Conceptualizing and incorporating social sustainability in the business world

One of the most important challenges faced by business managers today is the integration of sustainability into their core functions. The contemporary enterprise is forced to leap forward from the mere adoption of green practices toward rethinking, redesigning, and redeveloping business practices in a more sustainable way. Most of the initiatives in this attempt have so far emphasized primarily the economic and environmental aspects of sustainable development and overlooked the social dimension of sustainability. As more organizations commit to sustainability, there is an increasing concern to incorporate social sustainability throughout their business operations. To conceptualize and integrate the notion, some organizations use preexisting indicators to demonstrate the value and impact of sustainability, while others look beyond the measurement of impacts by constructing their own system of indicators. This paper draws on a comprehensive literature review to determine a broadly acceptable framework of social sustainability indicators to be conceptualized and integrated into the business world. Findings suggest that economic and environmental sustainability can be driven together with core social factors including fairness and equality, poverty, health, education, delinquencies, demography, culture, and employee engagement within an organization. These results offer insight into the emerging phenomenon of formulating sustainable business strategies for organizations based on social indicators to attain the ultimate sustainable outcomes. This study is among the first to identify social sustainability indicators from societal and corporate perspectives. It offers a comprehensive social sustainability framework that may be adopted by organizations in the business world.     

天目湖沙河水库水生态安全状况长期变化及影响因素

为构建更为合理的个性化水库水生态安全评价指标体系,以我国东南低山丘陵地区水源地型水库天目湖沙河水库为例,基于2010~2020年逐月水生态监测数据,分析了水库水生态安全状况长期变化特征及影响因素,提出了以满足沙河水库水生态服务功能为目标的生态安全评价方法.结果表明,季节上,夏秋季SD相对较低,而总磷（TP）、浮游植物叶绿素a（Chl-a）、高锰酸盐指数和蓝藻生物量（BM_c）相对较高;空间上,不同区域的水体透明度（SD）存在显著差异（P<0.05）,多年均值呈现河流区 < 过渡区 < 湖泊区的现象,其他指标均呈现出河流区较过渡区和湖泊区高的现象;垂向上,5~9月随热分层出现,许多指标出现分层,其中异味物质2-甲基异莰醇（MIB）和Chl-a在水深4 m处出现最大值,硅藻生物量（BM_b）和BM_c最大值分别在水深2 m和0.5 m处出现.基于水生态指标的变化特征认识,应充分考虑水库水生态安全的时空差异性,将水生态安全风险较高的春夏季作为评价期,以Chl-a为核心指标,结合SD和MIB等指标,通过建立关键指标与其他指标的相关关系,构建了沙河水库水生态安全评价体系;评价结果表明,沙河水库10年来水生态安全状况整体优良,但年际波动较大,不同区域的得分差异大,对于存在热分层的区域应采取季节性分3层采样调查数据进行评估.本研究表明在湖库水生态安全管理中选取个性化方案监测评估的必要性;总磷偏高和藻类疯长引发的水体透明度下降和异味物质含量升高是影响亚热带地区水库生态服务功能的主要因素,年际间较大尺度的水文气象条件变化给水库水生态安全带来较大不确定性.     

ToSIA—A tool for sustainability impact assessment of forest-wood-chains

Within the forest sector, the sustainability concept has evolved from a narrow focus on sustainable wood production to a much broader evaluation of environmental, social, and economic sustainability for whole value chains. A new software tool - ToSIA - has been developed for assessing sustainability impacts of Forest-Wood-Chains (FWCs). In the approach, FWCs are defined as chains of production processes (e.g. harvesting-transport-industrial processing), which are linked with products (e.g. a timber frame house). Sustainability is determined by analysing environmental, economic, and social sustainability indicators for all the production processes along the FWC. The tool calculates sustainability values as products of the relative indicator values (i.e. indicator value expressed per unit of material flow) multiplied with the material flow entering the process. Calculated sustainability values are then aggregated for the segments of the FWC or for the complete chain. The sustainability impact assessment requires carefully specified system boundaries. ToSIA uses a data-oriented approach that is very flexible in the focus of the analysis and the selection of indicators of sustainability. An example of alternative Norway spruce management systems in Southern Germany and their effects on six sustainability indicators is presented. The less intensive management system with natural regeneration and motor-manual harvesting shows higher carbon storage and slightly less energy use. It creates more employment and higher labour costs, but the average rate of accidents is also higher. ToSIA offers a transparent and consistent methodological framework to assess sustainability impacts in the forest-based sector as affected, e.g. by changes in policies, market conditions, or technology. The paper discusses strengths and limitations of the approach and provides an outlook on further development perspectives of the methodology.     

Sustainability assessment of entire forest value chains: Integrating stakeholder perspectives and indicators in decision support tools

The optimization of value chains is an important process to promote sustainable development, since value chains are closely linked to the satisfaction of human needs and combine different driving forces for environmental change. This article presents a methodological approach for the participatory development of value-chain wide sustainability indicator sets and their integration into a decision support tool in the specific case study of the chain “construction and refurbishment with wood”. There are numerous indicator sets for sustainable development of forests and sustainable forestry available at different levels, ranging from local, regional and national to global scale assessments. Some efforts were also made to integrate later production stages of forest value chains (such as wood processing) in the assessment scope (e.g. for chain-of-custody certification). However, no indicator set has so far been available covering environmental, social and economic aspects for the entire value chain of building with timber. This gap was closed through applied sustainability research in the project “Holzwende 2020: Sustainable future markets for wood in the building sector”.     

Spatial systems approach to sustainable development: A conceptual framework

Even though “sustainable development” seems to have emerged as the development paradigm of the 1990s, a great deal of vagueness still surrounds the meaning, definition, and theoretical underpinnings of the concept. There is also a general lack of emphasis on the spatial dimension of sustainable development when developing relevant conceptual or environmental accounting frameworks. In clarifying the concept, this article proposes a definition that explicitly incorporates the temporal as well as the spatial dimension of sustainability. It also develops a logically consistent conceptual framework for the analysis and evaluation of sustainable development, following a spatial systems approach. Five interconnected aspatial subsystems or subsets of a spatial system are identified and their respective operational dimensions discussed. A proposed composite index calleddegree of stainable development (DSD) and its five component indicators are also outlined. The difficulties involved in operationalizing the DSD measure and the conceptual framework are noted, and the various tasks that need to be undertaken in this regard are specified. It is concluded that future research utilizing the proposed conceptual framework should not only foster the development of appropriate methodologies for the comparative evaluation of sustainable development at global, national, or regional scales, but also offer insights to appropriate decision makers at various levels regarding available options and alternative actions for the healthy development of their respective societies.     

The relationship among biodiversity,governance, wealth,and scientific capacity at a country level: Disaggregation and prioritization

At a global level, the relationship between biodiversity importance and capacity to manage it is often assumed to be negative, without much differentiation among the more than 200 countries and territories of the world. We examine this relationship using a database including terrestrial biodiversity, wealth and governance indicators for most countries. From these, principal components analysis was used to construct aggregated indicators at global and regional scales. Wealth, governance, and scientific capacity represent different skills and abilities in relation to biodiversity importance. Our results show that the relationship between biodiversity and the different factors is not simple: in most regions wealth and capacity varies positively with biodiversity, while governance vary negatively with biodiversity. However, these trends, to a certain extent, are concentrated in certain groups of nations and outlier countries. We discuss our results in the context of collaboration and joint efforts among biodiversity-rich countries and foreign agencies.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13280-014-0581-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Science–policy processes for transboundary water governance

In this policy perspective, we outline several conditions to support effective science–policy interaction, with a particular emphasis on improving water governance in transboundary basins. Key conditions include (1) recognizing that science is a crucial but bounded input into water resource decision-making processes; (2) establishing conditions for collaboration and shared commitment among actors; (3) understanding that social or group-learning processes linked to science–policy interaction are enhanced through greater collaboration; (4) accepting that the collaborative production of knowledge about hydrological issues and associated socioeconomic change and institutional responses is essential to build legitimate decision-making processes; and (5) engaging boundary organizations and informal networks of scientists, policy makers, and civil society. We elaborate on these conditions with a diverse set of international examples drawn from a synthesis of our collective experiences in assessing the opportunities and constraints (including the role of power relations) related to governance for water in transboundary settings.     

生态文明阈值和绿值二步测度:指标-指数耦合链方法

拟破解生态文明测度和评价的现存难题:在指标选取方面,评价目标模糊,指标筛选的主观性强,缺乏结构化方法,导致指标泛化,与一般环境经济评价混淆;在测度标尺方面,无法确定生态文明阈值,对不同文明阶段用同一把尺子去衡量,导致一些非生态文明区域的排名反而靠前;在应用价值方面,综合指标值失去生态经济意义,只是一个抽象的排名数字,导致测度结果不便于理解和运用。为此,依据文明演化的共生理论创立指标-指数耦合链方法,用以导出生态文明测度的阈值和绿值二步指数。依次运用扎根理论法、PSIR及SEM结构模型、足迹家族法、Lotka-Volterra模型等工具,构建从生态文明的指标体系到二步指数的结构化耦合链。全过程始终聚焦生态文明的本质属性——产业与生态的互利共生性:以定性科学属性为出发点,以人与自然复合系统的结构模型为纽带,以生态文明阈值和绿值二步指数定量模型为归宿点。其中,阈值用产业受力指数、生态受力指数和共生度指数3项指数进行衡量,合称为阈值指数;而绿值用1项综合反映区域产业与生态的总量、共生程度和均衡程度的绿值指数进行衡量。据此进行区域生态文明的二步测度。第一步,基于阈值指数的阶段或资格判定:通过产业与生态的共生性,考量被测区域是否进入生态文明门槛,"未入门"区域处于哪一个文明阶段。第二步,基于绿值指数的水平判定:通过产业与生态的互利共生程度,考量"入门"区域的生态文明水平。研究表明,指标-指数耦合链方法不仅可以有效克服单纯指标体系综合法或指数函数法的缺陷和难点,而且能够将两者的长处结合起来。如此,不仅能够避免生态文明测度结果与物质文明"成正比"的弊端,而且能够通过从生态文明二步指数回溯至指标体系的逆向解耦,分析出导致生态文明问题的根本原因,便于提出切中肯綮的对策。     

The use of indicators in environmental policy appraisal: lessons from the design and evolution of water security policy measures

Drawing up environmental policy options is a complex activity which involves defining and weighing the merits and risks of various alternative courses of action governments could pursue. In its modern version, this task typically involves formal policy analysis or ‘policy appraisal’, that is, policy work specifically undertaken to generate and evaluate policy options in order to address problems or issues on a policy agenda. Indicators play a powerful but under-investigated role in this process. To shed light on this issue, the paper conducts a case study of the design and evolution of policy indicators in water security policy formulation, examining both their utilization and impact. The paper documents the origins of water security policy indicators; assesses their relevance and influence in policy formulation and identifies the reasons for the emergence of certain preferred indices, despite their having several well-known limitations. In particular, the discussion flags the significance of the political advantages surrounding their ease of use and interpretation, rather than their technical merits, as a key factor affecting the continued utilization and influence of specific indicators in environmental policy and planning.