Abstract
Sustainability is a complex and polycentric concept that needs to be addressed from an interdisciplinary and holistic perspective. Sustainability sciences have advanced in recent years, highlighting the necessity of assessing organizational, social, economic, and environmental impacts. The relevance of assessment in sustainability however goes beyond simple metrics and quantifications, a deeper understanding of the concept of sustainability and goals therefore being required. The main objective of this chapter is to discuss three methodologies that, in their application, facilitate an integration of the developments in, and views of, different disciplines in the assessment of sustainability. These three integrative and reliable methodologies are (i) materiality analysis, (ii) footprint methodologies, and (iii) fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making methodology. This chapter focuses on the application of these complementary and mutually supporting methodologies in the field of sustainability and so answers the questions of what needs to be measured, how it can be measured, and what the measurements are to be used for. The chapter justifies the suitability of the three methodologies for adopting an interdisciplinary approach, in the application and achievement of transdisciplinary outcomes in sustainability assessment.
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.
For more information, see https://www.sasb.org/standards-overview/materiality-map/
- 2.
This chapter defines market actors as agents who are decision-makers regarding some aspect of the economy such as consumers, investors, and companies.
References
Barkemeyer R, Holt D, Preuss L et al (2014) What happened to the ‘development’ in sustainable development? Business guidelines two decades after Brundtland. Sustainable Development 22(1):15-32
Boggia A, Cortina C (2010) Measuring sustainable development using a multi-criteria model: A case study. Journal of Environmental Management 91(11):2301-2306
Brundtland GH (1987) Report of the World Commission on environment and development: "our common future". United Nations
Čuček L, Klemeš JJ, Kravanja Z (2012) A review of footprint analysis tools for monitoring impacts on sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production 34:9-20
Erol I, Sencer S, Sari R (2011) A new fuzzy multi-criteria framework for measuring sustainability performance of a supply chain. Ecological Economics 70(6):1088-1100
Escrig E, Muñoz MJ, Fernández MA et al (2014) Lights & Shadows on Sustainability Rating Scoring. Review of Managerial Science 8(4):559-574
Escrig E, Munoz MJ, Fernández MA et al (2015) The Integration of ESG Criteria into Investment Processes Considering Investors’ Preferences. Paper presented at PRI Academic Network Conference 2015. London
Escrig E, Muñoz MJ, Fernández MA et al (2015) Measuring Corporate Environmental Performance: A Methodology for Sustainable Development. Business Strategy and the Environment 26(2):142-162
Escrig-Olmedo E, Rivera-Lirio JM, Muñoz-Torres MJ et al (2017). Integrating multiple ESG investors' preferences into sustainable investment: A fuzzy multicriteria methodological approach. Journal of cleaner production 162:1334-1345
Ferrero-Ferrero I, León R, Muñoz-Torres MJ (2021). Sustainability materiality matrices in doubt: may prioritizations of aspects overestimate environmental performance? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 64(3):432–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2020.1766427
Hadi-Vencheh A, Mokhtarian MN (2011) A new fuzzy MCDM approach based on centroid of fuzzy numbers. Expert Systems with Applications 38(5):5226-5230
Joseph G (2012) Ambiguous but tethered: An accounting basis for sustainability reporting. Critical perspectives on Accounting 23(2):93–106
Lee AH, Kang HY, Wang WP (2005) Analysis of Priority Mix Planning for the Fabrication of Semiconductors under Uncertainty. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 28(3–4):351–361
León R, Ferrero-Ferrero I, Muñoz-Torres MJ (2016). Environmental Performance Assessment in the Apparel Industry. A Materiality-Based Approach. In: Modeling and Simulation in Engineering, Economics and Management. Springer, Cham, pp. 51-60
Mahoney LS, Thorne L, Cecil L et al (2013) A research note on standalone corporate social responsibility reports: Signaling or greenwashing? Critical Perspectives on Accounting 24(4):350–359
Muñoz-Torres MJ, Fernández-Izquierdo MA, Rivera-Lirio JM et al (2018) An assessment tool to integrate sustainability principles into the global supply chain. Sustainability 10(2):535
Muñoz-Torres MJ, Fernández-Izquierdo MA, Rivera-Lirio JM et al (2017) D5.1 List of issues to be considered under life cycle thinking. Public Report. SMART H2020 project. https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/documents/downloadPublic?documentIds=080166e5b2837cf0&appId=PPGMS
Muñoz-Torres MJ, Fernández-Izquierdo MA, Rivera-Lirio JM et al (2019) D5.4 Sustainability Assessment Guide. SMART H2020 project. https://www.smart.uio.no/publications/reports/d.5.4-v0.2_wp5.pdf
Neppach S, Nunes KR, Schebek L (2017) Organizational environmental footprint in German construction companies. Journal of Cleaner Production 142:78-86
OEF (2012) Organization Environmental Footprint (OEF) Guide. European Commission https://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/pdf/footprint/OEF%20Guide_final_July%202012_clean%20version.pdf
Reimsbach D, Schiemann F, Hahn R et al (2020) In the Eyes of the Beholder: Experimental Evidence on the Contested Nature of Materiality in Sustainability Reporting. Organization & Environment 33(4):624-651
Rivera JM, Muñoz MJ, Moneva JM (2017) Revisiting the Relationship between Corporate Stakeholder Commitment and Social and Financial Performance. Sustainable Development 25(6):482-494
Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K et al (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. nature 461(7263):472-475
Shmelev S, Rodríguez-Labajos B (2009) Dynamic multidimensional assessment of sustainability at the macro level: The case of Austria. Ecological Economics 68:2560–2573
Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockström J et al (2015) Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347(6223)
UN General Assembly (2015) Sustainable Development Goals. SDGs Transforming Our World 2030
UNEP-SETAC (2009) Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products. http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/DTIx1164xPA-guidelines_sLCA.pdf. Accessed 30 Oct 2019
van Kerkhoff L (2014) Developing integrative research for sustainability science through a complexity principles-based approach. Sustainability Science 9(2):143-155
Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Information and Control 8(3):338–353
Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z (2011) Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods in economics: an overview. Technological and economic development of economy 17 (2):397-427
Acknowledgements
This chapter is based on research supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under Grant Agreement No. 693642, project SMART (Sustainable Market Actors for Responsible Trade).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fernández-Izquierdo, M.Á., Muñoz-Torres, M.J., Rivera-Lirio, J.M., Escrig-Olmedo, E., Ferrero-Ferrero, I. (2023). What? How? And for What? Assessment Metrics for Sustainability. In: Sjåfjell, B., Russell, R., Van der Velden, M. (eds) Interdisciplinary Research for Sustainable Business. Strategies for Sustainability. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06924-6_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06924-6_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-06923-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-06924-6
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)