Business and the Sustainable Development Goals Measuring and Managing Corporate Impacts Edited by Norma Schönherr André Martinuzzi Business and the Sustainable Development Goals Norma Schưnherr  •  André Martinuzzi Editors Business and the Sustainable Development Goals Measuring and Managing Corporate Impacts Editors Norma Schönherr Institute for Managing Sustainability Vienna University of Economics and Business Vienna, Austria André Martinuzzi Institute for Managing Sustainability Vienna University of Economics and Business Vienna, Austria ISBN 978-3-030-16809-4    ISBN 978-3-030-16810-0 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16810-0 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 This work is subject to copyright All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations Cover pattern © Melisa Hasan This Palgrave Pivot imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Preface Over the past 15 years, business has emerged as an important player in the field of sustainable development Concurrently, however, trust in the private sector’s ability to self-regulate and drive positive social change has been waning Negative consequences of trade and globalization, including rising inequality and stagnant wage levels, have increased opposition to global business, in particular, and globalization, more generally While many firms have responded to this by adopting corporate sustainability practices and implementing sustainability management systems, the impact of these measures is not reflected in improvements to the state of the planet On the contrary, global sustainability challenges like climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution continue to mount, and the rollback of environmental legislation in some places, such as the United States, is not a promising sign If, as many executives today agree, sustainability is a prerequisite for continued prosperity and competitiveness, it becomes ever more urgent to understand what kind of corporate sustainability really impacts positively on the natural environment, on society and firms themselves In the midst of this ongoing debate surrounding the role of business in society, there is an emerging consensus that companies can and ought to contribute to sustainability by enhancing positive impacts (e.g on livelihoods, health, and education) and reducing negative ones (e.g resource consumption, pollution, and human rights violations) This requires both strategic sensitivity to global sustainability challenges and sound impact measurement and management at the corporate level v vi  PREFACE The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in September 2015 provide a comprehensive and universally applicable framework for strategic corporate engagement with sustainability issues This constitutes a good entry point for companies to begin tackling their sustainability impacts in a more systematic fashion at all levels and to identify new business opportunities while contributing to the solution of the grand sustainability challenges facing the world today However, measuring and managing the contribution of business to the SDGs poses particular challenges For firms, it requires a well-founded understanding of the wider impacts of their core business, community, and philanthropic engagement, as well as of the materiality of these impacts in a sustainability context Assessing impacts has to consider trade-offs and ambiguities arising from the diversity of sustainability issues as well as the values and interests of different stakeholder groups At the same time, the SDGs are an unprecedented opportunity for stakeholders to engage with business For consultants, measuring and managing impacts is a promising area of work, as many companies lack knowledge and data beyond their corporate boundaries And for researchers, impact measurement and management has emerged as an important new field for research, as well as an application area of their knowledge and tools In this context, this volume serves a dual purpose: On the one hand, it critically analyzes selected impact measurement and management tools and speaks to their respective benefits and limitations On the other hand, it aims to provide guidance on management decisions that enable high-­ quality impact measurement and management to support companies in demonstrating their contribution to sustainability The analyses underlying this book are the result of three years of research conducted by an international consortium in the EU-funded research project GLOBAL VALUE—Managing Business Impacts on Development (www.global-value.eu/toolkit) This highly collaborative research project involved leading universities, civil society organizations, and corporations from Europe, Asia, and Africa The research presented in this volume is complemented by concrete examples from corporate practice and interviews with experts from organizations deeply involved in tool development and measuring the contribution of business to sustainability It is our hope that this volume will be of value to academics, as well as practitioners and professionals with close links to research (including  PREFACE  vii e­ valuation professionals, consultants, and tool developers) working in or across the fields of sustainability management, corporate sustainability, inclusive business, and sustainable development More specifically, the work should be of relevance to readers interested in recent research on the business contribution to the SDGs, or understanding different methodological approaches and practices for measuring corporate sustainability impacts, as well as to those who want to receive an overview of this dynamic, evolving field of research Vienna, Austria February 2019 Norma Schönherr André Martinuzzi Acknowledgments Funding for the research underlying this volume was provided by the European Commission under the 7th Framework Programme in the context of the GLOBAL VALUE project (contract number: 613295) We are grateful to the European Commission for making this research possible We also wish to thank the GLOBAL VALUE project partners for three years of fruitful and very pleasant collaboration Their expertise, creativity, and commitment have been invaluable Our gratitude also goes to the contributing authors of this volume, who have made their original research papers available and have borne with us throughout an extensive process of review and revision Moreover, we wish to acknowledge the tool developers and practitioners, who have provided their insights in interviews, and our case companies for providing data and investing time into collaboratively testing existing impact assessment approaches, as well as for engaging with us to develop the best practice cases presented in this book Finally, yet importantly, we are grateful for the constructive feedback of several anonymous reviewers on the proposal and draft manuscript of this volume and to the Palgrave Macmillan editorial team for their patience and support Any remaining errors are strictly our own The European Commission is not responsible for use that may be made of any material arising from the GLOBAL VALUE project and this book ix Contents 1 Introduction: The Sustainable Development Goals and the Future of Corporate Sustainability  1 André Martinuzzi and Norma Schönherr 2 The Corporate Toolbox 19 Norma Schönherr, Lucia A Reisch, Andrea Farsang, Armi Temmes, Adele Tharani, and André Martinuzzi 3 Scoping What Matters: An Introduction to Impact Mapping 55 Florian Findler 4 Measuring What Matters: Standardized Versus Customizable Impact Measurement Tools 75 Adele Tharani 5 Managing What Matters: Integrating Impact Measurement into Corporate Sustainability Management 95 Armi Temmes xi xii  CONTENTS 6 Implementing Impact Measurement and Management113 Norma Schönherr, Lucia A Reisch, Andrea Farsang, Armi Temmes, Adele Tharani, and André Martinuzzi Index129 6  IMPLEMENTING IMPACT MEASUREMENT AND MANAGEMENT  119 management control, enable organizational learning, or whether they wish to respond to expectations held by stakeholders and the general public When the purpose of impact measurement and management is related to management control and strategic decision support, appropriate tools will need to enable choosing between alternative courses of action The results of impact measurement should then be actionable for decision-­ makers within the company Since the target audience of the results from impact measurement is primarily internal, appropriate tools can be specific in the sustainability issues they address and allow customization of evaluation criteria to enable decision-makers to focus on those factors most relevant to the decision at hand Finally, appropriate tools should be forward looking when needed to support a specific decision, but can be backward looking when applied to analyze and improve existing sustainability management systems (see Chap 5) Impact measurement exercises for the purpose of reporting and communication will require a different type of tool to support the process Since the objective of reporting and communication is the creation of transparency and legitimacy vis-à-vis company stakeholders, appropriate tools will need to be rather comprehensive and ideally standardized in terms of issues addressed and evaluation criteria employed The increasing uptake of sustainability reporting by companies has led to the emergence of reporting standards, which fulfill these criteria These standards aim at harmonizing reporting practices across firms, sectors, and regions in order to generate more comparable information that can be used by stakeholders to hold firms accountable (in the same way that accounting standards provide relevant information enabling shareholders to hold managers accountable), with the GRI Standards and the IIRC Integrated Reporting Framework being the most prominent examples (see Chaps and 4) A third purpose for which impact measurement can be leveraged within companies is organizational learning When tools are needed to support learning and capacity building, they should themselves follow a continuous improvement logic This means they should enable repeated cycles of assessment and the opportunity to track improvements over time Organizational learning requires a clear understanding of the material sustainability issues for the company in order to be able to prioritize among the many offerings available In particular, diagnostic self-assessment tools are well-suited to organizational learning (Balbastre and Luzón 2003; Conti 1997), when they are regularly applied and results are communicated within the wider organization (see Chap 2) 120  N SCHÖNHERR ET AL 2 For whom we measure sustainability impacts? What are the quality criteria by which we judge whether impact measurement results are up to par? The potential users and addressees of data generated through impact measurement are frequently not the people producing it They act as clients and may exert differing degrees of influence over the results (Ridder et al 2007) For instance, impact assessment will differ substantially depending on whether a company’s internal management team needs support in making a strategic decision (e.g on sustainability investments) or whether impact measurement is intended to provide data for sustainability reporting vis-à-vis external stakeholders The former likely requires very specific, potentially monetized information on the costs, benefits, and impacts of different decision options The latter requires comprehensive information on a potentially large number of sustainability impacts that may be relevant to the stakeholders addressed Table 6.2 provides some guidance as to the likely audience of management control, reporting and learning tools In order to properly determine the assessment needs of the intended audience and for determining the materiality of specific ­ sustainability issues, impact mapping (see Chap 3) can be employed to build a shared understanding of the expectations of all parties concerned Determining success criteria for impact measurement exercises up front is also a critical factor for managing expectations Discussions Table 6.2  Fit for purpose—features of appropriate tools for management control, reporting or learning Purpose Management control Reporting Learning Objective of impact measurement Enabling choice and Legitimacy and action transparency Knowledge generation and improvement Logic Best alternative logic Goal achievement logic Continuous improvement logic Audience Internal audience— Management focus External audience— Internal or external Stakeholder focus audience—Need for prioritization Appropriate tools will be Rather specific, customizable, forward looking Comprehensive, standardized, backward looking Rather specific, standardized or customizable, regularly applied 6  IMPLEMENTING IMPACT MEASUREMENT AND MANAGEMENT  121 with the target audience around how to define success can be a useful way of balancing expectations (which sometimes include incompatible wishes and demands) and specific resource and time constraints (which limit the ability of the analyst to meet expectations) Such criteria can refer to (a) the process of impact measurement (e.g need for collecting previously unavailable data on material sustainability impacts, collaboration with previously marginalized stakeholders), (b) the generated data (e.g need for monetization of impacts, identification of social or environmental hot spots along the value chain), and/or (c) the frequency and timeliness of results (e.g ad hoc/continuous; by next week/until next year) What is the desired scope of impact measurement and management? Which sustainability issues, levels of analysis, and application contexts are material? There is a continuous increase in tools covering similar sustainability issues, indicating a slow but steady convergence on what CS means in practice However, the breadth and depth of such tools as well as the extent to which tools cover specific SDGs can be very different Therefore, combining different tools or elements of tools for specific assessment purposes is highly recommended—the GLOBAL VALUE tool navigator (see www.global-value.eu/toolkit) can help narrow down the number of options (also see Chap 2) Whenever possible, impact mapping as a precursor to impact measurement and management is recommended to determine those sustainability issues where the company can have the largest positive effect with the resources it can leverage (see Chap 3) Frameworks, such as the SDG Compass, the Measuring Impact Framework, or the Natural Capital Protocol can also be of assistance in answering these questions by providing a structured process for making decisions as to the scope of the assessment and the material issues to be addressed These frameworks can then be applied in conjunction with databases of appropriate tools meeting user requirements 122  N SCHÖNHERR ET AL 4 What are the data requirements of impact measurement and management? How is the data going to be interpreted, evaluated, and used? Depending on the chosen scope for impact assessment, different tools may require the analyst to provide significant amounts of data (implying sometimes costly data collection in the field) or may provide their own databases with pertinent information (e.g on sustainability risks in specific countries or benchmarks against which performance can be assessed) Reflecting on the data requirements that must be met in order to obtain the desired information from a given impact measurement exercise is thus critical for success Dalal-Clayton and Bass (2002) distinguish three main approaches to data requirements of sustainability impact assessment: accounts, narrative and indicator-based assessments Accounts assessments draw on raw data, which is converted into a common unit (e.g monetary, area, or energy) This high level of aggregation makes overall performance easily comparable against peers or benchmarks An example for such a tool is the Sustainable Value Calculator featured in this volume (see Chaps and 4) Narrative assessments, in contrast, use texts, graphics, and tabular data They are highly flexible and provide the opportunity to explore detailed and unstructured data of all kinds with the objective of developing a rich picture of sustainability impacts, including trade-offs and systemic interrelationships Tools that can be implemented with relatively low investments of time and resources rely on aggregated estimates or narrative data While this avoids the need for extensive data collection, these tools also leave room for a high level of subjectivity without providing clear guidance on boundaries and evaluation guidelines on the respective indicator or topic While such data can still be useful for exploring new sustainability issues and for organizational learning, impact measurement for reporting and management control will usually require more robust results Consequently, the usefulness of these approaches for monitoring, decision support, and strategy development and communication is limited Indicator-based assessment is considered the most useful approach to achieve measurable, transparent, and comparable results, and thus serves as the foundation of many impact measurement tools However, highly quantified and standardized tools that leverage well-established metrics may still be liable to misinterpretation of results It is therefore useful to 6  IMPLEMENTING IMPACT MEASUREMENT AND MANAGEMENT  123 corroborate results across a number of different data sources and to discuss criteria for evaluation with a wider number of stakeholders (internal or external to the company, depending on the purpose of assessment) Tools combining both qualitative and quantitative data and indicators generally provide more reliable and transparent results This is because they are stringent in terms of metrics used, while also providing contextual information and narratives that help to frame and interpret the information gained However, these tools are usually also among the most complex and time-intensive impact measurement approaches, which may be prohibitive in some contexts While these trade-offs cannot be easily resolved, reflection on minimum and maximum requirements on data in- and outputs are an important part of planning an impact measurement process Managers who have invested in the development of a clearly delineated scope as well as success criteria (see steps and 3) will generally find it easier to make decisions as to the data requirements of a useful and actionable impact measurement process How can impact measurement be integrated with existing management structures and procedures within companies? Beyond the implementation of a single impact measurement exercise lies the wider strategic question of how regular impact measurement can be integrated with established sustainability management (see Chap for a broader discussion) First, the company needs to define its goals and scope of its sustainability management system, either at the point of setting up the first management system, or at the point of updating it Such strategy building processes are best supported by broader frameworks which enable the integration of impact management in a well-defined and systematic process Second, the company needs to make sure the management system is implemented in general and covers those sustainability issues that are material to its stakeholders and in light of its management objectives Impact oriented selfassessment tools can support this oversight process by regularly checking for gaps in the implemented processes and metrics in light of new and emerging sustainability issues Third, the company needs to ensure that its policies are implemented also at the point of ­individual strategic decisions For such contexts, business value tools may support decision-making under consideration of both the business case and the societal case of a specific decision Fourth, the company needs to communicate its impacts 124  N SCHÖNHERR ET AL and the related impact management measures to stakeholders Reporting tools which consider material impacts may help streamline this process and avoid decoupling effects that may diminish the credibility of a company’s communication Finally, impact measurement and management will be much easier implemented by a skilled cross-­functional team from different, relevant business units, rather than a dedicated CS manager In implementing such an integrated approach to impact measurement and management, managers will need to consider that impacts may materialize with significant time lags and in different locations This means that some impacts may only be visible after years Therefore, communicating progress in a realistic manner and showing a clear understanding of the pathways of impact (see Chap 3) underlying impact measurement and management helps maintain the credibility and trustworthiness of companies engaging with impact oriented CS Concluding Remarks The continuous evolution of tools for impact measurement and management will continue to pose challenges for companies engaging with impact oriented CS. However, as companies build up capacities for impact measurement, they will become better equipped for handling the complexity of the business and socio-ecological environment in which they are embedded This volume has made an effort to collate the current state of impact measurement and management in the context of the SDGs in a concise and engaging way with a view to better enable researchers and practitioners alike to reflect on these challenges and how they might be best addressed (Fig. 6.2) Recent surveys show that at least 60% of companies today have started to engage with the SDGs and to reference them in their sustainability reporting (The Ethical Corporation 2018) At the same time, the SDG Partnerships Database includes more than 4000 entries pointing to an increasing number of initiatives, many of them business-led, in this space.1 However, only 27% of companies reported that they have embedded the SDGs at a strategic level, and only 23% of companies had meaningful Key Performance Indicators and targets related to the SDGs (PwC 2018) These numbers show that while there has been a significant push toward impact measurement in relation to the SDGs, there is a long way to go toward mainstreaming impact oriented CS 6  IMPLEMENTING IMPACT MEASUREMENT AND MANAGEMENT  125 Fig 6.2  Areas for future research on impact measurement and management in the context of the SDGs For companies that are already well versed and knowledgeable about the SDGs, the question remains as to how best to support them in taking an impact oriented approach to discharging their responsibility and CS. Many resources have been developed to just that in recent years.2 However, the effectiveness and fit of these resources with corporate practice and needs has so far not been investigated in the academic discourse Questions around the effectiveness, legitimacy, and implementation of such resources in pursuit of more substantial engagement with the SDGs thus offers a promising new field for research that is still largely underexplored (van Zanten and van Tulder 2018) A second question that arises in this context is on potential barriers and success factors for impact measurement and management in the context of the SDGs Critics posit that much of the engagement of companies with the SDGs today re-labels business-as-usual (Scheyvens et al 2016) rather than representing a substantial step into the direction of more impactful CS. In response to these criticisms, an examination of potential barriers to and incentives for more substantial approaches seems highly warranted 126  N SCHÖNHERR ET AL The numbers cited above also show that at least 40% of companies are not yet engaging with the SDGs in a meaningful way Some reasons for this have been proposed in the literature, including the lack of actionable targets for a corporate context or the complexity and uncertainty inherent to the systemic scope of the goals (Schönherr et al 2017; Le Blanc 2015; Kolk 2016) It is thus pertinent to ask what is needed for those companies to more effectively engage with the SDGs It is beyond dispute that MNCs have vast opportunities for helping achieve the SDGs, while creating business opportunities for the future However, responsibility is increasingly distributed across many different actors and along value chains Research is now needed to understand, accelerate, and materialize these opportunities, identify barriers and success factors for more substantial engagement with impact measurement and management in the context of the SDGS, and to better understand the interfaces between companies, their stakeholders, and the wider socio-­ ecological systems in which they operate Notes For more information, see the UN Partnerships for the SDGs platform and database at https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/partnerships/ For instance, the SDG Business Hub lists hundreds of resources, webinars and support services addressing business engagement with the SDGs To peruse the full list of resources, please see https://sdghub.com/ References Antal, A.  B., & Sobczak, A (2004) Beyond CSR: Organisational Learning for Global Responsibility Journal of General Management, 30(2), 77–98 Balbastre, F., & Luzón, M. M (2003) Self-Assessment Application and Learning in Organizations: A Special Reference to the Ontological Dimension Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 14(3), 367–388 Business and Sustainable Development Commission (2017) Better Business, Better World http://report.businesscommission.org/uploads/BetterBiz-­ BetterWorld_170215_012417.pdf Date Accessed 10 Apr 2019 Caldelli, A., & Parmigiani, M.  L (2004) Management Information System? A Tool for Corporate Sustainability Journal of Business Ethics, 55(2), 159–171 Conti, T (1997) Optimizing Self-Assessment Total Quality Management, 8(2–3), 5–15 Dalal-Clayton, B., & Bass, S (2002) Sustainable Development Strategies: A Resource Book Paris/New York: Earthscan Publications Ltd 6  IMPLEMENTING IMPACT MEASUREMENT AND MANAGEMENT  127 de Ridder, W., Turnpenny, J., Nilsson, M., & von Raggamby, A (2007) A Framework for Tool Selection and Use in Integrated Assessment for Sustainable Development Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 9(4), 423–441 Donaldson, T., & Walsh, J. P (2015) Toward a Theory of Business Research in Organizational Behavior, 35, 181–207 Dyllick, T., & Muff, K (2016) Clarifying the Meaning of Sustainable Business Organization & Environment, 29(2), 156–174 Edelmann (2017) 2017 Edelman TRUST BAROMETER™  – Global Results https://www.slideshare.net/EdelmanInsights/2017-edelman-trustbarometer-global-results-71035413 Fritz, M. M C., Schöggl, J.-P., & Baumgartner, R. J (2017) Selected Sustainability Aspects for Supply Chain Data Exchange: Towards a Supply Chain-Wide Sustainability Assessment Journal of Cleaner Production, 141, 587–607 Kolk, A (2016) The Social Responsibility of International Business: From Ethics and the Environment to CSR and Sustainable Development Journal of World Business, 51(1), 23–34 Le Blanc, D (2015) Towards Integration at Last? The Sustainable Development Goals as a Network of Targets New York: United Nations Maas, K., & Liket, K (2011) Social Impact Measurement: Classification of Methods In R. Burritt, S. Schaltegger, M. Bennett, T. Pohjola, & M. Csutora (Eds.), Environmental Management Accounting and Supply Chain Management New York: Springer Müller, O., Fay, M., & Vom Brocke, J.  (2018) The Effect of Big Data and Analytics on Firm Performance: An Econometric Analysis Considering Industry Characteristics Journal of Management Information Systems, 35(2), 488–509 PwC (2015) Make It Your Business Engaging with the Sustainable Development Goals https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/sustainability/SDG/SDG%20Research_ FINAL.pdf Date Accessed 10 Apr 2019 PwC (2018) From Promise to Reality: Does Business Really Care About the SDGs? https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/services/sustainability/sustainable-development-­ goals/sdg-reporting-challenge-2018.html Date Accessed 10 Apr 2018 Scheyvens, R., Banks, G., & Hughes, E (2016) The Private Sector and the SDGs: The Need to Move Beyond ‘Business as Usual’ Sustainable Development, 24(6), 371–382 Schönherr, N., Findler, F., & Martinuzzi, A (2017) Exploring the Interface of CSR and the Sustainable Development Goals Transnational Corporations, 24(3), 33–48 Simpson, D., Power, D., & Klassen, R (2012) When One Size Does Not Fit All: A Problem of Fit Rather than Failure for Voluntary Management Standards Journal of Business Ethics, 110(1), 85–95 Starik, M., & Kanashiro, P (2013) Toward a Theory of Sustainability Management Organization & Environment, 26(1), 7–30 128  N SCHÖNHERR ET AL The Ethical Corporation (2018) The Responsible Business Trends Report 2017. http://www.ethicalcorp.com/whitepapers/responsible-business-trends-­ report-2017 Date Accessed 10 Apr 2019 van Zanten, J.  A., & van Tulder, R (2018) Multinational Enterprises and the Sustainable Development Goals: An Institutional Approach to Corporate Engagement Journal of International Business Policy, 1(3–4), 208–233 Waller, M. A., & Fawcett, S. E (2013) Data Science, Predictive Analytics, and Big Data: A Revolution that Will Transform Supply Chain Design and Management Journal of Business Logistics, 34(2), 77–84 Index1 A Accountability, 20 Accounts assessments, 122 Aggregation, 23, 36 Animal testing, 63–65 Application contexts, 22, 23, 40, 46 Assessment frameworks, 28 needs, 22, 46 B Barriers, 125, 126 Benchmarking, 82 Benefits, 78, 80, 84, 85, 91 Best practices, 31, 40 B Impact Assessment, 33, 34, 77, 79–83, 101, 102 Blinkered culture, 78, 79 Boundaries, 115, 116, 122 Brau Union, 65–66 Business benefit, 98 case, 3, 5, 9, 11 environment, goals, 97 models, 6, opportunities, 48 risks, 99, 103 in society, 116 value, 105–107 Business and Sustainable Development Commission, C Capacity, 117–119 Carbon footprint, 35 Causal assumptions, 59 links, 56 pathways, 22, 28, 42 relationship, 60 Classification, 99 Collaboration, 78, 90, 116, 117, 121  Note: Page numbers followed by ‘n’ refer to notes © The Author(s) 2019 N Schönherr, A Martinuzzi (eds.), Business and the Sustainable Development Goals, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16810-0 129 130  INDEX Communication, 76, 78, 119, 122, 124 Community investments, 42, 87–89 Company, 36 Competitiveness, Complexity, 116, 118, 124, 126 Complex relationships, 56 Comprehensiveness, 33, 34 Constraints, 22 Consumer education, 63, 67 Contents, 23, 34 Contextual factors, 22 Corporate strategies, Corporate sustainability (CS), 1–14, 96 Critical questions, 114 Customizable tools, 79, 84–87, 91 Customization, 80–84, 87, 103 D Data, 22, 34, 43–46 intensity, 116 requirements, 114, 122, 123 Deceptive measurements, 78 Decoupling, 98, 99, 101, 103, 104 E Eco-efficiency, 2, Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS), Effectiveness, 125 Energy, 63, 65–67 Environment, 56–59, 70, 71 European Commission, European Federation of Financial Analysts Societies (EFFAS), 107 Evaluation, 59 Evaluation criteria, 76, 78–80, 82, 87 External pressures, 96, 108 F FICAT, see Forest Industry Carbon Assessment Tool Financial Valuation Tool (FVT), 23, 24, 42, 80, 84, 85, 100, 105, 106, 109 Forest Industry Carbon Assessment Tool (FICAT), 35, 77, 80, 81, 100, 104, 105, 109 G Gender Equality Principles, 77, 80, 81 Gender Equality Principles Assessment (GEPI), 101 Gender Equality Principles Assessment Tool, 37 Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), 7, 10, 107 GRI, see Global Reporting Initiative Guidelines, 21, 28, 38 H Heineken Group, 65 Henkel, 63–65 HIGG Index, 40, 41, 80, 82, 101 HRCA, see Human Rights Compliance Assessment Human Rights Compliance Assessment (HRCA), 25, 77, 80, 81, 100, 101, 104, 105 Hybrid approaches, 81, 82, 87 I Impacts, 7–8, 56, 58–62, 65–68, 70, 71, 75–91, 95–109 areas, 77–79, 81–87, 89–91 management, 82 map, 60, 68, 69 mapping, 56, 58, 59, 71, 120, 121  INDEX  measurement and management, 9, 12, 13 measurement and management tools, 21, 23, 33, 38, 48–50, 51n4 measurement tools, 118, 122 oriented, 115, 117, 118, 124, 125 oriented CS, 7, pathway, 60, 62, 64, 65, 67 Implementation requirements, 23, 38 Indicator-based assessment, 122 Indicator sets, 26 Information and learning tools, 28, 31 Innovation, 2, 6, Input, 85, 88 ISO 14001, 4, 97 ISO 5001, K Key learnings, 114 Knowledge, 35, 43, 45, 46 L Labels, LBG Model, 81, 87, 88, 90, 91, 100, 104, 105, 109 Learning, 78, 82, 118–120, 122 Legitimacy, 20 Level of analysis, 23, 36, 37, 40, 46, 48 Limitations, 80, 91 Logic model, 59 M Management control, 23, 25, 119, 120, 122 objectives, 99, 107 system control, 99–102 systems, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 13 131 systems frameworks, 103 Materiality, 56–60, 70, 71 assessment, 56, 58, 59, 70, 71, 114 matrixes, 58, 60, 71 Means-ends decoupling, 98 Measuring Impact Framework (MIF), 46, 103, 104, 121 Methodological approaches, 22 Metrics, 26, 29, 42, 45 Monetary valuation, 23 Money, 43, 48 Multinational corporations, 2, 114, 115 N Narrative assessments, 122 Natural Capital Protocol, 29–31, 80, 84, 85, 103, 109, 121 Natural Capital Protocol Toolkit, 30 O Objectivity, 56, 58, 59, 70, 71 Opacity, 20 Organisational boundaries, 56, 58 Organizational learning, 21, 23, 28 Outcomes, 60 Outputs, 60, 88 P Partnerships, 118 Performance, 21, 26, 33, 37, 40, 41, 44, 45, 81, 83, 97–99, 101, 102, 104, 106, 108, 109 Philanthropy, 2, 3, 99 Policy-practice decoupling, 98, 101, 103 Pressure-policy decoupling, 98, 101 Product differentiation, 2, 5, Product/service, 36 132  INDEX Project, 36 Purpose, 23, 31, 33–35, 46, 48, 114 Q Qualitative approach, 56, 59, 71 Quality, 76, 85, 89 Quantitative, 23 R Recycling, 65–68, 70 Regulatory environments, Reliability, 86 Reporting, 21, 23, 26–28, 41, 44, 119, 120, 122, 124 Resource efficiency, Responsibility erosion, 78, 79 Risks, 56, 58, 67, 68, 70, 106 S SAFA, see Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture Systems SAFA tool, 101 Scenario building, 23, 24 Scope, 61, 71 Scoping, 114 SDG Compass, 28, 29, 80, 84–86, 100, 103, 108, 121 SDGs, see Sustainable Development Goals Self-assessment, 25, 33, 40 Sharing economy, Site/facility, 36 Social value, 56 Society, 56–58, 67, 70 Socio-ecological systems, 116, 126 Specific, 21, 22, 24, 28, 29, 33, 34, 36, 39, 40, 42, 43, 46, 51n3, 51n4 Sphere of responsibility, 84 Stakeholders, 6, 8, 9, 11, 20, 21, 24, 26, 28, 46, 48, 56–59, 61, 70, 76, 79, 85, 86 dialogue, 103 relations, 116 Standardization, 78, 79 Standardized tools, 79, 81–84, 91 Stocktaking, 21–23, 40 Strategic decision-making, 23 Strategic decisions, 84, 100, 103–105 Strategic decision support, 119 Strategies, 46, 84 Subjectivity, 58 Success factors, 125, 126 Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture Systems (SAFA), 38, 77, 80, 81, 100, 101 Sustainability Code, 26, 27, 77, 80, 81, 100, 107 Sustainability issues, 76–82 Sustainability management, 21, 40, 95–109 Sustainability management practices, 98 Sustainability management systems, 96, 98, 99 Sustainability reporting, 57, 100, 107 Sustainable development, 2, 10, 20, 46, 48, 51n2, 51n6, 56, 58, 62, 115 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), 1–14, 14n10, 14n11, 14n12, 15n14, 20–22, 28, 32, 33, 47, 48, 51n6, 115–118 Sustainable Value Calculator, 44, 45, 81, 87–91, 100, 105, 106, 109 Systemic, 115, 116, 122, 126 Systems perspective, 38  INDEX  T Theories of Change (ToC), 60 Time, 22, 33, 34, 36, 43–46, 48 Tool markets, 20 Trade-offs, 58, 62, 122, 123 U UN Global Compact, 7, 11, 12 United Nations Global Compact Self-Assessment Tool, 31 133 V Value chain, 36, 56, 61–63, 65, 70, 76, 77, 79, 83, 85 Vöslauer, 66–70 W WBCSD MIF, 100, 103, 104, 109 Workshop, 59, 62 World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), .. .Business and the Sustainable Development Goals Norma Schưnherr  •  André Martinuzzi Editors Business and the Sustainable Development Goals Measuring and Managing Corporate Impacts Editors... from the GLOBAL VALUE project and this book ix Contents 1 Introduction: The Sustainable Development Goals and the Future of Corporate Sustainability  1 André Martinuzzi and Norma Schönherr 2 The. .. focusing on corporate sustainability impacts What is the relevance of really focusing on impacts? The core business of the GRI is the continuous development of the GRI Standards,10 which are the most