Research needs and opportunities in Context-Based Sustainability

Author/s Mark W. McElroy, Bill Baue
Publishing Year 2013 Issue 2013/2
Language English Pages 24 P. 47-70 File size 703 KB
DOI 10.3280/FR2013-002004
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

In recent years, a new, literalist approach to managing the sustainability performanceof organizations has emerged, the makeup of which stands in stark contrastto the prevailing, incrementalist approach. Unlike the incrementalist approach,which is predicated on the view that progress in sustainability occurs whenevermarginal improvements in the social and environmental impacts of organizationsare made, the literalist approach takes a more rigorous stand. Under the literalistdoctrine (also known as context-based sustainability, or CBS), an organization’ssustainability performance is a function of what its social and environmental impactsare relative to specific norms, standards, or thresholds for what such impactsmust be in order to be sustainable. Here the literalist doctrine relies on the principleof sustainability context, or the general idea that sustainability performance assessmentsmust be made in light of social and ecological limits, and never withoutthem. Actual implementations of sustainability context in practice, however, arestill the exception, not the rule, mainly because generally-accepted guidelines forhow to do it do not yet exist. In response, this paper takes up the question of whatthe research and development needs and opportunities are in the field of CBS, andwhich must be addressed if moving sustainability context from the realm of theoryinto practice is to have any chance of succeeding. The authors begin by definingCBS, explaining the logic and epistemology behind it, and then continue by identifying and discussing specific issues of interest for further research and developmentin the social and environmental accounting domains.

Keywords: Epistemology; incrementalist; literalist; sustainability context.

  1. (2012), Why divestment? Accessed on November 17, 2012 at:
  2. Alston W. (1996), A realist conception of truth. (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).
  3. Audi R. (2000), Epistemology. (London, Routledge).
  4. Bakker P., Rockström J. (2012), Business solutions based on scientific analysis, Guardian Sustainable Business Blog. Accessed on January 31, 2013 at:
  5. Bartley W. (1993[1987]), Theories of rationality, in Radnitzky G., Bartley W. (eds.), Evolutionary epistemology, rationality, and the sociology of knowledge. (Chicago, Open Court).
  6. Baue B. (2011), Stepping Toward Corporate Sustainability Footprinting, The Murninghan Post. Accessed January 31, 2013 at:
  7. Baue B. (2012a), Accelerating Reduction: EMC Advances Practice on Climate-Stabilizing Targets, Sustainable Brands. Accessed on November 20, 2012 at:
  8. Fisher I. (2003[1906]), The nature of capital and income. (San Diego: Simon Publications).
  9. Baue B. (2012b), Carbon Disclosure Project Leadership Indexes: The Role of Scientific Targets, Sustainable Brands. Accessed January 31, 2013 at:
  10. Baue B. (2012c), Embracing science to bridge the sustainability gap, The Guardian Sustainable Business Blog. Accessed on November 20, 2012 at:
  11. Baue B. (2012d), Open-Source Sustainability: Autodesk Frees Its Climate Stabilization Method, Sustainable Brands. Accessed on November 20, 2012 at:
  12. Baue B. (2012e), Threading the Needle: How BT Integrates Climate Stabilization with Economic Prosperity, Sustainable Brands. Accessed on November 20, 2012 at:
  13. Bellamente M. (2012), Adding perspective: climate counts to pilot context-based sustainability approach, Sustainable Brands. Accessed on November 16, 2012 at:
  14. Ben & Jerry’s (2006), Global Warming Social Footprint, Social & Environmental Assessment Report 2006. Accessed on January 31, 2013 at: http://www.
  16. Boulding K. (1966), The economics of the coming spaceship earth, in H. Jarrett (ed.), Environmental Quality in a Growing Economy. (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press).
  17. Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) (2009), The Carbon Chasm. Accessed January 31, 2013 at:
  18. Carbon Tracker (2012), Unburnable carbon: are the world’s financial markets carrying a carbon bubble?, Accessed on November 15, 2012 at:
  19. Cavender N., Kahane H. (2010), Logic and contemporary rhetoric. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth). Center for Sustainable Organizations (CSO) (2012), The corporate water gauge – a context-based solution for measuring the sustainability of organizational water use. Accessed on November 12, 2012 at:
  20. Costanza R., Cumberland J., Daly H., Goodland R., Norgaard R. (1997), An introduction to ecological economics, St. Lucie Press, Boca Raton, FL., DOI: 10.1201/9781420048353
  21. Costanza R., Daly H. (1992), Natural capital and sustainable development, Conservation Biology, 6(1), pp. 37-46, DOI: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1992.610037.x
  22. Costanza R., Hart M., Posner S., Talberth J. (2009), Beyond GDP: The Need for New Measures of Progress, The Pardee Papers, No. 4. (Boston: The Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future). Accessed on February 3, 2013 at:
  23. Daly H. (1990), Toward some operational principles of sustainable development, Ecological Economics, 2, pp. 1-6, DOI: 10.1016/0921-8009(90)90010-R
  24. Daly H. (1996), Beyond growth. (Boston: Beacon).
  25. Ekins P. (1992), A four-capital model of wealth creation, in Ekins P. Max-Neef M. (eds.), Real-Life Economics. (London: Routledge).
  26. Elkington J. (1997), Cannibals with forks – the triple bottom line of 21st century business. (Oxford: Capstone).
  27. Freeman E. (2012), Business school research: some preliminary suggestions, David O’Brien Centre for Sustainable Enterprise Distinguished Speakers Series Presentation, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada, November 9, 2012.
  28. GHG Protocol (2011), Corporate value chain (scope 3) accounting and reporting standard. Accessed on November 19, 2011 at: Global initiative for sustainability ratings (2012), GISR standard. Accessed November15, 2012 at:
  29. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (2000), Sustainability reporting guidelines. Global Reporting Initiative, Amsterdam.
  30. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (2011) Sustainability reporting guidelines – G3.1. Global Reporting Initiative, Amsterdam.
  31. Gray R., Bebbington J. (2007), Corporate Sustainability, Accountability and the Pursuit of the Impossible Dream, in Atkinson G., Dietz S., Neumayer E. (eds.), Handbook of Sustainable Development. Accessed on January 31, 2013 at:
  32. Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley (2012), Moskowitz prize for socially responsible investing. Accessed on November 19, 2012 at:
  33. Hall E. (1952), What is value? (New York: Humanities Press).
  34. Hall E. (1956), Modern science and human values. (Princeton, NJ: D. van Norstrand Company).
  35. Hall E. (1961), Our knowledge of fact and value. (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press).
  36. Hawken P., Lovins A., Lovins L.H. (1999), Natural capitalism – creating the next industrial revolution. (New York: Little, Brown & Co.).
  37. Hicks J. (1939), Value and capital. (London: Oxford University Press). International Integrated Reporting Council (2012), Draft framework outline. Accessed on November 15, 2012 at:
  38. IRRC Institute (2012), IRRC institute research award: post-modern portfolio theory. Accessed on November 19, 2012 at: R. (2001), Theories of truth. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
  39. McElroy M. (2008), Social footprints – measuring the social sustainability performance of organizations. Accessed on November 12, 2012 at:
  40. McElroy M. (2011a), Context-based metrics – taking sustainability literally. Accessed on November 12, 2012 at:
  41. McElroy M. (2011b), Context-based sustainability – a new approach for measuring, managing and reporting sustainability performance. Accessed on November 12, 2012 at:
  42. McElroy M. (2011c), Key issues in sustainability metrics and indicators. Sustainable Brands. Accessed on November 12, 2012 at:
  43. McElroy M. (2011d), The social footprint – introduction and proof of concept. Accessed on November 12, 2012 at:
  44. McElroy M. (2012a), How leadership at Cabot Creamery makes all the difference. Sustainable Brands. Accessed on November 12, 2012 at: http://www. mery-makes-all-difference-0.
  45. McElroy M. (2012b), Context-based metrics and the zeronauts. Accessed on November 12, 2012 at:
  46. McElroy M. (2012c), Corporate sustainability management – a context-based approach. Accessed on November 12, 2012 at: http://www.sustainableorganizations. org/Context-Based-CSM.pdf.
  47. McElroy M. (2012d), Groundbreaking study reveals shortcomings of conventional sustainability metrics, Sustainable Brands. Accessed on November 20, 2012 at:
  48. McElroy M., van Engelen J. (2012), Corporate sustainability management – the art and science of managing non-financial performance. (London: Earthscan).
  49. Meadows D.H, Meadows D.L., Randers J., Behrens W. (1972), The limits to growth. (New York: New American Library).
  50. Meadows D.H. (1998), Indicators and information systems for sustainable development, The Sustainability Institute, Norwich, VT.
  51. Miller D. (1994), Critical rationalism – a restatement and defence. (Peru, IL: Open Court).
  52. Niiniluoto I. (2004[1999]), Critical scientific realism. (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
  53. Notturno M. (2001), Science and the open society. (Budapest: CEU Press).
  54. OECD (2012), Extended producer responsibility. Accessed on November 19, 2012 at:
  55. Popper K. (1971[1962]), The open society and its enemies – volume 2. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
  56. Popper K. (1979[1972]), Objective knowledge – an evolutionary approach. (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
  57. Popper K. (2000[1963]), Conjectures and refutations. (London: Routledge).
  58. Popper K. (2002[1935]), The logic of scientific discovery. (London: Routledge).
  59. Porter M., Kramer M. (2006), Strategy and society: the link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility, Harvard Business Review, December, pp. 78-92.
  60. Porter M., Kramer M. (2011), Creating shared value: how to reinvent capitalism—and unleash a wave of innovation and growth, Harvard Business Review, January-February.
  61. Randers J. (2012), Greenhouse gas emissions per unit of value added (“GEVA”) – A corporate guide to voluntary climate action, Energy Policy. Accessed January 31, 2013 at:
  62. Rockström J., Steffen W., Noone K., Persson Å., Stuart Chapin III F., Lambin E.F., Lenton T.M., Scheffer M., Folke C., Schellnhuber H.J., Nykvist B., de Wit C.A., Hughes T., van der Leeuw S., Rodhe H., Sörlin S., Snyder P.K., Costanza R., Svedin U., Falkenmark M., Karlberg L., Corell R.W., Fabry V.J., Hansen J., Walker B., Liverman D., Richardson K., Crutzen P., Foley J.A. (2009), A safe operating space for humanity, Nature, 461, pp. 472-475, DOI: 10.1038/461472a.SayreN.(2008),Thegenesis,history,andlimitsofcarryingcapacity,AnnalsoftheAssociationofAmericanGeographers,98(1),pp.120-134,doi:10.1080/00045600701734356
  63. Schmidheiny S. (1992), Changing course. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
  64. Smakhtin V., Revenga C., Döll P. (2004), Taking into account environmental water requirements in global-scale water resources assessments. Comprehensive Assessment Secretariat, Sri Lanka. Accessed on November 17, 2012 at:
  65. Stewart E., Deodhar A. (2009), A Corporate Finance Approach to Climate-Stabilizing Targets (C-FACT). Accessed January 31, 2013 at: Stiglitz J.E., Sen A., Fitoussi J.-P. (2009), Report by the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress. Accessed on November 12, 2012 at:
  66. Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (2012), Context. Accessed on November 15, 2012 at:
  67. Sustainability Context Group (SCG) (2012) Statement to GRI on the need to enhance treatment of sustainability context in G4. Accessed on November 12, 2012 at:
  68. Tuppen C. (2009), Climate Stabilisation Intensity Targets: A new approach to setting corporate climate change targets. Accessed on January 31, 2013 at:
  69. Von Carlowitz H. (1713), Sylvicultura oeconomica. (Leipzig: Johann Friedrich Brauns).
  70. Wackernagel M., Rees W. (1996), Our ecological footprint – reducing human impact on the earth. (Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: New Society Publishers).
  71. Wijkman A., Rockström J. (2012), Strategeis for planetary stewardship are desperately needed, Guardian Sustainable Business Blog. Accessed on January 31, 2013 at: ries-bankrupting-nature-wijkman-rockstrom.
  72. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (1999), Meeting changing expectations. Accessed on November 12, 2012 at:
  73. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (2000), Eco-efficiency – creating more value with less impact. Accessed on November 12, 2012 at:

  • How to Articulate Beyond GDP and Businesses’ Social and Environmental Indicators? Olivier E. Malay, in Social Indicators Research /2021 pp.1
    DOI: 10.1007/s11205-020-02583-6
  • The time-to-sustainability optimization strategy for sustainable supply network design M. Kannegiesser, H.-O. Günther, N. Autenrieb, in Journal of Cleaner Production /2015 pp.451
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.030

Mark W. McElroy, Bill Baue, Research needs and opportunities in Context-Based Sustainability in "FINANCIAL REPORTING" 2/2013, pp 47-70, DOI: 10.3280/FR2013-002004