Abstract
Scientific and social discourse examines primarily the environmental performance of large enterprise actors. Although these large enterprises usually operate on an international level, over half of the added value created in the European Union and thus over half of the environmental damage are generated by small- and medium-sized enterprises (SME). Nevertheless, while the tools and expertise required to measure environmental performance are available for large enterprises, the SME sector has only limited access to these tools.
As part of our research, we have developed an ecological footprint (EF) calculator applicable to the specificities of the SME sector, which has been tested on six Hungarian companies operating in different sectors and organisational frameworks. The test results indicate that the managerial information system of partnerships includes all the main inputs that are necessary to estimate a company’s EF. However, in the case of sole proprietorships, most of the required data can only be acquired by estimation. Our EF calculations on analysed firms cannot be considered as representative data. But on the base of the case studies, we can suggest that our EF calculator for SMEs is suitable to take a more comprehensive survey on EF of Hungarian and international firms, in order to generate sectoral benchmarks. Ecological footprint among analysed enterprises ranged between 5102 and 263,589 global square metres. It is caused mainly by (1) the sector (e.g. constructions have generally larger footprints than office activities) and (2) the size, expressed in number of employees or value added. To increase transparency of the environmental performance of the SME sector, we recommend that the supplementary annex of partnerships includes the main input data necessary for the calculation of the EF in a comparable and consistent way, in natural units of measurement. With such information and our calculator, it would be possible to determine the average environmental impact of the individual sectors, which would provide an appropriate starting point for the environmental investments of enterprises.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The original calculator is accessible at http://www.carbon-calculator.org.uk/ downloaded: 2019.03.03.
- 2.
During the analyses we have considered Scope 3, i.e. well-to-wheel factors of the GHG Protocol in all cases.
- 3.
TÁRKI is a Social Research Institute in Hungary.
- 4.
1000 HUF = 3.08 (EUR, 2019.07.08).
- 5.
To show the order of magnitude, the measure of the ratio is global square metre/thousand HUF.
Abbreviations
- BFF:
-
Best foot forward
- CSR:
-
Corporate social responsibility
- EF:
-
Ecological footprint
- EPA:
-
Environmental Protection Agency
- EQF:
-
Equivalence factors
- GFN:
-
Global Footprint Network
- gha:
-
Global hectare
- GHG:
-
Greenhouse gas
- NEF:
-
National Energy Foundation
- SDGs:
-
Sustainable Development Goals
- SMEs:
-
Small- and medium-sized enterprises
- YF:
-
Yield factor
References
Barrett J, Scott A (2001) The ecological footprint: a metric for corporate sustainability. Corp Environ Strateg 8(4):316–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.02.495
Benedek A, Takácsné György K (2016) Examination of the corporate social responsibility to internal factors of corporate managers. Contemp Manage Res An Int J 1:69–86. Paper: 968-83-233-4093-5
Butnariu A, Avasilcai S (2014) Research on the possibility to apply ecological footprint as environmental performance indicator for the textile industry. Proc Soc Behav Sci 124(20):344–350
Chambers N, Simmons C, Wackernagel M (2000) Sharing nature’s interest: ecological footprints as an indicator of sustainability. Routledge
Collins A, Galli A, Patrizi N, Pulselli MF (2017) Learning and teaching sustainability: the contribution of ecological footprint calculators. J Clean Prod 174(10):1000–1010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.024
Cseh B, Csuvár Á, Bánkuti Gy, Varga J (2018) Az alternatív gazdasági mutatók használata a közgazdaságtanban [Use of alternative economic indicators in the economy] In: Pintér G, Zsiborács H, Csányi Sz (eds) Arccal vagy háttal a jövőnek?: LX. Georgikon Napok, tanulmánykötet Keszthely, Hungary: Pannon Egyetem Georgikon Kar, pp 513–520
Csutora M, Harangozó G (2019) Lessons learned from the last two decades of corporate carbon accounting. Zengwei, Yuan sustaining resources for the future. Nanjing University, Nanjing
DEFRA (2018) Greenhouse gas reporting: conversion factors 2018. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-factors-2018
Egedy T, Kovács Z, Kondor A Cs, Szigeti C, Szabó B (2017) Impacts of commuting on the spatial development and ecological footprint of the Budapest Metropolitan Region. In: 6th EUGEO Congress = 6ème Congrès EUGEO Brussels, Belgium. Société Royale Belge de Géographie, p 112
Galli A, Iha K, Halle M, El Bilali H, Grunewald N, Eaton D, Capone R, Debs P, Bottalico F (2017) Mediterranean countries’ food consumption and sourcing patterns: an ecological footprint viewpoint. Sci Total Environ 578(1):383–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.191
Kocsis T (2010) “Hajózni muszáj!” A GDP, az ökológiai lábnyom és a szubjektív jóllét stratégiai összefüggései. Közgazdasági Szemle 57(6):536–554
Kovács Z, Szigeti C, Egedy T, Szabó B, Kondor A (2017) Environmental impacts of urbanization – changes of the ecological footprint of commuting in the urban region of Budapest. Területi Statisztika 57(5):469–494. https://doi.org/10.15196/TS570501
KSH (2018) A kis- és középvállalkozások jellemzői, 2017. http://www.ksh.hu/apps/shop.kiadvany?p_kiadvany_id=1040238. Accessed 14 July 2019
Lenzen M, Murray J, Sack F, Wiedmann T (2007) Shared producer and consumer responsibility – theory and practice. Ecol Econ 61(1):27–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.05.018
Lin D, Hanscom L, Martindill J, Borucke M, Cohen L, Galli A, Lazarus E, Zokai G, Iha K, Eaton D, Wackernagel M (2018) Working guidebook to the national footprint accounts. Global Footprint Network, Oakland
Meena RS, Lal R (2018) Legumes for soil health and sustainable management. Springer Singapore, Singapore, pp 541. ISBN 978-981-13-0253-4 (eBook), ISBN: 978-981-13-0252-7 (Hardcover). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0253-4_10
Meena RS, Kumar V, Yadav GS, Mitran T (2018) Response and interaction of Bradyrhizobium japonicum and Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in the soybean rhizosphere: a review. Plant Growth Regul 84:207–223
Meena RS, Kumar S, Datta R, Lal R, Vijaykumar V, Brtnicky M, Sharma MP, Yadav GS, Jhariya MK, Jangir CK, Pathan SI, Dokulilova T, Pecina V, Marfo TD (2020a) Impact of agrochemicals on soil microbiota and management: a review. Land (MDPI) 9(2):34. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9020034
Meena RS, Lal R, Yadav GS (2020b) Long term impacts of topsoil depth and amendments on soil physical and hydrological properties of an Alfisol in Central Ohio, USA. Geoderma 363:1141164
Meena RS, Lal R, Yadav GS (2020c) Long-term impact of topsoil depth and amendments on carbon and nitrogen budgets in the surface layer of an Alfisol in Central Ohio. Catena 194:104752
Patterson M, McDonald GW, Hardy DJ (2017) Is there more in common than we think? Convergence of ecological footprinting, energy analysis, life cycle assessment and other methods of environmental accounting. Ecol Model 362:19–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2017.07.022
Schaltegger S, Zvezdov D, Günther E, Csutora M, Alvarez I (2015) Corporate carbon and climate change accounting: application, developments and issues. In: Schaltegger S, Zvezdov D, Alvarez Etxeberria I, Csutora M, Günther E (eds) Corporate carbon and climate accounting. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27718-9_1
Stiglitz J, Sen A, Fitoussi JP (2009) Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258260767_Report_of_the_Commission_on_the_Measurement_of_Economic_Performance_and_Social_Progress_CMEPSP/stats. Accessed 7 Apr 2020
Szigeti C, Borzán A (2014) If ecological footprint is not the answer, what is the question. In: Gömbös Cs, Kálmán J, Keserű BA (eds) Global and local issues from the aspects of law and economy: 9th Batthyány Summer School Proceedings Győr, Hungary. Universitas-Győr Nonprofit Kft
Szigeti C, Harangozó G (2016) Érvényesek és megbízhatók-e az elektronikus vállalati szénlábnyom kalkulátorokkal számított eredmények? Lépések a fenntarthatóság felé 66:14–15
Szigeti C, Harangozó G (2018) Vállalati szén-lábnyom elemzések gyakorlata. In: Dinya L, Baranyi A (eds) XVI. Nemzetközi Tudományos Napok: “Fenntarthatósági kihívások és válaszok” - A Tudományos Napok Publikációi, Gyöngyös, Hungary, EKE Líceum Kiadó
Szigeti C, Tóth G (2015) Can the ecological price paid for economic growth be cut? Polgári Szemle: Gazdasági és társadalmi folyóirat 11(4–6):472–489
Szigeti C, Tóth G, Szabó DR (2016) The change of the ecological footprint’s intensity of national economies from the perspective of a decade. In: Gubáňová M (ed) Legal, economic, managerial and environmental aspects of performance competencies by local authorities: international scientific correspondence conference. Slovak University of Agriculture, Nitra, Slovakia
Van den Bergh CJCM, Grazi F (2014) Ecological footprint policy? Land use as an environmental indicator. J Ind Ecol 18(1):10–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12045
Vetőné Mózner ZS (2014) Sustainability and consumption structure: environmental impacts of food consumption clusters. A case study for Hungary. Int J Consum Stud 38(5):529–539. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12130
Wackernagel M, Beyers B (2019) Ecological footprint – managing our biocapacity budget. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island BC, Canada, ISBN 978-086-571-911-8
Wackernagel M, Rees W (1996) Our ecological footprint. Reducing Human Impact on the Earth New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island BC, Canada ISBN 1-55092-251-3
Wiedmann T, Barrett J (2010) A review of the ecological footprint indicator – perceptions and methods. Sustainability 2(6):1645–1693. https://doi.org/10.3390/su2061645
Zilahy G (2017) Environmental management systems - history and new tendencies. In: Scott AE (ed) Reference module in earth systems and environmental sciences. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 23–31
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Szigeti, C., Szennay, Á., Lisányi Endréné Beke, J., Polák-Weldon, J.R., Radácsi, L. (2021). Challenges of Corporate Ecological Footprint Calculations in the SME Sector in Hungary: Case Study Evidence from Six Hungarian Small Enterprises. In: Banerjee, A., Meena, R.S., Jhariya, M.K., Yadav, D.K. (eds) Agroecological Footprints Management for Sustainable Food System. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9496-0_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9496-0_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-15-9495-3
Online ISBN: 978-981-15-9496-0
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)