IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i6p1718-d215963.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How to Improve Impact Reporting for Sustainability

Author

Listed:
  • Vedran Lesic

    (Centre for Decision Research, Leeds University Business School, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK)

  • Richard E. Hodgett

    (Centre for Decision Research, Leeds University Business School, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK)

  • Alan Pearman

    (Centre for Decision Research, Leeds University Business School, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK)

  • Amy Peace

    (Britest Limited, The Innovation Centre, Sci-Tech Daresbury, Warrington WA4 4FS, UK)

Abstract

Measuring real-world impact is vital for demonstrating the success of a project and one of the most direct ways to justify taxpayers’ contributions towards public funding. Impact reporting should identify and examine the potential positive and negative consequences of the continuing operations of a proposed project and suggest strategies to expand, further develop, mitigate, avoid or offset them. Designing a tool or methodology that will capture the impact of collaborative research and innovation projects related to sustainability requires input from technical experts but also from experts in the domains of survey design and communication. Without survey design insights and testing it can be very difficult to achieve unambiguous and accurate reporting of impacts. This paper proposes six key recommendations that should be considered for those monitoring projects when identifying metrics and designing a sustainability impact report. These recommendations stem from a series of in-depth interviews about sustainability and innovation impact reporting with research project co-ordinators in the process industries (e.g., cement, ceramics, chemicals, engineering, minerals and ores, non-ferrous metals, steel and water sectors). Our results show that factors such as ambiguous terminology, two-in-one questions, the stage of the project, over-hypothetical estimates, inadequate formats and alternatives and lack of guidelines can negatively influence the data collected in usual project monitoring activities and jeopardise the overall validity of the reporting. This work acts as a guideline for those monitoring to improve how they ask for impact data from projects, whether they are introducing new impact metrics or evaluating existing ones.

Suggested Citation

  • Vedran Lesic & Richard E. Hodgett & Alan Pearman & Amy Peace, 2019. "How to Improve Impact Reporting for Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-21, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:6:p:1718-:d:215963
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/6/1718/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/6/1718/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Md. Abdul Kaium Masud & Mohammad Sharif Hossain & Jong Dae Kim, 2018. "Is Green Regulation Effective or a Failure: Comparative Analysis between Bangladesh Bank (BB) Green Guidelines and Global Reporting Initiative Guidelines," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-19, April.
    2. Nora Cate Schaeffer & Judith A. Seltzer & Marieka Klawitter, 1991. "Estimating Nonresponse and Response Bias," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 20(1), pages 30-59, August.
    3. Michael F. Bryan & Guhan Venkatu, 2001. "The demographics of inflation opinion surveys," Economic Commentary, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, issue Oct.
    4. Daniel Read & Ann Bostrom & M. Granger Morgan & Baruch Fischhoff & Tom Smuts, 1994. "What Do People Know About Global Climate Change? 2. Survey Studies of Educated Laypeople," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 971-982, December.
    5. Francesca Manes-Rossi & Adriana Tiron-Tudor & Giuseppe Nicolò & Gianluca Zanellato, 2018. "Ensuring More Sustainable Reporting in Europe Using Non-Financial Disclosure—De Facto and De Jure Evidence," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-20, April.
    6. Ann Bostrom & M. Granger Morgan & Baruch Fischhoff & Daniel Read, 1994. "What Do People Know About Global Climate Change? 1. Mental Models," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 959-970, December.
    7. Ans Kolk, 2003. "Trends in sustainability reporting by the Fortune Global 250," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(5), pages 279-291, September.
    8. Ranyard, Rob & Missier, Fabio Del & Bonini, Nicolao & Duxbury, Darren & Summers, Barbara, 2008. "Perceptions and expectations of price changes and inflation: A review and conceptual framework," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 378-400, August.
    9. Bruine de Bruin, Wändi & van der Klaauw, Wilbert & van Rooij, Maarten & Teppa, Federica & de Vos, Klaas, 2017. "Measuring expectations of inflation: Effects of survey mode, wording, and opportunities to revise," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 45-58.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Rebecca E. Morss & Julie L. Demuth & Ann Bostrom & Jeffrey K. Lazo & Heather Lazrus, 2015. "Flash Flood Risks and Warning Decisions: A Mental Models Study of Forecasters, Public Officials, and Media Broadcasters in Boulder, Colorado," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(11), pages 2009-2028, November.
    2. Angela Bearth & Marie‐Eve Cousin & Michael Siegrist, 2016. "“The Dose Makes the Poison”: Informing Consumers About the Scientific Risk Assessment of Food Additives," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 130-144, January.
    3. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Michael F. Bryan & Simon M. Potter & Giorgio Topa & Wilbert Van der Klaauw, 2008. "Rethinking the measurement of household inflation expectations: preliminary findings," Staff Reports 359, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
    4. Bruine de Bruin, Wändi & van der Klaauw, Wilbert & Topa, Giorgio, 2011. "Expectations of inflation: The biasing effect of thoughts about specific prices," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 834-845.
    5. Antony Millner & Hélène Ollivier, 2016. "Beliefs, Politics, and Environmental Policy," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 226-244.
    6. Pooja Kapoor & Sujata Kar, 2023. "A review of inflation expectations and perceptions research in the past four decades: a bibliometric analysis," International Economics and Economic Policy, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 279-302, May.
    7. Laura Sierra-Garcia & Maria Antonia Garcia-Benau & Helena Maria Bollas-Araya, 2018. "Empirical Analysis of Non-Financial Reporting by Spanish Companies," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-17, July.
    8. Paul M. Kellstedt & Sammy Zahran & Arnold Vedlitz, 2008. "Personal Efficacy, the Information Environment, and Attitudes Toward Global Warming and Climate Change in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 113-126, February.
    9. Matthew D. Wood & Ann Bostrom & Todd Bridges & Igor Linkov, 2012. "Cognitive Mapping Tools: Review and Risk Management Needs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(8), pages 1333-1348, August.
    10. Coibion, Olivier & Gorodnichenko, Yuriy & Kumar, Saten & Pedemonte, Mathieu, 2020. "Inflation expectations as a policy tool?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    11. Ann Bostrom & Adam L. Hayes & Katherine M. Crosman, 2019. "Efficacy, Action, and Support for Reducing Climate Change Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(4), pages 805-828, April.
    12. Matthew Wood & Daniel Kovacs & Ann Bostrom & Todd Bridges & Igor Linkov, 2012. "Flood Risk Management: US Army Corps of Engineers and Layperson Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(8), pages 1349-1368, August.
    13. Kelly Klima & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & M. Granger Morgan & Iris Grossmann, 2012. "Public Perceptions of Hurricane Modification," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(7), pages 1194-1206, July.
    14. Thomas F. Thornton & Diana Mangalagiu & Yuge Ma & Jing Lan & Mahir Yazar & Ali Kerem Saysel & Abdel Maoula Chaar, 2020. "Cultural models of and for urban sustainability: assessing beliefs about Green-Win," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 160(4), pages 521-537, June.
    15. Raya Muttarak & Thanyaporn Chankrajang, 2015. "Who is concerned about and takes action on climate change? Gender and education divides among Thais," Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, vol. 13(1), pages 193-220.
    16. Peter Taylor‐Gooby & Jens O. Zinn, 2006. "Current Directions in Risk Research: New Developments in Psychology and Sociology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 397-411, April.
    17. Todd S. Bridges & Daniel Kovacs & Matthew D. Wood & Kelsie Baker & Gordon Butte & Sarah Thorne & Igor Linkov, 2013. "Climate change risk management: a Mental Modeling application," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 376-390, September.
    18. Bruine de Bruin, Wändi & van der Klaauw, Wilbert & van Rooij, Maarten & Teppa, Federica & de Vos, Klaas, 2017. "Measuring expectations of inflation: Effects of survey mode, wording, and opportunities to revise," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 45-58.
    19. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Gabrielle Wong-Parodi & M. Granger Morgan, 2014. "Public perceptions of local flood risk and the role of climate change," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 34(4), pages 591-599, December.
    20. Katherine M. Crosman & Ann Bostrom & Adam L. Hayes, 2019. "Efficacy Foundations for Risk Communication: How People Think About Reducing the Risks of Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(10), pages 2329-2347, 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:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:6:p:1718-:d:215963. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.