Business Strategy and the Environment

Bus. Strat. Env. 15, 334–346 (2006)

Published online in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/bse.540

Accounting for the Social Dimension

of Sustainability: Experiences from the
Biotechnology Industry
Justus von Geibler,1* Christa Liedtke,1 Holger Wallbaum2 and Stephan Schaller2
1
Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, Research Group Sustainable
Production and Consumption, Germany, in support with Bastian Buck, University of
Maastricht and Frederik Lippert, University of Bonn
2
triple innova GmbH, Germany

ABSTRACT
Accounting for the social dimension of sustainability proves to be a challenge for cor-
porate practitioners, due to its intangible, qualitative nature and lack of consensus
on relevant criteria. We suggest a semi-quantitative approach based on stakeholder
involvement to identify relevant aspects for a sector specific assessment of the social
dimension. Our case study on biotechnology illustrates that the dialogue with inter-
nal and external stakeholders enabled the creation of a key performance indicator
(KPI) set to account for social sustainability in the early design stages of biotechno-
logical processes and product development. Indicators for eight aspects are identified
for the social assessment: health and safety, quality of working conditions, impact on
employment, education and training, knowledge management, innovation potential,
customer acceptance and societal product benefit, and social dialogue. We describe
the integration of the KPI set in a software application, tailor made for practitioners
of the sector, and highlight first user experiences. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

Received 7 October 2005; revised 21 January 2006; accepted 6 February 2006

Keywords: sustainability accounting; social dimension; KPI; indicator set; stakeholder approach; stakeholder participation;
emerging technologies; biotechnology

Introduction

T BOTH COMPANY AND PRODUCT LEVEL, THERE IS AN INCREASING DEMAND FOR TRANSPARENCY

A and accountability for sustainable industrial development from internal and external stake-
holders. Recently, it has become more significant to consumers, shareholders and political actors
how different products are being produced. Stakeholders of companies, including NGOs, media,

* Correspondence to: Justus von Geibler, Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, Doeppersberg 19, 42103 Wuppertal, Germany.
E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
Accounting for the Social Dimension of Sustainability 335

public and financial institutions, play an increasing role in awareness raising on sustainability issues
and influence the economic success of particular companies or specific products. The reputation of com-
panies, especially of larger ones, has become a key managerial concern. As a strategic and proactive
measure, companies in many sectors have begun to account for their performance – with respect to the
economic, environmental and social dimensions of sustainability. The goal is to identify and implement
improvement opportunities, and to report on sustainability performance objectives and improvements
as highlighted in recent literature on environmental management accounting (see, e.g., Bennett and
James, 1999; Burritt et al., 2002; Bennett et al., 2003; Rikhardsson et al., 2005).
Emerging technologies such as biotechnology face particularly high accountability and reporting
demands. This can be attributed to the high societal exposure of these emerging sectors, which have not
gained broad public acceptance yet (see Schaltegger and Dyllick, 2002, p. 58). Biotechnology is since its
emergence a subject of major public debate. While promising innovations in the area of medical science
or the ‘greening’ of industrial processes are widely accepted (see, e.g., Task Force on Science, Technology
and Innovation, 2005; OECD, 1998; Hoppenheidt et al., 2004), public concerns concentrate to a great
extent on genetically modified organisms related to food and agriculture (European Commission, 2003).
As a result, biotechnology has not yet reached the significance scientists and analysts had predicted years
ago. Reasons for this can be seen in the multiple social, environmental and economical effects of biotech-
nological applications that are difficult to anticipate at the basic research level. Adequate tools are needed
that assist in assessing the (hidden) sustainability implications already in the development phase of
evolving technologies, e.g. to early identify the level of public acceptance and draw conclusions for future
market prospects.
In order to implement the sustainability idea in physical and financial activities companies have to
create metrics to assess corporate sustainability (see, e.g., Bennett and James, 1999; Orbach and Liedkte,
2002; Schaltegger and Dyllick, 2002). Despite progress in the field of sustainability accounting and
reporting (see, e.g., Kuhndt et al., 2004a; Rikhardsson et al., 2005; Global Reporting Initiative, 2006),
widely accepted accounting standards or metrics to account for the environmental or social performance
are missing, at both corporate and product levels. In contrast to environmental management account-
ing, current research in management accounting for social issues is relatively limited (see Bennett and
James, 1999, p. 45; Ranganathan, 1999, p. 481; Adams et al., 2004, p. 22). Practioneers engaging in
social accounting have to break new grounds to make the softer and intangible qualitative side of
sustainability measurable (Elkington and van Dijk, 1999, p. 496; Schaltegger and Dyllick, 2002, p. 367).
This task is further complicated by the differences between industries, which urge the actors to develop
sector specific criteria (see, e.g., Bass, 2001; WBCSD, 2002; Kuhndt et al., 2002; Spalding-Fecher, 2003;
Global Reporting Initiative, 2005).
The case study presents the development process of a key performance indicator (KPI) set for
the assessment of the social dimension of sustainability in the biotechnology industry following a par-
ticipatory stakeholder approach. This task has been addressed within the project ‘BioBeN: assessing
social sustainability of biotech products’, which is part of the ‘Sustainable bioproduction’ programme of
the German Federal Ministry for Development and Research (see von Geibler et al., 2005). Furthermore
the integration of the indicator set in a practical software tool for use in the early design phase is
described. In the final software, ‘sabento’, the assessment of social aspects is complemented by an eco-
nomic and environmental assessment (see ifu Hamburg, 2005). Finally, conclusions regarding the
appropriateness of stakeholder involvement, the applicability of the software tool and its results are
drawn.

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 15, 334–346 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
336 J. von Geibler et al.

Theoretical Content of the concept

Concept Dimensions Categories Aspects Indicators

Sustainable
Development

Figure 1. Concept specification for sustainable development. (Source: adapted from Köhler, 1987, p. 85.)

Accounting for the Social Dimension of Sustainability

The interest in social performance evaluation has a longstanding history (see, e.g., Zadek et al., 1997).
It started in the 1940s with the term ‘social audit’ and experienced an upsurge of interest in the 1970s,
followed by a decline from the business agendas (Bennett and James, 1999, p. 45). In the early 1990s
companies interpreted the rising sustainable development agenda mainly as a challenge of environ-
mental performance and reporting (see, e.g., Elkington and van Dijk, 1999, p. 496). After some high
profile corporate crises (Shell and human rights in Nigeria; Nike and ‘sweatshops’ in Asia), the interest
in corporate social accountability increased again (see, e.g., Ranganathan, 1999, p. 481; SustainAbility
and UNEP, 1999).
In general, there has been less debate on the social than on the environmental management account-
ing (Bennett and James, 1999, p. 45). Nevertheless there is a need for a consensus that defines what
should be measured and how (Ranganathan, 1999, p. 482). As a result, the work on indicators for social
sustainability is still ongoing (see, e.g., UNCSD, 2001; Kuhndt et al., 2002; von Geibler et al., 2005;
Weidema, 2005; Global Reporting Initiative, 2006). The abstract format of attempts to specify the social
dimension of sustainability (see, e.g., Enquête Commission of the German parliament, 1994; DIW et
al., 2000) presents a major obstacle to practitioners facing the challenge of implementing the social
aspect of sustainability in their daily work.
Since the concept of sustainability is too abstract and formulated openly it is not possible to deter-
mine indicators for its assessment directly. We apply the model of concept specification developed in
social sciences by Zetterberg (1967).
The approach for concept specification (see Figure 1) suggests as a first step the splitting of the the-
oretical construct into descriptive dimensions, which are further specified into more detailed categories
and aspects. This splitting facilitates the second step, the selection of indicators, aiming to enable the

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 15, 334–346 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Accounting for the Social Dimension of Sustainability 337

‘condensed representation of something more complex’ (Persson, 2001, p. 628). In traditional account-
ing indicator-based measurement procedures are strictly regulated by external legislation and standards
(Cerin, 2002). In environmental and social accounting indicators are often chosen internally, which
leads to bad information quality and causes arbitrary reporting (Schaltegger, 1997). While sustainabil-
ity reporting as a vehicle for change as well as a mechanism for incorporating externalities through
corporate accounting is seen as of critical importance (Maunders and Burritt, 1991; Puxty, 1991) the
involvement of stakeholders can be helpful to reduce indicator-related shortcomings and enhance
the internal managerial value of sustainability reporting.

Stakeholder Involvement for the Social KPI Development

Key performance indicators (KPIs) make the qualitative performance of companies observable for inter-
nal as well as external stakeholders (De Colle and Gonella, 2002). The translation of the abstract sus-
tainability construct into tangible, relevant and context specific KPI can be supported by a participatory
process (Feindt, 2002). Stakeholder consultation for the identification of appropriate sustainability
indicators assists in broadening the company’s perspective towards critical current as well as future
blind spots (see, e.g., Wilson, 1999, p. 515; Sillanpää, 1999, p. 544; Kuhndt et al., 2004b; Schaltegger
and Burritt, 2005, p. 194; Global Reporting Initiative, 2006).
Beside accompanying regulatory and fiscal measures to be taken by governments to enforce sustain-
ability aspects that are not negotiable (e.g. the limits of environmental capital), stakeholder engagement
assists in drawing attention to current and future (social) sustainability risks and benefits on the
company level. Emerging technology project failures have proven that regulatory compliance is only a
first step towards public acceptance. As technical developments, their implications for social and envi-
ronmental aspects and hence public debate is constantly evolving, product development also needs
to anticipate future concerns that potentially form obstacles to market success and cause additional
regulation. Stakeholder involvement contributes to the preventive assessment of (hidden) sustainability
implications of new and emerging technologies already during the development phase.
Descriptive, instrumental and normative approaches to stakeholder theory have – despite the differ-
ent underlying rationales – the common assumption that corporations can profit from a mutual rela-
tionship with stakeholders (see von Geibler et al., 2004; Schaltegger and Burritt, 2005). Depending on
different scholars, rewards may be of instrumental or of moral value (Jones and Wicks, 1999). De Colle
and Gonella (2002) identify several benefits of a relationship with external stakeholders, which among
others include an understanding of needs and expectations; improvement of corporate reputation and
trust building through accountability; better, well founded decision-making; and findings about organi-
zational impact and development of KPIs. Stakeholder involvement can significantly contribute to iden-
tify increasing public concerns and promote the corporate image as accountable and a good public citizen
(see, e.g., Biekart and Ree, 1999, p. 356; Gminder et al., 2002, p. 131; Wolters and Danse, 2002, p. 232).
According to Burritt et al. (2002), information about stakeholder claims can be especially important for
the corporate marketing and public relations department. In the case of emerging technologies and
related uncertainty about public acceptance and regulation, stakeholder involvement is an important
preventive approach to project future consumption and regulation decisions.
Consequently, for the comprehensive identification of relevant social KPI in the biotech industry and
the development of a constituent indicator set stakeholder involvement was chosen as the central means.
According to stakeholder theory societal actors have different forms of relationships with many con-
stituent groups (‘stakeholders’) that affect and are affected by its decisions (Freeman, 1984). The inter-
ests of the (legitimate) stakeholders have intrinsic value (Clarkson, 1995; Donaldson and Preston, 1995).

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 15, 334–346 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
338 J. von Geibler et al.

The process of developing social KPIs should draw on the involvement of relevant societal stakeholders,
i.e. those groups who have an immediate interest in approaching and debating questions of social
sustainability. Consideration of stakeholders in far-reaching decisions promotes the legitimacy of the
results. Businesses are no longer solely responsible for the maximization of the shareholder’s return on
investment; they are – as well as other organizations – perceived as part of an environment and increas-
ingly held accountable for the impacts of their actions.
Stakeholder involvement starts with an analysis of the organizational environment. Following a
general accepted format, stakeholder groups are identified in a first step, followed by a determination
of their interests. Finally, their type and level of power is assessed. Distinctions are drawn between inter-
nal and external stakeholders, the two being separated by the boundaries of the firm (see, e.g., Wilson,
1999, p. 511; Schaltegger and Burritt, 2000). Attention has to be paid to the influence that is exercised
by different stakeholders and has to be seen in relation to the actual importance of the specific stake-
holder for the issue at hand (Gibson, 2000). This warrants a balanced and representative involvement
of affected groups.

Considering Stakeholder Demands in the Biotech Sector

Biotechnology was recognized by the international community to be of exceptional importance for the
sustainable and environmental friendly development in the Agenda 21 agreement. The potential to
contribute to the prevention, detection and removal of damage caused to the environment has been
acknowledged in a number of publications (see, e.g., Heiden et al., 2001; Hoppenheidt et al., 2004).
Nevertheless, biotechnology is – especially in Europe – the reason for ongoing controversial discussions,
which involve numerous societal stakeholders (OECD, 1998; EGE, 2000; COMETH, 2001; European
Commission, 2001, 2002, 2003; Task Force on Science, Technology and Innovation, 2005).
Two surveys covering internal and external stakeholder demands have been conducted to identify
significant social aspects of biotechnological production processes. The identified key social aspects and
related indicators should enable the evaluation already in the research and development phase. An
assessment in such early stages is of major importance as the majority of far-reaching decisions affect-
ing the product’s costs and application throughout the lifespan will be made in this phase (Eversheim
and Bortler, 1995; Tischner and Charter, 2001).
The interviews with internal stakeholders were conducted with six project partner representatives from
the biotechnology sector. The interview design aimed at the identification of internal, meaning sector
and organization specific, views of the social dimension of sustainability. The interview addressed the
existing knowledge and practical work on social issues, the degree of involvement in social activities as
well as interrelations between organizational characteristics and social policies.
The external stakeholder survey was designed on the basis of an extensive literature research, which
incorporated numerous sustainability agendas (for details see von Geibler et al., 2005). It covered the
contribution of biotechnology to satisfy human needs as well as the relevance of social aspects in dif-
ferent life-cycle phases as the central challenges and options for improvements in the social area.
Participants for the survey where selected based on the stakeholder analysis and following the principle
of completeness. The following groups were addressed: suppliers, customers, companies, unions, indus-
try associations, NGOs, financial institutions, academia and research, regulatory and legislative bodies,
and intergovernmental bodies. A stakeholder survey under involvement of larger samples of citizens did
not seem reasonable as public opinion is still evolving. The survey was mailed to 149 recipients, all
members of the identified interest groups, with a reasonable response rate of 22 per cent. Nearly all
respondents indicated interest in the results and a future dialogue.

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 15, 334–346 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Accounting for the Social Dimension of Sustainability 339

Developing a Sectoral Set of Social Indicators

An in-depth analysis of the obtained results from both surveys has been conducted to identify the rele-
vant issues for the concept specification. The identified social issues have been grouped into eight aspects
considering the indicated significance to the internal and external stakeholders. The classification of
aspects has been led by the criteria of coverage of significant issues as well as non-overlapping of aspects.
Furthermore, the classification considered existing classifications in the area of corporate sustainability
accounting and reporting such as the standard for social accountability SA 8000 or the GRI Reporting
Guidelines (Global Reporting Initiative, 2002). The following eight aspects with significant relevance to
the social impact of biotechnology have been identified (see Table 2 below for a characterization of these
aspects by means of indicators):
(1) health and safety
(2) quality of working conditions
(3) employment
(4) education and training
(5) knowledge management
(6) innovation potential
(7) product acceptance and societal benefit
(8) societal dialogue.
Furthermore, the analysis highlighted that the social effects of biotechnological production can occur at
different levels. Table 1 specifies these levels and provides examples for these possible effects by biotech-
nological processes identified in the surveys.
With respect to the data availability for measuring these effects and the biotech companies’ ability to
influence such effects, the surveys highlighted differences for the three levels. For first order effects
(from technology development) the data availability within the biotech companies is relatively high, as
well as the ability to influence these effects. For the second order effects (technology application) the
data availability regarding social impacts of the process development phase is often still sufficient, but
becomes more limited and blurry due to the fact that the applications of the developed processes become
apparent in the future. Regarding systemic effects, hardly any data is available. The corporate actors have
very limited ability to change these effects, which can be considered to be beyond the scope of the biotech
companies (but within the responsibility of state regulation). These effects have been excluded from the
indicator set in line with this argument.
Consequently, the indicator set differentiates between effects at technology development and tech-
nology application. For each of the eight aspects and for both layers of evaluation, technology develop-
ment and technology application, indicators have been identified (see Table 2). For each aspect and layer
of evaluation there are four indicators, whereas indicators for the technology application, which is less
certain due to its occurrence in the future, require lower levels of knowledge compared with the
technology development phase.

Integration in a Tailor-Made Software Tool

Within the project, the sectoral set of social KPIs has been integrated in a tailor-made software tool that
supports the modelling of biotechnological production processes in early stages of process development
and enables the subsequent evaluation of environmental, economic and social aspects of sustainability.

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 15, 334–346 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
340 J. von Geibler et al.

Technology development Effects caused by the development of • Risk of hazardous substance release
effects (direct effects) biotechnological processes (upstreaming, • Contribution to education and training
product creation, downstreaming)
Application effects Application of biotechnological processes • Change in working conditions (reduced health
(indirect effects) (raw material extraction, production, and safety protection measures for removing of
transport, use and end of life) rost)
• Health improvements through biotechnologically
produced Hepatitis B serum
• Contribution to food security
Systemic effects Change of individual and collective • Cheaper and more accessible drugs
lifestyles induced by biotechnological • Promotion of sexual equality
innovations, adoptions of work and
consumption pattern

Table 1. Potential social effects of biotechnological processes and products. (Source: von Geibler et al., 2005, p. 22.)

It is prepared for the assessment of production involved with micro-organisms, cell cultures and
enzymes. The development of the software, which is now marketed under the name ‘sabento’, consid-
ered the specific demands from the enterprise of the biotech sector.
The interviews with corporate practitioners of the biotech sector revealed the general need and poten-
tial demand for a KPI application within biotechnological research and development. Furthermore, it
turned out that most of the interviewed practitioners could be described as novices in the field of the
social sustainability. This can be explained by the lack of resources to employ a specialist and the rela-
tive novelty of social accountability as well as the absence of accepted standards in this area. It became
also apparent that most of the organizations in the biotech sector are small and medium-sized enter-
prises with a strong research emphasis.
The direct implications of these observations are that a practical tool addressing the social dimension
of sustainability in this sector has to provide explanatory content and fulfil an educational purpose (see
von Geibler et al., 2005). Furthermore, the tool should enable a cost and time effective assessment
method and be easy to handle and understand with a high level of transparency regarding the assess-
ment process and the results. The recognized widespread profound IT skills among practitioners in the
biotech sector advocate the development of a software tool that incorporates the above-mentioned
requirements.
The assessment software developed during the project guides the user through a step-by-step assess-
ment procedure using a manual. Explanations are given for all areas as well as for the underlying
assessment method to avoid misunderstandings and misleading interpretations of results.

The Software-Based Assessment Process

During the evaluation, the software provides one question for each KPI, which is answered by choosing
from a given range of choices. Thus, the responses allow the generation of metrics for each indicator
within a reasonable timeframe. A numerical value (0–3) is assigned to each indicator depending on the
selected answer. As a result, each indicator can enter with the maximum value of three points into an
aggregation, which ensures that each aspect is covered and weighted equally. Eventually, the software
generates a sum based on the given answers and calculates the resulting score for each aspect. The

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 15, 334–346 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Accounting for the Social Dimension of Sustainability 341

Aspect Indicators

Technology development Technology application

Health and safety – Risk group for biological substances – Expected share of risk workplaces
– Risk factors for health and safety – Expected amounts of hazardous substances
– Voluntary health measures taken – Planned voluntary health measures
– Quality of health & safety management – Voluntary health measures during usage
Quality of working – Working time arrangements – Planned working time arrangements
conditions – Degree of psychological demands – Expected degree of psychological demands
– Share of women in leading positions – Expected share of women in leading positions
– Measures taken to improve working conditions – Planned measures to improve working conditions
Employment – Safeguarding of jobs – Expected safeguarding of jobs
– Job creation effects – Expected job creation effects
– Regions of job creation – Possible regions of job creation
– Continuity of job creation – Expected effects on related labour markets
Education and – Offered areas of employee training – Planned apprenticeships
training – Quality of human resource management – Planned training activities
– Identification of training needs – Identification of training needs
– Consideration of employee expectations – Consideration of employee expectations
Knowledge – Quality of personal knowledge exchange – Planned personal knowledge exchange
management – Review of personal knowledge exchange – Review of personal knowledge exchange
– Information systems in use – Planned information systems
– Employee involvement in decision making – Expected employee involvement
Innovation – Existing commercial exploitation potential – Anticipated degree of innovation
potential – Contribution to scientific debate – Product readiness and marketability
– Management of patents & licences – Estimated market penetration
– Number and types of patents – Expected number and types of patents
Product cceptance – Client and stakeholder involvement – Anticipated product acceptance
and societal – Use of genetic engineering methods – Planned use of genetic engineering methods
benefit – Social standards in supply chain – Social standards in supply chain
– Contribution to societal benefits – Contribution to societal benefits
Societal dialogue – Voluntary reporting activities – Reporting channels planned
– Communication with local community – Planned communication with local community
– Stakeholder involvement in decision making – Targeted dialogue partners
– Engagement in political dialogue – Measures planned to promote societal dialogue

Table 2. Typical indicators used to describe and assess the different criterion dimensions of social sustainability. (Source: von
Geibler et al., 2005, p. 54.)

maximum score for each application phase is 96 points (resulting from eight aspects, four indictors per
aspect and a maximum of three points per indicator; see Figure 2).
Linear aggregation of the indicator values has been chosen as the aggregation method with respect
to the target group. For corporate practitioners transparency and simplicity of the aggregation method
is crucial for the practical use of the software and its results. Due to their complexity, alternative aggre-
gation methods, such as fuzzy modelling, would not be suitable for the target group. To limit the risk
of biased aggregation the indicator set has been constructed aiming at non-overlapping of social aspects.
Furthermore, the results are presented in a disaggregated manner.
The results of the evaluation are presented in a condensed graphical form using traffic light coloured
symbols and a spiderweb diagram (see Figure 3). A detailed text report is given presenting the single

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 15, 334–346 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
342 J. von Geibler et al.

Dimension of Content of Dimension Indicators for Assessment

Sustainabilty Aspects Indicators Technology Development Technology Application

1)
Health and
Safety
2)
Quality of
Working Conditions
3)

Employment

4)
Education and
Training
Social
Dimension 5)
Existing Commercial Anticipated Degree of
Knowledge Exploitation Potential 3 Innovation 3
Management
Contribution to Product Readiness
6)
Scientific Debate 3 and Marketability 3
Innovation Potential
Management of Estimated
7)
Patents & Licences 3 Market Penetration 3

Product Acceptance
Number and Expected Number and
and Societal Benefit Type of Patents Type of Patents
3 3
8) … …

Societal Dialogue max. number of points: 96 max. number of points: 96

Figure 2. Indicator set for the evaluation of social sustainability of biotechnological processes. (Source: adapted from von Geibler
et al., 2005. p. 11.)

choices in the assessment process and the evaluation method as well as the results for each indicator,
aspect and phase (process development and process application). Thereby, the results are presented in
a transparent way and can be used for external and internal stakeholder communication, especially as
they can be integrated in existing assessment models.
By addressing the comprehensive selection of social aspects defined as critical by various relevant
stakeholder groups, the results point at those aspects of social sustainability that require more attention
as they may include current or future risks or neglected opportunities for innovation. Used as an
inherent part of the R&D process, the software application can raise awareness among researchers and
managers for important perspectives beyond their usual working focus. Thus, the software can assist
the development of marketable biotechnological applications and support informed management deci-
sions. This is of major importance as it significantly contributes to reducing the risk of long-term invest-
ment decisions.
The prototype of the software has been tested in actual biotechnological research and development
environments by two pilot partners of the project. Interviews have been conducted to assess the practi-
cability, relevance and benefits of the software. The interviews highlighted the high practicability of the

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 15, 334–346 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Accounting for the Social Dimension of Sustainability 343

Process Development
Process Application
Health and Safety
12
10
Societal Dialogue Quality of Working Conditions
8

Product Acceptance and Societal Benefit 0 Employment

Innovation Potential Education and Training

Knowledge Management

Figure 3. Graphical illustration of the evaluation results in a spiderweb diagram (Source: adapted from von Geibler et al., 2005.
p. 66.)

software tool as well the completeness of the aspects covered. The interviews confirmed an increased
awareness towards aspects that were previously not regarded as being part of the company’s influence
and responsibility. An analysis of the neglected aspects showed that they would have had a great poten-
tial of being negatively perceived by stakeholder groups, with potentially harmful consequences for the
company. The results were considered to be beneficial for internal and external communication,
specifically in the area of financing and marketing.

Conclusion

The described project concerned the development of a sector specific KPI set for the biotech sector to
address the often-neglected social aspects of sustainability. The KPI set has been integrated in a practi-
cal software assessment application. It turns out that stakeholder involvement can help to identify
relevant fields of assessment and therefore facilitates the social accounting for sustainability in new and
emerging industries. Considering stakeholders’ perceptions towards the criteria of social performance
allows the assessment of qualitative aspects in a specific context, while at the same time it reduces the
risk of overlooking or neglecting critical aspects of current or future relevance. The software application
can be considered as a first step towards a more comprehensive, quantitative incorporation of the social
sustainability dimension into the daily business practice of the biotechnology sector – also as it is flexible
enough to be integrated into different accounting systems. The presented approach can be seen as stim-
ulus to further research activities in this field and as starting point for organizational learning processes
in companies. With the development of a software application the project intends to promote a contin-
uous evaluation of social sustainable performance in combination with ongoing stakeholder dialogue
rather than be a one-point-in-time event.

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 15, 334–346 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
344 J. von Geibler et al.

References
Adams C, Frost G, Webber W. 2004. Triple bottom line: a review of the literature. In The Triple Bottom Line: Does it All Add
Up? Assessing the Sustainability of Business and CSR, Henrigues A, Richardson J (eds). Earthscan: London; 17–26.
Bass S. 2001. Change towards sustainability in resource use. Lessons from the forest sector. Mining, Minerals and Sustainable
Development 5: 1–39.
Bennett M, James P (eds). 1999. Sustainable Measures: Evaluation and Reporting of Environmental and Social Performance.
Greenleaf: Sheffield.
Bennett M, Rikhardsson P, Schaltegger S (eds). 2003. Environmental Management Accounting. Purpose and Progress. Kluwer:
Rotterdam.
Biekart JW, Ree K. 1999. Reaching consensus on the implementation of good practice in environmental reporting: a Dutch
NGO’s perspective. In Sustainable Measures: Evaluation and Reporting of Environmental and Social Performance, Bennett M,
James P (eds). Greenleaf: Sheffield; 353–365.
Burritt R, Hahn T, Schaltegger S. 2002. Towards a comprehensive framework for environmental management accounting.
Links between business actors and environmental management accounting tools. Australian Accounting Review 12(2):
39–50.
Cerin P. 2002. Characteristics of environmental reporters on the OM Stockholm exchange. Business Strategy and the Environ-
ment 11: 298–311.
Clarkson MBE. 1995. A stakeholder framework for analysing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of
Management Review 20: 92–117.
De Colle S, Gonella C. 2002. The social and ethical alchemy: an integrative approach to social and ethical accountability.
Business Ethics: a European Review 11(1): 86–96.
Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW), Wuppertal Institut für Klima, Umwelt, Energie, Wissenschaftszentrum
Berlin für Sozialforschung. 2000. Wege in eine nachhaltige Zukunft [Roads Towards a Sustainable Future], Ergebnisse aus
dem Verbundprojekt Arbeit und Ökologie. Hans Böckler Stiftung: Düsseldorf.
Donaldson T, Preston L. 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence, implications. Academy of
Management Review 20: 65–19.
Elkington J. 1999. Triple bottom line revolution – reporting for the third millennium. Australian CPA 69(10): 75–77.
Elkington J, van Dijk F. 1999. Socially challenged: trends in social reporting. In Sustainable Measures: Evaluation and Report-
ing of Environmental and Social Performance, Bennett M, James P (eds). Greenleaf: Sheffield; 496–508.
Enquête Commission. 1994. Die Industriegesellschaft gestalten. Perspektiven für eine nachhaltigen Umgang mit Stoff- und Materi-
alströmen [Shaping Industrial Society. Perspectives for Sustainable Use of Matter and Material Flows]. Enquête-Commission
‘Schutz des Menschen und der Umwelt’ des 12. Deutschen Bundestages. Economica: Bonn.
European Commission. 2001. ‘ETHICS’ in the RTD Framework Programmes. Brussels.
European Commission. 2002. Life Sciences and Biotechnology – a Strategy for Europe. Brussels.
European Commission. 2003. Europeans and Biotechnology. Brussels.
European Conference of National Ethics Committees (COMETH) (ed.). 2001. Proceedings of the Sixth European Conference of
National Ethics Committees, Paphos, Cyprus.
European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE) (ed.). 2000. Citizens Rights and New Technologies. A
European Challenge, report on the Charter on Fundamental Rights related to technological innovation as requested by
President Prodi. Brussels.
Eversheim W, Bortler W. 1995. Simultaneous Engineering – Erfahrungen aus der Industrie für die Industrie [Simultaneous Engi-
neering – Experiences from Industry to Industry]. Springer: Berlin.
Feindt PH. 2002. Partizipative Entwicklung von Nachhaltigkeitsindikatoren – Modell und Arbeitsprogramm. In Nach-
haltigkeitsindikatoren und Partizipation [Sustainability Indicators and Participation], Wittek S, Feindt PH, Gessenharter W,
Hoppe J, Seifert EK, Spilker H (eds). Hamburg University Press: Hamburg; S. 91–113.
Freeman RE. 1984. Strategic Management: a Stakeholder Approach. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Gibson K. 2000. The moral basis of stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics 26: 245–257.
Global Reporting Initiative. 2002. Sustainability Reporting 2002. Boston, MA.
Global Reporting Initiative. 2005. Sector Supplements. http://www.globalreporting.org/guidelines/sectors.asp [22 December
2005].
Global Reporting Initiative. 2006. Sustainability Reporting Guidelines [Draft], G3 version for public comment. Amsterdam.
Gminder CU, Bieker T, Dyllik T, Hockerts K. 2002. Nachhaltigkeitsstrategien umgesetzt mit einer Sustainability Balanced
Scorecard. In Nachhaltig managen mit der Balanced Scorecard. Konzept und Fallstudien [Sustainable Management using the
Balanced Scorecard], Schaltegger S, Dyllick T (eds). Gabler: Wiesbaden; 95–148.

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 15, 334–346 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Accounting for the Social Dimension of Sustainability 345

Heiden S, Burschel C, Erb R (eds). 2001. Biotechnologie als interdisziplinäre Herausforderung [Biotechnology as Interdisciplinary
Challenge]. Spektrum: Heidelberg.
Hoppenheidt K, Mücke M, Peche R, Tronecker D, Roth U, Würdinger E, Hottenroth S, Rommel W. 2004. Entlastungseffekte
für die Umwelt durch Substitution konventioneller chemisch-technischer Prozesse und Produkte durch biotechnische Verfahren
[Reducing Environmental Load of Chemical Engineering Processes and Chemical Products by Biotechnological Substitutes], report
for the German Federal Environmental Agency. Berlin.
ifu Hamburg. 2005. Sabento – Software for the Assessment of Biotechnology Processes. http://www.sabento.de [14 January 2006].
Jones TM, Wicks AC. 1999. Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review 24(2): 206–221.
Köhler R. 1987. Informationen für die strategische Planung von Produktinnovationen. In Distributionspolitik. Festgabe für
Edmund Sundhoff zum 75. Geburtstag [Politics of Distribution. Anniversary Publication for Edmund Sundhoff for his 75th
Birthday], Klein-Blenkers F (ed.). Institut für Handelsforschung, University of Cologne: Cologne; 79–104.
Kuhndt M, Tunçer B, Andersen KC, Liedtke C. 2004a. Responsible Corporate Governance. An Overview of Trends, Initiatives and
State-of-the-Art Elements, Wuppertal Institute Paper. Wuppertal.
Kuhndt M, Tunçer B, Liedtke C. 2004b. A Triple Bottom Line Innovation Audit Tool for ICT Product–Service Mix Applications,
final report. Wuppertal Institute: Wuppertal.
Kuhndt M, von Geibler J, Eckermann A. 2002. Towards a Sustainable Aluminium Industry: Stakeholder Expectations and Core
Indicators, final report. Wuppertal Institute: Wuppertal.
Maunders KT, Burritt RL. 1991. Accounting and the ecological crisis. Accounting Auditing and Accountability Journal 4(3): 9–26.
OECD (ed.). 1998. Biotechnology for Clean Industrial Products and Processes. Towards Industrial Sustainability. Paris.
Orbach T, Liedkte C. 2002. Resource efficiency accounting. In Environmental Management Accounting. Informational and Insti-
tutional Developments, Bennett M, Bouma JJ, Wolters T (eds). Kluwer: Dordrecht; 83–90.
Persson JG. 2001. Eco-indicators in product development. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part B.
Journal of Engineering Manufacture 215(5): 627–635.
Puxty AG. 1991. Social accounting and the universal pragmatics. Advances in Public Sector Accounting 4: 35–47.
Ranganathan J. 1999. Signs of sustainability: measuring corporate environmental and social performance. In Sustainable Mea-
sures: Evaluation and Reporting of Environmental and Social Performance, Bennett M, James P. Greenleaf: Sheffield; 475–496.
Rikhardsson P, Bennett M, Bouma J, Schaltegger S (eds). 2005. Implementing Environmental Management Accounting. Status
and Challenges. Dordrecht: Springer.
Schaltegger S. 1997. Information costs, quality of information and stakeholder involvement: The necessity of international
standards of ecological accounting. Eco-Management and Auditing 4(3): 87–97.
Schaltegger S, Burritt R. 2000. Contemporary Environmental Accounting. Greenleaf: Sheffield.
Schaltegger S, Burritt R. 2005. Corporate sustainability. In The International Yearbook of Environmental And Resource Econom-
ics 2005/2006. A Survey of Current Issues, Folmer H, Tietenberg T (eds.). Cheltenham: Elgar; 185–222.
Schaltegger S, Dyllick T (eds). 2002. Nachhaltig managen mit der Balanced Scorecard. Konzept und Fallstudien [Sustainable
Management using the Balanced Scorecard]. Gabler: Wiesbaden.
Sillanpää M. 1999. A new deal for sustainable development in business: taking the social dimension seriously at The Body
Shop. In Sustainable Measures: Evaluation and Reporting of Environmental and Social Performance, Bennett M, James P (eds).
Greenleaf: Sheffield; 529–550.
Spalding-Fecher R. 2003. Indicators of sustainablity for the energy sector. A South African case study. Energy for Sustainable
Development 3(1): 35–49.
SustainAbility/United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). 1999. Engaging Stakeholders. The Social Reporting Report.
SustainAbility–UNEP: London.
Task Force on Science, Technology and Innovation. 2005. Innovation: Applying Knowledge in Development. http://www.unmil-
lenniumproject.org/reports/tf_science.htm [14 December 2005].
Tischner U, Charter M (eds). 2001. Sustainable Solutions – Developing Products and Services for the Future. Greenleaf: Sheffield.
United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) (ed.). 2001. Indicators of Sustainable Development: Frame-
work and Methodologies, Background Paper 3. UNCSD: New York.
von Geibler J, Kuhndt M, Seifert E, Lucas R, Lorak S, Bleischwitz R. 2004. Sustainable business and consumption strategies.
In Eco-Efficiency, Regulation and Sustainable Business. Towards Sustainable Governance Structure for Sustainable Development,
Bleischwitz R, Hennicke P (eds). Elgar: Cheltenham; 116–164.
von Geibler J, Liedtke C, Eckermann A, Kaiser C, Ritthoff M, Hartmann D, Brentel H, Rohn H, Kuhndt M, Wallbaum H. 2005.
Soziale Bewertung der Nachhaltigkeit biotechnologischer Produktion [Assessing Social Sustainability of Biotech Products], final
report. Wuppertal Institute: Wuppertal.
Weidema B. 2005. The integration of economic and social aspects in life cycle impact assessment. Paper presented at the LCM
2005 conference, Barcelona, 2005. http://www.lca-net.com/files/lcm2005_paper.pdf [14 January 2006].

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 15, 334–346 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/bse
346 J. von Geibler et al.

Wilson A. 1999. Social reporting: developing theory and current practice. In Sustainable Measures: Evaluation and Reporting of
Environmental and Social Performance, Bennett M, James P (eds). Greenleaf: Sheffield; 509–528.
Wolters T, Danse M. 2002. Towards sustainability indicators for product chains – with special reference to an international
coffee chain. In Environmental Management Accounting. Informational and Institutional Developments, Bennett M, Bouma
JJ, Wolters T (eds). Kluwer: Dordrecht; 231–247.
World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). 2002. WBCSD Sector Projects. WBCSD. Geneva.
Zadek S, Pruzan P, Evans R. 1997. Building Corporate AccountAbility – Emerging Practices in Social and Ethical Accounting,
Auditing and Reporting. Earthscan: London.
Zetterberg H. 1967. Theorie, Forschung und Praxis in der Soziologie. In Handbuch der empirischen Sozialforschung [Handbook
of Empirical Social Research], König R (ed.). Enke: Stuttgart; 65–105.

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 15, 334–346 (2006)
DOI: 10.1002/bse