- Email: [email protected]
Critical perspectives of sustainable development research and practice
Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (2011) 783e786
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Cleaner Production journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro
Critical perspectives of sustainable development research and practice Rupert J. Baumgartner* Institute for Systems Science, Innovation and Sustainability Research, University of Graz, Merangasse 18/I, 8010 Graz, Austria
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 10 January 2011 Accepted 10 January 2011 Available online 21 January 2011
Sustainable development has been intensely debated for more than twenty years, but real progress of our societies to become more sustainable is very slow. Therefore this special issue provides a forum for critical perspectives of Sustainable Development Research and Practice. The papers are grouped into three clusters: a. Sustainability Science, b. Economic Problems and c. Corporate Contributions to Sustainable Development. Although a single special issue cannot address the entire array of issues pertaining to progress of sustainability related research, the selected papers highlight special aspects of sustainability research either due to their theoretical contributions or because they report on valuable empirical evidence. The main goal of sustainability research should be to contribute to our understanding of sustainability problems and to develop and help to implement solutions to solve them. This can be described as the relevance of sustainability research. A precondition to gain relevance is the rigor of sustainability science: it has to be based on solid scientific principles and methods. Additionally it has to be regarded that Sustainable Development is dynamic and that it has both normative and practical aspects. It is concluded that sustainability science and practice should be based upon these four central aspects: rigor, relevance, normative aspects and dynamic Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Sustainable development Rigor Relevance Sustainability science Sustainability science research
1. Background of this special issue This Special Issue (SI) of the Journal of Cleaner Production is designed to contribute to the critical international discourse on Sustainable Development research. The authors of the twelve papers discuss approaches, frameworks, strategies as well as the results of sustainability research and are based on contributions to the 15th Annual International Sustainable Development Research Conference. This conference was held in July 2009 at the University of Utrecht in Utrecht, The Netherlands, on behalf of the International Sustainable Development Research Society (www.isdrs.org). Since the starting point of the international discussion about Sustainable Development (SD), catalyzed primarily by the publication of the Brundtland report, “Our Common Future,” by the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987), numerous definitions, frameworks, models and initiatives have been developed to help us to make our societies more sustainable. Both the scientific and applied aspects of SD research are addressed in articles in this SI. It is evident that many different understandings, interpretations and conceptualizations about SD are present as illustrated by research questions such as: “What should be
* Tel.: þ43 676 5276177; fax: þ43 316 380 9585. E-mail address: [email protected]. 0959-6526/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.01.005
sustained?” and “How should it be sustained?” In spite of much work, there is severe criticism about the foundations, interpretations and the limited progress in societal SD (Lélé, 1991; Dobson, 1996; Haque, 1999; Hopwood et al., 2005; Sneddon et al., 2006; Goncz et al., 2007). A few influential contributions have been the development of the ‘Triple Bottom Line’ (TBL) approach (Elkington, 1998), the attempt to define Sustainability Science (Kates et al., 2001), the Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development (Robèrt et al., 2002; Ny et al., 2006; Missimer et al., 2010) and the dialogs about the range of weak and strong sustainability concepts and approaches (Neumayer, 2010; Solow, 1997; Stiglitz, 1997; Daly, 1997a,b). There have also been many specific approaches, which were linked to SD such as eco-efficiency/eco-effectivity, Cleaner Production, Industrial Ecology, Life Cycle Assessment, The Global Reporting Initiative, Corporate Social Responsibility or the new ISO 26000. However, looking at the societal results from these initiatives, it is questionable if we have made “real” progress towards more sustainable societies. Too many sustainability related problems continue to be unsolved or their impacts have increased; beside many other problems such as climate change, biodiversity losses, the tremendous amount of poverty and discrimination against women have become more severe since 1987.
784
R.J. Baumgartner / Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (2011) 783e786
Although a single SI cannot address the entire array of issues pertaining to progress in sustainability related research, the papers chosen for inclusion were selected because they highlight special aspects of sustainability research either due to their theoretical contributions or because they report on valuable empirical evidence in certain areas. 2. Outline of the papers in this special issue The papers of this SI are grouped into three clusters: a. Sustainability Science, b. Economic Problems and c. Corporate Contributions to Sustainable Development. Burger and Christen discuss in their paper “Towards a Capability Approach of Sustainability”, the usefulness of the ‘capability approach’ for sustainability science. To do this, the authors identified six adequacy conditions (future orientation, justice, normative power, universalism, limitedness and fragility of ecosystems and institutional actions) for the applicability of the concept of sustainability. These conditions are used to develop a categorical framework consisting of six categories for conceptions of sustainability. The authors document that the ‘capability approach’ is a promising candidate for fulfilling the demands of this framework. In the second paper, “A Dynamic Conceptualization of Power for Sustainability Research”, by Avelino and Rotmans addresses the role of power in sustainability research. Based on the example of integrated sustainability assessment, the authors identified three essential aspects, which should be regarded in a framework of sustainability research: a. it is focused upon short and long-term dynamics, b. it addresses nonlinear transformative changes and c. it catalyzes interdisciplinary and inter-paradigmatic dialog. On these bases, a dynamic power framework is developed in the context of research on socio-technical sustainability transitions, whereby, different types of power are distinguished, i.e., constitutive, innovative and transformative exercises of power. The authors documented how this power framework integrates interdisciplinary and “inter-paradigmatic” research requirements. The second group of contributions consists of five papers. The first article, authored by Steger and Bleischwitz, is titled, “Drivers for the Use of Materials across Countries”. The authors analyzed drivers for resource use and material productivity across countries. Their goal was to develop better insights into the system dynamics of material use in order to identify the major drivers for resource use and decoupling from GDP. A panel data set was derived from the European Union for the years 1980e2000 (EU-15) and 1992e2000 (EU-25). The main drivers of resource use were found to be energy efficiency, new dwellings and road construction activities. The second article in this group, titled “Employment and Structural Impacts of Material Efficiency Strategies: Results from 5 Case Studies”, was authored by Walz, who analyzed structural impacts on growth and innovation as well as on the employment effects of material efficiency improvement strategies. The research analyses were done for plastic recycling, paper recycling, car sharing and bio-based products with a time horizon up to 2020. The economic impacts are context specific and they highlight substantial structural adjustments while the overall economic net impact on employment trends seems to be neutral to positive. In her paper titled “Is the Swedish Environmental Technology Sector ‘Green’” Guziana focused upon the question, “Is the environmental technology sector in Sweden acting in an environmentally friendly manner?” Although the Environmental Technology (ET) sector delivers environmentally preferable products, little is known about whether companies in the ET sector establish environmental objectives relating to their own production processes. The author researched companies listed by the Swedish
Environmental Technology Council (Swentec). Her analysis revealed that only a small percentage of the companies provides information to the public about their environmental performance. The fourth paper, titled “Linking Corporate Climate Adaptation Strategies with Resilience Thinking” was authored by Beermann. She explored whether the concept of resilience can be linked with corporate climate adaptation strategies. Based on a case study in the German food industry, the author found that many impacts of climate change are affecting companies indirectly and that the integration of resilience thinking into business planning can improve their ability to identify strategic risks and opportunities caused by climate change. Perez-Batres and Miller authored the fifth paper, titled “Institutionalizing Sustainability: an Empirical Study of Corporate Registration and Commitment to the United Nations Global Compact Guidelines”. They explored the causal mechanisms of institutionalization and their influence on SD initiatives. To do their study, they analyzed the registration patterns of 394 large corporations from 12 Western European and Latin American countries, which had signed the United Nations Global Compact. The results suggest that the normative and mimetic mechanisms of institutionalization (i.e., academic and peer influence) are better indicators of the success of SD initiatives than the coercive ones (i.e., governmental regulations). The final group of papers in this SI consists of contributions dealing with sustainability issues on a regional or on the corporate level. Giurco et al. assessed in their article titled, “Developing Industrial Water Reuse Synergies in Port Melbourne: Cost-Effectiveness, Barriers and Opportunities”, the cost-effectiveness of five water treatment and industrial reuse options in the Fisherman’s Bend industrial area of Port Melbourne, Australia. In collaboration with local companies and authorities, potential water sources and sinks were identified and water treatment options based on environmental and on economic criteria were developed. These options were assessed regarding cost-effectiveness, cash flows, energy intensity and greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, barriers and opportunities regarding economics, CSR and business strategy, regional effects, information needs, regional issues and technical issues are evaluated. This paper is a case example for the application of Industrial Ecology and it highlights the need to analyze technical, economic, environmental and regional issues of Industrial Ecology. The second article in this group was authored by Lambooy, titled “Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Water Use”. She analyzed corporate strategies and actions for sustainable water usage. The main focus of her paper was to explore the role of today’s companies in relation to freshwater resource management. She reported that companies are expected to bear responsibility for their impact on water resources. And she found an evolution in corporate practice and research regarding sustainable water use and the development of greener products and greener ways of production. Hannon and Callaghan authored the third paper, titled “Definitions and Organizational Practice of Sustainability in the For-Profit Sector of Nova Scotia”, which presents an example of the perceptions and practice of managers SD in the for-profit sector in Nova Scotia, Canada. She focused upon the questions: “Do organizational decision-makers have a clear idea of what sustainability is?” and “Are decision-makers able to communicate that vision in such a way so that it can be operationalized within their organizations?” The findings reveal that there are three key relationships of significance including: a. the type of definition and the ease of articulation; b. the type of definition and the type of experiences and c. the type of integration of strategic and operational planning. The results of this study have implications both for executives who
R.J. Baumgartner / Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (2011) 783e786
wish to develop more sustainable organizations and for educators. The authors highlighted the importance of articulating a clear and concise definition of sustainability as a starting point for further strategic and operational planning of corporate sustainability activities as the key driver for sustainable transitions. This vision and definition of sustainability should reflect the need to integrate sustainability within all corporate functions. Education regarding sustainability and environmental management are needed to enable executives to act more efficiently in this area. It was also found that the focus of sustainability activities was on environmental aspects; however the executives rarely mentioned social aspects. The authors argued therefore, that “it is a mistake to let a collective social vision of sustainability emerge “organically” from within the ranks of those who have to carry it out. Instead we need more formal, rigorous, and focused research and education that will both push organizational leaders to go further with sustainability practices, and give them a solid grounding from which to work.” Ciliberti et al. authored the article, titled “CSR Codes and the Principal-Agent Problem in Supply Chains: Four Case Studies”. They discuss CSR and the principal-agent problem in supply chains. Based on four case studies of CSR practices in the textile industry in Italy and in The Netherlands, they examined whether a code of conduct can solve the principal-agent problems of adverse selection and moral hazard. They found that the use of a code of conduct, in this case SA 8000, increased transparency and trust in the companies studied. Codes, as a hybrid coordination mechanism, introduce aspects of hierarchy in market relationships because third parties monitor agents’ behavior. Principals will benefit from them, in particular, when they are SMEs, with limited resources. Van Bommel authored the final paper of this SI “A Conceptual Framework for Analyzing Sustainability Strategies in Industrial Supply Networks from an Innovation Perspective”. He proposed a new conceptual framework concerning the implementation of sustainability in supply networks from an innovation perspective based on his analysis that even though innovation, socialization, experimental learning and cultural perspectives have been acknowledged as being relevant for explaining supply chain network, dynamics they are rarely included in the current frameworks concerning sustainability. Therefore the conceptual framework consists of the elements of innovation power, which describes corporate capabilities to innovate and innovation pressure describing external pressure to innovate. Both elements influence the capability of a company to develop a strategy to integrate sustainability within its supply chain network.
785
foundation together with the need for practical outcomes can be seen as the fundamental basis of sustainability research, but it is necessary to add that SD also has a dynamic dimension. SD is a process with the clear vision to change our societies from unsustainable to sustainable. The challenge however, is that we can’t precisely define the status of a sustainable society. We can define general principles of sustainability like the framework of strategic sustainable development of Robèrt et al., (2002) does. Because the process of SD is a dynamic one; it is a moving target, which is continuously enhanced as our knowledge and understanding are improved (Hjorth and Bagheri, 2006). This implies that within sustainability science, four essential aspects must be understood as basic: 1. SD has, in its foundation, normative ethical as well as practical aspects. Regardless of the context of a system, problem or approach, SD is about enhancing the possibilities for improvement in the quality of life for all people on the planet and it is about respecting and living within the limits of ecosystems. 2. SD is dynamic. Therefore, it is a process with moving targets and goals based on the general long-term goals of SD. 3. The relevance of evolving contributions of sustainability science is essential to support societal SD. This means that sustainability science should help to identify sustainability problems and should help society to solve them. This implies that sustainability science has to be strategic; there is an urgent need for strategic thinking and action for SD (Baumgartner and Korhonen, 2010). 4. To develop valid and reproducible knowledge and understanding, the rigor of sustainability science is crucial. As sustainability problems are concerned with many different disciplines, the interactions of which are of high complexity, consequently, sustainability science must be both integrated into traditional disciplines as well as be integrated within multi, inter and transdisciplinary research programs. This implies that we will see diverse definitions and interpretations of scientific rigor, therefore, we, as sustainability researchers, should base our research and science on solid scientific principles and must employ the most rigorous approaches available so that the findings will contribute constructively to societal improvement. This SI contains many exciting new findings that will help researchers continue to push back the frontiers of SD. Your feedback and follow-up articles are welcomed.
References 3. Rigor and relevance of sustainability science As Burger and Christen stated in their paper, we can see “an arbitrariness of the different definitions and conceptions of Sustainable Development.” They state that more clarity is needed. This arbitrariness can be interpreted as being due to a lack of formalism and rigor of sustainability science. In analogy to an intensive debate in management science (Shrivastava, 1987; Varadarajan, 2003; Verstegen, 2004) we should also address both the relevance of sustainability research and the rigor of our work. In looking at the ‘relevance,’ the question is whether the research can help to reduce negative sustainability impacts and whether it can contribute to a transition to sustainable societal patterns. Sustainable development has both normative ethical and practical dimensions. They complicate the discussion about rigor of sustainability science as the normative questions can’t be answered and solved with scientific methodologies alone; they require a consensus about what is to be sustained and about how to sustain something. This implies the need for integration of interested parties, stakeholders and transdisciplinary research. The normative
Baumgartner, R.J., Korhonen, J., 2010. Strategic thinking for sustainable development. Sustainable Development 18 (No. 2), 71e75. Daly, H.E., 1997a. Georgescu-Roegen versus Solow/Stiglitz. Ecological Economics 22 (No. 3), 261e266. Daly, H.E., 1997b. Reply to Solow/Stiglitz. Ecological Economics 22 (No. 3), 271e273. Dobson, A., 1996. Environmental sustainabilities: an analysis and a typology. Environmental Politics 5 (No. 3), 401e428. Elkington, J., 1998. Cannibals with Forks. The Triple Bottom Line of the 21st Century. Capstone Publishing, Oxford. Goncz, E., Skirke, U., Kleizen, H., Barber, M., 2007. Increasing the rate of sustainable change: a call for a redefinition of the concept and the model for its implementation: sustainable production and consumption: making the connection. Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (No. 6), 525e537. Haque, M.S., 1999. The fate of sustainable development under neoliberal regimes in developing countries. International Political Science Review 20 (No. 2), 197e218. Hjorth, P., Bagheri, A., 2006. Navigating towards sustainable development: a system dynamics approach. Futures 38, 74e92. Hopwood, B., Mellor, M., O’Brian, G., 2005. Sustainable development: mapping different approaches. Sustainable Development 13 (No. 1), 38e52. Kates, R.W., Clark, W.C., Corell, R., Hall, M.J., Jaeger, C.C., Lowe, I., McCarthy, J.J., Schellnhuber, H.J., Bolin, B., Dickson, N.M., Faucheux, S., Gallopin, G.C., Grübler, A., Huntley, B., Jäger, J., Jodha, N.S., Kasperson, R.E., Mabogunje, A., Matson, P., Mooney, H., Berrien, M.I., O’Riordan, T., Svedin, U., 2001. Sustainability science. Science 292 (No. 5517), 641e642.
786
R.J. Baumgartner / Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (2011) 783e786
Lélé, S., 1991. Sustainable development: a critical review. World Development, 607e621. No. 19. Missimer, M., Robèrt, K.-H., Broman, G., Sverdrup, H., 2010. Exploring the possibility of a systematic generic approach to social sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (No. 8), 1107e1112. Neumayer, E., 2010. Weak versus Strong Sustainability: Exploring the Limits of Two Opposing Paradigms, vol. 3. Edward Elgar, Massachusetts. Ny, H., MacDonald, J.P., Broman, G., Yamamoto, R., Robèrt, K.-H., 2006. Sustainability constraints as system boundaries: an approach to making life-cycle management strategic. Journal of Industrial Ecology 10 (No. 1e2), 61e77. Robèrt, K.-H., Schmidt-Bleck, B., Aloisi de Laderel, J., Basile, G., Jansen, J.L., Kuehr, R., Price Thomas, P., Suzuki, M., Hawken, P., Wackernagel, M., 2002. Strategic sustainable development e selection, design and synergies of applied tools. Journal of Cleaner Production 10 (No. 3), 197e214.
Shrivastava, P., 1987. Rigor and practical usefulness of research in strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 8 (No. 1), 77e92. Sneddon, C., Howarth, R.B., Norgaard, R.B., 2006. Sustainable development in a post-Brundtland world. Ecological Economics 57 (No. 2), 253e268. Solow, R.M., 1997. Georgescu-Roegen versus Solow/Stiglitz. Ecological Economics 22 (No. 3), 267e268. Stiglitz, J.E., 1997. Georgescu-Roegen versus Solow/Stiglitz. Ecological Economics 22 (No. 3), 269e270. Varadarajan, P.R., 2003. Musings on relevance and rigor of scholarly research in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 31 (No. 4), 368e376. Verstegen, B., 2004. What is beneficial for the scientist will that be beneficial for us? Critical Perspectives on Accounting 15 (No. 4/5), 697e700. World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Cleaner Production journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro
Critical perspectives of sustainable development research and practice Rupert J. Baumgartner* Institute for Systems Science, Innovation and Sustainability Research, University of Graz, Merangasse 18/I, 8010 Graz, Austria
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 10 January 2011 Accepted 10 January 2011 Available online 21 January 2011
Sustainable development has been intensely debated for more than twenty years, but real progress of our societies to become more sustainable is very slow. Therefore this special issue provides a forum for critical perspectives of Sustainable Development Research and Practice. The papers are grouped into three clusters: a. Sustainability Science, b. Economic Problems and c. Corporate Contributions to Sustainable Development. Although a single special issue cannot address the entire array of issues pertaining to progress of sustainability related research, the selected papers highlight special aspects of sustainability research either due to their theoretical contributions or because they report on valuable empirical evidence. The main goal of sustainability research should be to contribute to our understanding of sustainability problems and to develop and help to implement solutions to solve them. This can be described as the relevance of sustainability research. A precondition to gain relevance is the rigor of sustainability science: it has to be based on solid scientific principles and methods. Additionally it has to be regarded that Sustainable Development is dynamic and that it has both normative and practical aspects. It is concluded that sustainability science and practice should be based upon these four central aspects: rigor, relevance, normative aspects and dynamic Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Sustainable development Rigor Relevance Sustainability science Sustainability science research
1. Background of this special issue This Special Issue (SI) of the Journal of Cleaner Production is designed to contribute to the critical international discourse on Sustainable Development research. The authors of the twelve papers discuss approaches, frameworks, strategies as well as the results of sustainability research and are based on contributions to the 15th Annual International Sustainable Development Research Conference. This conference was held in July 2009 at the University of Utrecht in Utrecht, The Netherlands, on behalf of the International Sustainable Development Research Society (www.isdrs.org). Since the starting point of the international discussion about Sustainable Development (SD), catalyzed primarily by the publication of the Brundtland report, “Our Common Future,” by the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987), numerous definitions, frameworks, models and initiatives have been developed to help us to make our societies more sustainable. Both the scientific and applied aspects of SD research are addressed in articles in this SI. It is evident that many different understandings, interpretations and conceptualizations about SD are present as illustrated by research questions such as: “What should be
* Tel.: þ43 676 5276177; fax: þ43 316 380 9585. E-mail address: [email protected]. 0959-6526/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.01.005
sustained?” and “How should it be sustained?” In spite of much work, there is severe criticism about the foundations, interpretations and the limited progress in societal SD (Lélé, 1991; Dobson, 1996; Haque, 1999; Hopwood et al., 2005; Sneddon et al., 2006; Goncz et al., 2007). A few influential contributions have been the development of the ‘Triple Bottom Line’ (TBL) approach (Elkington, 1998), the attempt to define Sustainability Science (Kates et al., 2001), the Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development (Robèrt et al., 2002; Ny et al., 2006; Missimer et al., 2010) and the dialogs about the range of weak and strong sustainability concepts and approaches (Neumayer, 2010; Solow, 1997; Stiglitz, 1997; Daly, 1997a,b). There have also been many specific approaches, which were linked to SD such as eco-efficiency/eco-effectivity, Cleaner Production, Industrial Ecology, Life Cycle Assessment, The Global Reporting Initiative, Corporate Social Responsibility or the new ISO 26000. However, looking at the societal results from these initiatives, it is questionable if we have made “real” progress towards more sustainable societies. Too many sustainability related problems continue to be unsolved or their impacts have increased; beside many other problems such as climate change, biodiversity losses, the tremendous amount of poverty and discrimination against women have become more severe since 1987.
784
R.J. Baumgartner / Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (2011) 783e786
Although a single SI cannot address the entire array of issues pertaining to progress in sustainability related research, the papers chosen for inclusion were selected because they highlight special aspects of sustainability research either due to their theoretical contributions or because they report on valuable empirical evidence in certain areas. 2. Outline of the papers in this special issue The papers of this SI are grouped into three clusters: a. Sustainability Science, b. Economic Problems and c. Corporate Contributions to Sustainable Development. Burger and Christen discuss in their paper “Towards a Capability Approach of Sustainability”, the usefulness of the ‘capability approach’ for sustainability science. To do this, the authors identified six adequacy conditions (future orientation, justice, normative power, universalism, limitedness and fragility of ecosystems and institutional actions) for the applicability of the concept of sustainability. These conditions are used to develop a categorical framework consisting of six categories for conceptions of sustainability. The authors document that the ‘capability approach’ is a promising candidate for fulfilling the demands of this framework. In the second paper, “A Dynamic Conceptualization of Power for Sustainability Research”, by Avelino and Rotmans addresses the role of power in sustainability research. Based on the example of integrated sustainability assessment, the authors identified three essential aspects, which should be regarded in a framework of sustainability research: a. it is focused upon short and long-term dynamics, b. it addresses nonlinear transformative changes and c. it catalyzes interdisciplinary and inter-paradigmatic dialog. On these bases, a dynamic power framework is developed in the context of research on socio-technical sustainability transitions, whereby, different types of power are distinguished, i.e., constitutive, innovative and transformative exercises of power. The authors documented how this power framework integrates interdisciplinary and “inter-paradigmatic” research requirements. The second group of contributions consists of five papers. The first article, authored by Steger and Bleischwitz, is titled, “Drivers for the Use of Materials across Countries”. The authors analyzed drivers for resource use and material productivity across countries. Their goal was to develop better insights into the system dynamics of material use in order to identify the major drivers for resource use and decoupling from GDP. A panel data set was derived from the European Union for the years 1980e2000 (EU-15) and 1992e2000 (EU-25). The main drivers of resource use were found to be energy efficiency, new dwellings and road construction activities. The second article in this group, titled “Employment and Structural Impacts of Material Efficiency Strategies: Results from 5 Case Studies”, was authored by Walz, who analyzed structural impacts on growth and innovation as well as on the employment effects of material efficiency improvement strategies. The research analyses were done for plastic recycling, paper recycling, car sharing and bio-based products with a time horizon up to 2020. The economic impacts are context specific and they highlight substantial structural adjustments while the overall economic net impact on employment trends seems to be neutral to positive. In her paper titled “Is the Swedish Environmental Technology Sector ‘Green’” Guziana focused upon the question, “Is the environmental technology sector in Sweden acting in an environmentally friendly manner?” Although the Environmental Technology (ET) sector delivers environmentally preferable products, little is known about whether companies in the ET sector establish environmental objectives relating to their own production processes. The author researched companies listed by the Swedish
Environmental Technology Council (Swentec). Her analysis revealed that only a small percentage of the companies provides information to the public about their environmental performance. The fourth paper, titled “Linking Corporate Climate Adaptation Strategies with Resilience Thinking” was authored by Beermann. She explored whether the concept of resilience can be linked with corporate climate adaptation strategies. Based on a case study in the German food industry, the author found that many impacts of climate change are affecting companies indirectly and that the integration of resilience thinking into business planning can improve their ability to identify strategic risks and opportunities caused by climate change. Perez-Batres and Miller authored the fifth paper, titled “Institutionalizing Sustainability: an Empirical Study of Corporate Registration and Commitment to the United Nations Global Compact Guidelines”. They explored the causal mechanisms of institutionalization and their influence on SD initiatives. To do their study, they analyzed the registration patterns of 394 large corporations from 12 Western European and Latin American countries, which had signed the United Nations Global Compact. The results suggest that the normative and mimetic mechanisms of institutionalization (i.e., academic and peer influence) are better indicators of the success of SD initiatives than the coercive ones (i.e., governmental regulations). The final group of papers in this SI consists of contributions dealing with sustainability issues on a regional or on the corporate level. Giurco et al. assessed in their article titled, “Developing Industrial Water Reuse Synergies in Port Melbourne: Cost-Effectiveness, Barriers and Opportunities”, the cost-effectiveness of five water treatment and industrial reuse options in the Fisherman’s Bend industrial area of Port Melbourne, Australia. In collaboration with local companies and authorities, potential water sources and sinks were identified and water treatment options based on environmental and on economic criteria were developed. These options were assessed regarding cost-effectiveness, cash flows, energy intensity and greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, barriers and opportunities regarding economics, CSR and business strategy, regional effects, information needs, regional issues and technical issues are evaluated. This paper is a case example for the application of Industrial Ecology and it highlights the need to analyze technical, economic, environmental and regional issues of Industrial Ecology. The second article in this group was authored by Lambooy, titled “Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Water Use”. She analyzed corporate strategies and actions for sustainable water usage. The main focus of her paper was to explore the role of today’s companies in relation to freshwater resource management. She reported that companies are expected to bear responsibility for their impact on water resources. And she found an evolution in corporate practice and research regarding sustainable water use and the development of greener products and greener ways of production. Hannon and Callaghan authored the third paper, titled “Definitions and Organizational Practice of Sustainability in the For-Profit Sector of Nova Scotia”, which presents an example of the perceptions and practice of managers SD in the for-profit sector in Nova Scotia, Canada. She focused upon the questions: “Do organizational decision-makers have a clear idea of what sustainability is?” and “Are decision-makers able to communicate that vision in such a way so that it can be operationalized within their organizations?” The findings reveal that there are three key relationships of significance including: a. the type of definition and the ease of articulation; b. the type of definition and the type of experiences and c. the type of integration of strategic and operational planning. The results of this study have implications both for executives who
R.J. Baumgartner / Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (2011) 783e786
wish to develop more sustainable organizations and for educators. The authors highlighted the importance of articulating a clear and concise definition of sustainability as a starting point for further strategic and operational planning of corporate sustainability activities as the key driver for sustainable transitions. This vision and definition of sustainability should reflect the need to integrate sustainability within all corporate functions. Education regarding sustainability and environmental management are needed to enable executives to act more efficiently in this area. It was also found that the focus of sustainability activities was on environmental aspects; however the executives rarely mentioned social aspects. The authors argued therefore, that “it is a mistake to let a collective social vision of sustainability emerge “organically” from within the ranks of those who have to carry it out. Instead we need more formal, rigorous, and focused research and education that will both push organizational leaders to go further with sustainability practices, and give them a solid grounding from which to work.” Ciliberti et al. authored the article, titled “CSR Codes and the Principal-Agent Problem in Supply Chains: Four Case Studies”. They discuss CSR and the principal-agent problem in supply chains. Based on four case studies of CSR practices in the textile industry in Italy and in The Netherlands, they examined whether a code of conduct can solve the principal-agent problems of adverse selection and moral hazard. They found that the use of a code of conduct, in this case SA 8000, increased transparency and trust in the companies studied. Codes, as a hybrid coordination mechanism, introduce aspects of hierarchy in market relationships because third parties monitor agents’ behavior. Principals will benefit from them, in particular, when they are SMEs, with limited resources. Van Bommel authored the final paper of this SI “A Conceptual Framework for Analyzing Sustainability Strategies in Industrial Supply Networks from an Innovation Perspective”. He proposed a new conceptual framework concerning the implementation of sustainability in supply networks from an innovation perspective based on his analysis that even though innovation, socialization, experimental learning and cultural perspectives have been acknowledged as being relevant for explaining supply chain network, dynamics they are rarely included in the current frameworks concerning sustainability. Therefore the conceptual framework consists of the elements of innovation power, which describes corporate capabilities to innovate and innovation pressure describing external pressure to innovate. Both elements influence the capability of a company to develop a strategy to integrate sustainability within its supply chain network.
785
foundation together with the need for practical outcomes can be seen as the fundamental basis of sustainability research, but it is necessary to add that SD also has a dynamic dimension. SD is a process with the clear vision to change our societies from unsustainable to sustainable. The challenge however, is that we can’t precisely define the status of a sustainable society. We can define general principles of sustainability like the framework of strategic sustainable development of Robèrt et al., (2002) does. Because the process of SD is a dynamic one; it is a moving target, which is continuously enhanced as our knowledge and understanding are improved (Hjorth and Bagheri, 2006). This implies that within sustainability science, four essential aspects must be understood as basic: 1. SD has, in its foundation, normative ethical as well as practical aspects. Regardless of the context of a system, problem or approach, SD is about enhancing the possibilities for improvement in the quality of life for all people on the planet and it is about respecting and living within the limits of ecosystems. 2. SD is dynamic. Therefore, it is a process with moving targets and goals based on the general long-term goals of SD. 3. The relevance of evolving contributions of sustainability science is essential to support societal SD. This means that sustainability science should help to identify sustainability problems and should help society to solve them. This implies that sustainability science has to be strategic; there is an urgent need for strategic thinking and action for SD (Baumgartner and Korhonen, 2010). 4. To develop valid and reproducible knowledge and understanding, the rigor of sustainability science is crucial. As sustainability problems are concerned with many different disciplines, the interactions of which are of high complexity, consequently, sustainability science must be both integrated into traditional disciplines as well as be integrated within multi, inter and transdisciplinary research programs. This implies that we will see diverse definitions and interpretations of scientific rigor, therefore, we, as sustainability researchers, should base our research and science on solid scientific principles and must employ the most rigorous approaches available so that the findings will contribute constructively to societal improvement. This SI contains many exciting new findings that will help researchers continue to push back the frontiers of SD. Your feedback and follow-up articles are welcomed.
References 3. Rigor and relevance of sustainability science As Burger and Christen stated in their paper, we can see “an arbitrariness of the different definitions and conceptions of Sustainable Development.” They state that more clarity is needed. This arbitrariness can be interpreted as being due to a lack of formalism and rigor of sustainability science. In analogy to an intensive debate in management science (Shrivastava, 1987; Varadarajan, 2003; Verstegen, 2004) we should also address both the relevance of sustainability research and the rigor of our work. In looking at the ‘relevance,’ the question is whether the research can help to reduce negative sustainability impacts and whether it can contribute to a transition to sustainable societal patterns. Sustainable development has both normative ethical and practical dimensions. They complicate the discussion about rigor of sustainability science as the normative questions can’t be answered and solved with scientific methodologies alone; they require a consensus about what is to be sustained and about how to sustain something. This implies the need for integration of interested parties, stakeholders and transdisciplinary research. The normative
Baumgartner, R.J., Korhonen, J., 2010. Strategic thinking for sustainable development. Sustainable Development 18 (No. 2), 71e75. Daly, H.E., 1997a. Georgescu-Roegen versus Solow/Stiglitz. Ecological Economics 22 (No. 3), 261e266. Daly, H.E., 1997b. Reply to Solow/Stiglitz. Ecological Economics 22 (No. 3), 271e273. Dobson, A., 1996. Environmental sustainabilities: an analysis and a typology. Environmental Politics 5 (No. 3), 401e428. Elkington, J., 1998. Cannibals with Forks. The Triple Bottom Line of the 21st Century. Capstone Publishing, Oxford. Goncz, E., Skirke, U., Kleizen, H., Barber, M., 2007. Increasing the rate of sustainable change: a call for a redefinition of the concept and the model for its implementation: sustainable production and consumption: making the connection. Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (No. 6), 525e537. Haque, M.S., 1999. The fate of sustainable development under neoliberal regimes in developing countries. International Political Science Review 20 (No. 2), 197e218. Hjorth, P., Bagheri, A., 2006. Navigating towards sustainable development: a system dynamics approach. Futures 38, 74e92. Hopwood, B., Mellor, M., O’Brian, G., 2005. Sustainable development: mapping different approaches. Sustainable Development 13 (No. 1), 38e52. Kates, R.W., Clark, W.C., Corell, R., Hall, M.J., Jaeger, C.C., Lowe, I., McCarthy, J.J., Schellnhuber, H.J., Bolin, B., Dickson, N.M., Faucheux, S., Gallopin, G.C., Grübler, A., Huntley, B., Jäger, J., Jodha, N.S., Kasperson, R.E., Mabogunje, A., Matson, P., Mooney, H., Berrien, M.I., O’Riordan, T., Svedin, U., 2001. Sustainability science. Science 292 (No. 5517), 641e642.
786
R.J. Baumgartner / Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (2011) 783e786
Lélé, S., 1991. Sustainable development: a critical review. World Development, 607e621. No. 19. Missimer, M., Robèrt, K.-H., Broman, G., Sverdrup, H., 2010. Exploring the possibility of a systematic generic approach to social sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (No. 8), 1107e1112. Neumayer, E., 2010. Weak versus Strong Sustainability: Exploring the Limits of Two Opposing Paradigms, vol. 3. Edward Elgar, Massachusetts. Ny, H., MacDonald, J.P., Broman, G., Yamamoto, R., Robèrt, K.-H., 2006. Sustainability constraints as system boundaries: an approach to making life-cycle management strategic. Journal of Industrial Ecology 10 (No. 1e2), 61e77. Robèrt, K.-H., Schmidt-Bleck, B., Aloisi de Laderel, J., Basile, G., Jansen, J.L., Kuehr, R., Price Thomas, P., Suzuki, M., Hawken, P., Wackernagel, M., 2002. Strategic sustainable development e selection, design and synergies of applied tools. Journal of Cleaner Production 10 (No. 3), 197e214.
Shrivastava, P., 1987. Rigor and practical usefulness of research in strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 8 (No. 1), 77e92. Sneddon, C., Howarth, R.B., Norgaard, R.B., 2006. Sustainable development in a post-Brundtland world. Ecological Economics 57 (No. 2), 253e268. Solow, R.M., 1997. Georgescu-Roegen versus Solow/Stiglitz. Ecological Economics 22 (No. 3), 267e268. Stiglitz, J.E., 1997. Georgescu-Roegen versus Solow/Stiglitz. Ecological Economics 22 (No. 3), 269e270. Varadarajan, P.R., 2003. Musings on relevance and rigor of scholarly research in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 31 (No. 4), 368e376. Verstegen, B., 2004. What is beneficial for the scientist will that be beneficial for us? Critical Perspectives on Accounting 15 (No. 4/5), 697e700. World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford.