Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
15, 334346 (2006) Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/bse.540
Accounting for the Social Dimension of Sustainability: Experiences from the Biotechnology Industry
Justus von Geibler,1* Christa Liedtke,1 Holger Wallbaum2 and Stephan Schaller2 1 Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, Research Group Sustainable Production and Consumption, Germany, in support with Bastian Buck, University of Maastricht and Frederik Lippert, University of Bonn 2 triple innova GmbH, Germany
ABSTRACT Accounting for the social dimension of sustainability proves to be a challenge for corporate practitioners, due to its intangible, qualitative nature and lack of consensus on relevant criteria. We suggest a semi-quantitative approach based on stakeholder involvement to identify relevant aspects for a sector specic assessment of the social dimension. Our case study on biotechnology illustrates that the dialogue with internal and external stakeholders enabled the creation of a key performance indicator (KPI) set to account for social sustainability in the early design stages of biotechnological processes and product development. Indicators for eight aspects are identied for the social assessment: health and safety, quality of working conditions, impact on employment, education and training, knowledge management, innovation potential, customer acceptance and societal product benet, and social dialogue. We describe the integration of the KPI set in a software application, tailor made for practitioners of the sector, and highlight rst user experiences. Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.
Received 7 October 2005; revised 21 January 2006; accepted 6 February 2006 Keywords: sustainability accounting; social dimension; KPI; indicator set; stakeholder approach; stakeholder participation; emerging technologies; biotechnology
Introduction
T BOTH COMPANY AND PRODUCT LEVEL, THERE IS AN INCREASING DEMAND FOR TRANSPARENCY
and accountability for sustainable industrial development from internal and external stakeholders. Recently, it has become more signicant to consumers, shareholders and political actors how different products are being produced. Stakeholders of companies, including NGOs, media,
* Correspondence to: Justus von Geibler, Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, Doeppersberg 19, 42103 Wuppertal, Germany. E-mail: justus.geibler@wupperinst.org
Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
335
public and nancial institutions, play an increasing role in awareness raising on sustainability issues and inuence the economic success of particular companies or specic products. The reputation of companies, especially of larger ones, has become a key managerial concern. As a strategic and proactive measure, companies in many sectors have begun to account for their performance with respect to the economic, environmental and social dimensions of sustainability. The goal is to identify and implement improvement opportunities, and to report on sustainability performance objectives and improvements as highlighted in recent literature on environmental management accounting (see, e.g., Bennett and James, 1999; Burritt et al., 2002; Bennett et al., 2003; Rikhardsson et al., 2005). Emerging technologies such as biotechnology face particularly high accountability and reporting demands. This can be attributed to the high societal exposure of these emerging sectors, which have not gained broad public acceptance yet (see Schaltegger and Dyllick, 2002, p. 58). Biotechnology is since its emergence a subject of major public debate. While promising innovations in the area of medical science or the greening of industrial processes are widely accepted (see, e.g., Task Force on Science, Technology and Innovation, 2005; OECD, 1998; Hoppenheidt et al., 2004), public concerns concentrate to a great extent on genetically modied organisms related to food and agriculture (European Commission, 2003). As a result, biotechnology has not yet reached the signicance scientists and analysts had predicted years ago. Reasons for this can be seen in the multiple social, environmental and economical effects of biotechnological applications that are difcult to anticipate at the basic research level. Adequate tools are needed that assist in assessing the (hidden) sustainability implications already in the development phase of evolving technologies, e.g. to early identify the level of public acceptance and draw conclusions for future market prospects. In order to implement the sustainability idea in physical and nancial activities companies have to create metrics to assess corporate sustainability (see, e.g., Bennett and James, 1999; Orbach and Liedkte, 2002; Schaltegger and Dyllick, 2002). Despite progress in the eld of sustainability accounting and reporting (see, e.g., Kuhndt et al., 2004a; Rikhardsson et al., 2005; Global Reporting Initiative, 2006), widely accepted accounting standards or metrics to account for the environmental or social performance are missing, at both corporate and product levels. In contrast to environmental management accounting, current research in management accounting for social issues is relatively limited (see Bennett and James, 1999, p. 45; Ranganathan, 1999, p. 481; Adams et al., 2004, p. 22). Practioneers engaging in social accounting have to break new grounds to make the softer and intangible qualitative side of sustainability measurable (Elkington and van Dijk, 1999, p. 496; Schaltegger and Dyllick, 2002, p. 367). This task is further complicated by the differences between industries, which urge the actors to develop sector specic criteria (see, e.g., Bass, 2001; WBCSD, 2002; Kuhndt et al., 2002; Spalding-Fecher, 2003; Global Reporting Initiative, 2005). The case study presents the development process of a key performance indicator (KPI) set for the assessment of the social dimension of sustainability in the biotechnology industry following a participatory stakeholder approach. This task has been addressed within the project BioBeN: assessing social sustainability of biotech products, which is part of the Sustainable bioproduction programme of the German Federal Ministry for Development and Research (see von Geibler et al., 2005). Furthermore the integration of the indicator set in a practical software tool for use in the early design phase is described. In the nal software, sabento, the assessment of social aspects is complemented by an economic and environmental assessment (see ifu Hamburg, 2005). Finally, conclusions regarding the appropriateness of stakeholder involvement, the applicability of the software tool and its results are drawn.
Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
336
Theoretical Concept Content of the concept Dimensions Categories Aspects Indicators
Sustainable Development
Figure 1. Concept specication for sustainable development. (Source: adapted from Khler, 1987, p. 85.)
337
condensed representation of something more complex (Persson, 2001, p. 628). In traditional accounting indicator-based measurement procedures are strictly regulated by external legislation and standards (Cerin, 2002). In environmental and social accounting indicators are often chosen internally, which leads to bad information quality and causes arbitrary reporting (Schaltegger, 1997). While sustainability reporting as a vehicle for change as well as a mechanism for incorporating externalities through corporate accounting is seen as of critical importance (Maunders and Burritt, 1991; Puxty, 1991) the involvement of stakeholders can be helpful to reduce indicator-related shortcomings and enhance the internal managerial value of sustainability reporting.
338
The process of developing social KPIs should draw on the involvement of relevant societal stakeholders, i.e. those groups who have an immediate interest in approaching and debating questions of social sustainability. Consideration of stakeholders in far-reaching decisions promotes the legitimacy of the results. Businesses are no longer solely responsible for the maximization of the shareholders return on investment; they are as well as other organizations perceived as part of an environment and increasingly held accountable for the impacts of their actions. Stakeholder involvement starts with an analysis of the organizational environment. Following a general accepted format, stakeholder groups are identied in a rst step, followed by a determination of their interests. Finally, their type and level of power is assessed. Distinctions are drawn between internal and external stakeholders, the two being separated by the boundaries of the rm (see, e.g., Wilson, 1999, p. 511; Schaltegger and Burritt, 2000). Attention has to be paid to the inuence that is exercised by different stakeholders and has to be seen in relation to the actual importance of the specic stakeholder for the issue at hand (Gibson, 2000). This warrants a balanced and representative involvement of affected groups.
339
Furthermore, the analysis highlighted that the social effects of biotechnological production can occur at different levels. Table 1 species these levels and provides examples for these possible effects by biotechnological processes identied in the surveys. With respect to the data availability for measuring these effects and the biotech companies ability to inuence such effects, the surveys highlighted differences for the three levels. For rst order effects (from technology development) the data availability within the biotech companies is relatively high, as well as the ability to inuence these effects. For the second order effects (technology application) the data availability regarding social impacts of the process development phase is often still sufcient, but becomes more limited and blurry due to the fact that the applications of the developed processes become apparent in the future. Regarding systemic effects, hardly any data is available. The corporate actors have very limited ability to change these effects, which can be considered to be beyond the scope of the biotech companies (but within the responsibility of state regulation). These effects have been excluded from the indicator set in line with this argument. Consequently, the indicator set differentiates between effects at technology development and technology application. For each of the eight aspects and for both layers of evaluation, technology development and technology application, indicators have been identied (see Table 2). For each aspect and layer of evaluation there are four indicators, whereas indicators for the technology application, which is less certain due to its occurrence in the future, require lower levels of knowledge compared with the technology development phase.
340
Effects caused by the development of biotechnological processes (upstreaming, product creation, downstreaming) Application of biotechnological processes (raw material extraction, production, transport, use and end of life)
Risk of hazardous substance release Contribution to education and training Change in working conditions (reduced health and safety protection measures for removing of rost) Health improvements through biotechnologically produced Hepatitis B serum Contribution to food security Cheaper and more accessible drugs Promotion of sexual equality
Systemic effects
Change of individual and collective lifestyles induced by biotechnological innovations, adoptions of work and consumption pattern
Table 1. Potential social effects of biotechnological processes and products. (Source: von Geibler et al., 2005, p. 22.)
It is prepared for the assessment of production involved with micro-organisms, cell cultures and enzymes. The development of the software, which is now marketed under the name sabento, considered the specic demands from the enterprise of the biotech sector. The interviews with corporate practitioners of the biotech sector revealed the general need and potential demand for a KPI application within biotechnological research and development. Furthermore, it turned out that most of the interviewed practitioners could be described as novices in the eld of the social sustainability. This can be explained by the lack of resources to employ a specialist and the relative novelty of social accountability as well as the absence of accepted standards in this area. It became also apparent that most of the organizations in the biotech sector are small and medium-sized enterprises with a strong research emphasis. The direct implications of these observations are that a practical tool addressing the social dimension of sustainability in this sector has to provide explanatory content and full an educational purpose (see von Geibler et al., 2005). Furthermore, the tool should enable a cost and time effective assessment method and be easy to handle and understand with a high level of transparency regarding the assessment process and the results. The recognized widespread profound IT skills among practitioners in the biotech sector advocate the development of a software tool that incorporates the above-mentioned requirements. The assessment software developed during the project guides the user through a step-by-step assessment procedure using a manual. Explanations are given for all areas as well as for the underlying assessment method to avoid misunderstandings and misleading interpretations of results.
341
Aspect Technology development Health and safety Risk group for biological substances Risk factors for health and safety Voluntary health measures taken Quality of health & safety management
Indicators Technology application Expected share of risk workplaces Expected amounts of hazardous substances Planned voluntary health measures Voluntary health measures during usage Planned working time arrangements Expected degree of psychological demands Expected share of women in leading positions Planned measures to improve working conditions Expected safeguarding of jobs Expected job creation effects Possible regions of job creation Expected effects on related labour markets Planned apprenticeships Planned training activities Identication of training needs Consideration of employee expectations Planned personal knowledge exchange Review of personal knowledge exchange Planned information systems Expected employee involvement Anticipated degree of innovation Product readiness and marketability Estimated market penetration Expected number and types of patents Anticipated product acceptance Planned use of genetic engineering methods Social standards in supply chain Contribution to societal benets Reporting channels planned Planned communication with local community Targeted dialogue partners Measures planned to promote societal dialogue
Working time arrangements Degree of psychological demands Share of women in leading positions Measures taken to improve working conditions Safeguarding of jobs Job creation effects Regions of job creation Continuity of job creation Offered areas of employee training Quality of human resource management Identication of training needs Consideration of employee expectations Quality of personal knowledge exchange Review of personal knowledge exchange Information systems in use Employee involvement in decision making Existing commercial exploitation potential Contribution to scientic debate Management of patents & licences Number and types of patents Client and stakeholder involvement Use of genetic engineering methods Social standards in supply chain Contribution to societal benets Voluntary reporting activities Communication with local community Stakeholder involvement in decision making Engagement in political dialogue
Employment
Knowledge management
Innovation potential
Table 2. Typical indicators used to describe and assess the different criterion dimensions of social sustainability. (Source: von Geibler et al., 2005, p. 54.)
maximum score for each application phase is 96 points (resulting from eight aspects, four indictors per aspect and a maximum of three points per indicator; see Figure 2). Linear aggregation of the indicator values has been chosen as the aggregation method with respect to the target group. For corporate practitioners transparency and simplicity of the aggregation method is crucial for the practical use of the software and its results. Due to their complexity, alternative aggregation methods, such as fuzzy modelling, would not be suitable for the target group. To limit the risk of biased aggregation the indicator set has been constructed aiming at non-overlapping of social aspects. Furthermore, the results are presented in a disaggregated manner. The results of the evaluation are presented in a condensed graphical form using trafc light coloured symbols and a spiderweb diagram (see Figure 3). A detailed text report is given presenting the single
Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
342
Content of Dimension
Aspects
1)
Dimension of Sustainabilty
Employment
4)
Knowledge Management
6)
Existing Commercial Exploitation Potential 3 Contribution to Scientific Debate Management of Patents & Licences Number and Type of Patents
Anticipated Degree of Innovation 3 Product Readiness and Marketability Estimated Market Penetration
Innovation Potential
7) 3 3
Societal Dialogue
96
Figure 2. Indicator set for the evaluation of social sustainability of biotechnological processes. (Source: adapted from von Geibler et al., 2005. p. 11.)
choices in the assessment process and the evaluation method as well as the results for each indicator, aspect and phase (process development and process application). Thereby, the results are presented in a transparent way and can be used for external and internal stakeholder communication, especially as they can be integrated in existing assessment models. By addressing the comprehensive selection of social aspects dened as critical by various relevant stakeholder groups, the results point at those aspects of social sustainability that require more attention as they may include current or future risks or neglected opportunities for innovation. Used as an inherent part of the R&D process, the software application can raise awareness among researchers and managers for important perspectives beyond their usual working focus. Thus, the software can assist the development of marketable biotechnological applications and support informed management decisions. This is of major importance as it signicantly contributes to reducing the risk of long-term investment decisions. The prototype of the software has been tested in actual biotechnological research and development environments by two pilot partners of the project. Interviews have been conducted to assess the practicability, relevance and benets of the software. The interviews highlighted the high practicability of the
Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
343
Health and Safety 12 10 Societal Dialogue 8 6 4 2 Product Acceptance and Societal Benefit 0 Employment Quality of Working Conditions
Innovation Potential
Knowledge Management
Figure 3. Graphical illustration of the evaluation results in a spiderweb diagram (Source: adapted from von Geibler et al., 2005. p. 66.)
software tool as well the completeness of the aspects covered. The interviews conrmed an increased awareness towards aspects that were previously not regarded as being part of the companys inuence and responsibility. An analysis of the neglected aspects showed that they would have had a great potential of being negatively perceived by stakeholder groups, with potentially harmful consequences for the company. The results were considered to be benecial for internal and external communication, specically in the area of nancing and marketing.
Conclusion
The described project concerned the development of a sector specic KPI set for the biotech sector to address the often-neglected social aspects of sustainability. The KPI set has been integrated in a practical software assessment application. It turns out that stakeholder involvement can help to identify relevant elds of assessment and therefore facilitates the social accounting for sustainability in new and emerging industries. Considering stakeholders perceptions towards the criteria of social performance allows the assessment of qualitative aspects in a specic context, while at the same time it reduces the risk of overlooking or neglecting critical aspects of current or future relevance. The software application can be considered as a rst step towards a more comprehensive, quantitative incorporation of the social sustainability dimension into the daily business practice of the biotechnology sector also as it is exible enough to be integrated into different accounting systems. The presented approach can be seen as stimulus to further research activities in this eld and as starting point for organizational learning processes in companies. With the development of a software application the project intends to promote a continuous evaluation of social sustainable performance in combination with ongoing stakeholder dialogue rather than be a one-point-in-time event.
Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
344
References
Adams C, Frost G, Webber W. 2004. Triple bottom line: a review of the literature. In The Triple Bottom Line: Does it All Add Up? Assessing the Sustainability of Business and CSR, Henrigues A, Richardson J (eds). Earthscan: London; 1726. Bass S. 2001. Change towards sustainability in resource use. Lessons from the forest sector. Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development 5: 139. Bennett M, James P (eds). 1999. Sustainable Measures: Evaluation and Reporting of Environmental and Social Performance. Greenleaf: Shefeld. Bennett M, Rikhardsson P, Schaltegger S (eds). 2003. Environmental Management Accounting. Purpose and Progress. Kluwer: Rotterdam. Biekart JW, Ree K. 1999. Reaching consensus on the implementation of good practice in environmental reporting: a Dutch NGOs perspective. In Sustainable Measures: Evaluation and Reporting of Environmental and Social Performance, Bennett M, James P (eds). Greenleaf: Shefeld; 353365. Burritt R, Hahn T, Schaltegger S. 2002. Towards a comprehensive framework for environmental management accounting. Links between business actors and environmental management accounting tools. Australian Accounting Review 12(2): 3950. Cerin P. 2002. Characteristics of environmental reporters on the OM Stockholm exchange. Business Strategy and the Environment 11: 298311. Clarkson MBE. 1995. A stakeholder framework for analysing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review 20: 92117. De Colle S, Gonella C. 2002. The social and ethical alchemy: an integrative approach to social and ethical accountability. Business Ethics: a European Review 11(1): 8696. Deutsches Institut fr Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW), Wuppertal Institut fr Klima, Umwelt, Energie, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin fr Sozialforschung. 2000. Wege in eine nachhaltige Zukunft [Roads Towards a Sustainable Future], Ergebnisse aus dem Verbundprojekt Arbeit und kologie. Hans Bckler Stiftung: Dsseldorf. Donaldson T, Preston L. 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence, implications. Academy of Management Review 20: 6519. Elkington J. 1999. Triple bottom line revolution reporting for the third millennium. Australian CPA 69(10): 7577. Elkington J, van Dijk F. 1999. Socially challenged: trends in social reporting. In Sustainable Measures: Evaluation and Reporting of Environmental and Social Performance, Bennett M, James P (eds). Greenleaf: Shefeld; 496508. Enqute Commission. 1994. Die Industriegesellschaft gestalten. Perspektiven fr eine nachhaltigen Umgang mit Stoff- und Materialstrmen [Shaping Industrial Society. Perspectives for Sustainable Use of Matter and Material Flows]. Enqute-Commission Schutz des Menschen und der Umwelt des 12. Deutschen Bundestages. Economica: Bonn. European Commission. 2001. ETHICS in the RTD Framework Programmes. Brussels. European Commission. 2002. Life Sciences and Biotechnology a Strategy for Europe. Brussels. European Commission. 2003. Europeans and Biotechnology. Brussels. European Conference of National Ethics Committees (COMETH) (ed.). 2001. Proceedings of the Sixth European Conference of National Ethics Committees, Paphos, Cyprus. European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE) (ed.). 2000. Citizens Rights and New Technologies. A European Challenge, report on the Charter on Fundamental Rights related to technological innovation as requested by President Prodi. Brussels. Eversheim W, Bortler W. 1995. Simultaneous Engineering Erfahrungen aus der Industrie fr die Industrie [Simultaneous Engineering Experiences from Industry to Industry]. Springer: Berlin. Feindt PH. 2002. Partizipative Entwicklung von Nachhaltigkeitsindikatoren Modell und Arbeitsprogramm. In Nachhaltigkeitsindikatoren und Partizipation [Sustainability Indicators and Participation], Wittek S, Feindt PH, Gessenharter W, Hoppe J, Seifert EK, Spilker H (eds). Hamburg University Press: Hamburg; S. 91113. Freeman RE. 1984. Strategic Management: a Stakeholder Approach. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Gibson K. 2000. The moral basis of stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics 26: 245257. Global Reporting Initiative. 2002. Sustainability Reporting 2002. Boston, MA. Global Reporting Initiative. 2005. Sector Supplements. http://www.globalreporting.org/guidelines/sectors.asp [22 December 2005]. Global Reporting Initiative. 2006. Sustainability Reporting Guidelines [Draft], G3 version for public comment. Amsterdam. Gminder CU, Bieker T, Dyllik T, Hockerts K. 2002. Nachhaltigkeitsstrategien umgesetzt mit einer Sustainability Balanced Scorecard. In Nachhaltig managen mit der Balanced Scorecard. Konzept und Fallstudien [Sustainable Management using the Balanced Scorecard], Schaltegger S, Dyllick T (eds). Gabler: Wiesbaden; 95148.
Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
345
Heiden S, Burschel C, Erb R (eds). 2001. Biotechnologie als interdisziplinre Herausforderung [Biotechnology as Interdisciplinary Challenge]. Spektrum: Heidelberg. Hoppenheidt K, Mcke M, Peche R, Tronecker D, Roth U, Wrdinger E, Hottenroth S, Rommel W. 2004. Entlastungseffekte fr die Umwelt durch Substitution konventioneller chemisch-technischer Prozesse und Produkte durch biotechnische Verfahren [Reducing Environmental Load of Chemical Engineering Processes and Chemical Products by Biotechnological Substitutes], report for the German Federal Environmental Agency. Berlin. ifu Hamburg. 2005. Sabento Software for the Assessment of Biotechnology Processes. http://www.sabento.de [14 January 2006]. Jones TM, Wicks AC. 1999. Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review 24(2): 206221. Khler R. 1987. Informationen fr die strategische Planung von Produktinnovationen. In Distributionspolitik. Festgabe fr Edmund Sundhoff zum 75. Geburtstag [Politics of Distribution. Anniversary Publication for Edmund Sundhoff for his 75th Birthday], Klein-Blenkers F (ed.). Institut fr Handelsforschung, University of Cologne: Cologne; 79104. Kuhndt M, Tuner B, Andersen KC, Liedtke C. 2004a. Responsible Corporate Governance. An Overview of Trends, Initiatives and State-of-the-Art Elements, Wuppertal Institute Paper. Wuppertal. Kuhndt M, Tuner B, Liedtke C. 2004b. A Triple Bottom Line Innovation Audit Tool for ICT ProductService Mix Applications, nal report. Wuppertal Institute: Wuppertal. Kuhndt M, von Geibler J, Eckermann A. 2002. Towards a Sustainable Aluminium Industry: Stakeholder Expectations and Core Indicators, nal report. Wuppertal Institute: Wuppertal. Maunders KT, Burritt RL. 1991. Accounting and the ecological crisis. Accounting Auditing and Accountability Journal 4(3): 926. OECD (ed.). 1998. Biotechnology for Clean Industrial Products and Processes. Towards Industrial Sustainability. Paris. Orbach T, Liedkte C. 2002. Resource efciency accounting. In Environmental Management Accounting. Informational and Institutional Developments, Bennett M, Bouma JJ, Wolters T (eds). Kluwer: Dordrecht; 8390. Persson JG. 2001. Eco-indicators in product development. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part B. Journal of Engineering Manufacture 215(5): 627635. Puxty AG. 1991. Social accounting and the universal pragmatics. Advances in Public Sector Accounting 4: 3547. Ranganathan J. 1999. Signs of sustainability: measuring corporate environmental and social performance. In Sustainable Measures: Evaluation and Reporting of Environmental and Social Performance, Bennett M, James P. Greenleaf: Shefeld; 475496. Rikhardsson P, Bennett M, Bouma J, Schaltegger S (eds). 2005. Implementing Environmental Management Accounting. Status and Challenges. Dordrecht: Springer. Schaltegger S. 1997. Information costs, quality of information and stakeholder involvement: The necessity of international standards of ecological accounting. Eco-Management and Auditing 4(3): 8797. Schaltegger S, Burritt R. 2000. Contemporary Environmental Accounting. Greenleaf: Shefeld. Schaltegger S, Burritt R. 2005. Corporate sustainability. In The International Yearbook of Environmental And Resource Economics 2005/2006. A Survey of Current Issues, Folmer H, Tietenberg T (eds.). Cheltenham: Elgar; 185222. Schaltegger S, Dyllick T (eds). 2002. Nachhaltig managen mit der Balanced Scorecard. Konzept und Fallstudien [Sustainable Management using the Balanced Scorecard]. Gabler: Wiesbaden. Sillanp M. 1999. A new deal for sustainable development in business: taking the social dimension seriously at The Body Shop. In Sustainable Measures: Evaluation and Reporting of Environmental and Social Performance, Bennett M, James P (eds). Greenleaf: Shefeld; 529550. Spalding-Fecher R. 2003. Indicators of sustainablity for the energy sector. A South African case study. Energy for Sustainable Development 3(1): 3549. SustainAbility/United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). 1999. Engaging Stakeholders. The Social Reporting Report. SustainAbilityUNEP: London. Task Force on Science, Technology and Innovation. 2005. Innovation: Applying Knowledge in Development. http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/reports/tf_science.htm [14 December 2005]. Tischner U, Charter M (eds). 2001. Sustainable Solutions Developing Products and Services for the Future. Greenleaf: Sheffield. United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) (ed.). 2001. Indicators of Sustainable Development: Framework and Methodologies, Background Paper 3. UNCSD: New York. von Geibler J, Kuhndt M, Seifert E, Lucas R, Lorak S, Bleischwitz R. 2004. Sustainable business and consumption strategies. In Eco-Efciency, Regulation and Sustainable Business. Towards Sustainable Governance Structure for Sustainable Development, Bleischwitz R, Hennicke P (eds). Elgar: Cheltenham; 116164. von Geibler J, Liedtke C, Eckermann A, Kaiser C, Ritthoff M, Hartmann D, Brentel H, Rohn H, Kuhndt M, Wallbaum H. 2005. Soziale Bewertung der Nachhaltigkeit biotechnologischer Produktion [Assessing Social Sustainability of Biotech Products], nal report. Wuppertal Institute: Wuppertal. Weidema B. 2005. The integration of economic and social aspects in life cycle impact assessment. Paper presented at the LCM 2005 conference, Barcelona, 2005. http://www.lca-net.com/les/lcm2005_paper.pdf [14 January 2006].
Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
346
Wilson A. 1999. Social reporting: developing theory and current practice. In Sustainable Measures: Evaluation and Reporting of Environmental and Social Performance, Bennett M, James P (eds). Greenleaf: Shefeld; 509528. Wolters T, Danse M. 2002. Towards sustainability indicators for product chains with special reference to an international coffee chain. In Environmental Management Accounting. Informational and Institutional Developments, Bennett M, Bouma JJ, Wolters T (eds). Kluwer: Dordrecht; 231247. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). 2002. WBCSD Sector Projects. WBCSD. Geneva. Zadek S, Pruzan P, Evans R. 1997. Building Corporate AccountAbility Emerging Practices in Social and Ethical Accounting, Auditing and Reporting. Earthscan: London. Zetterberg H. 1967. Theorie, Forschung und Praxis in der Soziologie. In Handbuch der empirischen Sozialforschung [Handbook of Empirical Social Research], Knig R (ed.). Enke: Stuttgart; 65105.
Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment