From SLCA to Positive Sustainability Performance Measurement: A Two‐Tier Delphi Study

Kühnen, Michael; Hahn, Rüdiger

doi:10.1111/jiec.12762

Cited by 29 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 115 publications

(217 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The concept of break-even goals developed by Future Fit could also be tested within organizations, including small-and medium-sized companies. Finally, there are ongoing discussions about what could be considered valid maintenance activities for each capital following the four levels proposed by or Upham (2000), and what "positive" externalities are for organizations, and whether we should account for them from a strong sustainability viewpoint (Kühnen and Hahn, 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accounting for strong sustainability: an intervention-research based approach

Taïbi

Antheaume

Gibassier

2020

SAMPJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to first empirically illustrate the construction of accounting for sustainable development tool (Bebbington and Gray, 2001) and, second, to discuss the operationalization of accounting for sustainable development (Bebbington and Larrinaga, 2014). Design/methodology/approach This research is based on a unique intervention-research approach, the main author having worked part-time for four years on the development of the tool for a business organization in the organic food sector. Findings This paper proposes an operationalization of sustainable development within an accounting tool and presents the results of the calculations. It also touches briefly upon the organization’s decision not to adopt the tool. The research concludes on the difficulty of operationalizing the economic, social and environmental capitals while proposing results that demonstrate “unsustainability”. Practical implications This research in operationalizing sustainable development paves the way for future potential use of the tool described, and future developments to address the model’s current shortcomings, notably in interconnecting social and economic capitals with natural capital. Social implications The non-adoption of the accounting tool raises questions about the acceptability among practitioners of visualizing the unsustainability of their own organization, in particular within “green” and “socially responsible” businesses. Moreover, it raises the question of growth and decoupling of the organization’s impact from its economic growth. Originality/value This paper makes three contributions to the current literature. First, it furthers the discussion on how to operationalize accounting for sustainable development, notably by trying to implement capital as a liability (a debt), placing its “maintenance” at the very heart of the design. Second, it offers an initial operationalization of “system thinking” within a tool to account for sustainable development. Finally, it contributes to the literature on “engagement research” through a four-year intervention-research project.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accounting for strong sustainability: an intervention-research based approach

Taïbi

Antheaume

Gibassier

2020

SAMPJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Whether the society is considered as a "sum of individuals" or as "an independent entity" determines our approach as individualistic or holistic. We agree with Kühnen and Hahn (2018) on that the S-LCA needs to reach a normative consensus on what definitional characteristics constitute social performance along product life cycles, before designing technically measureable indicators. Addressing issues of health, human rights and working conditions as impact categories of the assessment and taking human well-being as the AoP shows the individualistic approach of S-LCA.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

Area of protection in S-LCA: human well-being or societal quality

Soltanpour

Peri

Temri

2019

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The set of stakeholders included in the Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) guideline (UNEP/SETAC 2009) could create confusion as to the target of the assessment: individuals or society. This paper attempts to develop the epistemological foundations of S-LCA in social sciences. Its major discussion is who should be addressed in S-LCA: individuals or society as a whole. This article contributes to the definition of a social life cycle based on sociological perspectives. Methods: This paper is a critical evaluation of well-being methodologies and sociological perspectives used to analyze the effects of a change in a social system. The two perspectives, individualistic and holistic, have been evaluated based on four criteria: subjectivity, social values, possibility of aggregation of social data and rebound effects. We have examined different points of view in the sociologic discipline to determine which perspective would be more suitable. Insights have been taken from structural-functionalist, symbolic interactionism and conflict theories to answer the troubling debates identified in S-LCA: Can the life cycle defined for LCA be used in S-LCA? More specifically, does S-LCA include the same actors and timeline as LCA? Does aggregation of data of individuals convey the characteristics of a society? Results and discussion: Organizational or technical change induce new cost and benefits in the social system. When focusing on the well-being of individuals, little emphasis is directed to the relations between people and thus social costs and benefits are not valorized. The sociological perspectives that deal with social change (structuralism, functionalism and symbolic interaction) seek to explain social phenomena based on the relations that are established and affected by a social phenomenon. The sociologic concept has brought insights to the definition of a social life cycle, the object of S-LCA. Conclusions: This paper is an attempt to bring the attention of S-LCA practitioners to the concept of social change defined by sociologists. Whether society is considered as a sum of individuals or as an independent entity determines our approach as individualistic or holistic. This would obviously influence our perspective in the selection of stakeholders of the life cycle, the boundaries of the analysis and the indicators to be assessed. We recognize the central social matter of a product system as its contribution to the overall order in a society.

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, lack of consensus on social indicators is still one of the main challenges of S-LCA, as Kühnen and Hahn [73] stress after conducting a Delphi study of experts. Further, unresolved definitional challenges include complexity of social and cultural issues, as well as limited regulation; other methodological challenges associated with S-LCA are limited availability of data, complexity of supply chains, and lack of technical know-how in social assessment methods.…”

Section: Methodological and Theoretical Concerns Related To S-lcamentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Life-Cycle Assessment: A Review by Bibliometric Analysis

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the literature on social life-cycle assessment (S-LCA) published in the last 15 years (2003–2018) using bibliometric methods. Applying scientific mapping and analyzing publication performance, the study describes the structure of and trends in S-LCA publications in terms of related subject categories, authors, journals, countries, and highly cited articles. Challenges and research gaps in the S-LCA literature were also explored. The content of related papers published in the ISI Web of Science databases was examined to identify the main themes investigated, evolution of publication activity, and most representative elements. Analyses were conducted with SciMAT software. This tool enables researchers to map research specialties by extracting qualitative information in the specialized literature and representing it using quantitative measures. The results show rapid and exponential growth of the S-LCA research line in the past ten years, with a clear upward trend in related publications (mostly case studies), especially after publication of the UNEP/SETAC Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products in 2009: 66% of all articles published on S-LCA were published during the period 2015–2018, primarily by European authors. The findings also delineate S-LCA as a highly fragmented research field that has been applied to diverse sectors (agriculture, bioenergy, transport, water management, chemical products, electronics, etc.), mainly in non-European countries. Critical questions concerning methods, framework, paradigms, and indicators remain to be resolved. This study provides insight into the publication performance of S-LCA, characterizing its intellectual structure and salient authors and works. In identifying hotspots in the S-LCA research, the study provides a useful state-of-the-art reference guide for academics and reveals critical research gaps and potential research avenues for future studies to advance in consolidating the discipline.

show abstract

From SLCA to Positive Sustainability Performance Measurement: A Two‐Tier Delphi Study

Cited by 29 publications

References 115 publications

Accounting for strong sustainability: an intervention-research based approach

Accounting for strong sustainability: an intervention-research based approach

Area of protection in S-LCA: human well-being or societal quality

Social Life-Cycle Assessment: A Review by Bibliometric Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About