An aggregate resource efficiency perspective on sustainability: A Sustainable Value application to the EU-15 countries

The Sustainable Value approach integrates the efficiency with regard to environmental, social and economic resources into a monetary indicator. It gained significant popularity as evidenced by diverse applications at the corporate level. However, its introduction as a measure adhering to the strong sustainability paradigm sparked an ardent debate. This study explores its validity as a macroeconomic strong sustainability measure by applying the Sustainable Value approach to the EU-15 countries. Concretely, we assessed environmental, social and economic resources in combination with the GDP for all EU-15 countries from 1995 to 2006 for three benchmark alternatives. The results show that several countries manage to adequately delink resource use from GDP growth. Furthermore, the remarkable difference in outcome between the national and EU-15 benchmark indicates a possible inefficiency of the current allocation of national resource ceilings imposed by the European institutions. Additionally, by using an effects model we argue that the service degree of the economy and governmental expenditures on social protection and research and development are important determinants of overall resource efficiency. Finally, we sketch out three necessary conditions to link the Sustainable Value approach to the strong sustainability paradigm.

[1]  M. Common,et al.  Natural resource and environmental economics , 1996 .

[2]  S. Van Passel,et al.  Sustainable value assessment of farms using frontier efficiency benchmarks. , 2009, Journal of environmental management.

[3]  Simon Dietz,et al.  Weak and Strong Sustainability in the SEEA: Concepts and Measurement , 2007 .

[4]  Daniel Tyteca,et al.  Towards indicators of sustainable development for firms: A productive efficiency perspective , 1999 .

[5]  P Ekins,et al.  A Framework for the practical application of the concepts of critical natural capital and strong sustainability , 2005 .

[6]  P. Daniels Service Industries: A Geographical Appraisal , 1985 .

[7]  Mario Schmidt,et al.  A recursive ecological indicator system for the supply chain of a company , 2008 .

[8]  G. Brundtland,et al.  Our common future , 1987 .

[9]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  Can R&D expenditure avoid corporate bankruptcy? Comparison between Japanese machinery and electric equipment industries using DEA-discriminant analysis , 2009, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[10]  Frank Figge,et al.  Not measuring sustainable value at all: A response to Kuosmanen and Kuosmanen , 2009 .

[11]  H. Varian Intermediate Microeconomics: A Modern Approach , 1987 .

[12]  G. Huylenbroeck,et al.  Measuring farm sustainability and explaining differences in sustainable efficiency , 2007 .

[13]  Frank Figge,et al.  Opportunity cost based analysis of corporate eco-efficiency: a methodology and its application to the CO2-efficiency of German companies. , 2010, Journal of environmental management.

[14]  Frank Figge,et al.  Sustainable Value creation among companies in the manufacturing sector , 2007 .

[15]  E. Neumayer Weak Versus Strong Sustainability: Exploring The Limits Of Two Opposing Paradigms , 2010 .

[16]  T. Hahn,et al.  Sustainable Value Added - Measuring Corporate Contributions to Sustainability Beyond Eco-Efficiency , 2004 .

[17]  Friedrich Hinterberger,et al.  Material flows vs. 'natural capital': What makes an economy sustainable? , 1997 .

[18]  P. Lindert Social Spending and Economic Growth , 2004 .

[19]  M. Wackernagel,et al.  Perceptual and structural barriers to investing in natural capital: Economics from an ecological footprint perspective , 1997 .

[20]  B. Bates,et al.  Climate Change and Water: Technical Paper VI , 2008 .

[21]  Frank Figge,et al.  The Cost of Sustainability Capital and the Creation of Sustainable Value by Companies , 2005 .

[22]  Yue Li,et al.  The Market Valuation of Environmental Capital Expenditures by Pulp and Paper Companies , 2000 .

[23]  R. Hueting,et al.  New scarcity and economic growth: More welfare through less production? , 1980 .

[24]  E. Rametsteiner,et al.  Sustainability indicator development-Science or political negotiation? , 2011 .

[25]  Ryszard Studenski,et al.  Accidents at Work , 2010 .

[26]  R. D. Groot,et al.  A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services , 2002 .

[27]  R. Turner,et al.  Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment , 1989 .

[28]  Timo Kuosmanen,et al.  Role of benchmark technology in sustainable value analysis: an application to Finnish dairy farms. , 2009 .

[29]  Jeffrey M. Wooldridge,et al.  Solutions Manual and Supplementary Materials for Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data , 2003 .

[30]  Steven Van Passel,et al.  The Sustainable Value approach: A clarifying and constructive comment , 2010 .

[31]  D. Pearce,et al.  Capital theory and the measurement of sustainable development: an indicator of “weak” sustainability , 1993 .

[32]  T. Hahn,et al.  Value‐oriented impact assessment: the economics of a new approach to impact assessment , 2004 .

[33]  Timo Kuosmanen,et al.  How not to measure sustainable value (and how one might) , 2009 .