does not establish an optimal cut-off point for classifying the consensus level. Thus, the categorisation proposed by Keeney et al. (2011) [55] was adopted, defining three consensus levels: low (50–69%), medium (70–79%), and high (> 80%).

The definition of a minimum consensus threshold varies in the literature. Hasson et al. (2000) [56] and Doria et al. (2009) [57] suggest that agreement levels between 51% and 80% may be considered acceptable. In this study, a cut-off criterion of ≥70% was adopted, ensuring a sufficiently representative set of indicators aligned with the Triple Bottom Line dimensions. This criterion is also supported by studies such as Giannarou and Zervas (2014) [54] and Brenner et al. (2019) [58], who used similar approaches for selecting sustainability indicators in specific contexts. Despite the adoption of reference values, determining the cut-off point remains a methodological decision for the researcher. Scarparo et al. (2012) [59] emphasise that there is no universally accepted standard, and different studies adopt varying criteria depending on the research scope and sample characteristics.

4. Results and Analyses

4.1. Analysis of Respondents’ Profile

The results indicate that the majority of respondents are affiliated with universities (63.2%), while 36.8% work directly in the beverage industry, demonstrating a balance between the academic perspective—focused on sustainability research and innovation—and practical sector experience (Figure 1). This mixed perspective (academic and practical) ensures that the selected indicators reconcile theoretical foundations with practical applicability, making them more aligned with the reality of small and medium-sized non-alcoholic beverage industries. According to Gebara et al. (2024) [60], the academic perspective guarantees that the indicators are aligned with sustainability principles, while Gunnarsdóttir et al. (2021) [61] emphasise that the participation of industry professionals contributes to the selection of relevant and applicable indicators.

The education level reveals a high qualification among participants, with a predominance of graduates (16.4%) and specialists (13.0%), as well as a significant percentage of master’s degree holders (10.0%) and doctoral candidates (7.7%). Thus, the solid technical and scientific background of the participants strengthens the credibility of the indicator selection. As Gebara et al. (2024) [60] argue, a high education level enhances individuals’ analytical capacity in evaluating and selecting indicators, ensuring greater scientific validity and reliability.

The analysis of knowledge areas highlights the significant participation of professionals from accounting (18.1%), engineering (15.1%), and administration (15.4%), followed by information technology, logistics and operations, and sustainability and quality. Trucillo and Erto (2023) [62] emphasise that this diversity allows for both a holistic and systemic understanding of sustainability, ensuring the inclusion of economic, environmental, and social aspects. Similarly, Gebara et al. (2024) [60] highlight that the involvement of experts from different fields facilitates the identification of specific and relevant indicators for distinct sustainability components.

Thus, the research findings indicate that the diversity of respondents’ backgrounds, experience, and knowledge contributes to the robustness and consistency of the proposed sustainability indicator set.

4.2. Analysis of Reliability and Consensus Level

The Cronbach’s alpha reliability test yielded α = 0.958, a value classified as excellent according to Taber (2018) [63], indicating high internal consistency of the questionnaire responses. The normality analysis, using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests, resulted in p = 0.000, suggesting a skewed and non-normal distribution [64]. Consequently, a non-parametric approach was adopted, with Spearman’s rho tests employed to analyse correlations between variables.

The results of Spearman’s rho coefficient indicate that the variables professional experience, education level, and field of study exhibited statistically significant correlations (p < 0.01 or p < 0.05; see Appendix A), albeit of negligible to weak strength, as per the classification by Schober, Boer, and Schwarte (2018) [65]. Thus, the findings suggest subtle trends in respondents’ perceptions without indicating pronounced bias, reflecting a relatively neutral and impartial evaluation of the indicators. This interpretation aligns with the criteria established by Schober, Boer, and Schwarte (2018) [65] and Field (2018) [64], reinforcing the reliability and validity of the statistical analysis conducted.

The coefficient of variation revealed that 40.45% of the 74 indicators analysed exhibited a medium consensus level (0.10 ≤ CV ≤ 0.20), based on the classification proposed by Pimentel-Gomes (2009) [66]. Notably, no indicator achieved a high consensus level; however, a significant number of 31 indicators demonstrated relatively homogeneous perceptions among respondents regarding their relevance. This finding may indicate alignment in evaluations or a consolidated understanding of the topics addressed.

The consensus level methodology, Cns(X), proposed by Tastle and Wierman (2007) [53], revealed that 18 sustainability indicators (24.3%) presented Cns(X) ≤ 0.50, classified as lacking consensus or unacceptable (see Appendix B), in accordance with Hasson et al. (2000) [56] and Doria et al. (2009) [57]. Furthermore, the indicators were distributed across different consensus levels based on the classification by Keeney et al. (2011) [55]: 27 indicators (36.5%) exhibited low consensus, 30 indicators (40.54%) demonstrated medium consensus, and only 1 indicator (1.35%) was classified as having high consensus.

4.3. Set of Indicators for the Non-Alcoholic Beverage Industry

The final selection of indicators was based on the inclusion criterion of those with medium to high consensus levels (Cns(X) ≥ 0.70), as recommended by Giannarou and Zervas (2014) [54] and Brenner et al. (2019) [58]. Consequently, 31 indicators were selected to assess sustainability in small and medium-sized non-alcoholic beverage industries (Table 2, excerpt from Appendix B).

The set of 31 sustainability indicators is distributed across the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) dimensions: environmental (10), social (12), and economic (9). The number of indicators is classified as moderate and appropriate, as according to Sangwan et al. (2019) [67], a set of 20 to 50 indicators falls within a suitable range for measuring sustainability. Regarding the balance between TBL dimensions, the distribution is relatively even, which is considered optimal [68]. However, Loza-Aguirre et al. (2018) [68] and Sánchez-Hernández et al. (2019) [69] note that many sustainability efforts disproportionately focus on environmental and economic factors, often neglecting social aspects. This suggests that despite a balanced number of indicators across dimensions, sustainability measurement practices may still exhibit bias, potentially undervaluing one or two TBL dimensions.

The selected economic sustainability indicators (Table 2) encompass revenues, operational expenditures, salaries and benefits, dividends and interest on equity, taxes, local supplier purchases, societal investments, technological innovations, and indirect job creation. These indicators represent priority areas for economic sustainability in Brazil’s non-alcoholic beverage industry, aligning with key focuses of sustainable business management. Specifically, they reflect cost optimisation and value addition [43], market competitiveness through revenue growth, profitability, and dividend distribution [1], and supply chain efficiency through innovative technologies [45]. Thus, these indicators enable a comprehensive assessment of the sector’s economic sustainability, considering both financial viability and socio-economic impact.

The environmental sustainability indicators include recycled materials, water recycling and reuse, company location, energy from renewable and non-renewable sources, waste reuse and recycling, recovered packaging, environmental complaints, environmental management expenditures, supplier environmental policies, and environmental impact assessments. These reflect priority areas for environmental sustainability in small and medium-sized non-alcoholic beverage industries and align with sustainable environmental management principles. The findings correlate with water resource management through recycling technologies [44,45], waste and material management via recycling programmes [46], collaborative environmental risk management [70], and renewable energy use [45]. The selected indicators thus facilitate a holistic evaluation of the sector’s environmental performance, promoting sustainable practices and regulatory compliance.

The social sustainability indicators cover employees (number, legal benefits, training, performance), social impact assessments, public disclosure of impacts, local development programmes, corruption risk evaluations, anti-corruption policies, certified and labelled products, and customer satisfaction. These represent priority social focuses for Brazil’s non-alcoholic beverage industry and align with literature on labour rights [43], community development initiatives [46], and consumer awareness [71]. These indicators highlight key areas for social sustainability, serving as essential tools for promoting fairer and more inclusive business practices.

5. Final Considerations

This study selected a specific set of sustainability indicators tailored to small and medium-sized non-alcoholic beverage industries in Brazil, addressing the three dimensions of the triple bottom line. The results highlight the selection of 31 sustainability indicators, ensuring alignment with established frameworks such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) while remaining adaptable to sector-specific particularities. The participatory selection process of these indicators ensured the legitimacy and applicability of the proposed metrics. The consensus analysis revealed a balanced set of indicators, emphasising essential aspects such as material recycling and reuse, water management, environmental impacts, transparency in labour practices, local economic development, and technological innovation, among others.

The contribution of this study to the literature lies in the development of a structured set of indicators specifically designed for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the non-alcoholic beverage sector—a gap previously underexplored. Furthermore, the research provides valuable insights for industry managers and policymakers by establishing a framework for evaluating and enhancing the sustainability performance of these companies. Practically, managers can use this set of indicators as a strategic tool to monitor and improve the sustainability of their operations. For instance, indicators such as water management, waste recycling, and energy efficiency can guide the implementation of more effective environmental practices, while financial transparency and anti-corruption measures can strengthen corporate governance. Additionally, adopting these indicators enables SMEs in this sector to identify critical areas for improvement, align their strategies with stakeholder expectations, and demonstrate their commitment to sustainability, thereby enhancing their market competitiveness.

However, certain limitations must be acknowledged. The selected indicators were tailored to SMEs in the non-alcoholic beverage industry and may not be directly applicable to other industrial sectors. Moreover, the consensus-level threshold methodology can be adjusted according to organisational needs, allowing for greater or lesser scope in the final set of indicators. Future studies could further standardise the metrics for each indicator and explore methods for normalisation, weighting, and aggregation to develop composite sustainability indices that account for the specific characteristics of SMEs.

Thus, this study represents a significant advancement in sustainability measurement for SMEs in the beverage industry, contributing to both academic research and practical corporate sustainability management.