Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://hdl.handle.net/1942/11472
Full metadata record
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | ANG, Frederic | - |
dc.contributor.author | VAN PASSEL, Steven | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2011-01-09T08:42:10Z | - |
dc.date.available | NO_RESTRICTION | - |
dc.date.issued | 2010 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 69 (12) p. 2303-2306 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 0921-8009 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/1942/11472 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Recently, the original benchmarking methodology of the Sustainable Value approach became subjected to serious debate. While Kuosmanen and Kuosmanen (2009b) critically question its validity introducing productive efficiency theory, Figge and Hahn (2009) put forward that the implementation of productive efficiency theory severely conflicts with the original financial economics perspective of the Sustainable Value approach. We argue that the debate is very confusing because the original Sustainable Value approach presents two largely incompatible objectives. Nevertheless, we maintain that both ways of benchmarking could provide useful and moreover complementary insights. If one intends to present the overall resource efficiency of the firm from the investor's viewpoint, we recommend the original benchmarking methodology. If one on the other hand aspires to create a prescriptive tool setting up some sort of reallocation scheme, we advocate implementation of the productive efficiency theory. Although the discussion on benchmark application is certainly substantial, we should avoid the debate to become accordingly narrowed. Next to the benchmark concern, we see several other challenges considering the development of the Sustainable Value approach: (1) a more systematic resource selection, (2) the inclusion of the value chain and (3) additional analyses related to policy in order to increase interpretative power. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. | - |
dc.language.iso | en | - |
dc.publisher | ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV | - |
dc.subject.other | sustainable value; eco-efficiency; sustainability assessment; sustainability | - |
dc.subject.other | sustainable value; eco-efficiency; sustainability assessment; sustainability | - |
dc.title | The Sustainable Value approach: A clarifying and constructive comment | - |
dc.type | Journal Contribution | - |
dc.identifier.epage | 2306 | - |
dc.identifier.issue | 12 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | 2303 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 69 | - |
local.format.pages | 4 | - |
local.bibliographicCitation.jcat | A1 | - |
dc.description.notes | [Ang, Frederic; Van Passel, Steven] Hasselt Univ, Ctr Environm Sci, B-3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium. frederic.ang@uhasselt.be | - |
local.type.refereed | Refereed | - |
local.type.specified | Note | - |
dc.bibliographicCitation.oldjcat | A1 | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.05.016 | - |
dc.identifier.isi | 000283700900001 | - |
item.contributor | ANG, Frederic | - |
item.contributor | VAN PASSEL, Steven | - |
item.fullcitation | ANG, Frederic & VAN PASSEL, Steven (2010) The Sustainable Value approach: A clarifying and constructive comment. In: ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 69 (12) p. 2303-2306. | - |
item.accessRights | Restricted Access | - |
item.fulltext | With Fulltext | - |
crisitem.journal.issn | 0921-8009 | - |
crisitem.journal.eissn | 1873-6106 | - |
Appears in Collections: | Research publications |
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
ang 1.pdf Restricted Access | Published version | 149.92 kB | Adobe PDF | View/Open Request a copy |
SCOPUSTM
Citations
19
checked on Sep 3, 2020
WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations
21
checked on Apr 30, 2024
Page view(s)
212
checked on Sep 6, 2022
Download(s)
192
checked on Sep 6, 2022
Google ScholarTM
Check
Altmetric
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.