Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
The crippled bottom line: measuring and managing sustainability
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Business Administration, Technology and Social Sciences, Business Administration and Industrial Engineering.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6487-5522
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Business Administration, Technology and Social Sciences, Business Administration and Industrial Engineering.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7106-9644
Karlstads Universitet.
2015 (English)In: International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, ISSN 1741-0401, E-ISSN 1758-6658, Vol. 64, no 3, p. 334-355Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

PurposeSustainability can be assessed in the dimensions Profit, Planet and People. A problem with the approach is that these dimensions cannot be added. Another problem is that performance seldom is related to global system boundaries. The purpose of this paper is to study the "what" of sustainability by linking this to global boundaries and proposing "how" we could manage change towards sustainability.Design/methodology/approachSustainability definitions are reviewed to identify main stakeholders. People value defined as utility is compared to Planet harm as carbon emissions and People harm as prices of products. This approach is examined in business studying the global processes of housing, transporting, providing food and cement manufacturing.FindingsThe relative indicators with focus on People utility compare to Planet and People harm seem to be relevant for measuring the level of sustainability. The Crippled Bottom Line of People value/Planet harm and People value/Planet harm is proposed as the “what” to measure and the change process of “understanding-defining-measuring-communicating-leading change” is proposed as the “how” to change.Research limitations/implicationsThe research is based on identifying the main stakeholders based on sustainability definitions and from that point mostly on deductive reasoning.Practical implicationsThe practical implications are that organizations could define sustainability indicators with objectives that are linked to global limits. Originality/valueThe paper contributes to the discussion of how to link global limits to organizational measurements and targets

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2015. Vol. 64, no 3, p. 334-355
National Category
Reliability and Maintenance
Research subject
Quality Technology and Management
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-6556DOI: 10.1108/IJPPM-09-2014-0139ISI: 000213251800002Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84923327473Local ID: 4caa8e92-bcaf-4a03-ba00-dd97b329bdafOAI: oai:DiVA.org:ltu-6556DiVA, id: diva2:979442
Note
Validerad; 2015; Nivå 1; 20150129 (andbra)Available from: 2016-09-29 Created: 2016-09-29 Last updated: 2018-07-10Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records BETA

Isaksson, RaineGarvare, Rickard

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Isaksson, RaineGarvare, Rickard
By organisation
Business Administration and Industrial Engineering
In the same journal
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management
Reliability and Maintenance

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 253 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf