IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/inecol/v2y1998i1p13-22.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Factor X Debate: Setting Targets for Eco‐Efficiency

Author

Listed:
  • Lucas Reijnders

Abstract

The quantification and achievement of eco‐efficiency or dematerialization in the form of a factor X, with X varying between 4 and 50 is being espoused by a variety of analysts and advocates. Politically, these efforts are mainly confined to some European countries. They reflect a remarkable technological optimism. This article reviews some of the major issues pertinent to the factor X debate. The case is presented for quantifying dematerialization or eco‐efficiency goals using a factor X. It is also found that the factor X lacks precision as yet, and that there is only limited interest in the possibilrty that achievable values for X may vary widely among economic activities given technological constraints. There is no agreement whether technological improvement alone will be sufficient to achieve a factor X in practice for economies as a whole. It seems likely, however; that government‐driven technology forcing will be necessary to achieve a factor X in practical terms, especially when X is relatively large.

Suggested Citation

  • Lucas Reijnders, 1998. "The Factor X Debate: Setting Targets for Eco‐Efficiency," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 2(1), pages 13-22, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:inecol:v:2:y:1998:i:1:p:13-22
    DOI: 10.1162/jiec.1998.2.1.13
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1162/jiec.1998.2.1.13
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1162/jiec.1998.2.1.13?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jiliang Zheng & Xiaoting Peng, 2019. "Does an Ecological Industry Chain Improve the Eco-Efficiency of an Industrial Cluster? Based on Empirical Study of an Energy-Intensive Industrial Cluster in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-18, March.
    2. J. Emil Morhardt & Sarah Baird & Kelly Freeman, 2002. "Scoring corporate environmental and sustainability reports using GRI 2000, ISO 14031 and other criteria," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(4), pages 215-233, December.
    3. Idalina Dias‐Sardinha & Lucas Reijnders, 2005. "Evaluating environmental and social performance of large Portuguese companies: a balanced scorecard approach," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(2), pages 73-91, March.
    4. Figge, Frank & Thorpe, Andrea Stevenson, 2023. "Circular economy, operational eco-efficiency, and sufficiency. An integrated view," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(PB).
    5. Ozgur Isil & Michael T. Hernke, 2017. "The Triple Bottom Line: A Critical Review from a Transdisciplinary Perspective," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(8), pages 1235-1251, December.
    6. Felix Müller & Jan Kosmol & Hermann Keßler & Michael Angrick & Bettina Rechenberg, 2017. "Dematerialization—A Disputable Strategy for Resource Conservation Put under Scrutiny," Resources, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-32, December.
    7. Zhang, Zilong & Chen, Xingpeng & Heck, Peter & Xue, Bing & Liu, Ye, 2015. "Empirical study on the environmental pressure versus economic growth in China during 1991–2012," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 182-193.
    8. Frank Figge & Andrea Stevenson Thorpe & Siarhei Manzhynski, 2022. "Value creation and the circular economy: A tale of three externalities," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(5), pages 1690-1700, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:inecol:v:2:y:1998:i:1:p:13-22. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1088-1980 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.