AimsThe emergence of second generation (2G) biofuels is widely seen as a sustainable response to the increasing controversy surrounding the first generation (1G). Yet, sustainability credentials of 2G biofuels are also being questioned. Drawing on work in Science and Technology Studies, we argue that controversies help focus attention on key, often value-related questions that need to be posed to address broader societal concerns. This paper examines lessons drawn from the 1G controversy to assess implications for the sustainability appraisal of 2G biofuels.ScopeWe present an overview of key 1G sustainability challenges, assess their relevance for 2G, and highlight the challenges for policy in managing the transition. We address limitations of existing sustainability assessments by exploring where challenges might emerge across the whole system of bioenergy and the wider context of the social system in which bioenergy research and policy are done.ConclusionsKey lessons arising from 1G are potentially relevant to the sustainability appraisal of 2G biofuels depending on the particular circumstances or conditions under which 2G is introduced. We conclude that sustainability challenges commonly categorised as either economic, environmental or social are, in reality, more complexly interconnected (so that an artificial separation of these categories is problematic).

The role of business in society has undergone a sea change. From the exhortation that there are no social obligations for business to the understanding that being socially responsible is critical, corporate social responsibility (CSR) has come a long way. A set of studies has explored the multiple aspects of this concept both theoretically and empirically. Corporate social reporting has been one of the features that has received extensive attention from scholars. However, most of these studies are embedded in the economic and organizational contexts of Europe and the United States of America. Hardly a few studies have looked at CSR or social reporting in developing countries like India. Given this scenario, scholars have consistently called for more research in this area. This study aims to address this gap by conducting an exploratory study on how top management perceives and reports CSR. Using the technique of content analysis this study looks at the chairman's message section in the annual reports of the top 50 companies in India to identify the extent and nature of social reporting.

Since 2012, a new movement of government departments, think tanks and highprofile individuals within the UK has sought to promote the increased usage of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in public policy. They promote RCTs as an evidence-based corrective for the inappropriate certainties of experts. Recent government reports and public debate around this initiative are reviewed and analysed within a framework for epistemic governance: normative insights into how knowledge for policymaking should be understood and governed drawn from science and technology studies and the policy sciences. The legitimacy of RCT evidence within policymaking is found to rest on the recognition of three key features: (1) how multiple meanings of evidence limit generalisability, (2) ensuring a plurality of evidence inputs, including those from other forms of research and expertise, and (3) building institutions for governing the use of RCTs in the public interest. Producing evidence for policymaking is a hybrid activity that necessarily spans both science and politics. Presenting RCTs as naively neutral evidence of what policy interventions work is misleading. The paper concludes by calling for more work on how the new RCT movement might engage with its own history in social and policy research on the value of experiments for policymaking.

This article critically engages with the influential theory of ‘‘molecularized biopower’’ and ‘‘politics of life’’ developed by Paul Rabinow and Nikolas Rose. Molecularization is assumed to signal the end of population-centred biopolitics and the disciplining of subjects as described by Foucault, and the rise of new forms of biosociality and biological citizenship. Drawing on empirical work in Science and Technology Studies (STS), we argue that this account is limited by a focus on novelty and assumptions about the transformative power of the genetic life sciences. We suggest that biopower consists of a more complex cluster of relationships between the molecular and the population. The biological existence of different human beings is politicized through different complementary and competing discourses around medical therapies, choices at the beginning and end of life, public health, environment, migration and border controls, implying a multiple rather than a singular politics of life.