Should We Measure CSR

Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental ManagementCorp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt 10, 25–39 (2003)Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/csr.27

SHOULD WE MEASURECORPORATE SOCIALRESPONSIBILITY?

Jouni Korhonen*

Faculty of Business Studies, Lahti Polytechnic, Finland

This paper is critical towards efforts thattry and measure corporate socialresponsibility (CSR). A critical approachcan be important for the development ofthe theory of the emerging field ofcorporate social responsibility. A criticaland provocative approach can generatediscussion and debate. Three main pointsof critique are presented toward thecurrent efforts in the literature to measurecorporate contributions to economic,social and ecological sustainability. First,the use of the concepts of eco-efficiencyand eco-efficacy in measuring corporatecontributions to sustainability arecriticized from the viewpoint of thecomplementarity relation ofhuman-manufactured capital, naturalcapital and social sustaining functions.Second, the use of measures that focus onan individual process or an individualcompany are reconsidered with anapproach to industrial and firm networks.Third, the use of the monetary value isreconsidered, e.g. by suggesting an

* Correspondence to: Dr Jouni Korhonen, Department ofEconomics, University of Joensuu, PO Box 111, 80101 Joensuu,Finland. E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

approach based on physical material andenergy flows and on a new paradigmaticfoundation for social responsibility. Thesocial and ecological indicators illustratingthe social and environmental impacts ofeconomic activity and of firms can becombined with economic indicators, butnot expressed in monetary terms.Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltdand ERP Environment.

Received 20 November 2001Revised 13 March 2002Accepted 20 March 2002

INTRODUCTION

Sustainability is a difficult concept. It isdifficult, because one can never reallymeasure it. It is possible only to know

if the world has been sustainable and onlyby looking backward. To determine if it willbe sustainable, one must divine the futureby looking at a crystal ball (Ehrenfeld,2000, p. 232).

Only very few concepts have gained asmuch attention both in science and thepublic as the concept of eco-efficiency (Figge

J. KORHONEN

and Hahn, 2001). Eco-efficiency and busi-ness–environment win–win (Porter and vander Linde, 1996; Walley and Whitehead, 1996)are now commonly discussed in the literatureto consider the economics of sustainable devel-opment, and in particular whether companiescan gain in monetary terms, reduce costs orfind new market opportunities through thepractice of sustainability. Further, in macro-level economics and discussion on economicpolicy, the concept of natural capital, and amonetary value for it, have been defined andmeasured (Daly, 1996; Costanza et al., 1998).While some authors note that the definitionand measurement of the environment and eventhe social effects of economic activity of privatecompanies by using conventional economicsconcepts such as capital, efficiency and themonetary value is very difficult and alwaysincomplete, but still necessary for communi-cating the ecological and social information todecision-making, others simply argue that thisis the only way to go to get something done.Within this second perspective, the argumentsseem to indicate that, indeed, it is possible toput a value on nature and on the social worldin which economic subsystems are embedded.It is sometimes argued that eco-efficiency canreduce the environmental burden of economicactivity, even of economic growth. (This pointis discussed further later in the paper.)

This paper focuses on the existing discus-sion on the measurement of corporate con-tributions to economic, social and ecologicalsustainability. A critical approach is adopted,in which recent arguments in the literature onmeasuring the contribution of private firmsto sustainability (e.g. Karvonen, 2001; Figgeand Hahn, 2001) are discussed. The paperpresents three main points of critique towardthe current discussion. First, the use of theconcepts of eco-efficiency and eco-efficacy asa measure of corporate contribution to sus-tainability are reconsidered and a discussionon substitutability versus complementarity ofhuman-manufactured capital, natural capitaland social sustaining functions is presented as

an alternative. Second, the single firm or a pro-cess as a focus of measurement is challengedwith a perspective on environmental networks.Third, the monetary value as a basis in themeasurement of corporate contribution to sus-tainability is criticized. An alternative positionis adopted that includes a material and energyflow approach to the environmental dimensionand an approach that reconsiders the dom-inant business paradigm in the case of thesocial dimension of sustainable development.It is suggested that information on the eco-logical and social impacts of companies needsto be combined with economic monetary indi-cators, but not expressed in monetary terms.The paper starts with a brief introductionto eco-efficiency and business–environmentwin–win discussion. It continues and con-cludes with the three areas of critique relatedto measurement of the contribution of privatecompanies to sustainability.

BUSINESS–ENVIRONMENTWIN–WIN AND ECO-EFFICIENCY

Eco-efficiency (Figge and Hahn, 2001) andthe business–environment win–win notion(Porter and van der Linde, 1996; Walley andWhitehead, 1996) have gained and are gainingincreasing attention in the literature on sus-tainable development, environmental and eco-logical economics and business environmen-tal strategy. Some authors interpret economicgrowth that has simultaneously resulted inmore efficient ways to utilize natural resourcesor the natural ecosystem services offered tohuman economic systems by nature, such asthe waste and emission binding capacity, asevidence of a win–win situation (Karvonen,2001). In other words, when the same amountof product output can be produced with lessnatural resource inputs and less waste andemission output than before, the eco-efficiencyhas increased. Some interpret this to meanthat nature and the business are benefitingsimultaneously.

Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt 10, 25–39 (2003)

26

SHOULD WE MEASURE CSR?

Accordingly, then, the environmental gainsof the win–win and eco-efficiency position arepossible if production processes use less nat-ural raw material and virgin energy inputsand produce less waste and emissions out-puts. The economic gains of the win–winposition are possible when less material inputimplies reduced raw material and energy costs,e.g. transportation costs, or reduced costs ofimported fuels. Correspondingly, waste man-agement costs and emission control costs canbe reduced through successful industrial orcorporate environmental management. Finan-cial companies, banks or investors can choosetheir investment focus by applying some envi-ronmental management criteria. Companiescan perhaps enhance their funding in thisway. The implementation of measures that arerequired in international and national environ-mental legislation can present costs to compa-nies. In this respect, those actors that are proac-tive and plan ahead can reduce the costs result-ing from legislation, and possibly increase theircompetitiveness. Further, also the green mar-ket potential and the green image can havepositive implications for company competitiveability according to the win–win view.

In the following parts of the paper, we shallfocus on some of the recent developmentsin the literature that have been suggested tobe used to study the company environmen-tal management, the win–win situation, eco-efficiency and corporate contribution to sus-tainability as well as corporate social responsi-bility. We shall argue that sustainable develop-ment is very difficult to measure. There is a riskthat the use of the concepts of eco-efficiencyand win–win can hinder the true contribu-tion of business to ecological sustainability.Equally difficult is the measurement and quan-tification of those effects that are more withinthe social dimension of sustainable develop-ment, now commonly understood as a conceptthat carries with itself economic, ecological andsocial dimensions.

We feel that a critical approach towardthe measurement of corporate contribution

to sustainability can be very important forthe development of the still emerging fieldsof corporate social responsibility and corpo-rate environmental management. The mea-surement part is usually the core of the initialreview or the eventual audit, and thereforealso the basis of continuous improvement oftargets, goals and action proposals defined inthe quality or environmental management sys-tem of a firm. The critical approach towardsustainability measures may also contribute tothe development of tools and instruments inecological and environmental economics thatare applied in environmental policy planning,implementation and evaluation.

DIFFICULTY IN MEASURINGCORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY

This part of the paper considers some of therecent developments in measuring corporatecontributions to sustainability in the literature,i.e. the contribution that private companies canmake to sustainable development includingeconomic, social and ecological dimensions.The ‘sustainable value-added’ notion and busi-ness–environment win–win scenario are dis-cussed. We shall present a critique towardthe use of the sustainable value-added con-cept, eco-efficiency and eco-efficacy by focus-ing on complementarity versus substitutabilityof human manufactured capital (HMC), natu-ral capital (NC) and social sustaining functions(SSFs). In a general sense and for the pur-poses of this paper’s argument, these formsof capital can be understood as follows. HMCis produced by man and includes technology,machines and infrastructure. NC includes nat-ural capital stocks, both renewable and non-renewable natural resources as well as thoseservices that the stocks yield for human eco-nomic systems such as waste and emissionbinding and assimilation capacity, flood or cli-mate control, pollination etc (see Daly, 1996;


27

J. KORHONEN

Costanza and Daly, 1992). SSFs include inti-macy, ease of emotional stress, caring, nur-turing, child rearing, social bonding, commu-nity ties, gardening or those services offeredto the economic production process and eco-nomic systems by the household economicactors or by the non-paid work of women (seeO’Hara, 1997).

The sustainable value added, the rebound effectand the Jevons paradox

For measuring corporate contributions to sus-tainability, the sustainable value-added con-cept based on a monetary value of economic,ecological and social effects of business hasbeen used (Figge and Hahn, 2001). Four dif-ferent categories of corporate contribution tosustainability have been identified: efficiency-enhancing contribution without compensation(i), efficiency enhancing with compensation(ii), efficacy enhancing without compensation(iii) and efficacy enhancing with compensation(iv) (Figge and Hahn, 2001).

The first two measures can be consideredtogether here, because they allow the useof the concept of eco-efficiency. Therefore,they disregard the Jevons paradox (Mayumiet al., 1998; Jevons, 1990) and the reboundeffect (Berkhout et al., 2000), both of whichare examples of environmental gains achievedwith efficiency that are more than offset byeconomic growth, consumption or demand.If the same amount of products can beproduced with less energy or with fewervirgin resources than before, the productioncosts can decline. Eventually, this can leadto reduced prices of final products. Thiscan boost demand and consumption. If theeconomic growth exceeds the gains achievedwith eco-efficiency, then the absolute amountof energy or virgin resources used will increaserather than remain the same or decrease as,unfortunately, sometimes claimed by the eco-efficiency advocates. A well known example ismore efficient cars and reduced driving coststhat increase the absolute amount of mileage

driven, and so eventually, also energy use andemissions. Reduced prices of a certain goodcan also increase the purchasing power ofcustomers that will be spent on some otherproducts, possibly on energy or raw materialintensive products.

Figge and Hahn (2001) acknowledge thenegative growth effect on sustainability andpropose the concept of eco-efficacy with orwithout compensation as a measure of corpo-rate contribution to sustainability. It includeseconomic, social and ecological dimensionsand can be expressed in monetary terms. Eco-efficacy-enhancing contribution to sustainabil-ity without compensation happens when theabsolute amount of virgin resources or energythat are used decreases through applicationof corporate environmental management. Inaddition, the social-efficacy-enhancing contri-bution is achieved if the social effects (if takenas negative, e.g. accidents, child labour, reduc-tion of equity, disturbances of community etc)will decrease.

In other words, increases in social as well asin environmental efficiency here must exceedthe negative effect of economic growth on eachof these variables, and the absolute effects onsocial and environmental variables decrease.To put it another way, social efficiency is sostrong that increased economic performanceachieved through growth still reduces theabsolute social impacts when compared witha benchmark, e.g. the time before the growth.Similarly, the overall environmental impact isreduced through eco-efficiency that exceedsthe negative growth effect. For example, a com-pany is using less of natural resources thanbefore although its economy has been grow-ing. If the difficulties in measuring social andenvironmental effects, not least when usinga monetary value, or the actual concept ofsustainable development and difficulties inits definition, are relaxed, then it seems rela-tively straightforward that efficacy-enhancingcontribution without compensation (compen-sation discussed next, below) truly contributesto sustainable development. It can mean that


28


negative environmental and social effects arereduced while the company economic perfor-mance improves.

In fact, efficacy-enhancing contribution with-out compensation seems to be the only mea-sure proposed in the sustainable value-addedconcept that would be in tune with the prin-ciples of sustainability, or perhaps put moreadequately, with the principles of the direc-tion away from unsustainability. The businessmay indeed contribute to sustainability if itachieves improvements in its economic perfor-mance while simultaneously reducing its useof natural capital and reducing its negativesocial impacts. The difficulties in the use of amonetary value will be discussed later on inthis paper. It will be argued that the use of amonetary value can risk sustainability also inthose cases which follow the criteria of efficacy-enhancing contribution without compensation.We shall also reflect on those questions thatrelate to the definition of the concept of sus-tainability, e.g. can the use of non-renewablesand the ‘external-carbon’-producing activitiesby economic actors ever be sustainable, if thegoal is to sustain societal development for-ever and adapt it to the development of thelarger ecosystem.

Efficacy-enhancing contribution to sustain-ability with compensation has also been pre-sented as a potential measure of corporatecontribution to sustainability (Figge and Hahn,2001). Here the key point of our critique relatesto the notion or condition of compensation.With a monetary value, it is argued that com-panies can ‘buy’ negative social or environ-mental effects that the growth of the economicdimension of sustainability has created. If envi-ronmental effects are reduced more than thesocial effects increase, then the ‘extra’ envi-ronmental gains can be used to buy the badsocial effects. In case of company economicgrowth, it is argued then that if the overallcombined negative effects to environment andsocial variables are reduced, the compensationhas resulted in efficacy-enhancing contributionto sustainability.

The efficacy-enhancing contribution to sus-tainability with compensation has been achi-eved when the social and eco-efficiency, whenconsidered together and with a monetaryvalue, exceed the negative growth effect tosustainable development. In other words, thecondition toward the direction of sustain-able development that can be presented assimultaneous improvement in company per-formance in all three dimensions, economic,environmental and social (Figge and Hahn,2001) has been achieved. Economic growthof the company has been achieved. The neg-ative social effects, for example, may increase,but these can be compensated if environ-mental effects decrease more than the socialeffects increase. The absolute amount of badsocial and environmental impact together hasdecreased although the company has experi-enced economic growth.

Capital substitutability versus capitalcomplementarity

Here, it can be important to look at theissue of compensation more carefully. Theprecondition of compensation is the monetaryvalue and also the substitutability betweenhuman-manufactured capital (HMC), naturalcapital (NC) and the social sustaining functions(SSFs). For the purpose of this paper, weadopt a general definition of HMC, NC andSSFs as above. The definitions have beendiscussed more thoroughly elsewhere (Daly,1996; Costanza and Daly, 1992, Wackernageland Rees, 1997; O’Hara, 1997).

If one allows compensation between thesedifferent forms of capital, or between SSFs andNC, then one sees all of these as each other’ssubstitutes. If factors of production are sub-stitutes, then there can be no limiting factor(Daly, 1996), when one factor can approachzero if substituted and compensated by anincrease in another, and production outputcan still be maintained or increased. Karvo-nen (2001, p. 74) notes that ‘Substitution sit-uations arise when one capital is increased at


29

J. KORHONEN

the cost of decreasing another type of capital,i.e. win–lose or lose–win situations’ and ‘. . .increasing production capacity with existingtechnology will increase environmental bur-den; a case of manufactured capital substi-tuting for natural’. She takes these examplesas evidence that show that the Daly posi-tion (Daly, 1996) on capital complementarityis sometimes not true, and in fact, HMC cansometimes serve to substitute for natural capi-tal in an economic production process (Karvo-nen, 2001, pp. 71, 85).

We argue that the difficulty in substitution,and therefore, in compensation, is that HMC,NC and SSFs are fundamentally, and to avery large extent, complements instead ofsubstitutes. What good is a saw-mill withoutthe forest (Daly, 1996)? Similarly, althoughrarely accounted for in monetary terms or inmarkets, every worker needs a place to rest, toreceive intimacy and caring services or enjoysocial bonding and to ease emotional stressto be able to work in the factory again nextmorning. The SSFs are also an essential part ofan economic production process. These formsof household and community SSFs cannotalways be substituted with a monetary valuethat has been achieved with improvements inthe company environmental or eco-efficiencyor with HMC, but the SSFs can be and areaffected negatively by various forms of moderneconomic activity, e.g. growth, internationaltrade and globalization.

Consider that even eco-efficiency is some-times adopted as evidence of substitutabilityof HMC for NC (Karvonen, 2001). It is arguedthat reduction in emissions and wastes or inresource use shows how technology or greentechnology has substituted for NC. Therefore,aggregation across qualitatively different rolesin an economic production process is allowed.In Daly (1996), the role of HMC is that of anagent or efficient cause of production whileNC is the material cause of production or theresource flow undergoing qualitative transfor-mation into a product output in an economicproduction process by HMC and labour (Daly,

1996; Costanza et al., 1997). Quantitative aggre-gation across qualitatively different roles isimpossible (or very difficult). Therefore, wedo need both fuels as well as a power plantto produce electricity and heat. Because effi-ciency is the ratio of output to input and capitalis the quantity of input (Daly, 1996, p. 78), bestavailable techniques (BAT), cleaner productiontools (CP) or pollution prevention (P2) that canreduce the amount of virgin resources neededor the amount of wastes and emissions pro-duced are not evidence of HMC substitutingfor NC. HMC needs NC to function, hence thecondition of complementarity. This argumentfor the complementarity position is supportedwith many commonsense examples now care-fully described in ecological economics litera-ture, e.g. the cook and the eggs are comple-ments when making a cake and the fishingboat is no good without the fishing populationin the sea (Daly, 1997, 1996).

Consider that through CP or BAT, for exam-ple, a new incineration technique can beapplied that enables a shift from fossil fuelsto biomass or waste fuels. This is importantfor sustainable development. Approximately80% of the world energy production relieson emission intensive and non-renewable andoften imported fossil fuels. However, this isnot evidence of substitutability. Rather, thisshows how a quantity of one resource inputflow substitutes for a quantity of anotherresource input flow, not a physical quantityof HMC or machines as input substitutingfor the same amount of physical quantity ofnatural resource inputs. Following Daly (1996,1997), it can be argued that we need flour, eggsand sugar, not only a good cook and a mod-ern kitchen, to make or bake a cake. Differentforms of capital are each other’s complements.They have a qualitatively different role for eco-nomic development and economic activity orfor the economic production process. You can-not have one without the other. Because of this,the monetary compensation, which allows forquantitative substitution across qualitative dif-ferent roles of HMC, NC and SSFs, can be risky


30


for corporate environmental management, cor-porate social responsibility and, eventually,also in terms of macro-level sustainable devel-opment. Because of this, measuring corporatecontributions to sustainable development byallowing compensation is risky.

FIRM VERSUS NETWORK OF FIRMS

To the author’s knowledge, eco-efficiency andeco-efficacy, the win–win scenario and the sus-tainable value added as well as most of theother approaches to measure corporate sus-tainability or to study company environmentalperformance focus usually on an individualcompany, process or product. It is arguedin this paper that while such a focus canpresent important and detailed information,it can also increase the risk of problem dis-placement between life cycles, processes andcompanies. Product flows, material and energyflows and the social impacts of a product lifecycle affect or are affected by many differentsocial actors crossing product, process, firm,regional and national boundaries and borders.Hence, included in the levels of analysis thatare used in the measurement of corporate con-tributions to sustainability should be a networkapproach on a system of firms.

Isolated or fragmented approaches to envi-ronmental policy or corporate environmentalmanagement have sometimes led to prob-lem shifting or problem displacement ratherthan problem solving (Janicke, 1990; Janickeand Weidner, 1995). The ‘environmental bad’has been recycled or shifted between differentenvironmental media (Ayres, 1994) from pro-duction to end-consumption (Anderberg, 1998;Rejeski, 1997) or wastes have been transformedfrom one form to another (Korhonen, 2000a).To tackle such tendencies, it can be beneficialto focus on a network of firms, on the differ-ent processes in the network and on its materialand energy and product flows as a whole. This,of course, increases the scope of the study andwidens the system boundaries, and hence is

more difficult. However, the network or thesystems perspective is still important to noteand adopt as the basic vision or the goal on toptoward which to strive. The more detailed andisolated approaches can then, perhaps, serveas parts of the systems perspective, or as toolsthat are used to achieve reductions in termsof the environmental or social burden of thesystem as a whole.

However, it is important to note that, attimes, the network approach can supportdifferent policy and management goals thana focus on an isolated firm. This is notto claim that one is always better thanthe other. The network approach can besomewhat contradictory to eco-efficiency oreco-efficacy of an individual actor in thenetwork. For example, there may be casesin which it can be beneficial to let someindividual firms generate large quantities ofwastes. This can serve the purpose of reducingthe environmental burden from the networksystem as a whole. In particular, this is the caseif these wastes are the key to the continuedoperation of the environmental managementcooperation of the network system as a whole.This might obviously be in contrast with anindividual firm’s environmental managementsystem (EMS). The EU Eco-Management andAuditing Scheme and the ISO 14001 standardstill mainly set targets and goals by consideringthe firm environmental effects, not the entireand diverse firm network of which it can bea part.

Consider that a certain network relies to alarge extent on imported, non-renewable andemission intensive fossil fuels. The only possi-ble solution to substitute for these fuels couldthen be wood wastes or landfill wastes thatcan be used for fuels and for biogas-basedenergy production. For the environmental ben-efit of a network system as a whole, the wastesproduced by certain individual actors can beimportant as they serve as fuels and substitutefor fossil fuels and allow the interdependenciesand cooperation in the system as a whole to


31

J. KORHONEN

continue and sustain itself. The individual eco-efficiency or eco-efficacy, or both, may haveto be sacrificed for the common gains in thenetwork. Correspondingly, the environmentalimage of a single actor may suffer althoughthe environmental burden from the network offirms as a whole of which this individual firmis a part of would be reduced. The image couldof course be boosted with improved com-munication of environmental information, e.g.through a special environmental report that isprepared for a network of firms, instead onlyfor an individual participant of the network. Tothe author’s knowledge, environmental report-ing or eco-balances that are used in the reportsare developed and used focusing on a singlecompany. Also in EMAS, the communicationis mainly required to show the environmentaleffects of a firm. The preparation of an exten-sive network report would naturally requiremuch time and resources and the data gather-ing would be difficult. In addition, there mightbe difficulties in agreeing on which of the indi-vidual actors should actually be responsible forcarrying out this task.

It is obvious that the kind of cooperation sug-gested with environmental networks of firms,e.g. local recycling networks, is very difficultto organize and achieve, e.g. because of con-flicting interests of the many participants, butit seems also obvious that, usually, for control-ling and reducing the environmental burden ofindustrial activity and for avoiding or reduc-ing the risks of problem displacement betweenfirms, processes and products, the networkapproach should be taken into account. This isnot to say that it can substitute for an individ-ual management system of a company; ratherthese two approaches could be taken as com-plementary.

The environmental burden of a regionalindustrial system as a whole can often bemore important as a focus point of policy andmanagement than wastes and emissions of anindividual actor. Usually the waste quantitiesof a system or network as a whole are muchlarger than those at an individual network

participant. However, it must be rememberedthat waste and emission flows are qualitativelydifferent. Therefore, they cause different envi-ronmental effects. Sometimes even a very smallquantity can be much more harmful than con-siderably larger quantities of some form ofwaste that is easy to handle and contains no orless poisonous substances, heavy metals, e.g.cadmium etc.

FROM MONETARY VALUATION TOSTUDYING THE MATERIAL ANDENERGY FLOWS AND THEDOMINANT SOCIAL PARADIGM

On monetary valuation of natural capital andsocial sustaining functions

It can be argued that, in fact, all those meth-ods that rely on using the monetary value tomeasure sustainability have risks embeddedin them, although obviously seemingly usefulfor the purposes of creating a language thatpolicy and business decision-makers under-stand and listen to. We would agree on theposition adopted by Rennings and Wigger-ing (1997) in which they suggest that physicalmaterial and energy flow indicators and eco-nomic monetary indicators are complementaryin policy decision-making and implementa-tion. In this view, ecological indicators shouldbe used for measuring environmental effects,resource use and waste and emission genera-tion, and these should not be transformed toeconomic monetary indicators. However, forthe policy planning and implementation, andfor that matter also for corporate environmen-tal management decision-making and imple-mentation, economic monetary indicators arealso needed.

Economic monetary indicators are requiredfor measuring the damage costs that result,e.g., from losing some form of natural capi-tal. Deforestation could present such a damagecost for a national forest industry. However,this is not the same as the total social value ofthe forest and its biodiversity. Furthermore,


32


monetary indicators are needed in order toillustrate how much it costs to implement acertain policy program or environmental legis-lation or construct an environmental manage-ment system for a company. Pollution abate-ment technology, waste processing or greenerincineration techniques mean investments andthese have a cost that can be measured by usingmonetary information. Again, this is not to sug-gest that the monetary value would somehowshow the total value of a certain biologicalhabitat that the technology is attempting topreserve, but it is equally obvious that thesemonetary effects of environmental policy andmanagement must be taken into account toreach a societal consensus. Ecological indica-tors can be used together with monetary indi-cators, but the ecological indicators should notbe expressed in monetary units.

Even with an efficacy-enhancing contribu-tion to sustainability without compensation inthe model of Figge and Hahn, the contribu-tion to sustainability cannot secure ecologicalsustainability or social sustainability if the con-tribution is measured and defined by relyingon a single monetary value as the authorssuggest. ‘Sustainable Value Added uses non-monetary environmental and social informa-tion and monetary economic information totranslate corporate contributions to sustain-ability into a monetary indicator’ (Figge andHahn, 2001, p. 83). This is, because not all eco-logical scarcities or loss of biodiversity can betaken into account in markets. In many cases,it is very difficult to put a monetary valueon natural goods or ecosystem services. Notethe ongoing discussion in environmental andecological economics on contingent valuationmethods of willingness to pay (WTP) or will-ingness to accept (WTA) (see Costanza et al.,1998). Rather, the value of ecosystems as lifesupporting services seems infinite.

Wackernagel and Rees (1997, p. 14) note thatputting a monetary value to products of natu-ral capital or ecosystem services ‘. . . convey asense that nature’s total value is finite, when, infact, ecological necessity dictates that the total

social utility of many forms of natural capital isinfinite; without phosynthesis, no life etc’. Thisview supports the complementarity position inthe relation of NC and HMC. Contrary to this,if there exists a one single monetary value forboth forms of capital, then this can be inter-preted that HMC can substitute for NC. This,in turn, implies that compensation of incomefor the loss of NC damage costs is possible.According to Rennings and Wiggering (1997, p.25), the concept of weak sustainability assumessubstitution and that, e.g., forest damage canbe compensated for by benefits from HMCsuch as income. Therefore, the substitutabilityassumption (and assumption of compensation)assumes a monetary value for NC (Renningsand Wiggering, 1997). Correspondingly, themonetary value assumption assumes substi-tutability.

Rennings and Wiggering (1997) note thatthe concept of strong sustainability denies thedegree of substitution that weak sustainabil-ity assumes. Therefore, they prefer to usemonetary indicators for HMC and ecologi-cal or physical indicators for NC. This wouldkeep the possibility of sustainability alive. Thisimplies that even the ‘strongest’ contributionto sustainability in the calculation method ofFigge and Hahn, the sustainable value added,which is the efficacy-enhancing contributionwithout compensation, does not necessarilypresent evidence of strong sustainability. Theyuse a monetary value to present and communi-cate information on NC, SSFs and HMC. Evenif one does not allow compensation, sustain-ability contribution is not secured if a monetaryindicator is used. The monetary value quanti-fies and reduces information of the impactsthat economic activity causes on nature andon the social world. With a monetary value,one allows for substitution, which is the mostimportant question to be asked if the goal isstrong sustainability.

Of course, there exist many different kindsof definition and interpretation of the conceptsof sustainable development, weak sustainabil-ity and strong sustainability. But surely, one


33

J. KORHONEN

agrees that substitutability does not secure sus-tainability forever, at least not with the presentknowledge and information of technologicalprogress, in which there is always a degreeof uncertainty (for discussion, see Costanza,1999). The human economic system is an openand rapidly growing subsystem of the materi-ally closed, finite and non-growing ecosystem.

In other words, the risk arises that the use ofa single monetary indicator results in incom-plete information on company environmentalperformance. The interventions in nature thatare always needed in economic activity mayresult in effects that reduce corporate sustain-ability (Ring, 1997). This valuation problem isequally difficult in the case of social effectsor corporate social responsibility. How is itpossible to value intimacy and love or socialbonding and nurturing services offered to eco-nomic actors by households, neighbourhoodsor by local communities? Putting a monetaryvalue on SSFs can also yield corporate socialresponsibility programs and management sys-tems that create unwanted results, because ofincomplete information.

Material and energy flows and a new socialresponsibility paradigm

However, although it is difficult to measurethe effects on natural capital and on socialcapital or on SSFs which are created byeconomic activity, we can surely know thegeneral direction towards which to developthe economic subsystem in order to enhanceits adaptability (and sustainability) to thelarger social system and to the life supportingecosystem, or as some say we can perhapsknow what is not sustainable, although wedo not agree on the absolute definition ofsustainable development. We also agree thatsomething must be done.

In case of the social dimension of sustainabil-ity, it can be argued that a basic paradigm shiftaway from individual libertarianism, reduc-tionist notions of knowledge (Ehrenfeld, 2000),competition, mass production and unlimited

growth, contractual relations or globalizationmay have to be considered in order to enhancecorporate social responsibility and sustainabil-ity in general. The core of corporate socialresponsibility is that companies view them-selves as a part of the larger society and takeinto account all of the stakeholders, not justshareholders or customers. A company thatviews its surroundings merely as resourcesor as sinks for disposal and engages in hardcompetition with its surroundings, neglectingcooperation, does not seem to fit the ideal ofcorporate social responsibility. In other words,the basic world view or the paradigm ofmodernity as well as the modern ideal of afirm seem to work against the philosophy oncorporate social responsibility.

To improve the understanding of therequired adaptability to the society and coop-eration with societal stakeholders, it may bepossible to draw from different cultures, reli-gions or from arts and sports and considerthese as sources of a metaphoric sustainabil-ity paradigm. Such sources can provide uswith metaphors and conditions that are out-side the dominant social paradigm of moder-nity or of neoclassical economics. Metaphors ofdiversity, interdependency, cooperation, con-nectedness and community or locality can beimportant for the social dimension of sus-tainability and for corporate social responsi-bility, for reconsidering the basic paradigmand the world view of western modernityand that of neoclassical economics (Ehren-feld, 2000; Korhonen, 2001a). These metaphorsrun counter to competition, mass production,unlimited growth and globalization.

For example, cooperation instead of mereoutcompetition in a ‘winner takes all’ situationcan be important for corporate social responsi-bility. Corporate social responsibility requiresthat companies think beyond shareholders andcustomers. Firms need to take the larger com-munity and all the different stakeholders, fromNGOs to cooperation partners, supply chainand the developing countries, into account.The locality metaphor could alert the business


34


to the unhealthy inter-regional dependenciesthat are disturbing in the modern global mar-ket economy and in free trade, particularlyfrom the perspective of the economies in thedeveloping countries. Locality can alert onetoward local self-reliance and preservation oflocal cooperative and participative structures,and community ties for the common good ofthe local/regional economic system. It is rel-atively easy to find support for the generalargument that cooperation with stakeholdersinstead of mere competition, as well as preser-vation of local community instead of mereunequal trade, are important for corporatesocial responsibility.

In the case of ecological sustainability, asource for a model or a paradigm may be foundin long-lived or sustainable natural ecosys-tems (Korhonen, 2001b, Ehrenfeld, 2000). Avery general direction toward ecological sus-tainability can simply be presented as thematerial and energy flow model of the nat-ural ecosystem. The ecosystem seems to bethe only material and energy flow-based sys-tem that has been able to sustain itself overlong term. Species come and go, but the nat-ural ecosystem as a whole is able to sustainitself, perhaps forever, hence the condition ofsustainability. Nature runs on infinite solarenergy and has developed material cycles andemployed energy cascades between differentactors, organisms and in the food chain. Cor-respondingly, companies could increase theirreliance on renewables and on waste mate-rial or residual energy to positively contributeto sustainability and to adapt to the naturalecosystem operation.

In addition, similarly to diverse food chains,companies could apply local solutions togetherwith other participants in the firm network.For example, diverse waste exchange and uti-lization relations, material cycles and energycascades could be developed for a certain localsystem in interdependency between many dif-ferent actors to better adapt to the local naturallimiting factors and to reduce dependency onimported fossil fuels. The natural material and

energy flows provide us with a reference statetowards which to strive. For example, similarlyto nature, no external carbon should be used inthe way economic systems use fossil fuels. Thereproduction capacity of the natural ecosystemshould be secured in order to maintain its abil-ity to bind carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions intoits annual growth.

It can be argued that it is possible to gen-erally define certain reference states or condi-tions towards which, e.g., a regional economicsystem should continuously strive to enhanceits ecological sustainability. Such levels couldbe, for example, the sustainable yield in theuse of local forest resources or levels of car-bon dioxide emissions that nature can bindand absorb into its annual growth. Renningsand Wiggering (1997) suggest the concept ofcritical loads. Critical loads and levels are esti-mates of an exposure below which significantharmful effects on elements of the environ-ment do not occur. Critical loads and levels aredefined, e.g., on the basis of discussion to findscientific consensus and on the basis of exper-iments in laboratories and in the field. Thecritical loads are physical material and energyflow and ecological indicators as opposed tomonetary indicators. They have their basis inthe three main sustainable management rules(Daly, 1990, cited by Rennings and Wiggering,1997, p. 26).

(i) Harvest rates of renewable resourcesshould not exceed regeneration rates.

(ii) Waste emissions should not exceed therelevant assimilative capacities of ecosys-tems.

(iii) Non-renewable resources should be ex-ploited in a quasi-sustainable manner bylimiting their rate of depletion to the rateof creation of renewable substitutes.

Interestingly, all of these rules fit the naturalecosystem metaphor and its material andenergy flow model (Korhonen et al., 2001).Nature does not exceed its reproduction rates.Nature can assimilate the carbon dioxide (CO2)


35

J. KORHONEN

emissions released from natural drain. Naturedoes not use non-renewable resources in a waythat economic and industrial systems do.

However, it must be noted that our knowl-edge of the ecosystem operation, even if pre-sented in non-monetary physical terms ofmaterial and energy flows as argued for inthis paper, is always based on uncertaintyand incomplete information, e.g. on ecosys-tem biodiversity or the species interdepen-dency. It must be noted that such physicalmaterial and energy flow measures as eco-logical footprint (EF, Wackernagel and Rees,1997) have been criticized, because they aggre-gate and sum qualitatively different materialand energy flows with each other (van denBergh and Verbruggen, 1999). This problemholds also for material flow models (MFM)or life cycle assessment (LCA). For example,a small quantity of a certain toxic or poi-sonous flow or certain heavy metals, althoughin small quantities, may be more harmfulto nature than large quantities of certainother material flows. Therefore, if for exam-ple calculating one single indicator, althoughin physical terms of quantity or weight,vital information may be lost and unsus-tainable decisions and management systemsmay be supported. Because of uncertainty,precautionary policies and business strate-gies must be adopted to enhance ecologicalsustainability.

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

Welford has noted that ‘There exists a strangeand fruitless search for a single definition ofsustainable development among people whodo not fully understand that we are really talk-ing here of a process rather than a tangible out-come’ (2000, p. 69). It has been argued in thispaper that sustainable development as a con-cept is very difficult to define, and in particularvery difficult to measure. ‘True sustainability’,i.e. where a certain system sustains itself over

long term, in fact, forever, can only be con-sidered by looking backwards. In this paper,the recent efforts in the literature to developapproaches and methods to measure the con-tribution of private companies to sustainabil-ity understood as simultaneous improvementsin all three dimensions; economic, ecologicaland social, have been discussed with a criti-cal approach.

Three main points of critique were identified.First, the concepts and notions of eco-efficiencyand eco-efficacy are difficult in that their useoften carries with it the assumption that HMCcan substitute for NC. The condition of capitalsubstitutability in the relation of HMC, NC andthe SSFs in an economic production processis nearly always impossible. This is becausequantitative aggregation or substitution andquantitative compensation across qualitativedifferent roles is impossible. NC, SSFs andHMC are all important parts of economicdevelopment and activity, and of an economicproduction process. Their roles are differentfrom each other, and one is not enough withoutthe other.

Second, the focus of corporate environmentalmanagement instruments and concepts suchas eco-efficiency is often on individual pro-cesses or individual firms, while the networkapproach to environmental management issomewhat neglected. In fact, often an improve-ment in one process or in one product lifecycle can come at the expense of the bene-fit for a possible network system as a whole.It would seem that there are cases in whichthe network management approach, althoughmore difficult to organize and manage thanthat of an individual company, is more impor-tant to sustainability, to reduce problem dis-placement and to control as many productflows, material and energy flows and envi-ronmental effects as possible. The networkapproach and an approach to an individualfirm are not each other’s substitutes. Bothare needed.

Third, the tendency to measure corporatecontribution to sustainability in monetary


36


terms can be important to raise awareness andcommunicate the importance of the issue topolicy makers and company decision-makers,but it will always fail to reflect all scarci-ties in NC or disturbances in biodiversity.Although sustainability is impossible to defineand very difficult to measure and quantify,there exists enough information on the basis ofwhich the general direction toward which eco-nomic systems and companies should strivecan be known. In other words, perhaps wecan know what is not sustainable. For exam-ple, we should reduce the use of fossilfuels and respect the sustainable yield whenusing renewables.

Instead of an approach that relies onlyon a monetary indicator or measure, it isimportant to use approaches based on physicalmaterial and energy flows and combine thesewith monetary indicators, but it is very riskyto transform the physical indicators into asingle monetary value. Monetary informationwill always be needed, e.g. in the case ofinvestment decisions and when calculatingcosts of environmental management, e.g. wastemanagement costs of companies etc, but thisis different from measuring the total value ofnature or the effects that companies have onthe natural ecosystem.

In case of the social dimension of sustain-able development or corporate social respon-sibility, it is also very difficult to measurethe social effects in monetary terms. Again,it is important to use some monetary infor-mation, e.g. about image costs, to motivatecompanies to take social responsibility seri-ously and to act accordingly, but it can beargued that perhaps it is beneficial to tryand determine what is not sustainable andwhat is the overall direction towards whichthe company policy should strive. What isthe basic world view, the underlying phi-losophy, the vision, the metaphor and theparadigm on which the company and its roleas a societal actor are based? Globalizationand rapid growth without physical limits andcompetition seem to be more unsustainable

than the metaphors of locality, diversity andcooperation.

To identify the basic and underlying impli-cations of the everyday actions of a companyfor sustainable development, the normal toolsand instruments should not only be used indescriptive, positive and analytic or practicalways. Also the more metaphoric, normativeand paradigmatic philosophy of the practi-cal metrics and tools needs to be considered.Environmental life cycle assessment (LCA), forexample, should not only be understood as anormal practical tool that is to be used to quan-tify the material and energy flow inventoriesof products for the control and managementof the environmental burden of an individualcompany or product (Welford, 1998). Rather,the larger picture and implications to globalsustainability and to developing nations andfuture generations should be kept in mind,even in the standard everyday applicationof LCA.

LCA focuses on the entire life of products,and therefore the implications of the productand its life to the developing nations couldbe considered. The initial raw material extrac-tion may take place in distant third worldcountries, and these steps in the product’s lifecan have serious effects on equity, workers’rights, local community or on other stakehold-ers. In other words, the sustainable develop-ment principle of equity may gain in impor-tance through LCA reflection. Further, as theuse phase of the product is also taken intoaccount in the LCA evaluation, the effects ofproduction on future generations can be con-sidered, perhaps more thoroughly than if onlyremaining in the level of a process in the anal-ysis. The use and the life of certain productsas well as their environmental effects extendover company, city, regional and national bor-ders, but also over many decades, perhapsover centuries. What is important is that thelinks and interdependencies that the practi-cal, positive, analytic and descriptive metrics,measures, tools and instruments have withour underlying world views are studied. The


37

J. KORHONEN

paradigmatic, metaphoric and normative foun-dations of the western culture and economicsneed to be considered together with the appli-cation of the everyday tools and measures.Such a comparison can then be reflected onthe concept and the general direction of sus-tainable development.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The support from the Academy of Finland RegionalIndustrial Ecosystem Management (RIEM) project andthe National Technology Agency Regional Environ-mental Management System (REMS) project are gladlyacknowledged. I would also like to thank ERP Environ-ment for hosting wonderful conferences, in which I havebeen able to debate with the innovative scholars and thereferences used in the text.

REFERENCES

Anderberg S. 1998. Industrial metabolism and thelinkages between economics, ethics and theenvironment. Ecological Economics 24: 312–317.

Ayres RU. 1994. Industrial metabolism: theory andpolicy. In Industrial Metabolism, Ayres RU, Simonis U(eds). United Nations University Press: Tokyo; 3–20.

Berkhout PHG, Muskens C, Velthuijsen JW. 2000.Defining the rebound effect. Energy Policy 28:425–432.

Costanza R. 1999. Four visions of the centuryahead – will it be Star Trek, ecotopia, big government,or Mad Max: technological optimism and skepticism.The Futurist February 33(2): 23–28.

Costanza R, Cumberland J, Daly H, Goodland R,Norgaard R. 1997. An Introduction to EcologicalEconomics. St. Lucie Press: Boca Raton, FL; 104–106.

Costanza R, Daly H. 1992. Natural capital andsustainable development. Conservation Biology 6(1):37–46.

Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M,Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill RV,Paruelo J, Raskin RG, Sutton P, van den Belt M. 1998.The value of the world’s ecosystem services andnatural capital. Ecological Economics 26: 3–16.

Daly H. 1990. Toward some operational principles ofsustainable development. Ecological Economics 2: 1–6.

Daly H. 1996. Beyond Growth: the Economics of SustainableDevelopment. Beacon: Boston, MA.

Daly H. 1997. Reply to Solow/Stiglitz. EcologicalEconomics 22(3): 271–274.

Ehrenfeld JR. 2000. Industrial ecology: paradigm shiftor normal science? American Behavioral Scientist 44(2):229–244.

Ehrenfeld JR, Gertler N. 1997. The evolution ofinterdependence at Kalundborg. Industrial Ecology 1(1):67–80.

Figge F, Hahn T. 2001. Sustainable value added – mea-suring corporate contributions to sustainability. In The2001 Business Strategy and the Environment ConferenceProceedings. ERP Environment: Shipley; 83–92.

Frosch D, Gallopoulos N. 1989. Strategies formanufacturing. Scientific American 261(3): 94–102.

Janicke M. 1990. State Failure. Polity; 44–54.Janicke M, Weidner H. 1995. Successful environmental

policy – an introduction. In Successful EnvironmentalPolicy – a Critical Evaluation of 24 Cases, Janicke M,Weidner H (eds). Sigma: Berlin; 13–15.

Jevons F. 1990. Greenhouse–a paradox. Search 21:171–172.

Karvonen M-M. 2001. Natural versus manufacturedcapital: win–lose or win–win?. A case study of theFinnish pulp and paper industry. Ecological Economics37: 71–85.

Korhonen J. 2000a. Completing industrial ecologycascade chain in the case of a paper industry – SMEpotential in industrial ecology. Eco-Management andAuditing 7(1): 11–20.

Korhonen J. 2000b. Industrial Ecosystem: Using theMaterial and Energy Flow Model of an Ecosystem inan Industrial System, Ph. D. thesis. Jyvaskyla Studiesin Business and Economics 5. University of Jyvaskyla;131.

Korhonen J. 2001a. Four ecosystem principles for anindustrial ecosystem. Journal of Cleaner Production 9(3):253–259.

Korhonen J. 2001b. Material and energy flowsin corporate environmental management. TheInternational Journal of Sustainable Development andWorld Ecology 8: 211–219.

Korhonen J, Wihersaari M, Savolainen I. 2001. Industrialecosystem in the Finnish forest industry: using thematerial and energy flow model of a forest ecosystemin a forest industry system. Journal of EcologicalEconomics 39(1): 145–161.

Mayumi K, Giampietro M, Gowdy JM. 1998. Georgescu-Roegen/Daly versus Solow/Stiglitz revisited.Ecological Economics 27(2): 115–118.

O’Hara SU. 1997. Toward a sustaining productiontheory. Ecological Economics 20(2): 141–154.

Porter M, van der L. 1996. Green and competi-tive – ending the stalemate. In Business and the Envi-ronment, Welford R, Starkey R (eds). Earthscan: Lon-don; 61–77.

Rejeski D. 1997. Mars, materials, and three moralityplays: materials flows and environmental policy.Industrial Ecology 1(4): 13–18.


38


Rennings K, Wiggering H. 1997. Steps towardsindicators of sustainable development: linkingeconomic and ecological concepts. Ecological Economics20: 25–36.

Ring I. 1997. Evolutionary strategies in environmentalpolicy. Ecological Economics 23(3): 237–250.

Van den Bergh JJM, Verbruggen H. 1999. Spatialsustainability, trade and indicators: an evaluationof the ‘ecological footprint’. Ecological Economics 29:61–72.

Wackernagel M, Rees W. 1997. Perceptual and structuralbarriers to investing in natural capital: economicsfrom an ecological footprint perspective. EcologicalEconomics 20: 2–24.

Walley N, Whitehead B. 1996. It is not easy being green.In Business and the Environment, Welford R, Starkey R(eds). Earthscan: London; 36–44.

Welford R. 1998. Life cycle assessment. In CorporateEnvironmental Management I, Welford R (ed.).Earthscan: London; 138–147.

Welford R. 2000. Corporate Environmental Management3–Toward Sustainable Development. Earthscan: London.

BIOGRAPHY

Dr Jouni Korhonen can be contacted at the Uni-versity of Joensuu, Department of Economics,P.O. Box 111, 80101 Joensuu, Finland.E-mail: [email protected]


39

Documents

Should We Measure CSR