Accounting for the social dimension of sustainability: Experiences from the biotechnology industry

Business Strategy and the Environment

Volumn 15, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 334-346

  von Geibler, Justus ^a   Liedtke, Christa ^a   Wallbaum, Holger ^b   Schaller, Stephan ^b  

^a and Energy   (Germany)

^b Triple Innova   (Germany)

Author keywords

Biotechnology; Emerging technologies; Indicator set; KPI; Social dimension; Stakeholder approach; Stakeholder participation; Sustainability accounting

Indexed keywords

BIOTECHNOLOGY; INNOVATION; PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT; STAKEHOLDER; SUSTAINABILITY;

EID: 33749409423     PISSN: 09644733     EISSN: 10990836     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/bse.540     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. 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; 17-26.
2. Bass S. 2001. Change towards sustainability in resource use. Lessons from the forest sector. Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development 5: 1-39.
3. Bennett M, James P (eds). 1999. Sustainable Measures: Evaluation and Reporting of Environmental and Social Performance. Greenleaf: Sheffield.
4. Bennett M, Rikhardsson P, Schaltegger S (eds). 2003. Environmental Management Accounting. Purpose and Progress. Kluwer: Rotterdam.
5. Biekart JW, Ree K. 1999. Reaching consensus on the implementation of good practice in environmental reporting: a Dutch NGO's perspective. In Sustainable Measures: Evaluation and Reporting of Environmental and Social Performance, Bennett M, James P (eds). Greenleaf: Sheffield; 353-365.
6. 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): 39-50.
7. Cerin P. 2002. Characteristics of environmental reporters on the OM Stockholm exchange. Business Strategy and the Environment 11: 298-311.
8. Clarkson MBE. 1995. A stakeholder framework for analysing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review 20: 92-117.
9. 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): 86-96.
10. Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW), Wuppertal Institut für Klima, Umwelt, Energie, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung. 2000. Wege in eine nachhaltige Zukunft [Roads Towards a Sustainable Future], Ergebnisse aus dem Verbundprojekt Arbeit und Ökologie. Hans Böckler Stiftung: Düsseldorf.
11. Donaldson T, Preston L. 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence, implications. Academy of Management Review 20: 65-19.
12. Elkington J. 1999. Triple bottom line revolution - reporting for the third millennium. Australian CPA 69(10): 75-77.
13. 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: Sheffield; 496-508.
14. Enquête Commission. 1994. Die Industriegesellschaft gestalten. Perspektiven für eine nachhaltigen Umgang mit Stoff- und Materialströmen [Shaping Industrial Society. Perspectives for Sustainable Use of Matter and Material Flows]. Enquête-Commission 'Schutz des Menschen und der Umwelt' des 12. Deutschen Bundestages. Economica: Bonn.
15. European Commission. 2001. 'ETHICS' in the RTD Framework Programmes. Brussels.
16. European Commission. 2002. Life Sciences and Biotechnology - a Strategy for Europe. Brussels.
17. European Commission. 2003. Europeans and Biotechnology. Brussels.
18. European Conference of National Ethics Committees (COMETH) (ed.). 2001. Proceedings of the Sixth European Conference of National Ethics Committees, Paphos, Cyprus.
19. 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.
20. Eversheim W, Bortler W. 1995. Simultaneous Engineering - Erfahrungen aus der Industrie für die Industrie [Simultaneous Engineering - Experiences from Industry to Industry]. Springer: Berlin.
21. 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. 91-113.
22. Freeman RE. 1984. Strategic Management: a Stakeholder Approach. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
23. Gibson K. 2000. The moral basis of stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics 26: 245-257.
24. Global Reporting Initiative. 2002. Sustainability Reporting 2002. Boston, MA.
25. Global Reporting Initiative. 2005. Sector Supplements. http://www.globalreporting.org/guidelines/sectors.asp [22 December 2005].
26. Global Reporting Initiative. 2006. Sustainability Reporting Guidelines [Draft], G3 version for public comment. Amsterdam.
27. 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; 95-148.
28. Heiden S, Burschel C, Erb R (eds). 2001. Biotechnologie als interdisziplinäre Herausforderung [Biotechnology as Interdisciplinary Challenge]. Spektrum.: Heidelberg.
29. Hoppenheidt K, Mücke M, Peche R, Tronecker D, Roth U, Würdinger E, Hottenroth S, Rommel W. 2004. Entlastungseffekte für 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.
30. ifu Hamburg. 2005. Sabento - Software for the Assessment of Biotechnology Processes. http://www.sabento.de [14 January 2006].
31. Jones TM, Wicks AC. 1999. Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review 24(2): 206-221.
32. Köhler R. 1987. Informationen für die strategische Planung von Produktinnovationen. In Distributionspolitik. Festgabe für Edmund Sundhoff zum 75. Geburtstag [Politics of Distribution. Anniversary Publication for Edmund Sundhoff for his 75th Birthday], Klein-Blenkers F (ed.), Institut für Handelsforschung, University of Cologne: Cologne; 79-104.
33. Kuhndt M, Tunçer B, Andersen KC, Liedtke C. 2004a. Responsible Corporate Governance. An Overview of Trends, Initiatives and State-of-the-Art Elements, Wuppertal Institute Paper. Wuppertal.
34. Kuhndt M, Tunçer B, Liedtke C. 2004b. A Triple Bottom Line Innovation Audit Tool for ICT Product-Service Mix Applications, final report. Wuppertal Institute: Wuppertal.
35. Kuhndt M, von Geibler J, Eckermann A. 2002. Towards a Sustainable Aluminium Industry: Stakeholder Expectations and Core Indicators, final report. Wuppertal Institute: Wuppertal.
36. Maunders KT, Burritt RL. 1991. Accounting and the ecological crisis. Accounting Auditing and Accountability Journal 4(3): 9-26.
37. OECD (ed.). 1998. Biotechnology for Clean Industrial Products and Processes. Towards Industrial Sustainability. Paris.
38. Orbach T, Liedkte C. 2002. Resource efficiency accounting. In Environmental Management Accounting. Informational and Institutional Developments, Bennett M, Bouma JJ, Wolters T (eds). Kluwer: Dordrecht; 83-90.
39. Persson JG. 2001. Eco-indicators in product development. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part B. Journal of Engineering Manufacture 215(5): 627-635.
40. Puxty AG. 1991. Social accounting and the universal pragmatics. Advances in Public Sector Accounting 4: 35-47.
41. 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: Sheffield; 475-496.
42. Rikhardsson P, Bennett M, Bouma J, Schaltegger S (eds). 2005. Implementing Environmental Management Accounting. Status and Challenges. Dordrecht: Springer.
43. 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): 87-97.
44. Schaltegger S, Burritt R. 2000. Contemporary Environmental Accounting. Greenleaf: Sheffield.
45. 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; 185-222.
46. Schaltegger S, Dyllick T (eds). 2002. Nachhaltig managen mit der Balanced Scorecard. Konzept und Fallstudien [Sustainable Management using the Balanced Scorecard]. Gabler: Wiesbaden.
47. Sillanpää 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. Sheffield; 529-550.
48. Spalding-Fecher R. 2003. Indicators of sustainablity for the energy sector. A South African case study. Energy for Sustainable Development 3(1): 35-49.
49. SustainAbility/United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). 1999. Engaging Stakeholders. The Social Reporting Report. SustainAbility-UNEP: London.
50. Task Force on Science, Technology and Innovation. 2005. Innovation: Applying Knowledge in Development. http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/ reports/tf_science.htm [14 December 2005].
51. Tischner U, Charter M (eds). 2001. Sustainable Solutions - Developing Products and Services for the Future. Greenleaf: Sheffield.
52. United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) (ed.). 2001. Indicators of Sustainable Development: Framework and Methodologies, Background Paper 3. UNCSD: New York.
53. von Geibler J, Kuhndt M, Seifert E, Lucas R, Lorak S, Bleischwitz R. 2004. Sustainable business and consumption strategies. In Eco-Efficiency, Regulation and Sustainable Business. Towards Sustainable Governance Structure for Sustainable Development, Bleischwitz R, Hennicke P (eds). Elgar: Cheltenham; 116-164.
54. 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], final report. Wuppertal Institute: Wuppertal.
55. 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/files/lcm2005_paper.pdf [14 January 2006].
56. 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: Sheffield; 509-528.
57. 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; 231-247.
58. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). 2002. WBCSD Sector Projects. WBCSD. Geneva.
59. Zadek S, Pruzan P, Evans R. 1997. Building Corporate AccountAbility - Emerging Practices in Social and Ethical Accounting, Auditing and Reporting. Earthscan: London.
60. Zetterberg H. 1967. Theorie, Forschung und Praxis in der Soziologie. In Handbuch der empirischen Sozialforschung [Handbook of Empirical Social Research], König R (ed.). Enke: Stuttgart; 65-105.