The argument against a reductionist approach for measuring sustainable development performance and the need for methodological pluralism

By A. Gasparatos, M. El-Haram, M. Horner. 2009

146 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Environmental Engineering, Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law, Management Science and Operations Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8dd65d1edafb7bba38504f7acc6a621a23aef459

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Environmental Engineering

1. A. Gasparatos
2. J. Bebbington

In Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

1. Jeffrey Unerman
2. A. Gasparatos
3. A. Scolobig
4. K. Linnerud
5. David Banister
6. J. Bebbington
7. E. Holden

In Management Science and Operations Research

1. A. Scolobig
2. David Banister

Citations in the corpus

• Sustainable development: Our Common Future revisited (2014, background): “Using ecological footprint as an indicator for long-term ecological sustainability and the proportion of renewable energy as an indicator for intergenerational equity raises some concern (e.g., Sing et al., 2011; Gasparatos et al., 2009; Heink and Kowarik, 2010; van den Bergh and Grazi, 2010).”
• Corporate reporting and accounting for externalities (2018, background): “…quantification in the reporting of externalities might be achieved (noting severe reservations expressed by Antheaume 2004, Frame and O’Connor 2011, Gasparatos et al. 2009, Herbohn 2005), the next section of this paper explores the problem of comparable quantification conceptually – from the…”
• Choosing the most appropriate sustainability assessment tool (2012, background): “This means that the most preferable project/ policy alternative is the one that results in the appropriation of the lowest amount of natural resources (Gasparatos et al., 2009).”