IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/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:
  • Alexandros Gasparatos
  • Mohamed El-Haram
  • Malcolm Horner

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

  • Alexandros Gasparatos & Mohamed El-Haram & Malcolm Horner, 2009. "The argument against a reductionist approach for measuring sustainable development performance and the need for methodological pluralism," Accounting Forum, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(3), pages 245-256, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf: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://hdl.handle.net/10.1016/j.accfor.2008.07.006
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    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.

    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. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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).
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Gasparatos, Alexandros, 2011. "Resource consumption in Japanese agriculture and its link to food security," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 1101-1112, March.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.

    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:taf: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.

    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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/racc .

    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.