IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/accfor/v33y2009i3p245-256.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The argument against a reductionist approach for measuring sustainable development performance and the need for methodological pluralism

Author

Listed:
  • Gasparatos, Alexandros
  • El-Haram, Mohamed
  • Horner, Malcolm

Abstract

Both sustainability and sustainable development continue to remain elusive concepts even now, 20 years after the Brundtland Commission report that brought them into prominence. This situation most likely stems from the fact that sustainability science encompasses the need to address a wide set of issues over different time and spatial scales and thus inevitably accommodates opinions from diverse branches of knowledge and expertise. However, despite this multitude of perspectives, progress towards sustainability is usually assessed through the development and utilisation of single sustainability metrics such as monetary tools, composite sustainability indices and biophysical metrics including emergy, exergy and the ecological footprint. But is it really justifiable to assess the progress towards sustainability by using single metrics? This paper argues that such a choice seems increasingly unjustifiable not least due to these metrics’ methodological imperfections and limits. Additionally, our recent awareness of economies, societies and ecosystems as complex adaptive systems that cannot be fully captured through a single perspective further adds to the argument. Failure to describe these systems in a holistic manner through the synthesis of their different non-reducible and perfectly legitimate perspectives amounts to reductionism. An implication of the above is the fact that not a single sustainability metric at the moment can claim to comprehensively assess sustainability. In the light of these findings this paper proposes that the further elaboration and refinement of current metrics is unlikely to produce a framework for assessing the progress towards sustainability with a single metric. Adoption of a diverse set of metrics seems more likely to be the key for more robust sustainability assessments. This methodological pluralism coupled with stakeholder involvement seems to offer a better chance of improving the outcome of the decision making process.

Suggested Citation

  • Gasparatos, Alexandros & El-Haram, Mohamed & Horner, Malcolm, 2009. "The argument against a reductionist approach for measuring sustainable development performance and the need for methodological pluralism," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 245-256.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:accfor:v:33:y:2009:i:3:p:245-256
    DOI: 10.1016/j.accfor.2008.07.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0155998208000471
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.accfor.2008.07.006?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Padilla, Emilio, 2002. "Intergenerational equity and sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 69-83, April.
    2. Sumaila, Ussif R. & Walters, Carl, 2005. "Intergenerational discounting: a new intuitive approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 135-142, January.
    3. Zerbe, Richard Jr. & Bauman, Yoram & Finkle, Aaron, 2006. "An aggregate measure for benefit-cost analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 449-461, June.
    4. Sciubba, Enrico & Ulgiati, Sergio, 2005. "Emergy and exergy analyses: Complementary methods or irreducible ideological options?," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 30(10), pages 1953-1988.
    5. van den Bergh, Jeroen C. J. M. & Verbruggen, Harmen, 1999. "Spatial sustainability, trade and indicators: an evaluation of the 'ecological footprint'," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 61-72, April.
    6. Michela Nardo & Michaela Saisana & Andrea Saltelli & Stefano Tarantola & Anders Hoffman & Enrico Giovannini, 2005. "Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide," OECD Statistics Working Papers 2005/3, OECD Publishing.
    7. Brown, M. T. & Herendeen, R. A., 1996. "Embodied energy analysis and EMERGY analysis: a comparative view," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 219-235, December.
    8. Norgaard, Richard B., 1989. "The case for methodological pluralism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 37-57, February.
    9. Cleveland, Cutler J., 2005. "Net energy from the extraction of oil and gas in the United States," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 769-782.
    10. Valero, A., 2006. "Exergy accounting: Capabilities and drawbacks," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 164-180.
    11. Rabl, Ari, 1996. "Discounting of long-term costs: What would future generations prefer us to do?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 137-145, June.
    12. Goldin,Ian & Winters,L. Alan (ed.), 1995. "The Economics of Sustainable Development," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521469579.
    13. Winkler, Ralph, 2006. "Valuation of ecosystem goods and services: Part 1: An integrated dynamic approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 82-93, August.
    14. Winkler, Ralph, 2006. "Valuation of ecosystem goods and services: Part 2: Implications of unpredictable novel change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 94-105, August.
    15. Pezzey, John C.V. & Toman, Michael, 2002. "The Economics of Sustainability: A Review of Journal Articles," Discussion Papers 10683, Resources for the Future.
    16. Cleveland, Cutler J. & Kaufmann, Robert K. & Stern, David I., 2000. "Aggregation and the role of energy in the economy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 301-317, February.
    17. Limburg, Karin E. & O'Neill, Robert V. & Costanza, Robert & Farber, Stephen, 2002. "Complex systems and valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 409-420, June.
    18. Daly, Herman E., 1990. "Toward some operational principles of sustainable development," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-6, April.
    19. Funtowicz, Silvio O. & Ravetz, Jerome R., 1994. "The worth of a songbird: ecological economics as a post-normal science," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 197-207, August.
    20. Farber, Stephen C. & Costanza, Robert & Wilson, Matthew A., 2002. "Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 375-392, June.
    21. Sciubba, Enrico, 2003. "Cost analysis of energy conversion systems via a novel resource-based quantifier," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 28(5), pages 457-477.
    22. Meppem, Tony & Gill, Roderic, 1998. "Planning for sustainability as a learning concept," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 121-137, August.
    23. Meppem, Tony, 2000. "The discursive community: evolving institutional structures for planning sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 47-61, July.
    24. Farrow, Scott, 1998. "Environmental equity and sustainability: rejecting the Kaldor-Hicks criteria," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 183-188, November.
    25. Wackernagel, Mathis & Onisto, Larry & Bello, Patricia & Callejas Linares, Alejandro & Susana Lopez Falfan, Ina & Mendez Garcia, Jesus & Isabel Suarez Guerrero, Ana & Guadalupe Suarez Guerrero, Ma., 1999. "National natural capital accounting with the ecological footprint concept," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 375-390, June.
    26. Saez, Carmen Almansa & Requena, Javier Calatrava, 2007. "Reconciling sustainability and discounting in Cost-Benefit Analysis: A methodological proposal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 712-725, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Kocjančič Tina & Žgajnar Jaka & Juvančič Luka, 2016. "Multiple-perspective Reorganisation of the Dairy sector: Mathematical Programming Approach," Business Systems Research, Sciendo, vol. 7(2), pages 35-48, September.
    2. Giannetti, B.F. & Almeida, C.M.V.B. & Bonilla, S.H., 2010. "Comparing emergy accounting with well-known sustainability metrics: The case of Southern Cone Common Market, Mercosur," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 3518-3526, July.
    3. Jeffrey Unerman & Jan Bebbington & Brendan O’dwyer, 2018. "Corporate reporting and accounting for externalities," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(5), pages 497-522, July.
    4. Engelbrecht, Hans-Jürgen, 2016. "Comprehensive versus inclusive wealth accounting and the assessment of sustainable development: An empirical comparison," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 12-20.
    5. Matthew Egan, 2019. "Sense-Making Resource Efficiency Through “Sustainability” Reports," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 154(3), pages 797-812, February.
    6. Kocjančič, Tina & Debeljak, Marko & Žgajnar, Jaka & Juvančič, Luka, 2018. "Incorporation of emergy into multiple-criteria decision analysis for sustainable and resilient structure of dairy farms in Slovenia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 71-83.
    7. Holden, Erling & Linnerud, Kristin & Banister, David, 2013. "Sustainable passenger transport: Back to Brundtland," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 67-77.
    8. Xing, Yangang & Horner, R. Malcolm W. & El-Haram, Mohamed A. & Bebbington, Jan, 2009. "A framework model for assessing sustainability impacts of urban development," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 209-224.
    9. Purvis, Ben & Genovese, Andrea, 2023. "Better or different? A reflection on the suitability of indicator methods for a just transition to a circular economy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    10. Lamia Berrah & Vincent Cliville & Damien Trentesaux & Claude Chapel, 2021. "Industrial Performance: An Evolution Incorporating Ethics in the Context of Industry 4.0," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-21, August.
    11. Figge, Frank & Hahn, Tobias & Barkemeyer, Ralf, 2014. "The If, How and Where of assessing sustainable resource use," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 274-283.
    12. Gasparatos, Alexandros, 2011. "Resource consumption in Japanese agriculture and its link to food security," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 1101-1112, March.
    13. Moretti, Michele & De Boni, Annalisa & Roma, Rocco & Fracchiolla, Mariano & Van Passel, Steven, 2016. "Integrated assessment of agro-ecological systems: The case study of the “Alta Murgia” National park in Italy," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 144-155.
    14. Lu, Hongfang & Lin, Bin-Le & Campbell, Daniel E. & Sagisaka, Masayuki & Ren, Hai, 2012. "Biofuel vs. biodiversity? Integrated emergy and economic cost-benefit evaluation of rice-ethanol production in Japan," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 442-450.
    15. Jonathan Pryshlakivsky & Cory Searcy, 2017. "A Heuristic Model for Establishing Trade-Offs in Corporate Sustainability Performance Measurement Systems," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 144(2), pages 323-342, August.
    16. Emmanuel Kumi & Albert Arhin & Thomas Yeboah, 2014. "Can post-2015 sustainable development goals survive neoliberalism? A critical examination of the sustainable development–neoliberalism nexus in developing countries," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 539-554, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Browne, David & O'Regan, Bernadette & Moles, Richard, 2012. "Comparison of energy flow accounting, energy flow metabolism ratio analysis and ecological footprinting as tools for measuring urban sustainability: A case-study of an Irish city-region," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 97-107.
    2. Chen, B. & Chen, G.Q., 2007. "Modified ecological footprint accounting and analysis based on embodied exergy--a case study of the Chinese society 1981-2001," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 355-376, March.
    3. Yoann Verger, 2015. "Sraffa and ecological economics: review of the literature," Working Papers hal-01182894, HAL.
    4. Gasparatos, Alexandros & El-Haram, Mohamed & Horner, Malcolm, 2009. "A longitudinal analysis of the UK transport sector, 1970-2010," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 623-632, February.
    5. Chen, B. & Chen, G.Q. & Yang, Z.F. & Jiang, M.M., 2007. "Ecological footprint accounting for energy and resource in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 1599-1609, March.
    6. Nikodinoska, Natasha & Paletto, Alessandro & Pastorella, Fabio & Granvik, Madeleine & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2018. "Assessing, valuing and mapping ecosystem services at city level: The case of Uppsala (Sweden)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 368(C), pages 411-424.
    7. Gowdy, John M. & Ferreri Carbonell, Ada, 1999. "Toward consilience between biology and economics: the contribution of Ecological Economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 337-348, June.
    8. Baral, Anil & Bakshi, Bhavik R., 2010. "Emergy analysis using US economic input–output models with applications to life cycles of gasoline and corn ethanol," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 221(15), pages 1807-1818.
    9. Muradian, Roldan & O'Connor, Martin & Martinez-Alier, Joan, 2002. "Embodied pollution in trade: estimating the 'environmental load displacement' of industrialised countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 51-67, April.
    10. Bastianoni, S. & Facchini, A. & Susani, L. & Tiezzi, E., 2007. "Emergy as a function of exergy," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 1158-1162.
    11. Hezri, Adnan A. & Dovers, Stephen R., 2006. "Sustainability indicators, policy and governance: Issues for ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 86-99, November.
    12. Giannetti, B.F. & Almeida, C.M.V.B. & Bonilla, S.H., 2010. "Comparing emergy accounting with well-known sustainability metrics: The case of Southern Cone Common Market, Mercosur," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 3518-3526, July.
    13. Yang, Wu & Chang, Jie & Xu, Bin & Peng, Changhui & Ge, Ying, 2008. "Ecosystem service value assessment for constructed wetlands: A case study in Hangzhou, China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 116-125, December.
    14. Price, Colin, 2010. "Low discount rates and insignificant environmental values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 1895-1903, August.
    15. Liao, Wenjie & Heijungs, Reinout & Huppes, Gjalt, 2012. "Thermodynamic analysis of human–environment systems: A review focused on industrial ecology," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 76-88.
    16. Jiang, M.M. & Chen, B., 2011. "Integrated urban ecosystem evaluation and modeling based on embodied cosmic exergy," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(13), pages 2149-2165.
    17. Shi, Tian, 2004. "Ecological economics as a policy science: rhetoric or commitment towards an improved decision-making process on sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 23-36, January.
    18. Castro e Silva, Manuela & Teixeira, Aurora A.C., 2011. "A bibliometric account of the evolution of EE in the last two decades: Is ecological economics (becoming) a post-normal science?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(5), pages 849-862, March.
    19. Sneddon, Chris & Howarth, Richard B. & Norgaard, Richard B., 2006. "Sustainable development in a post-Brundtland world," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 253-268, May.
    20. Costanza, Robert & Stern, David & Fisher, Brendan & He, Lining & Ma, Chunbo, 2004. "Influential publications in ecological economics: a citation analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(3-4), pages 261-292, October.

    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:eee:accfor:v:33:y:2009:i:3:p:245-256. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/accounting-forum .

    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.