This paper is part of the special issue of European Environment devoted to the outputs of the EU SRDTOOLS project, 1 which developed and applied a new model of regional sustainable development evaluation. The paper introduces the concept and framework of the four-capital model, which was used in the project. First it discusses some issues around sustainable development evaluation, before introducing the theory of the four-capital model. It then describes how indicators can be used to evaluate programmes such as those fi nanced by the EU Structural Funds against criteria for sustainable regional development in terms of the four capitals. An 'ideal' indicator set is listed in the appendix.

Across Europe, there is considerable interest in establishing stronger links between environmental regulation and standards for environmental management systems (EMSs) such as ISO 14001. If it can be demonstrated that possession of an EMS results in improved environmental or regulatory performance, then there is a case for granting ‘regulatory relief’ in the form of, for example, reduced inspection frequencies. This paper describes the analysis of information on almost 800 sites regulated under the UK's Integrated Pollution Control regime. It demonstrates that having an EMS improves certain procedural aspects of environmental management but does not appear to reduce the likelihood of breaching permit conditions. Interviews with certification bodies revealed the factors, such as differentiation of services in the market for certification, that underlie this finding. It is concluded that some limited recognition of EMS in regulation is warranted, because there is overlap between some regulatory and certification procedures, and because having an EMS facilitates the supply of information necessary for regulation. The broader implications for regulated industry, certification bodies, regulators and wider environmental policymaking are considered. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

No abstract

Summary Measures of eco‐efficiency—broadly understood as “getting more from less”—often include an economic and an environmental variable. The latter is often seen as the more problematic variable, particularly when used in relation to impacts of public concern. But an analysis of resource and value trends in the U.K. steel and aluminum industries over the last 30 yr showed that there are significant problems associated with using economic variables in measures of eco‐efficiency at the sectoral level. The research found that the U.K. steel and aluminum industries have improved the effectiveness with which they use natural resources, but that this has been accompanied by a decline in the economic output (value added) per unit of material or energy consumed. These seemingly contradictory results can be explained by the fall in the price of metals in real terms, and by the competitive pressures that necessitate the cutting of production costs and indirectly lead to a fall in the measure of economic output of the relevant industry. The research also suggests a logical terminology to bring consistency and coherence to the broad field of eco‐efficiency indicators, with an important distinction made between measures that examine the value output per unit of physical input, and measures that examine the physical output per unit of physical input. Both these types of indicators are important, as they highlight different aspects of eco‐efficiency.

No abstract